Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Time and Dirty Tricks is All They Have

Massachusetts Lawmakers once again did not listen to their district constituents and bowed down to gay rights pressure and voted to delay the Constitutional Convention until November 9th, 2006 at 1pm.

As I was standing in line today to enter the House Gallery doors into the convention, I had a great feeling of pride. When I heard from the Gallery's Sergeant at Arms that the convention would most likely be recessed until November, I felt the dirty tricks being played out.
I sat through four hours of debate on some interesting constitutional amendments, including the trashing of the health care referendum that was sent to "study", A.K.A Rest In Peace to the initiative.
To those legislatures who fought so hard for the marriage amendment to be voted upon today, especially Representative MARIE J. PARENTE and PHILIP TRAVIS I thank you and your districts thank you. Rep. Parente went up to the speaking podium in the middle of the convention and asked that her fellow colleagues vote on the amendments of the day, TODAY, and not perform any dirty tricks in which were eventually played out. To you Rep. Parente, I solute you for your willingness to speak out for the people.
As for the other legislatures who voted in support to not delay the convention, thank-you! I will be posting how each and every state official voted on the delay vote when I receive the information.
Two legislative officials whom I was shocked to see "cheerleading" the delay process was Representative BRIAN S. DEMPSEY along with Senator STEVEN A. BADDOUR both whose districts are in the Essex County area. These two officials need to be called and e-mailed because they need to understand that the marriage amendment at hand does NOT involve civil unions and the people of the Commonwealth did everything legal when they conducted the petition drive last Fall and deserve a RIGHT to vote on the issue.
November 9th, two days after Election Day, is around the corner but the golf courses are even closer for some legislatures whose time is up in office and need to here from you now concerning your distaste in their actions today.
Vote out those who will not LET THE PEOPLE VOTE!!

38 Comments:

Blogger Lynne said...

I clicked on the reps' links and it appears that Steven Baddour is 'catholic'?!

Hmmm, guess we need to show him what the Catholic teaching is regarding same-sex marriage.

10:11 AM, July 13, 2006  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

I am ... and am not ... surprised.

Well, maybe a whole new batch of legislators will be in place come Nov. 9th ;)!

10:25 AM, July 13, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Lynne,

Steven Baddour is your TYPICAL Band-Wagon Catholic on issues like this. I am not surprised.

Tyler,

Not a defeat that is for sure! That's O.K., I need to visit Beacon Hill more often anyway.

11:52 AM, July 13, 2006  
Blogger Lynne said...

I'm sure...after all, Travaligni(sp?) belongs to the Knights of Columbus.

I wish Father DiLorenzo would start saying the rosary in front of his house again...

Also, Tyler, I too hope that we have many new reps and senators come the day after the elections in November but these solons will still be in office and attending the ConCon. Maybe once they're defeated they'll do the right thing...

lol

5:29 PM, July 13, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

This is a huge blow to all those who cry "let the people vote" because the people who could vote did, and they voted to think about the issue some more. Everybody knows where this is going, and whether it gets voted down in legislation or it goes directly to the people we will still have gay marriage in the end, no pun intended.

What we should be doing is not concentrating on the battle, but the war itself. We should be working to identify what triggers the heterosexual world into fearing the gay community and seeing if there is anything we can do together to aleviate those issues.

It is unrealistic to think that winning the fight against gay marriage is going to somehow weaken the gay communities voice, or its impact on society. We will still live in the same community teaching your children, feeding you, even protecting you as police and fire officials.

What we need now is some rational dialog towards a better future for both sides.

10:30 AM, July 15, 2006  
Blogger Lynne said...

"This is a huge blow to all those who cry "let the people vote" because the people who could vote did, and they voted to think about the issue some more."

No, John, the senators and reps who voted to adjourn are cowards. They need to be taught a lesson.

2:11 PM, July 15, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

They need to be commended for having the bravery to stand up for what is right in the face of their constituent's ignorance. Catholics won't ever let you become a preist simply because you are a woman, don't you think that is unfair? Isn't its teachings outdated for our level of understanding and education?

7:40 PM, July 15, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

How are you? Sorry to hear about your illness. I was looking for you at the State House last Wednesday to finally meet you. Maybe we can meet in November.

You said:

"They need to be commended for having the bravery to stand up for what is right in the face of their constituent's ignorance."

This is your opinion and I will not knock it. Although, I must ask, what is the definition of a representative of a state?

Answer: Representative (n.) One that serves as a delegate or agent for another.

This 'another' are the people of the district(s) that the legislative official represents.

Yes, if a representative does not represent well than the people he represents will vote him or her out of office in the next election cycle. But for now he/she must represent what the majority are asking him to do and that is to let the people vote.

I have met many legislatures who do NOT agree with NOT giving the homosexual community the "right" to marry, but they strongly feel that if the people of the Commonwealth were able to collect a historically large amount of signatures, 170,000 of them, then the people deserve the right to vote on the issue of marriage.

As I have said in the past, this issue is not about HETEROsexuality, or HOMOsexuality, or any other type of sexual orientation and it is neither about religion. This issue, bottom line, is about the will of the people. It IS that plain and simple.

Look, if Massachusetts votes to finally legalize same-sex marriages at the ballot box then so be it. But lets see what the PEOPLE want not what the black robes of the Supreme Court or a small subgroup of people, the homosexual community, want. If gays are screaming about civil rights and the like why are they not advocating for the right to vote?

Homosexuality is not a right, it is a choice. Voting at the ballot box is a right as an American Citizen, which some people do not choose to exercise.

Please do not give me the “ping-pong” argument that someone’s rights do not need to be voted on. We can go back and forth with how “marriage is not a right, but a privilege” debate until we are both blue in the face.

Traditional marriage between a man and a woman has been in place before any government or any sort of religion had been etched in stone. This issue is not about rights, it is about what the people of a culture want, and that ‘want’ is to vote.

40% of the country has either defined marriage as strictly being between a man and a women or a higher judicial system has deemed current laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman constitutional and legal.

The people that make up a culture will decide what should be instilled into their everyday laws/rules/regulations not the will of a small group of people who are screaming for more benefits in a relationship.

11:20 AM, July 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have a sticking point with this whole "170,000 signitures were gathered" that keeps coming up. I'm not disputing the fact this is a huge amount to have gathered, but is this not the first petition churches of many denominations have actively rallied for? Most of the signers, I believe, signed at their church, and not outside a Walmart. I do believe had the petition not been destributed through churches, the amount gathered would have been much smaller.

Also, many are using this gathering of signitures kinda like a poll. It should not be seen as a real representation of what the majority of the state may actually believe. Say, for instance, gay rights activists collected 150,000 signitures to legalize gay marriage by going to gay clubs, or making announcements at pride events to sign. This also would not be a fair representation of the general public's true opinion.

12:05 PM, July 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This whole thing about voting for the "rights" or "priviledge" for gays to marry just does not sit right with me.

Whether you like it or not, it is mass tyrany over a minority. This just is not right.

What the courts did may or may not sit right with people, but it is done. There has been no legal challenge to it, and I'm sure Gov. Romney would have found some way of overturning the ruling if there was one.

As far as the legislature not voting on this yet again, I do believe it is cowardly of some of them, but I also understand it. Some of them may be delaying it because they are for SSM. Others I believe might be conflicted. Whether they are for or against SSM, they don't want to set what can be seen as a dangerous presedent of the majority voting on the rights of a minority. One could argue the slippery slope arguement here. What rights would be up for grabs next for the masses to vote down?

I know it's a broken record arguement, some believe marriage is a right, others a priviledge. Whatever it is, right now same sex couples (8000 of them so far) are allowed to marry in Massachusettes. Taking this away is just plain wrong.

12:31 PM, July 17, 2006  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

Anonymous, no one is taking this away...the amendment would prohibit it from continuing in the future, that's all.

12:45 PM, July 17, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Anonymous,

You said:

"This also would not be a fair representation of the general public's true opinion."

I am not sure how the numbers break down in terms of how many signatures were collected in the churches and those collected outside of the church, but I will get an answer for you.

In regards to your statement. I think it is a representation of the public's true opinion considering that 86% of the public are Christians.

How else do you think we will get a good representation of what the people want? Voting on the issue at the ballot box maybe?

2:51 PM, July 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not all "Christians" are church going folk who believe SSM is wrong. Just because you are Christian does not mean you are against SSM. My only point was the signiture collecting took place in places (churches) where more people were likely to sign, than not to sign. There was much organization to get the petition out to churches, and the strategy worked. I don't believe it is a true representation of what the general public thinks about SSM.

As far as finding out what percentage of the population is for or against SSM, it doesn't matter. I know you hate to hear it, but the rights of a minority should not be voted on by the masses. This is what I believe.

And Tyler, save me your semantics games. Gays and lesbians are now able to marry, and this petition seeks to take that away. It may not take away the marriages that have already happened, but it does take away the right to marry from gays and lesbians who may want to marry in the future.

10:03 AM, July 18, 2006  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

But, anonymous, the petition may not have the support that it would need to pass...and then the homosexual community can relish in the fact that they still have their ability to marry, and the proponents of the amendment can say that they had their due diligence performed at the ballot box. Either way, I see it as a win for democracy.

10:21 AM, July 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tyler, you miss the point. The rights of a minority should not be determined by a popular vote.

I think many in the legislature believe allowing this to go to a vote could set a dangerous precedent.

1:30 PM, July 18, 2006  
Blogger Lynne said...

The civil 'right' to marry is absurd. However, true civil rights have been voted on, i.e. women's right to vote (I don't know of any gays who have denied the right to vote because they were gay). When the constitution was amended, that amendment was voted on by the legislatures in all 50 states.

To reiterate, marriage is not a civil right.

2:40 PM, July 18, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

Lynn how would you feel if I started a petition to remove your right to vote, and it actually took off and looked like people were taking my petition seriously? Is there any chance you can see this from my point of view, or are you unable?

Let's say this petition wins and gay marriage is struck down. What do you think is going to happen? There will then be thousands of gay marriages STILL influencing society in the same exact way that you say is so dangerous that we can't have ANYONE gay married. Check out my blogsite for the comment John left.

4:39 PM, July 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh Lynne, you don't get it. A woman's right to vote didn't come up for a popular vote. Not the same thing here.

Marriage is a civil right. You don't want it to be so you can deny gays and lesbians that right. That seems pretty clear

4:08 AM, July 19, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

The whole argument of if marriage is a "civil right" really needs to take a back seat. We could go on for days on end on this "ping pong" argument with our opinions and not FACTS.

John,

You said:

"Lynn how would you feel if I started a petition to remove your right to vote, and it actually took off and looked like people were taking my petition seriously? Is there any chance you can see this from my point of view, or are you unable?"

Your argument is made up of a basket of apples and oranges. A petition to take away the very foundations of democracy will never happen in this country. A petition to define marriage and then be voted upon by the people will happen.

If the Massachusetts Marriage Protection Amendment is not amended until the next convention in 2008, we have the votes and are gaining more as we speak, then another citizen initiated petition will come up time and time again until the people get a chance to vote on the issue.

You said in closing:

"There will then be thousands of gay marriages STILL influencing society in the same exact way that you say is so dangerous that we can't have ANYONE gay married."

Then we will see the number of fatherless and cohabitating families increase and many of the other negative aspects that SSM's true colors will revail.

9:12 AM, July 19, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

Your post does not reconcile the fact that the petition calls for the safety of the public from the threat of gay marriage's influence. How are we safe if thousands will still exist? This seems like a rather large loose end, and I would appreciate an honest, direct answer.

11:06 AM, July 19, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

Yes, I am being rather sarcastic when I said that 8,000 SSM couples so far in MA will increase fatherless and cohabitating families. This amount of SSMs will not really affect the outcome of what a family or what a marriage is truely meant to be.

Like what I have been doing, I should stick to point, so I will strike that comment from the record if I could.

I am all for stopping any FUTURE SSMs from occuring which is the language in the current marriage amendment that the legislature seems to be ducking in the name of assumed "bigotry" that proponents are being called because they want to safeguard an institution that is sacred to them.

1:32 PM, July 19, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

If 8,000 gay marriages "will not really affect the outcome of what a family or what a marriage is truely meant to be", how many will? Can we have just under that many? We can distribute them like liquor licenses, or are we going to let them slowly dwindle to none? How long do you think it will take for that to happen? Are you sure these marriages won't have an impact over all that time? Won't we be in danger from their influence all that time?

2:37 PM, July 19, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

Just simply how the child from the Goodridges "separation" is now a social science experiment, the number of same-sex marriage (SSM) parterners now will seem to only affect the children who are part of these types of relationships.

If the number of SSM's continue to rise, especially if SSM is kept legal in MA and elsewhere in the world, society will be affected as I have tried to explain to you in previous posts on my site.

I am advocating for what is natural John, not for the elimination of a sub-group of people. You are making your argument out of assumptions, not facts.

It seems that I am constantly repeating myself in my responses to you. What logic are you trying to propose to me?

9:29 AM, July 21, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

I don't know how you can say I am making my argument out of assumptions when I am asking you questions about what you think is going to happen. You say children of these marriages will only be affected. So does this mean you are trying to step into the parenting of gay couples? If we agree not to get married do we get to continue with our lives as we did prior to the marriage issue?

You do know that regardless of the ability to marry there are thousands of families across America, in every city and state, that are led by a same sex couple?

What I am trying to get from you, and you are not answering, is what the difference is on the impact of the children, or society, when these couples get married?

If it seems like we are repeating ourselves try answering a question and we can move on. I don't see the difference in the impact, maybe you could spell it out for me.

For argument's sake, I am a straight guy with 2 kids and a wife. Gay guys move in next door. I immediately check the level 3 sex offender list to see if their name is on it. I pull all the shades down on that side of the house, especially in the kid's rooms. They come over and try to make friends anyway. We make the neighborly excuses and they get the point after a while. I tell my kids not to talk to their kids, and that gay people are bad but their is nothing we can do about their living here. A year into being neighbors I find out they were married all along, but I didn't know it. How am I worse for them being married?

12:15 PM, July 21, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

You said:

"If we agree not to get married do we get to continue with our lives as we did prior to the marriage issue?"

I have NOTHING against gays and what they do behind closed doors, because frankly, it is none of anyone else’s business or mine.

When the gay community starts re-inventing and redefining the wheel, marriage in this case, than I will step up to the plate.

You ask:

"What I am trying to get from you, and you are not answering, is what the difference is on the impact of the children, or society, when these couples get married?"

Going about your life being gay and spreading the consequences of this behavior in the "streets" verses politically, academically, and socially changing an institution and teaching children that a mommy and a daddy are no longer the pillars of a family are two completely different things.

The "suit yourself" approach to the definition of marriage and family is not ruled by the regulations of society. The decisions that you choose to follow through with in regards to your sexual orientations are not to SOME EXTENT as well. When regulations of a society/culture accept a new regulation than it is deemed righteous/correct/acceptable and something to follow through with in your daily lifestyles.

We as a government/society/culture/humans know, even if we disagree, that homosexuality is not good for our culture. If this were not the case, John, than the gay community would not be having such a hard time trying to legalize same-sex marriages in this country.

Read the post titled “Question: How does same-sex marriage harm our understanding of humanity?” and read it with the conscience thought of how it will affect children.

I hope this answers your question.

In regards to your hypothetical situation of if two gay guys move in next door to you, how are you effected question: I have answered that question to you as follows in the "Gay Marriage Debate on Pundit Review Radio" post:

“If homosexual marriage is legalized, it is only a matter of time when other non-traditional “marriage” unions are allowed. When four men and four women move in next door to Dick and Dana in a “legal” polyamour “marriage” and each of the polyamours have children together although their arrangement won’t directly effect the quality of Dick and Dana’s marriage, it could strongly effect the well being of Dick and Dana’s children who now live next door to the polyamours.

What will be the effects on children when they are told the polyamours next door is just another type of “family” and there are a great many diverse families in our country, that each person must decide what is “right” for them, that exclusive marriages between one man and one woman is outdated, intolerant and homophobic. This whole “whatever works” concept to what can make up a family is dangerous.

Do the “rights” of a very small minority of radicals transcend hundreds of millions of citizens in this country who don’t want to have the homosexual agenda imposed on them?

The claim that a homosexual’s marriage doesn’t hurt anybody else is based on false logic. The same assertion could be made about other modes of behavior. As long as there is mutual consent and none of these behaviors are unlawful, shouldn’t everyone be about to enjoy all the same legal protections traditional marriages enjoy? After all, “how does a threesome or person wanting to marry his animal affect the married couple across town?” the cynic might ask.

Anytime we as a society condone specific modes of behavior, we tacitly acknowledge it as acceptable. Just because we may never come into direct contact with a certain type of behavior doesn’t mean we must condone such behavior by granting it legal approval. Citizens can oppose and restrict certain legal relationships based upon the perceived morality of that behavior. I need not live next door to a polyamorous couple to oppose the legality of this type of “family” configuration.”

10:12 PM, July 22, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

You have STILL not addressed that question I pose; how is the gay communities power to influence society curtailed simply by ending gay marriage.

Your belief structure does not allow for growth. You cannot be better than something and be the same. You need change for growth, and 70% of our citizens 18 to 25 years old want gay marriage. I wonder how many generations of man will have to pass before we stop standing in the way of progress for the "good" of the next generation. I also wonder when we will learn that once we stop infighting we can work together. It seems so far away sometimes, but we have to start somewhere.

3:26 PM, July 23, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

You said:

"How is the gay communities power to influence society curtailed simply by ending gay marriage."

You are asking the same question over and over again by using different words and making it sound like I have not answered the original question of "Your post does not reconcile the fact that the petition calls for the safety of the public from the threat of gay marriage's influence. How are we safe if thousands will still exist?".

Simply by ending gay marriage society is not threatened by the negative slippery slope of same-sex marriages as I have focused on time and time again in previous comments and posts as mentioned in my last comment to you on this thread.

You need to ask a different question now becasue you are beating a dead horse.

5:02 PM, July 23, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

"Simply by ending gay marriage society is not threatened by the negative slippery slope of same-sex marriages as I have focused on time and time again in previous comments and posts as mentioned in my last comment to you on this thread."

This STILL does not answer the question.

What is the difference that I will see when I get married? I will then be a larger threat to your way of life because I got married, so I wonder what the change is?

I think your side of this issue wants to imply that seeing gay people married will cause children to change their minds about the values you instilled in them. Have have done that poor of a job parenting that all your children have to do is witness something that challenges the beliefs you taught them, and they get swept away? Won't they see a gay relationship and want to be gay too? Through a child's eyes I see little difference between a non-married couple like Ray and I, and I married couple like Dick and Dana.

We will keep gay marriage or we will end it. We will learn to live with each other with respect, or we will not. Two things that are not going to change is that we are neighbors, and that it is human nature to fight back once you are done running and being afriad. This is why the gay communities influence on society has just begun, and the people that bring us all this attention have heralded our homecoming.

6:56 PM, July 23, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

You said:

"What are the differences that I will see when I get married? I will then be a larger threat to your way of life because I got married, so I wonder what the change is?"

What makes you think that what I have explained to you is going to enlighten you and cause a big bright bulb to turn on when you get married to Ray? You DISAGREE with what I am saying, of course you are not going to SEE the 'differences' that are going to happen when you PUBLICALLY acknowledge your "marriage vows" to Ray. You think your behavior is right! If you DID see the 'differences' of how same-sex marriages will affect family and the state of marriage you would be agreeing with my past, present and future comments to you.

As I have explained to you John, your marriage is not PRIVATE that is only co-existing within the four walls in the house/apartment that you and Ray will live together in. You and Ray will be PUBLICALLY ACKNOWLEDGING your "wedding vows" to the PUBLIC and therefore telling the PUBLIC that your "marriage" co-exists and is O.K./righteous/APPROPRIATE for the continuation of the next generation. You both are telling the public your love for one another are part of the laws of this country that express how we as a society should act SEXUALLY and MORALLY with one another.

You marrying Ray is acknowledging to the PUBLIC that gay relationships are a positive component of society because they represent tolerance and diversity and “civil rights”. That those who disagree with your behavior and relationship are intolerant and un-diverse bigots because they hold a moral ground based on righteousness and values that are either religiously based or are based on what society has deemed correct.

There are benefits of traditional marriage for society. Same-sex marriages hold no benefit for society and the public; instead they primarily address the personal or emotional needs and desires of consenting adults. Love alone does not make up a marriage. Sexually consenting adults yelling for more rights does not make up a marriage.

The purpose of marriage has always been to make the family secure, not to redefine what constitutes a family. The family is a more fundamental social reality than a marriage, and so pretending that anything we call a marriage can create a family is misleading. Same-sex advocates want us ALL to believe that males and females are optional and interchangeable. This is a poor view of humanity as I have been trying to explain to you.

This “suit yourself” approach to family, where people choose to live in whatever relationships seem to work for them is dangerous to our children and for society. This leads me to your next statement:

“I think your side of this issue wants to imply that seeing gay people married will cause children to change their minds about the values you instilled in them.”

No, it will not CHANGE their minds, but it will JUSTIFY that two consenting adults of either gender makeup/configuration is O.K. to love and have a relationship with. Seeing gay people married justifies that having an intimate relationship either emotionally or physically with the same-sex is appropriate when it is actually very dangerous. It is dangerous because it would be advocating cohabitation, out of wedlock births, fatherless children, poverty, and drug use. Seeing gay people married makes our children ask why not two men and one women? What about three men? If marriage is not an exclusive arrangement between mommy and daddy, then isn’t it hypocritical for homosexuals to say that marriage is not exclusive (one man and one women) but is exclusive in that it should also include and be limited to two women or two men? Is this not a hypocritical statement? Are homosexual activists not capriciously redefining marriage as they go? If not exclusive (one man and one women) then should not the equal protection clause protect all types of marriage arrangements (polygamy, bigamy, marrying animals)? Yes, it is currently against the law to do these things but so was gay marriage and look what is being CHANGED now without any say from society.

Seeing two gay people married justifies that mommy and daddy are not the CORE units of a family anymore. Yes, marriages end in divorce where the parents split and then you have either the mother and the kids or the father and the kids or the grandparents and the kids. These three configurations are unhealthy for the child’s development. But the true family is now split and the kids are getting equal love from their parents/grandparents but from a DISTANCE and without the presence of a mother and a father in the same household to instill their combined efforts onto their children that is needed for a healthy intellectual, cognitive, emotional and physical development

The optimal environment for a child is one in which the child’s biological mother and father are married to one another. While it is true that men and woman are capable of providing love for children, it is also true that no child should deliberately be deprived of either a mother or father, which is what occurs as the result of same-sex marriages. The small amount of research available regarding children raised in same-sex couple households reveals that such children are comparable in terms of well being to those in single parent households. (F. Tasker and S. Golombok, “Adults Raised as Children in Lesbian Families,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 65:2: 203-215 (1995) Children raised by homosexuals, based on studies, demonstrate that they are more likely to develop homosexual tendencies themselves (Ibid. See also, T. J. Dailey, “Breaking Ties that Bind.” Family Research Council Insight, Feb 18th, 2000.) Why do we want to advocate such behavior when we KNOW it is DANGEROUS? Are we looking out for the better interest of the children or are we looking out for the better interest of the caretakers “rights”?

8:44 PM, July 24, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

"The purpose of marriage has always been to make the family secure"

Well, this pretty much spells out the trouble between us. You think in terms of marriage=kids, but that can't be true because we allow elderly to marry, and people who are steryle, and people who profess they will not have children to get married. If it was about family then there would be requirements, but there are none. All people need to be is of age, and not be related. You want to add the condition "and not the same sex" and you have not convinced me you have a valid reason to request this.

Being gay is not a crime, and I will not have my rights curtailed because I am gay. Your oppostion is your best critic, and unfortunately you have not convinced me via logic. I still think it is better to judge people as individuals rather than try to say people who have one thing in common are all going to act the same and be the same.

10:14 PM, July 24, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

You said:

"Well, this pretty much spells out the trouble between us. You think in terms of marriage=kids, but that can't be true because we allow elderly to marry, and people who are steryle, and people who profess they will not have children to get married."

Sterility is the exception and not the rule for heterosexual couples. We do not disqualify couples from marrying based on exceptions that are (for the most part) unanticipated. Many of these couples adopt, lovingly giving a mother and father to a child who needs them. Same-sex couples cannot provide this.

However, sterility is a fully known and inherent part of homosexuality, and therefore children can never come from a homosexual union. Homosexual couples must always go knocking at the door of heterosexuality in order to acquire kids via adoption, artificial insemination or surrogacy.

No one who considers him- or herself homosexual was given life as a result of a homosexual relationship. Everyone enters humanity through the gate of heterosexuality, with the union of male sperm and female egg being the mandatory portal. Homosexuality can never produce people, and it obscures the truth of what is required for human reproduction and development. That is why no society has ever recognized it as a legitimate form of family. It also denies every child it touches what the adults in the relationship had: a mother and a father.

Yes, we allow older folks to marry. Having babies is not a requirement of marriage. But it is the expected norm. An older couple marrying is another exception and not a norm. Same-sex marriage advocates are not arguing for their marriage as occasional exceptions but as normal as natural marriage.

Remember also, the key societal benefit of marriage is not only about bringing forth and raising children but that it brings the genders together into a humanly complete and cooperative relationship. Marriage helps older people complete each other also, and this is good for the individuals and for society.

2:57 PM, July 26, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

"However, sterility is a fully known and inherent part of homosexuality, and therefore children can never come from a homosexual union."

Whaaa? Does my 19 year old daughter know this? If not don't tell her. I want to break it to her. Where did you come up with this?

"Having babies is not a requirement of marriage."

That was long in the coming, but at least you said it. Both of us having agreed on that, there really isn't room to take it back or shade it differently.

As far as gay marriages knocking on the door of heterosexuality, we don't have to. This is the 21st century, and if you think I can't find a lesbian that will carry a baby for me, you're mistaken.

The gay families of Massachusetts represent 40% of all adoptions in this state. Not only are they model families, but we are cleaning up the mess heterosexuals have left behind.

These children grow up to be happy, healthy, productive members of society. If gay marriages are such a threat, wouldn't these children have been better off in foster care? I don't think you would say so.

Your idea of tradition is not a good reason to deny someone else equality. Your belief in social desctruction because of gay marriage is not happening. Yes things are changing, and change is good. It is evolution of thought. We cannot progress and be the same, not at the same time.

Enjoy your life, just not at my expense.

5:31 PM, July 26, 2006  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

Enjoy your life, just not at my expense.

Right back atcha, John...

12:57 PM, July 27, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

Show me how by living my life I cost you something, and then we can discuss ALL the things I am denied. I don't want to fight with you Tyler, I want to get to know you and be a good neighbor. I don't see why that is so hard for us to put our differences aside and be amicable. You have more differences with Muslims than me, but I don't see you trying to prove them wrong all the time. This is not a contest or a game, this is real life. My whole future is going to be decided by people that don't see my value simply because I'm gay, what would you have me do? If I sit back and do nothing, that's what I'll have in return.

I have never harmed you, and I never will. I will continue to live my life as a respectful positive part of the community like I always have. When my neighbors need me I will be there to help them. Just don't ask me to swallow a load of garbage about me being bad for society because of who I love.

4:52 PM, July 27, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

You said:

"All people need to be is of age, and not be related. You want to add the condition "and not the same sex..."

Yes, as of May 17, 2004 gays could “marry”. Prior to that date you could NOT marry someone of the same-sex. However, with legal challenges to the Massachusetts state law concerning same-sex marriages, some local jurisdictions may have residency requirements and/or not issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

One law potentially in the midst of being changed. What's next, you can marry your brother or sister at age 12? This is what I am talking about John, one step at a time. Do you see what kind of precedent same-sex marriages will set for the rest of the country and be the spring board for the changes in marriage laws. One step at a time.

You said:

"As far as gay marriages knocking on the door of heterosexuality, we don't have to. This is the 21st century, and if you think I can't find a lesbian that will carry a baby for me, you're mistaken."

Yes, John and you will have to knock on the door of heterosexuality AGAIN if you plan on trying to 'knock-up' that lesbian either by your own genes, or if you acquire a child via adoption, artificial insemination or surrogacy. Another words, two men in one room alone or two women in another room alone cannot produce life TOGETHER. I hope I do not need to revisit health class here.

You said:

"These children grow up to be happy, healthy, productive members of society."

Pheeew...I am glad you know what the future holds for these children.

You said:

"Your idea of tradition is not a good reason to deny someone else equality."

No, you’re right. But my, and the human races, idea of what has worked IS a good idea to deny someone a license to marry, when that license does not permit them to PROGRESS the institution of marriage. It only gives them the license to engage in consensual adult sex and perform social experiments on our children and receive benefits at work. All this happening as you show the world that you are LEGALLY together. I don’t get it, what then is marriage to you? Can you give me a logical answer John?

8:34 PM, July 28, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

You said:

"I have never harmed you, and I never will. I will continue to live my life as a respectful positive part of the community like I always have. When my neighbors need me I will be there to help them. Just don't ask me to swallow a load of garbage about me being bad for society because of who I love."

There you go again John. Unable to refute my comments about how same-sex marriages will not hurt anyone by giving emotional statements of how your in love and your this "second-class" citizen that wants to be a good neighbor. The sob story always works on people's true essence of their humanity, doesn't it John?

8:40 PM, July 28, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

"Yes, John and you will have to knock on the door of heterosexuality AGAIN if you plan on trying to 'knock-up' that lesbian either by your own genes, or if you acquire a child via adoption, artificial insemination or surrogacy. Another words, two men in one room alone or two women in another room alone cannot produce life TOGETHER. I hope I do not need to revisit health class here."

Thanks for the lesson, but I attended 8th grade so I know all about how it works. They teach it in school, can you imagine? Have you ever heard of artificial insemination? My sperm, her eggs, one turkey baster and kids a plenty. Sorry but we do not need to knock on your door to continue the race.

Marriage
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A marriage is a relationship between or among individuals, usually recognized by civil authority and/or bound by the religious beliefs of the participants. The fact that marriage often has the dual nature of a binding legal contract plus a moral promise, can make it difficult to characterize."

The full definition given is actually quite long, so to read the rest look it up. This was the first paragraph. My beliefs are the same as the founders of Massachusetts; that marriage is first and foremost a civil contract. Producing life is not a requirement for marriage, nor is making sure your marriage benefits society. There are plenty of bad people out there that get married and produce bad kids. I don't see you standing in their way, and that's why I think this whole petition is a bit hypocritical.

As far as the last comment, I am in fact not harming you, and never will. You are taking away the rights of someone you will likely never be around. You want to shade the truth so it looks less harsh. Prove in trial court that gay marriage is harmfull and I will STILL be able to point at the hypocracy and double standards you are trying to use.

Being gay is not a crime, and it is not a good enough reason to deny people the ability to marry who they love.

11:06 PM, July 31, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

You said:

"Have you ever heard of artificial insemination? My sperm, her eggs, one turkey baster and kids a plenty. "

Again, HETEROsexual means to produce life. MALE sperm and FEMALE eggs = HETEROsexual means to produce life. If you were to prove that joining a MALE sperm with a MALE sperm or a FEMALE egg with a FEMALE egg is going to produce life than that would be a different situation. That is not the case, and it never will be.

You said:

"Producing life is not a requirement for marriage, nor is making sure your marriage benefits society. There are plenty of bad people out there that get married and produce bad kids. I don't see you standing in their way, and that's why I think this whole petition is a bit hypocritical."

No, having kids is not a requirement for marriage. I think we have beat that dead horse enough John.

On the other hand,why should we incorporate a community into the institution of marriage where we KNOW many, not all, but many more than heterosexuals would increase the rate of cohabitation, out of wedlock births, fatherless and motherless children, poverty, and drug use?

Homosexuals die much earlier than heterosexuals and have significantly higher rates of suicide, rectal cancer, liver cancer, HIV, and other infectious diseases than heterosexuals.

The median death age for homosexual males is 42 years old.

The median death age for homosexual women is 49 years old.

Less than 2 percent of homosexual males live until age 65.

Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States. They make up only 1-2% of the population.

Why should we redefine marriage for these purposes and behaviors?

Yes, there are plenty of "bad" people out there that get married and produce "bad" kids, but we (society,government,justice of the peace, reverand,ect) do not know this going into making the civil union of a man and a women legal.

When we DO KNOW going into legalizing same-sex unions that the relationships between the two men and the two women will most likely increase cohabitation and fatherless and motherless children, ect and all the effects from these "family" configurations then WE will not accept it as legal. Your arguments and points are based on what is known or is MOST LIKELY going to happen with one section of society (gays) and what MAY happen with another (heterosexuals). Apples and oranges.

When giving an answer to a comment from someone please try and stick to the debate question and/or topic. I asked you a question: What does marriage mean to you?

3:48 PM, August 02, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Bravenet.com Get your Free Guestbook from Bravenet.com