Friday, July 07, 2006

Two More "W's" in the Win Column for Traditional Marriage

Two key battles to preserve traditional marriage are over in New York and Georgia with proponets of traditional marriage giving off a sigh of relief.

New York, which was among many states fighting for a decision in the high courts about the constitutionality of traditional marriage, became another state in this country to uphold and keep a law in the books that defines marriage as the sole union between one man and one women.
Georgia, where 75% of the voters in the state voted against same-sex "marriages" in 2004, to then have the high courts in the state call the vote unconstitutional, is also at ease today. Georgia's State Supreme Court ruled that the vote by the people was not uncontitutional and reinstated the voter's decision.
I have asked a question on a previous post of mine and think it would be a good time to have others join in on the debate either here or on the previous post. Here is my question:
What solution is out there that would please both sides on the issue of marriage/rights? What do we as a society need to do to A) Keep the definition of marriage as it has been, as that of a union between one man and one woman and B) Give homosexual relationships more privileges/rights and respect as a committed couple should have no matter what sexual orientation they are made of?

49 Comments:

Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

Yes!

Taking it to the courts isn't working any more, it's about time!

9:57 AM, July 09, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

I think we are seeing some specs of light at the end of the tunnel. Let's keep on digging!!

3:33 PM, July 09, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

Do you really feel a sense of accomplishment? What will we have if you side gains the upper hand and gay marriage is wiped out of society, what then? Will it really change things for you? By the way I thought we were having a conversation on the other thread, what happened to that?

4:57 PM, July 09, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

Yes, we are having a conversation on the other thread. I continue to post news of interest to this blog in the meantime and answer questions posted to me as I will do for your question.

I think that if same-sex “marriages” are outlawed in MA then the deconstruction of family and the definition of marriage are saved from the turnoquots of the radical homosexual community.

It will change things for my marriage because then my role as a husband is not redefined to a "whatever" works role as would be the case if two males or two females "marry". Males and females would then not have to worry about being classified as interchangable parts. Children would continue to understand what it means to have a mother and a father to provide for them and not just parental units as would be the case for same-sex “families”.

I will get to your question that you proposed to me. I am at work and whenever I get a chance I work on the tough questions. My response to your great question needs some brainstorming.

Good job John. I love the solutions to this topic that your carefully thinking about which is indicated on the other thread.

SCIA

11:13 AM, July 10, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It will change things for my marriage because then my role as a husband is not redefined to a "whatever" works role as would be the case if two males or two females "marry". Males and females would then not have to worry about being classified as interchangable parts."

This is ultimately what you are worried about?!?!? YOUR role will be re-defined? Not so, unless you want to redefine yourself.

Roles in the family can be very different than they were even 50 years ago. Classic model is husband works, wife stays home and tends the home and children. Today, there are women who work, and men who stay home. Most often today, both parents work. Husbands and wives are already "interchangable" when it comes to child care.

Why is it so hard for you to understand, the classic definition of family will not change. Why does there only have to be one type of family? Straight marriage will always be the norm. Gay marriage will not change that.

Tell me, do you honestly believe your "role" as a husband and father is in jeopardy?

It seems to me you are really reaching for another excuse to prevent gay marriage. Don't let your biases cloud your jugdement.

1:41 PM, July 10, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

I agree there is a radical component to the gay community, but that is true no matter what community you talk about. Here is a hypothetical situation:

Two men secretly gay live together and get married. They continue in there secrecy burying themselves in their work, their hobby of boating, and community service. How do they effect society adversely?

I am more than happy to wait for good answers. Thanks for continuing the level of respect.

1:43 PM, July 10, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How about the SJC ruling today?

maybe that will wake up the extremists.

Paul Jamieson

2:27 PM, July 10, 2006  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

Yes, the SJC ruling certainly gives me cause to celebrate democracy!

The power belongs in the hands of the people...and what the people want is the right to VOTE!

3:23 PM, July 10, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

Show me that this is well thought out. What consessions are made in favor of the gay community to help them see less violence against them, and provide benefits marriage provides.

6:55 PM, July 10, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Anonymous,

You said:

"Roles in the family can be very different than they were even 50 years ago. Classic model is husband works; wife stays home and tends the home and children. Today, there are women who work, and men who stay home. Most often today, both parents work. Husbands and wives are already "interchangeable" when it comes to child care."

Clearly your argument is based on the illogical concept of apples and oranges.

The change in roles of a male husband and a female wife over the years is completely different than adding a "suit yourself" approach to what makes up a family as is the case for a same-sex family.

In regards to your question:

" Why does there only have to be one type of family? Straight marriages will always be the norm. Gay marriages will not change that."

Look at my comments that I posted on the Pundit Review interview thread to John.

7:20 PM, July 11, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

I think I may have answered your question in the Pundit Review Interview thread.

Will I be able to meet you tommorrow at the State House?

7:23 PM, July 11, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My point was that roles in the family are different depending on the situation, and children are not adversely effected. Families untimately define themselves, and the roles each member plays.

You did not answer my question, do you honestly believe SSM changes your role as a husband and father in your family?

I would hope you would not let society, in any form, dictate your role in your own family.

I do not see eye to eye with you on this. I've read through your blog, and see where you are coming from. It just seems like a lot of fear over nothing.

You seem to forget that most of the gay and lesbian community are not radicals or extremists. We are normal everyday people. We just want to be treated equally, and live our lives in peace.

9:39 AM, July 12, 2006  
Blogger Lynne said...

Marriage needs to be defined as between one man and one woman. The instituion arose to protect the children that came as a result of a man and woman having sex (pretty basic, eh?). The family is the building block of society so yes, how we define marriage matters a great deal.

Nothing further needs to be done for the few gay or lesbian couples (or groups) who could to live together. For a small amount of money they can visit any lawyer and get the paperwork drawn up to protect their joint assets.

10:19 AM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lynne, what a simple minded view you have. How you define marriage is not the only defintion, and the meaning has changed throughout the ages.

SSM changes nothing. Traditional marriage remains constant. Why should your view be more valid than mine?

Also, have you looked into how much it costs for people, gay or straight, to protect their assets? It's not so small, and it doesn't always stand up in court.

Really, why do you not want equal civil marriage rites for same sex couple? Why are straight relationships so much better?

10:51 AM, July 13, 2006  
Blogger Lynne said...

Lynne, what a simple minded view you have. How you define marriage is not the only defintion, and the meaning has changed throughout the ages.

The meaning has not evolved. Its purpose is to protect the children who are the fruits of said marriage.

SSM changes nothing. Traditional marriage remains constant. Why should your view be more valid than mine?

Right. And no-fault divorce didn't change marriage either. The results of these 'improvements' do not come overnight.

Also, have you looked into how much it costs for people, gay or straight, to protect their assets? It's not so small, and it doesn't always stand up in court.

These 'marriages' only exist in the minds of GLBT in Massachusetts. When one of these couples move out of the state, poof, it's gone.

Really, why do you not want equal civil marriage rites for same sex couple? Why are straight relationships so much better?

Your last sentence says it all. Same-sex marriage is all about gaining a perceived patina of acceptance. You don't need our acceptance. If you are happy with your life, that is all that should matter to you.

6:41 PM, July 14, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

Sorry I haven't been able to post a few days, I have been ill. I did not attend July 12 for that reason as well, but the next time there is something going on we can introduce ourselves.

I am hoping for a response to a well thought out question I asked before:

Two men secretly gay live together and get married. They continue in there secrecy burying themselves in their work, their hobby of boating, and community service. How do they effect society adversely?

10:36 AM, July 15, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Your last sentence says it all. Same-sex marriage is all about gaining a perceived patina of acceptance. You don't need our acceptance. If you are happy with your life, that is all that should matter to you."

Lynne, you are so full of it. Your whole attitude reaks. Marriage is not only for raising children. That is only one perspective on it. I really don't want to go into it, but I suggest you read up on history. The only given constant through history was marriage being male/female. I give you that. But tradition alone is no reason to deny SSM.

Are you ready to vote on an ammendment that would nullify any marriage that does not produce children? Should marriage licenses include a clause that states the union must produce a child? I doubt you'd think so, and think this argument ludicris. Marriage is not only about kids.

As far as accceptance, I don't care who personally accepts my releationship and who does not. I only want it to be recognized, by law, to have the same validity as a straight relationship. I want the same rights and responsibilities as any other commited married couple. Why is this so much to ask?

10:15 AM, July 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

SCIA, you still have not answered my question...

Tell me, do you honestly believe your "role" as a husband and father is in jeopardy?

10:16 AM, July 17, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Anonymous,

Sorry for the delay.

The role as a husband and father is in jeopardy especially in the eyes of children. So yes, this also goes for me as a husband and father.

Scott Coltrane, a sociologist at the University of California, looked at 90 different cultures to study how men’s participation in child care related to the status of women in their culture. He found a very close connection, explaining, “Societies with significant paternal (father) involvement in routine child care are more likely than father-absent societies to include women in public decisions and to allow women access to positions of authority.” And these involved fathers pass this greater respect for women on to the next generation via their influence on their sons.

Here are some questions to think about. How can two loving, homosexual men teach a young boy to care for and love a woman? How will the boy observe this in a home where it doesn’t exist? What will two loving moms teach a little girl about men? How healthy will that picture be? Don’t same-sex relationships, by definition, fail to provide many of the important things children need, since they are missing one of that child’s natural parents and one essential part of humanity?

In a book titled The Lesbian Parenting Book by Dr. Merilee Clunis and Dr. Dorsey Green it is stated that subjecting children to same-sex relationships is subjecting children to a massive, unproven social experiment. They write: “It will be interesting to see over time whether lesbian sons have an easier or harder time developing their gender identity than do boys with live-in fathers.” It will be INTERESTING TO SEE?? When we are talking about the development of children, we can’t simply hope it will all work out. We have to KNOW how it will turn out. Children are not laboratory rats.

But recent research indicates it won’t work out well. In a 2001 study published in the American Sociological Review, conducted by researchers who are politically sympathetic to the same-sex family, it was found that 64% of young adults raised by lesbian mothers considered having same-sex erotic relationships either in the past, now or in the future. Only 17% of young adults in heterosexual families reported the same thing. What is more, this study reports that heterosexual mothers were significantly more likely to desire that their boys engage in masculine activities and their daughters in feminine ones, while “lesbian mothers had no such interest. Their preference for their child’s play was gender-neutral.”

The significance of gender is demolished by the essence of same-sex marriage. Like I said in previous posts a women will be diminished to her physiological parts, a womb, and a male to a sperm. Reducing gender identity to physiology is, well dehumanizing don’t you think?

We need to protect our children of the future and this is done via traditional marriage between a man and a women. Our children are not part of a social experiment and we must not confuse their developing identities with re-defining families, those with a mother and a father, not alcoholic families or those with other troubles. A family, no matter where you go on this earth involves a male and a female in some sort of way. That is what has been working so why are we reinventing the wheel? So we can “equalize” a subgroup of people out of a status of “second class citizenry”? Sound a little selfish to me.

2:11 PM, July 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, but I think you are full of it. There is nothing jeopardizing your role in your family but yourself.

You have some "facts" on your side, SSM proponents have some "facts" on their side.

Have you ever heard "it takes a villiage"? Children are not only raised by their mother and/or fathers, but but other relatives, friends, teachers etc.

I'm not trying to be insulting, but you really seem to live in the clouds. What is best, and I will grant you mother/father may be the best way to raise a child, and what is real are two different things.

And, again, you seem to forget marriage is not only about raising children.

Why is it selfish to want to be equal? Is it not selfish of you to deny marriage rights to same sex couples because YOU don't think it's right?

10:14 AM, July 18, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

"We need to protect our children of the future and this is done via traditional marriage between a man and a women. Our children are not part of a social experiment and we must not confuse their developing identities with re-defining families, those with a mother and a father, not alcoholic families or those with other troubles."

1. This is the space age, do you really think there is anything that children can't find out about from their friends or on the computer? I think it is better to inform our children what we believe in and why, rather than shelter them from things, leaving them unprepaired for the real world. Book burning used to be a way to keep people from knowing things, but that is now highly frowned upon.

2. Banning my marriage because you are unable to tell your children how to conduct themselves around the diversities of our nation is unacceptable. Again this leaves them unprepaired for the real world.

3. We can bury ourselves in counter research studies that contradict each other, but the bottom line is America is far from being Utopia. We will always have unqualified parents, single parents, even abusive parents. You cannot predict a parent's ability by their sexual orientation, nor can you predict how the children react to this.

5:02 PM, July 18, 2006  
Anonymous Straight Keith said...

You know what in case you are that adolecent to realize.......... love does not see color nor shapes or sizes. Love doesn't see the ups or downs, nor male or female, and although it might sound to some like I'm arguing for the gay side, people need to wake the @#$% up!! Love is blind!!!

If every "gay" couple raises mentally healthy young women or man who then enter their place in this world, have a sucessfull family, who are you to tell them they are wrong?

I'm sorry but I have had 3 now 4 parents in my life all straight and all loving people but things happend and so does sh#%, but I didn't turn out to be a bad person. What's to say about two straight people won't end up putting into society a rebel?? who's fault is it, the parents or the person?? THE PERSON!!! You can only blame what your taught so much. If you dont realize that, then maybe your whole life you have been taught ignorance. I don't know nor do I care!!

Are you gonna cost me money with your decisions?? Are you gonna make my children gay?? If you think yes then my question just became retorical and now I'm wasting 10 mins. of my life!!!! Just saying sometimes you need to chew before you swallow or else you might choke!

5:31 PM, July 18, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Anonymous,

You said:

"Have you ever heard "it takes a villiage"? Children are not only raised by their mother and/or fathers, but other relatives, friends, teachers etc."

Quoting Hillary Clinton is not the way to start off your argument.

Yes, children are cared for by relatives ect, but these people are male and female and in the same household for the most part. Yes, there can be two male brothers living together and taking care of their younger sister but they do not directly or indirectly teach the dangerous behaviors of a sexual orientation to their sibling.

You said:

"What is best, and I will grant you mother/father may be the best way to raise a child, and what is real are two different things."

What is 'real' does not involve two people who are in love with eachother and of the same sex. This is what is accepted by a small sub-group of people. This is accepted by a small sub-group of citizens or the homosexual community would not be having such a hard time with their fight to be redefine a family. Do not compare this with the fight women or blacks had because that is an apples and oranges argument that is insulting to these respective people.

You said:

"And, again, you seem to forget marriage is not only about raising children."

I answered a question you proposed to me that specifically related to this very issue. If you asked me a question about why heterosexuals should be the only ones to marry than I would of answered you differently. Do not try to put words in my mouth to simply make your argument valid.

You said:

"Why is it selfish to want to be equal? Is it not selfish of you to deny marriage rights to same sex couples because YOU don't think it's right?"

Again, it is ironic how the homosexual community screams for equal rights but prevents peoples right to vote including homosexuals who want to vote on this issue.

It is not only me who thinks SSM is not right, 40% of the country thinks it is not right. Those 20 states voted on this issue at the ballot box because less than 3% of the population (homosexuals) wanted to redefine an institution that is not meant for them.

6:53 AM, July 19, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Straight Keith,

You said:

"love does not see color nor shapes or sizes. Love doesn't see the ups or downs, nor male or female..."


"If every "gay" couple raises mentally healthy young women or men who then enter their place in this world, have a sucessfull family, who are you to tell them they are wrong?"

Telling the gay couple that love is not the only thing in raising a child is what I will tell them. If this is your point then listen to what I have previously stated in a post titled "Don't Children Just Need Loving Parents?":

A parent's ability to love is not the most important thing for children's well-being. For scholars have come to see that the mitigating love of the parents could not erase the harmful impact that divorce wrought in the lives of children because these children didn't have their mothers and fathers involved in the daily routine of life. And the fact that the biological parent is replaced by a loving stepparent does little to make the problems better. In many important ways, it makes them worse, and a convincing wealth of social science, medical and psychological data reveals this. Likewise, how can we assume the love of two women or two men will be able to erase the harm to children by being raised apart from their mother and father? We can't.

You also said:

"Are you gonna cost me money with your decisions?? Are you gonna make my children gay??"

Maybe not, but SSM and homosexual teaching agendas in the school house is going to teach children that homosexuality is O.K. to experiment with and that is dangerous.

7:19 AM, July 19, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

You said:

"This is the space age, do you really think there is anything that children can't find out about from their friends or on the computer? I think it is better to inform our children what we believe in and why, rather than shelter them from things, leaving them unprepaired for the real world."

Learning things from the internet and friends verses learning things from teachers and those of higher authority, A.K.A. parents, are two different things. Cohersively indoctrinating our childrens minds with the "benefits" of homosexuality to this world is not education but just what I said it is... indoctrination.

You said:

"Banning my marriage because you are unable to tell your children how to conduct themselves around the diversities of our nation is unacceptable."

SSM is not a teaching lesson of acceptance and tolerance. It is something that is deemed unacceptable and dangerous by myself and many others and how I tell my children how to love all regardless of their sexual orientation is what I will educate them with not the government or the school systems.

You said in closing:

"You cannot predict a parent's ability by their sexual orientation, nor can you predict how the children react to this."

Why should we therefore push this orientation onto our children when we know the disbenefits of it and then label our children as laboratory rats and ASSUME that they will turn out O.K. without a mother and a father? We as parents NEED to know that our children will turn out great as a result of our child rearing abilities. We can not conduct an experiment and hope for the best.

7:35 AM, July 19, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

I would rather have children learn the facts in a controlled enviornment where both of us agree what is taught rather than have them learn things in the streets and get it wrong. Without some form of education being standard we can never be sure if we are responsible for raising the next Jacob Robida. There is much we can agree on, we have to sit down and talk about it. If in the end of our talks you find that some of what is agreed to be taught is not to your liking, simply pull your child aside and set them "straight".

I don't quite understand why you said that gay marriage is not a teaching tool. I don't expect to teach anyone anything when I marry Ray. It is a contract for life between two loving people, yet private enough that you would not know we whether we were married or not unless we told you, or you researched it. How then would my marriage affect you if you don't not know of it? I am glad to see that you do want to teach your children to respect all people. Maybe one day you can learn from them.

"Why should we therefore push this orientation onto our children when we know the disbenefits of it and then label our children as laboratory rats and ASSUME that they will turn out O.K. without a mother and a father? We as parents NEED to know that our children will turn out great as a result of our child rearing abilities. We can not conduct an experiment and hope for the best. "

This is just a mess of different points.

1. No one is pushing children into an orientation by simply informing them of how diverse our society really is.

2. Children are already without fathers or mothers, and it does not have to do with teaching them about the gay community. Life is not always perfect, even when we try to make it so. There are plenty of healthy adults that came from single parent or gay homes.

3. Your ability as a parent is not the only factor that molds a child's developement. You can only shelter them for so long, then they need to be prepaired to take care of themselves, and that starts with a proper education. The better educated on what they can expect in the real world, the more successful they may be.

4. As far as the experiment goes, unless you can see into the future, the best we can do is work together and try to understand one another. Neither of us knows with absolute clarity what the future will bring.

I am trying the best I can to make some type of meaningful dialog between us. We can continue to fence indefinately, or we can start talking about what we can do as neighbors to heal the wounds between us.

11:46 AM, July 19, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

You said:

"I would rather have children learn the facts in a controlled enviroment where both of us agree what is taught rather than have them learn things in the streets and get it wrong."

What your saying here I agree with. My main point though is that tolerance and diversity training, especially when dealing with such a sacred and religious topic as homosexuality, should be up to the parent to teach his or her child about but at home. Just like we do not teach religion in our public schools, we should not be teaching different sexual orientations because it crosses the line with religion and state government.

You said:

"How then would my marriage affect you if you don't know of it? "

I have carefully answered that question in my previous post titled "Question: How does same-sex marriage harm our understanding of humanity?"

Read that again John and if that does not answer your question let me know and I can be clearer.

You said:

"No one is pushing children into an orientation by simply informing them of how diverse our society really is."

Children learn and ACCEPT things, for the most part, when they are taught it in school. When they are taught things they are therefore obliged to experiment with the lesson in life as many lessons in the school house provoke.

And again, diversity and tolerance training should be left up to the parent.

You said:

"There are plenty of healthy adults that came from single parent or gay homes."

Yes, there can be, I agree. But the experiment is too new in the game to make any final postitive or negative conclusions either way.

I absolutely agree that the kind of dialog we can and are having can heal some wounds but many do not think that redefining an institution for the sake of benefits and equality will solve the problem.

I have given my solutions in the description of the Fairness Benefits Act and I would run with this if that sufficed most but the whole "second class citizen" argument always seems to come up.

What can we do John to come to a happy medium for both sides?

1:57 PM, July 19, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

"What can we do John to come to a happy medium for both sides?"

We can talk more and figure out what we do have in common and what we are opposed to. There are some things I am ambivolent on, and I am sure that if we talk long enough we can find things that you too aren't conserned about. We have already spoke on what to teach the children and found some common ground. I would be satisfied knowing that somewhere children were taught to respect all people, and violence is always wrong. I don't have a need to have it focused on the gay community.

What about the gay children though? There are going to be children like me who are never going to be happy pretending to be straight. Shouldn't we comfort them? I don't feel ashamed of who I am, and I am not sure I want to provide an atmosphere that promotes children to feel that way about themselves. If we don't provide something for them to understand, won't they suffer?

What do you think of the fact that Governor Romney has cut all the funding for gay children's safety programs that were proven to save lives?

3:00 PM, July 19, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

Forget about the Romney comment, I see our fine legislature has over-rode his veto. Sometimes the system works, even for the minority.

12:18 PM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It is not only me who thinks SSM is not right, 40% of the country thinks it is not right. Those 20 states voted on this issue at the ballot box because less than 3% of the population (homosexuals) wanted to redefine an institution that is not meant for them."

1. 3%? Well that is debatable, but even if true (it's probably twice that), in a country of almost 300 million, that's 9 million. So it's ok to deny 9 million people a perceved right to marry?

2. You are presenting opinion as fact again. I don't believe it is "redefining" marriage, you do. It is a matter of opinion. Your opinion does not give you the right to vote on this issue.

3. The rights of a minority should not be dictated by a majority. Our country would be a very different place if this were the case.

4. Because some states have written discrimination into their constitution does not make it right.

BTW - I don't like Hilary Clinton, and I was not quoting her. If she did say something sililar, how nice for her.

1:05 PM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

John,

It's good of you to try, but I think you are wasting your breath here. If Scia and Tyler (and many others) did really want to compromise, and have open dialog, then they would stop refering to us as "homosexuals", and use what most of us prefer ("gay"). They know, as those organizied against gay men and lesbians know, that using the term "homosexual" tends to dehumanize us. It boils us down from complex emotional human beings to simply a sex act. It's easier to descriminated against a "sexual deviant" than a commited gay couple.

Just my two cents.

1:12 PM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Rev. Scott said...

John,

Rev. Scott here, how are you? I have been very busy but have been thinking of you.

Your copy of "The Case for Christ" is on its way. Enjoy it. We can go from chapter to chapter, week by week together. O.K.?

John, what was your childhood upbringing like in terms of its closeness to God?

8:11 PM, July 22, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

John

You said:

"What about the gay children though?"

There are ways to help these children John. I am not a psychologist by any means, nor a religious figure. I do know that there are many avenues of psychological help to deal with this situation and I know that there are many spiritual seminars to help the homosexual community with their struggles.

Rev. Scott,

Thanks for stopping by my site. What spiritual help is out there for the homosexual community?

8:17 PM, July 22, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Anonymous,

You said:

"3%? Well that is debatable, but even if true (it's probably twice that), in a country of almost 300 million, that's 9 million. So it's ok to deny 9 million people a perceived right to marry?"

The maximum percent of the population from any peer-reviewed study ever done is 3-5%. And many scholars agree that this number is on the high side.

Again, we are not 'denying' anyone anything. You can marry in MA and the current amendment does not reverse any same-sex marriages if passed.

Do you think the black robes of the judicial system (representing the minority) should be able to deny the Commonwealth (the majority:170,000 of those who signed marriage petition) their right to vote on such a deeply valued cultural issue?

You said:

"You are presenting opinion as fact again. I don't believe it is "redefining" marriage, you do. It is a matter of opinion. Your opinion does not give you the right to vote on this issue."

Definition of marriage: (noun.) The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

Yes, I do think that same-sex "marriages" ARE redefining the definition of marriage, but not only by meaning in a dictionary but also by meaning to society, particularly to our children.

You said:

"The rights of a minority should not be dictated by a majority. Our country would be a very different place if this were the case."

No, and the "rights" of a minority should not dictate the rights of a majority. Let us ALL (minority and majority) vote and lets see what they ALL decide. Simple.

In closing, you said:

"Because some states have written discrimination into their constitution does not make it right."

Talk about presenting opinion off as fact. You deem it "discrimination" because you disagree (opinion) with what our government has to say about an un-natural behavior entering an institution that is not meant for the homosexual community. You provide no logic of why you deem it "discrimination". You only provide an emotional opinion on the truth of what society and our government has deemed un-natural.

Provide me logic of why homosexuals should enter the institution of marriage. How will this benefit society and our children. Before you begin, do not provide me with "we are people too, the majority doesn't rule, how are we going to affect heterosexual marriages or 'you', and especially if two people love each other..." I have covered all of these topics in previous posts.

Thanks Anonymous, good comments (not being smart).

Scia

8:58 PM, July 22, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Anonymous,

You said:

"If Scia and Tyler (and many others) did really want to compromise, and have open dialog, then they would stop refering to us as "homosexuals", and use what most of us prefer ("gay")."

Definition of gay (adj.) Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.

Definition of homosexual (adj.) Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary

What is the difference? If you prefer "gay", John and anonymous, than so be it, I will label you both and acknowledge you both as "gay" and not "homosexuals".

I have no agenda other than to have an open dialog on a hot button topic.

Anonymous, John and I are having a discussion here. If you want to add some logic to this debate then please join us. If you want to change the subject and complain about definitions and such I have no need to listen to it.

Thanks,

Scia

9:10 PM, July 22, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

"Definition of marriage: (noun.) The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife."

Please cite your source.

10:16 PM, July 22, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

The American Heritage® Dictionary and every other dictionary out there on this planet.

What are your true intentions by asking me this? That I get my definitions from a source that promotes hate-speach or that this definition is going to change with the "revolutionary" works of the gay community?

10:23 PM, July 22, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

The minute you started to be too indignant I knew I was onto something. Here's the FULL definition listed:

SYLLABICATION: mar·riage
PRONUNCIATION: mrj
NOUN: 1a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. b. The state of being married; wedlock. c. A common-law marriage. d. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: A SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. 2. A wedding. 3. A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose). 4. Games The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

3:01 PM, July 23, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

I must ask, where did you get this definition.

What is your Source?

4:51 PM, July 23, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scia, I'll be blunt, you are so full of yourself, and your false logic. You also ask question that have been answered many times over. You refuse to see reason, and I will not waste any more of your time, or more importantly, my time trying to converse with you.

Live in your fear, and your denied prejudice & bigotry. Your comments seathe with indignation. Good luck with it. I pray you will see the error of your judgment one day, but I do believe you are a lost cause.


John Hosty, good luck to you Sir.

6:56 PM, July 23, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

The American Heritage Dictionary, but I didn't abridge what it said like you did.

Thanks for the kind thought Anonymous. Some people are a lost cause I am sure, but it not up for me to decide who gets saved and who does not. I find it ironic that the opposition wants to deny me my equality out of their own revulsion for me, and I can still find love for them in my heart.

Christ called us to spread the love, not use His word as a political tool.

7:07 PM, July 23, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Anonymous,

You said:

"Live in your fear, and your denied prejudice & bigotry."

When giving such a label to someone, there usually is a back-up of evidence,situations,comments,and proof. Do you have any, or are you just going to spittle out opinion and "pass them off as fact" as you say?

Thanks for your 'opinion', now try and enlighten me with a logistical argument for why I am a 'bigot'.

3:00 PM, July 24, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

You said:

"The American Heritage Dictionary, but I didn't abridge what it said like you did."

You are correct, I was wrong! I did not do my full research on the definition like I SHOULD have. My appologize.

Again, I have and will not talk religion on this site, I will leave that up to others. Same-sex marriages and the issue of traditional marriage has NOTHING to do with religion. It is ALL about democracy and the will of ALL of us to vote on the issue.

Good work, I will need to be more carefull in the future.

Scia

3:05 PM, July 24, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

How do you justify denying gay people the right to marry if you don't include your morality? Did you not get your morality from religion? Is there another reason that we need to deny marriage equality other than the fact that it says so in the Bible? Please enlighten me as to your thoughts. Try not to repeat yourself saying that it causes social destruction, I want to know how.

You said before that you just want to be able to vote on my rights. I think it would be fair to have a local government panel approve ANY marriage, what do you think about that? Surely there are marriages between heterosexuals that society would be better off without, so how about letting us vote on them too?

3:33 PM, July 24, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

You said:

"How do you justify denying gay people the right to marry if you don't include your morality? Did you not get your morality from religion?"

You’re stuck on this concept that marriage evolved out of religion. It was existing before any religion or government existed in this world. Marriage has not been "imposed" on culture by any religious institution, government, or any other authoritarian power structure from which it must be "set free". Morals, by the way, are not established ONLY from a religion. They can be justified by just following what society or your next-door neighbor says is right. Morals can also be created by all kinds of different belief structures and not be centered around religion.

You said:

"You said before that you just want to be able to vote on my rights. I think it would be fair to have a local government panel approve ANY marriage, what do you think about that?"

The whole idea that marriage is a right is debatable and we seem to agree to disagree on this. Fine.

As far as having a government panel to approve any marriage configuration...I agree, as long as the people who are an essential part of our REPRESENTATIVE government have a say in it.

9:10 PM, July 24, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

And that panel would include ALL aspects of our culture equally, right?

10:17 PM, July 24, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

The people of our country make laws via elected representatives voted in by the people. The country is represented at the ballot box EQUALLY by those who want to participate in democracy.

You know this. What are you getting at?

3:01 PM, July 26, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

We were speaking of a panel that would oversee all marriages right? I was expecting for that panel to be fair it should consist of representatives of all diversities. If everyone's marriages were strutinized in the same fashion we would have equality.

You are for civil unions right?

5:36 PM, July 26, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

You said:

"If everyone's marriages were scrutinized in the same fashion we would have equality."

No, we would have totalitarianism.

You said:

"You are for civil unions right?"

There is no difference between a civil-union or a same-sex "marriage" other than the name. So, no, I am not for civil unions. As I have stated to you before, I support more rights for same-sex couples under the guise of the Benefits Fairness Act and anything else that can be worked out to support gay relationships and their rights.

Civil unions hold the same arguments I have been holding for same-sex “marriages”.

8:56 PM, July 28, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

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