Reclaiming the rainbow

December 15th, 2010

by Becky Yeh

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse of the San Diego-based Ruth Institute rightly argues that the rainbow is a sign of God’s covenant with man, and she says proponents of Proposition 8 – California’s measure that passed in 2008 to define marriage as between a man and a woman — are the original “rainbow coalition.”
Jennifer Roback Morse (Ruth Institute)“Proposition 8 was passed by a great grassroots coalition that included people from all across the religious traditions, and also people of every race and color,” Morse recognizes. “We are the real rainbow coalition. The gay lobby does not own the rainbow.”

She tells OneNewsNow that she wore a rainbow-colored scarf to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals hearing on Proposition 8 as a statement to signify that supporters of traditional marriage still own the symbol.

“We can’t simply let that go by. Families put rainbows in their children’s nurseries. Little Christian preschools will have rainbows…Noah’s Ark and all the animals…. Those are great Christian symbols, great Jewish symbols,” the Ruth Institute president points out.

She adds that marriage is an issue that goes beyond race and religion, and she encourages Christians to take back the symbol of the rainbow because it represents God’s promise to humanity.

Found here.

Print Friendly
Be Sociable, Share!
  1. Mark
    December 15th, 2010 at 14:48 | #1

    “She adds that marriage is an issue that goes beyond race and religion, and she encourages Christians to take back the symbol of the rainbow because it represents God’s promise to humanity.”

    Yes, why worry about starvation, homelessness, disease, war, and poverty. Every good Christian should spend lots of money and time to secure a SYMBOL.

    I am SURE it’s what Jesus would want to do.

  2. nerdygirl
    December 15th, 2010 at 16:55 | #2

    ……This just a bit petty. I mean symbols and meanings change over time. Look at the word “gay”.

    Or, we can follow this logic to the extreme. No more Christmas, let’s go back to celebrating Saturnialia.

    Also, I think Skittles lawyers might want to have a word with you.

  3. Marty
    December 15th, 2010 at 20:38 | #3

    I fail to see any diversity in a “family” with two wives and no husband.

  4. Sean
    December 16th, 2010 at 04:34 | #4

    This is the kind of silly article that does much to diminish the already ungrounded beliefs of the marriage discrimination crowd.

  5. StopYOURownH8
    December 16th, 2010 at 06:37 | #5

    I always knew H8ers were small minded … this reinforces what I already knew.

    BTW: Someone should tell the H8ers – who merely highjack the word “god” to spread their H8 – that the alleged “christian cross” was STOLEN (in 1081AD) by the Christian Crusade leader, Godfrey de Bouillon, from the Muslims.

    That’s right, the Christians STOLE the symbol of the cross from the Muslims in the First Christian Crusades.

    When will the Christians give the Stolen Cross symbol back to the Muslims?

  6. Mark
    December 16th, 2010 at 06:49 | #6

    Marty: “I fail to see any diversity in a “family” with two wives and no husband.”

    You can say the same about a white man marrying a white woman. Not much diversity. What if the two women were of different races? That would be diversity so I assume you support that.

  7. SkyDancer
    December 16th, 2010 at 06:51 | #7

    Excellent point, Mark

    As for the rainbow… I demand that Morse produce the title showing who really “owns” it.

  8. Jamie
    December 16th, 2010 at 08:51 | #8

    Really? Its a symbol. Want to take it back? Use it with no intention of promoting gay right’s. Its not like gays bought it or stole it, they used it and it became recognized. A symbol is what you make of it, it’s meaning is entirely a construct of one’s mind.

  9. Emma
    December 16th, 2010 at 09:55 | #9

    Umh, given that the rainbow flag has been used as a symbol of the LGBT movement (and please note I used the word “used,” not “owned” — because, really, you can’t OWN a symbol regardless of what Dr. Morse might believe!) since the 1970s, it hardly makes sense to say that ANYTHING from 2008 could be the “original rainbow coalition.” Just chronologically speaking.

  10. H8isnottheanswer
    December 16th, 2010 at 11:05 | #10

    The rainbow is a symbol people associate with gay-pride and not hate-mongers who spread false propaganda about gays because …. people associated the rainbow with beauty not hate and not false propaganda.

  11. Marty
    December 16th, 2010 at 13:11 | #11

    Yeah, great point Mark, except race doesn’t have anything to do with marriage. Meanwhile, the combination of 1 man and 1 woman has a potency that is umatched by anything else. Heck, even homosexuals know this, which is why they have to hire a 3rd party to create a family.

    Race is no more relevant to marriage than so-called “sexual orientation”. What matters — that is powerful — is when a man and a woman come together. Regardless of either one’s skin color or “orientation”.

  12. Mark
    December 16th, 2010 at 13:45 | #12

    Marty: “Yeah, great point Mark, except race doesn’t have anything to do with marriage.”

    But it once did, Marty.

    “Race is no more relevant to marriage than so-called “sexual orientation”.”

    Than you must support same sex marriage.

  13. Ruth
    December 16th, 2010 at 15:22 | #13

    The rainbow reminds us of God’s promise that never again “shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh.”
    The earth will finally be destroyed by fire.
    The destruction of Sodom reminds us to take heed of our actions in relation to God’s laws.

  14. Jamie
    December 16th, 2010 at 16:05 | #14

    @Ruth

    Okay. To your culture it does. Perhaps members of the LGBT subculture think differently. Perhaps, it is up to people as individuals to decide what it means to them

  15. Brian
    December 16th, 2010 at 16:33 | #15

    Images and words as symbols represent very powerful things to people. In Sacred Scripture, the rainbow is God’s promise that he will never again destroy mankind again because of his wickedness. The homosexual community has taken this symbol as their own to indicate so-called “gay rights”. Hi-jack number one. Hi-jack number two? The word marriage itself. It’s not enough that homosexuals could be given hospital visitation, health benefits, power of attourney and whatever other legal rights that married people enjoy without their co-habitation being called marriage by name. The homosexual community wants moral equivalency and it’s simply not enough to have marital equivalency in all things but name. Homosexuals want the word marriage to denote what same sex members have in their own unique sacramental marital relationships. They want their own relationships to be considered socially and morally equivalent to heterosexual marriages in every way, as if there were no difference whatsoever between a homosexual co-habitation and heterosexual marriage. And there are very distinct differences. To demand something, even a word, which belongs to people of opposite sex attraction is very “in your face” if people will allow my saying it without reservation. The excercise of this demand is what is truly petty in my opinion and it began with the theft and vandalization of traditional Judeau-Christian symbols, such as the rainbow, years ago, for the purposes of mocking the Judeau-Christian religion which is the major propriator and defender of traditional marriage between one man and one woman. If marriage is simply about a word, than homosexuals can find another word. If symbols are to represent things, than homosexuals should stop using the very symbols that most reflect the faith and reason based opposition to the social restructioning that they are trying to enact and force upon a nation through the tyranny of political correctness and fabricated forms of diversity.

  16. Martin Snigg
    December 16th, 2010 at 16:45 | #16

    This is a brilliant idea in my opinion Dr Roback Morse. The genuine unity is the one found under God – who loves us into being, and in whose image and likeness we are made. It is on this basis that mutual respect and obligations are fostered. To use ss ‘marriage’ to attack and undermine marriage (which is what the state under political liberalism wants) is actually the antithesis of unity in diversity, it is sheer vandalism – the mindless defacing of something of value they refuse to recognise.

    On a tangential point: rainbow is a natural phenomenon like marriage. And though the nominalist wants to redefine it to suit the reordering of society along their preferred lines – the intellect simply cannot sustain the absurdity of calling a rainbow a bird – though they both appear in the sky and are found multicoloured.

  17. Mark
    December 16th, 2010 at 17:56 | #17

    Ruth: “The destruction of Sodom reminds us to take heed of our actions in relation to God’s laws.”

    That may be, but the destruction of Sodom was due to in hospitality and disrespect, not homosexuality.

  18. December 16th, 2010 at 18:07 | #18

    @H8isnottheanswer
    Disagreeing with someone’s actions and believing those actions are objectively immoral is not the same as hating the persons who do them. If someone says they think I should not argue against homosexual acts, that is not the same as hating me. By the same token, if I say homosexual acts are objectively morally wrong, that does not mean that I hate people who do them.

  19. Marty
    December 16th, 2010 at 18:38 | #19

    Mark, I support opposite-sex marriage without regard or respect for race, religion, or sexual orientation.

  20. December 16th, 2010 at 18:38 | #20

    The thing that bugs me about the gay rainbow is that it is six separate colors, as opposed to a real rainbow that is a spectrum of all the colors. It represents identity politics, taking people that used to exist in a big melting pot and assigning them all to distinct and separate bands, where they never mix.

  21. Paul H
    December 16th, 2010 at 19:03 | #21

    Jamie :
    Its a symbol. Want to take it back? Use it with no intention of promoting gay rights.

    Yeah, I think that’s essentially what Dr. Morse is saying, isn’t it?

    And wow, all of the nastiness and accusations of hate in many of the comments above (though not in the one I quoted) are very hard to me to understand, especially over such an innocuous article. I know that the internet has a tendency sometimes to bring out the worst in people (myself included), but still, this is pretty bad.

  22. chrisse
    December 16th, 2010 at 19:27 | #22

    Lots of name calling as argument going on here without any substance. Junior schoolyard stuff.

    My question is – is it same sex attraction or opposite sex repulsion? This has been on my mind for a while now.

    So, why the need to substitute the rectum for the vagina (males) and the use of artificial penis’s (female), if it’s same sex attraction. Sexual orgasm can be achieved without mimicking heterosexual activity. Sounds more like hate to me.

    As a woman, I am extremely offended by this replacement and male/male rectum sexual activities is hatred of women.

    Stop it with the lazy name calling – people in glass houses should not throw stones.

  23. December 16th, 2010 at 20:20 | #23

    I’m glad you all agree that anyone can use the rainbow symbol for anything they want. I plan to keep wearing it and using it!

  24. December 16th, 2010 at 20:30 | #24

    @StopYOURownH8

    The claim that Christians stole the symbol of the Cross from the Muslims is just bizarre. Let me quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04517a.htm

    “Early in the third century Clement of Alexandria (Stromata VI) speaks of the Cross as tou Kyriakou semeiou typon, i.e. signum Christi, “the symbol of the Lord” (St. Augustine, Tractate 117 on the Gospel of John; De Rossi, “Bull. d’arch. crist”, 1863, 35, and “De titulis christianis Carthaginiensibus” in Pitra, “Spicilegium Solesmense”, IV, 503). The cross, therefore, appears at an early date as an element of the liturgical life of the faithful, and to such an extent that in the first half of the third century Tertullian could publicly designate the Christian body as “crucis religiosi”, i.e. devotees of the Cross (Apol., c. xvi, P.G., I, 365-66)…. a peculiar fact of primitive Christian life, i.e. the almost total absence from Christian monuments of the period of persecutions of the plain, unadorned cross (E. Reusens, “Eléments d’archéologie chrétienne” 1st ed., 110). The truculent sarcasms of the heathens prevented the faithful from openly displaying this sign of salvation. When the early Christians did represent the sign of the cross on their monuments, nearly all sepulchral in character, they felt obliged to disguise it in some artistic and symbolical way.”

  25. December 16th, 2010 at 20:34 | #25

    @StopYOURownH8
    The claim that Christians stole the symbol of the Cross from the Muslims is just bizarre: Part II.

    I wonder what Constantine actually saw in his dream when he heard the words, “In this sign, you shall conquer.” Oddly enough, he claimed he saw the cross in that dream. Oddly enough, this was in the year 312 AD, which I calculate to be several centuries before the birth of Mohamed.

  26. December 16th, 2010 at 21:19 | #26

    @Emma
    Uh, Emma, the original Rainbow Coalition was Jesse Jackson’s attempt to forge a multi-ethnic coalition for causes he cared about. According to the Rainbow PUSH Coalition website, http://rainbowpush.org/pages/brief_history, the Rainbow Coalition was founded in 1984. Looks like there has been competition for the rainbow symbol all along.

    You really ought to show up to a pro-marriage rally sometime. You would be surprised by the variety of races, religions and ages of people who believe in natural marriage.

  27. Jamie
    December 16th, 2010 at 21:53 | #27

    @Brian
    God forbid we want equal rights. No, there isn’t a difference. I’ve been in both types of relationships, and seen both types of relationships.

    And I really don’t care how you use the rainbow. By all means, use it for that purpose, please. Make it mean fidelity and promise and mercy. Just don’t demand that someone else stop using that symbol. We can both use it.

  28. Jamie
    December 16th, 2010 at 22:27 | #28

    @chrisse
    For such questions, I’d go to the American Psychological Association’s site.

    Its not revulsion. I have a gay friend who is not at all revolted by vaginas, but he isn’t sexually attracted to them. He is, however, attracted to men. You aren’t revolted by your own sex, I’m sure. There isn’t any substitution or supplementation. Plenty of gay men aren’t attracted to ‘rectums’ at all (hint, they are attracted to penises). And as to lesbians using fake penises, that quite frankly is not true. I’m not sure what the media is portraying, but every lesbian I know prefers their same sex encounters to NOT involve such things. I know I prefer it that way. I am aware that many do, however. You should not be offended by a homosexual male not being attracted to you. Its a bit vain of you, to be frank. They are attracted to men.

  29. Ruth
    December 16th, 2010 at 22:52 | #29

    For those who would like to know what the Bible says about the sin of Sodom:
    read Genesis chapters 18 and 19 and
    http://www.gotquestions.org/Sodom-and-Gomorrah.html

  30. Little Ruthie
    December 17th, 2010 at 00:27 | #30

    @StopYOUR: I would love to see your source regarding Christians stealing the cross. Please cite it.

  31. Jaye
    December 17th, 2010 at 04:23 | #31

    @Jennifer Roback Morse

    Uh, Jennifer, you really ought to show up to a pro-equality rally sometime. You would be suprised by the variety of races, religions, and ages of people who believe in marriage equality.

  32. Mark
    December 17th, 2010 at 06:13 | #32

    Martin Snigg: “On a tangential point: rainbow is a natural phenomenon like marriage.”

    Marriage is no more natural than taxes. It is a man made legal relationship.

    Marty: “Mark, I support opposite-sex marriage without regard or respect for race, religion, or sexual orientation.”

    No better than saying you support freedom of religion as long as the person worships Jesus.

    Chrisse: ‘My question is – is it same sex attraction or opposite sex repulsion?”

    It’s same sex attraction.

    “As a woman, I am extremely offended by this replacement and male/male rectum sexual activities is hatred of women.”

    That’s just ridiculous. But answer me this: is male / female rectal activities also a hatred of women?

  33. Andy
    December 17th, 2010 at 07:27 | #33

    so, technically, the rainbow is a pagan symbol, which depending on the culture you want to follow, has it’s roots in lots of various deities: iris, ix chel, jullunguul. We’d like it back.

    Also, if you aren’t getting married in a same sex coupling, what does it matter to you? I mean really? Does it haunt your dreams. Can you not sleep? Do you feel physical pain? Because unless you have an actual reason, not some abstract morality which is based on an incorrect translation of an old selection of stories, perhaps you should just shut up and worry about your own life.

    You can’t save souls. You can only save other people from yourself. I suggest you start trying that.

    Matrimony is a union of man and woman in the eyes of god and the church.
    Marriage is a political, social, and fiscal coupling of two parties in accordance to the law.

    We have a separation of church and state. If you would like to use religious reasoning as a legal argument, churches should have to give up their tax exempt status. Granted that would suck for Roman Catholics, because technically they’re a foreign power.

  34. Emma
    December 17th, 2010 at 09:26 | #34

    @Jennifer Roback Morse

    So we are in agreement then that the above quote (“she says proponents of Proposition 8 – California’s measure that passed in 2008 to define marriage as between a man and a woman — are the original “rainbow coalition.”), which is what I was responding to, is historically inaccurate. You have just said so yourself.

    Also, perhaps you missed this, but Jesse Jackson recently came out in support of marriage equality and denounced Proposition 8 as being unconstitutional.

    http://gaysocialites.com/info/2010/12/08/jesse-jackson-comes-out-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/

    I have been to pro-marriage rallies. I am, in fact, pro-marriage. For ALL Americans. I want all of my friends and loved ones to be able to marry the man or woman they love. I’m not sure why you would assume that I am anti-marriage.

  35. chrisse
    December 17th, 2010 at 12:44 | #35

    @Jamie
    Interesting, Jamie. I had a gay friend who was repulsed by the vagina. In fact, so repulsed was he that he waxed lyrical about how disgusting it would be to engage in vaginal sex in my presence (there were 3 other gay male friends with us, who sat very silently). Eventually I had had enough, and said to him (using slang) “I defecate from my rectum, what do you do with yours?”. The other 3 laughed out loud, and told him that “I’d got him there”. This occurred in the Oxford Street, Sydney environment, and the said gay friend was a 17 year old male prostitute at Kings Cross. The others, including myself, were in our early 20s.

    My uncle and my female cousin are homosexual and their homosexuality was never an issue at any stage of my life within my family. Nor do they hate anyone.

    Nice anecdotes, but not relevant.

    What is clear is that same-sex attraction is a purely sexual pleasure activity with no reproductive functionality or purpose and thereby with no reason for the State to get involved with; let alone legislate to re-engineer Mother’s Nature design to give what is not theirs to give.

    My post was about the lazy name calling going on and sticking with the issues. Just showing that it works both ways and we should stick to the issues and not attack the person.

  36. Marty
    December 17th, 2010 at 13:04 | #36

    Marty: “Mark, I support opposite-sex marriage without regard or respect for race, religion, or sexual orientation.”

    Mark: “No better than saying you support freedom of religion as long as the person worships Jesus. ”

    I cannot help you Mark, if your disdain for women is so strong that you make such ridiculous and irrelevant statements as this and still expect to be taken seriously. Good luck my friend.

  37. chrisse
    December 17th, 2010 at 13:07 | #37

    @Mark
    Chrisse: ‘My question is – is it same sex attraction or opposite sex repulsion?”

    It’s same sex attraction.

    So why the subsitution of the rectum to mimick heterosexual activity? In the ancient Greek civilisation (also the Roman civilisation at the time of Christ), it was used as a “contraceptive” method, that is, non-reproductive. In the ancient Greek civilisation women were temple prostitutes or used for breeding. What these civilisations did not do was implement laws to give state recognition to these sexual “relationships”.

    “As a woman, I am extremely offended by this replacement and male/male rectum sexual activities is hatred of women.”

    That’s just ridiculous. But answer me this: is male / female rectal activities also a hatred of women?
    Just who engages in this male/female rectal activity? Are they influenced by pornography? Are they influenced by the sexual revolution that anything goes? In my mind, male/female rectal sexual activity is a hatred of women. From what I’ve seen written, apparently the men claim that the rectum is “tighter” and that the vagina’s of women who have had babies are “too loose”. Not proven of course, just folklore. Yes, it is hatred of women and our reproductive biology.

    For the record, I believe the SSM issue is just ridiculous. So, what are we proving here?

    My point was – stick to the issues, stop with the name calling. Just because we disagree doesn’t mean we hate each other as individuals or a group. Just because you believe that something is hatred, doesn’t prove that it is – that is your subjective opinion only. As I have mine own subjective opinions.

    This is at its most basic an issue of the natural human rights of the child, not the manufactured human rights of individual adults.

  38. Randall
    December 17th, 2010 at 13:39 | #38

    you know i sit and i read all of this mess about gay marriage .. and straight marriage ..
    and i just think ….
    hmmmm
    if jim and john down the street tie the not .. how will that effect my life ..
    well lets see .. i will still have the same job … same house …same bills .. same car .. same insurace payments … hmmmmm i just dot see it … … then i think of my bible …love thy neighbor .. … judge not less ye be judged .. and then i ask myself … if god really has a issue with these people .. shouldnt it be up to him to do something about it when we all stand before him …
    what right do i have or anyone for that matter to say who someone can love or not …
    and as far as the remark made by this Morse woman saying whats the difference between a man and a masculine woman well miss Morse let me just put that question to you …
    if you are married to a man .. why could you not just make due with a masculine woman ..
    and when you answer that one … then that would be the same answer you would get from a homosexual male … now with that being said go to this link and watch this video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PooEhBxh0NY were all just here to find love …
    thats all straight gay bi whatever we all have a right to be happy …
    like the constitution says ..”We the people ” it dose not say some people or most people ..
    and it says “all men are created equal ” not all straight men so if you would just worry more about your own life and less about others … and heres another thought ..
    why dont you all put some of this energy into some real problems …
    thanks for your time …
    Randall

  39. Mark
    December 17th, 2010 at 13:54 | #39

    Ruth, I am very sorry but gang rape is NOT the same as a consensual same sex relationship. Please quit being so biased.

  40. Brian
    December 17th, 2010 at 17:24 | #40

    People do not have the right to be happy at the expense of objective truth. Same sex attraction is fundamentally flawed in nature and as a lifestyle it has become morally corrosive. Young people, so easily awayed when unguided by truth, by symbols and icons. Rainbows means homosexuality. We are told not to be haters, which means that all things have become a life under the banner of tolerance. Young people are now experimenting with same sex behaviour in the same way that they might experiment with illegal drugs because they have been told that it is normal to do so. When in recent history have young people been told to experiment with things that are bad for them? Would we tell children that huffing chemicals is just another lifestyle or that self injury or suicidal thoughts are simply forms of self expression? Homosexuality is about abnormal same sex attraction and sexual conduct and nothing more. Homosexuality is not about rainbows.

  41. Sean
    December 17th, 2010 at 17:24 | #41

    Only in America can “Christians” use the Bible to spread their messages of hate toward homosexuals. Oy vey.

  42. chrisse
    December 17th, 2010 at 17:55 | #42

    @Randall
    Let me sum your comment leaving out the nonsensical -

    Individual adults manufactured concept of rights and equality supercede the inherent natural rights and equality of children on the whim of the individual adult/s.

  43. Leland
    December 17th, 2010 at 19:18 | #43

    One can tell from the posts on this thread that someone hit a nerve. But who would have thought this would cause such widesped panic?

    Washington Post

    TPM

    Right Wing Watch

    brandchannel

    Queerty

    SFist

    Guardian

    LGBTQ Nation

    Religion Dispatches

    OneNewsNow

    OC Weekly

    Metro Weekly

    Takeaway

    Firedoglake

    Vancouver Observer

    Comedy Central

  44. Sean
    December 17th, 2010 at 20:16 | #44

    “Same sex attraction is fundamentally flawed in nature and as a lifestyle it has become morally corrosive.”

    What’s the flaw? What’s morally corrosive about it?

  45. NAQ
    December 17th, 2010 at 20:24 | #45

    @Brian

    Actually, I think people do have “the right to be happy at the expense of objective truth.” I kind of think our country started with the belief that we have a right to “life, liberty and the pursuit.”

    Go read the Declaration of Independence, and while you’re at it, take a peak at the Constitution. Nothing in there about the immutability of the definition of marriage.

  46. Jamie
    December 17th, 2010 at 22:00 | #46

    “Let’s make a deal: give us our full civil equality—repeal DOMA, let us marry legally in all fifty states, end DADT, pass ENDA, stop torturing gay kids to death—and we’ll let you have your f**king rainbows back.”

    Uh, yeah thats a good summary of how I feel. Of course, the homosexual activists, as they always do, forget transexuals. Not that we have much to do with gays, but for some reason the T was added to LGB a while back.

    Therefore, I would like to add that you could, mayhaps, get rid of GID, reduce restrictions on getting SRS, and finally protect transexuals in the workplace from being fired simply because they are trans. I should be able to wear any clothes I want, so long as they do not display hateful/inappropriate messages, etc.

  47. Kelly
    December 17th, 2010 at 23:11 | #47

    This entire site is a joke and/or just a way to make oodles of money?

    I never understood some ‘straight’ people’s obsession with everything gay. You think about gay things all the time…write about gay things all the time…are you gay and hate yourself? You don’t have to hate yourself any longer. Come and join us on the gay side. We tend to be loving, non-violent and we have cookies.

  48. Ruth
    December 18th, 2010 at 00:25 | #48

    “The destruction of Sodom reminds us to take heed of our actions in relation to God’s laws.”

  49. KWest
    December 18th, 2010 at 00:28 | #49

    Oh for crying out loud! Seek mental help people!

    No one has rights to own rainbows, clouds etc etc…. What’s next?!? No one will be able to use the words “poop,crap,sh*t” because it’s their family’s last name from generations past.
    Your suppose to be settings examples for our children, and so far your just spreading IGNORANCE.Do something meaningful with your lives, and stop trying to make everyone miserable just because your miserable, and don’t have the social tools to deal with it.

    Everyone in this world has rights! man can marry a man, or woman can marry a woman.They can wear t-shirts with rainbows, clouds, or whatever makes them happy in life.
    Just because when you look in the mirror, and hate the person your staring at.Doesn’t give you the right to downgrade every individual to make yourself happy.It’s people like you that
    start wars.

    Grow up, and act like a mature adult for once in your life.

  50. Paul H
    December 18th, 2010 at 05:17 | #50

    Jamie :
    Uh, yeah thats a good summary of how I feel. Of course, the homosexual activists, as they always do, forget transexuals. Not that we have much to do with gays, but for some reason the T was added to LGB a while back.
    Therefore, I would like to add that you could, mayhaps, get rid of GID, reduce restrictions on getting SRS, and finally protect transexuals in the workplace from being fired simply because they are trans. I should be able to wear any clothes I want, so long as they do not display hateful/inappropriate messages, etc.

    What a good point. And while we are at it, we of course cannot forget those members of break-away Mormon sects who practice polygamy. They must be given the right to plural marriage in all 50 states, and must be defined as a class that is specifically protected from discrimination, just like race, sex, and religion.

    And wait, we also must not forget those who practice polyamory. A recent Newsweek article claims that the U.S. has half a million polyamorous “families”:

    http://www.newsweek.com/2009/07/28/only-you-and-you-and-you.html

    What about their rights to create a group marriage? And their rights to be protected from discrimination? Limiting marriage to only two partners is just so close-minded and discriminatory, right?

    And then what about those who wish to have an intimate relationship with a close family member, such as a brother, sister, son, or daughter? Is it fair to bar them from marriage as well? Is it fair that their relationships are currently seen as taboo? Isn’t this a form of discrimination, that must be rooted out of society?

    So if we are going to define marriage to include same-sex couples, then let us not discriminate. Let us go all the way and say that any and every relationship that two or more people wish to call a marriage is indeed a marriage. In practice, marriage shall be whatever any individual or group wants it to be. All 50 states and the federal government shall be obligated to recognize any and every self-defined “marriage” as a legal marriage, and society shall be obligated to grant all of the legal privileges that go along with marriage to any relationship that two or more people wish to call a marriage.

    OK, now to get serious. Yes, I was being sarcastic with everything I wrote above. But at the same time, everything that I wrote follows logically from the pro-same-sex-marriage arguments, doesn’t it? Does anyone who supports SSM disagree with any of the above? And if so, on what logical grounds?

    (My fear though is that soon enough, most people who currently support SSM will be making exactly the same arguments I made above, only they won’t mean them sarcastically.)

  51. Paul H
    December 18th, 2010 at 06:29 | #51

    By the way, Dr. Morse, you have inspired me. I am going to see if I can find a good rainbow picture to use as my avatar on some message boards that I frequent.

  52. Mark
    December 18th, 2010 at 06:32 | #52

    Brian: “People do not have the right to be happy at the expense of objective truth.”

    I am sorry, what exactly does this mean? Does not God want us all to be happy? And what “truth” do you mean.

    “Same sex attraction is fundamentally flawed in nature and as a lifestyle it has become morally corrosive.”

    It is prevalent in nature as is shown in studies of animals as well as humans. It is no more “morally corrosive” of a lifestyle than any other.

    “Homosexuality is about abnormal same sex attraction and sexual conduct and nothing more”

    No, you are wrong, Brian. It is not abnormal. It is a part of the inborn normal range of sexual expression. There is no appeal for young people to “experiment” with homosexuality, only a more open society that allows those with same sex attraction to express it.

  53. Brandon
    December 18th, 2010 at 07:05 | #53

    The symbol of the rainbow and the story of Noah lends force to the natural marriage movement on another level. The imagery of two of each animal, male and female, and of man/woman couples on the ark underscores the vital importance of marriage to the survival of the human race and its link to the natural order.

  54. Grey
    December 18th, 2010 at 11:39 | #54

    Marty constantly harps on how gay men have such disdain for women…
    When clearly he has a high level of disdain for men ;)

  55. Jamie
    December 19th, 2010 at 02:19 | #55

    @Paul H

    What did that have to do with Transexuals? Anything?

    Yes, I disagree with what you just said. You said it in a very stupid way, to be frank.

    “What a good point. And while we are at it, we of course cannot forget those members of break-away Mormon sects who practice polygamy. They must be given the right to plural marriage in all 50 states, and must be defined as a class that is specifically protected from discrimination, just like race, sex, and religion.”

    (This has NOTHING to do with transexuals.)
    Let me say this, I don’t know I thing about Polyamory. That said, polygamy has nothing to do with polyamory. I’m not going to explain, it takes too long, and wikipeida already did it.

    Its all about a thing called consent.
    s
    Of course, go ahead an be fallacious, you’re the one making a fool of themselves.

    In conclusion, your fear definitely means ill stop using the rainbow as a symbol of equality.
    Now its about Jesus. I suppose you want wine, thorns, olive branches, doves, trees, fruit, naked people, snakes and burning bushes back too?

  56. Sean
    December 19th, 2010 at 05:43 | #56

    “What about their rights to create a group marriage? And their rights to be protected from discrimination? Limiting marriage to only two partners is just so close-minded and discriminatory, right?”

    Limiting marriage to couples doesn’t violate anyone’s constitutional rights. These “slippery slope” arguments are rather weak, which you probably know but pursue them anyway. But so what if there were group marriage? If that’s what people want to do, so what? Tell us what harms come from it. If there are harms, then there are reasons to prohibit them, right? If there are no harms, beyond your personal disapproval, then why not legalize polygamy?

  57. Dr. Carlos Diaz Lujan
    December 20th, 2010 at 03:17 | #57

    Rediscovering the True Meaning of the Rainbow
    By Dr. Carlos Diaz Lujan

    Since 1978, the aberrosexualist movement has used a rainbow flag to symbolize their alleged “diversity.” Since then the flag has become ubiquitous at aberrosexualist events and marches. The symbol has become so associated with aberrosexualist agitation that back in 2000, the University of Hawaii at Manoa changed its sports teams’ name from “Rainbow Warriors” to “Warriors” and redesigned its logo to eliminate a rainbow from it.

    Now, according to One News Now, one pro-Family organization is demanding that aberrosexualists stop misappropriating the rainbow.

    Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse of the San Diego-based Ruth Institute [a project of the National Organization for Marriage] rightly argues that the rainbow is a sign of God’s covenant with man, and she points out that proponents of Proposition 8—California’s measure that passed in 2008 to define marriage as between a man and a woman—are the true “rainbow coalition.”

    “Proposition 8 was passed by a great grassroots coalition that included people from all across the religious traditions, and also people of every race and color,” Morse recognizes. “We are the real rainbow coalition. The ‘gay’ lobby does not own the rainbow.”

    No, aberrosexualists don’t own the rainbow— and they are not the first to use the rainbow flag as a symbol. The rainbow has been used throughout the world. However, the overarching meaning of the rainbow flag is one of respect for God, Creator of Nature and for His Law.

    When aberrosexualists misappropriate the rainbow flag they are attempting to camouflage their war against Nature and their contempt for God’s Law. Instead, the rainbow flag is one of abiding respect for God —the full respect that Godly people seek for the Natural Order, for the way God intends all of us live —and also the respect this way of living invites for the Marriage, the Family and Human Life. Christians fly the rainbow flag as an invitation to aberrosexuals to join them honoring God’s Law and Covenant.

    Herein lies the difference: while aberrosexualists may want to see “diversity” in the aberrosexualist movement, they fail to understand that rainbows mean much more than that. The aberrosexualist movement is about contempt for God’s Law, a war against Nature and oppression of aberrosexuals within the deadly grip of a self-destructive, ungodly behavior, —and it’s difficult to imagine the rainbow ever representing such a movement.

    The mere fact that aberrosexualists would want to cloak themselves with the rainbow simply underscores the power of the symbol. Every time aberrosexualists use a rainbow they want us to think of them, instead of God’s Promise, His Law, and His love for Creation. While deep down, aberrosexualists abhor the rainbow’s true meaning, at least it keeps God, the Rainbow’s Creator, in their minds, and perhaps one day, they’ll let Him into their hearts as well.

  58. Jamie
    December 20th, 2010 at 12:48 | #58

    @Dr. Carlos Diaz Lujan

    Thank you, I now have discovered a MORE offensive term. Good thing it describes exactly what I am.

  59. Mark
    December 20th, 2010 at 21:34 | #59

    Dr. Carlos Diaz Lujan, I googled “aberrosexualists” and the first link I come to is “homophobe”
    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=aberrosexualists

    And, as a doctor, you DO know that those who are more homophobic are more sexually aroused by gay sex? One might even go so far as to say that those who shout the loudest, have the stronger attraction.

    “Every time aberrosexualists use a rainbow they want us to think of them, instead of God’s Promise, His Law, and His love for Creation.”

    Or Skittles……just saying. And that’s why this whole discussion is so ridiculous and petty.

  60. Sean
    December 21st, 2010 at 06:29 | #60

    Just as marriage can accommodate both opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples, the rainbow and its many variations may be used to represent different things. You have my permission to use it in different ways!

  61. Paul H
    December 21st, 2010 at 07:51 | #61

    Jamie :
    @Paul H
    What did that have to do with Transexuals? Anything?
    Hi Jamie,

    You’re right that my post had little if anything to do with transsexuals. I really was replying more to the comment that you quoted than to your comment, and so I should have quoted your comment differently to make that clear. With your comment, I saw that someone (in the comment that you quoted) had called for “gay rights,” which for them includes redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. I then saw that you had quickly jumped on that comment to say, “wait, don’t forget this other group.” (The fact that the group you highlighted was transsexuals is really not relevant to my point.) My point therefore was that if marriage is defined as the union of any two persons, regardless of sex, as desired by those who advocate for “gay rights,” then very soon other groups too will want to get in on this redefinition (e.g., polygamists, polyamorists, etc.).

  62. Paul H
    December 21st, 2010 at 07:53 | #62

    Jamie :
    @Paul H
    What did that have to do with Transexuals? Anything?

    Hi Jamie,

    You’re right that my post had little if anything to do with transsexuals. I really was replying more to the comment that you quoted than to your comment, and so I should have quoted your comment differently to make that clear. With your comment, I saw that someone (in the comment that you quoted) had called for “gay rights,” which for them includes redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. I then saw that you had quickly jumped on that comment to say, “wait, don’t forget this other group.” (The fact that the group you highlighted was transsexuals is really not relevant to my point.) My point therefore was that if marriage is defined as the union of any two persons, regardless of sex, as desired by those who advocate for “gay rights,” then very soon other groups too will want to get in on this redefinition (e.g., polygamists, polyamorists, etc.).

  63. Paul H
    December 21st, 2010 at 08:09 | #63

    Sean :
    “What about their rights to create a group marriage? And their rights to be protected from discrimination? Limiting marriage to only two partners is just so close-minded and discriminatory, right?”
    Limiting marriage to couples doesn’t violate anyone’s constitutional rights. These “slippery slope” arguments are rather weak, which you probably know but pursue them anyway. But so what if there were group marriage? If that’s what people want to do, so what? Tell us what harms come from it. If there are harms, then there are reasons to prohibit them, right? If there are no harms, beyond your personal disapproval, then why not legalize polygamy?

    Hi Sean,

    Let me re-quote your first sentence:

    “Limiting marriage to couples doesn’t violate anyone’s constitutional rights.”

    And now, let me add a similar sentence of my own:

    “Limiting marriage to one man and one woman doesn’t violate anyone’s constitutional rights.”

    Could you please explain to me why you think that one of these sentences is true, and the other is false? On what logical basis do you make a distinction?

    I could see how you might make this distinction if there weren’t any real people out there wanting to form marriages consisting of more than two people, but in fact there are.

    Also, you are free to call my argument a “slippery slope” and thus dismiss it if you want. I don’t see my argument as a “slippery slope”; I see it as simply applying the same logic that is used to justify same-sex “marriage” to other types of relationships.

    The end part of your post, in which you express tacit approval for legalizing polygamy, is exactly what I was referring to when I wrote: “My fear though is that soon enough, most people who currently support SSM will be making exactly the same arguments I made above, only they won’t mean them sarcastically.”

    But let me ask you this: If you are OK with legalizing polygamous marriages, on the basis that no harm comes from it, then are you also OK with legal recognition as marriage for other types of relationships I mentioned, namely polyamory and incest? If yes, then it seems that virtually any relationship among any number of people can be a marriage, in your view. What then would be the purpose of having the government legally recognize marriage at all? Doesn’t this just bring us to the “government registry of friends” that Dr. Morse often talks about?

  64. December 21st, 2010 at 15:28 | #64

    It’s about time! I have been ‘irked’ for years that God’s beautiful rainbow promise to us was ‘usurped’ by the homosexual lobby. It is typical that God’s creation, intended for good, is subjected to inferior imitation by the enemy.

  65. Barbara
    December 21st, 2010 at 16:08 | #65

    There is a darkness of spirit which overshadows many people who shun the truths of God. This darkness manifests as an iniquity which places a death-grip on a person’s mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual facets of being. Psychological counseling will not help these people. An iniquity is only released by a person’s subjugation of his or her self to the Creator in reparation for shunning His truth for lies. Does that sentiment sound familiar?

    Homosexual behavior is learned early in life through emotional longing, mental habituation and sexual experimentation. Young boys who do not “measure up” to their male peers become enamored, fearful and in awe of male counterparts. The phrase that “what is exotic becomes erotic” is true for the males. These young boys, especially at the puberty phase, become stirred by what they never became themselves: confirmed in their maleness. They are targets for older male homosexuals who introduce them to male porn, early sexual experimentation and masturbation. This behavior becomes addictive and sets up a brain pattern which is difficult to overcome, like alcoholism. When a woman is emotionally dependent because of wounds that she has sustained, she feels as though she literally cannot exist without the object of her dependency, another woman, with whom she finds the part of the female self that she never emotionally grew into. She needs constant reassurance from the other woman, emotive displays of affection, and copious amounts of time with her. This emotional dependency is like idolatry: this other woman has become a sort of god.

    Dependency remains a driving force in the male and female homosexual person’s personality. Why else would those who are same-sex attracted be so unrelenting in their desire to legalize and establish homosexuality in law, religion, and society. Each of the populations is so needy that they cannot love in the giving husband and wife model. They can only take from their own neediness; they seek in their partners that which did not develop in themselves. Are these realities models for parenting? Should they bring children into their disordered lifestyle? The desire for children is not coming from a complementarity of love, but from a neediness that has gone unfulfilled.

    Regardless of the gay activism which succeeded in creating support for their agenda throughout America and in fact the secular world, the science and ethics remain constant. There is no gay gene, God tells us that homogenital sex is a moral wrong, and when we sin egregiously it affects the whole person and the world. Because of the increasing acceptance of immorality by adults, our children’s future is assured of more mental, physical, emotional and spiritual disease. Are we so jaded that good, solid citizens are willing to stifle their consciences for the popular vote? God has something to say to us. Those who practice and promote homosexual behavior have sustained an iniquity and are no longer capable of discernment. These truths are unpopular because we have lost our religion; but they are the truths.

  66. Mark
    December 21st, 2010 at 16:30 | #66

    Paul H., it would be helpful to stick to one point instead of confusing the issue with multiple points.
    First, if marriage is currently one man- one woman, what is the harm of allowing SSM?
    Second, if marriage is a union of two people, what it wrong with combining multiple people?

    See? It’s clearer to separate your points.

  67. NJBrown
    December 21st, 2010 at 16:31 | #67

    OK, everyone links the rainbow to Noah and the Ark….me too…but while researching the subject I’ve found nothing in the Bible to substantiate that. Any help? Am I missing the scripture completely???

  68. Mark
    December 21st, 2010 at 16:32 | #68

    GG: “I have been ‘irked’ for years that God’s beautiful rainbow promise to us was ‘usurped’ by the homosexual lobby. It is typical that God’s creation, intended for good, is subjected to inferior imitation by the enemy.”

    But, then the Judeo-Christian religious belief could be said to have “usurped” the rainbow from older cultures (like it did so many other things).

  69. NJBrown
    December 21st, 2010 at 16:37 | #69

    OK, nevermind….I found it in Genesis 9: 13-17. Was delighted to see you wearing a rainbow scarf in court. I love the symbol of the rainbow and am so tired of people claiming it for a lifestyle and not a promise from God.

  70. Jamie
    December 21st, 2010 at 17:17 | #70

    @Paul H

    We just want to not be considered crazy and have the same job protections others do. . . . I can already get married. I would like the legal community to reflect the scientific community, and the scientific community to not sweep transsexuals under the rug. So uh, we aren’t hurting anyone? We aren’t insane? We deserve those protections necessary for us to live as our sex/gender.

  71. Martha
    December 21st, 2010 at 17:18 | #71

    As a professional animal trainer and behaviorist, I’d like to know what “studies” you derive your information from. Animals that engage in homosexual behavior are a. not actually trying to breed, but engaging in a dominance behavior, or b. if actually trying to breed, autopsies show some illness. Aka – bulls trying to breed other bulls during breeding season when there are cows present have physiologic abnormalites. These bulls die a month or so later of “broken penis” syndrome – an extremely painful condition that prevents the bull from urinating properly and causing obvious complications. Ask any rancher. Cats engaging in said behavior are generally ill or very elderly and suffering from CDS. Now, as to dominance. Horses in a herd situation, particularly dry lot where they are dependent on humans to feed them, engage in dominance behaviors that mimic breeding activities. Horses of the same gender will engage in kicking and biting to establish the pecking order. If there is a conflict between two dominant animals, the most dominant will sometimes mount the other in a mating like appearance, which is literally a “me over you”. This is to show dominace in the herd and in the feeding order for doled out hay. The most pure form of this behavior is exemplified in our prisons, where incarcerated individuals sexually assault smaller, weaker individuals to intimidate and show dominance.

    AND… most importantly – regardless of whether one believes animals engage in homosexual behavior or are instead suffering from some form of illness or dementia, arent WE, as HUMAN BEINGS, supposed to be BETTER than animals, and capable of making RIGHT CHOICES??????? Food for thought. And no, God does NOT want us to be merely happy…recall Job. God gives us trials in order to hone us into better individuals, or make us appreciate the good. How can one appreciate good unless one has experienced bad? True happiness is derived from our love of God, and his desire for the absolute best for us. One can be happy stealing a candy bar, but that sweetness is transitory and tainted with guilt. True happiness is from doing the right thing, for the right reasons, in celebration of what our Lord created – our bodies are temples to the Lord and we must treat them so. To do otherwise is to deny our potential – our very existence. Man is XY, woman is XY chromosomes… to behave in a homosexual manner denies every cell in our body.

    @Mark

  72. Martha
    December 21st, 2010 at 17:24 | #72

    Sorry – scuse the typo, last sentance should read Man is XY, woman is XX chromosomes, to behave in a homosexual manner denies every cell in our body.

  73. Jamie
    December 21st, 2010 at 20:09 | #73

    @Martha

    What studies is he citing? Excuse me while i pull the wool out from over your eyes. Um, I respect your experience as an animal trainer, but uh, hes citing stuff from the American Psychological Association. The scientists who study human behavior? Yeah. Also, heterosex is just as much an expression of dominance in a lot of cases. In just as many as homosex is. But i think we can agree, outside of rape, sex is not an expression of dominance, though in rape it most certainly is (or forced marriage, for that matter) However, It is same to say that homosex is most certainly NOT rape, any more than heterosex is.

  74. Mark
    December 21st, 2010 at 21:17 | #74

    Martha, here’s an article from the NYT:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/magazine/04animals-t.html

    another from National Geographic:
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
    and another:
    http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx
    and another:
    http://www.thethinkingblog.com/2008/10/animals-gone-wild-homosexuality-in.html

    So there actually appears to be lots of info and studies out there to support homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

    Now, to your second point about “choice” and “behavior”. I always have to laugh at anti-gay individuals. They first start out about how it isn’t inborn. When numerous studies show that it is, they jump to behavior/choice. And, of course, homosexual behavior is bad. Why? Because of a few incorrectly translated, cherry picked versus out of the Christian Bible. Besides the fact that science has learned a lot in 2000 years, these gay-haters continue to stick to outdated myths while at the same time ,curiously, failing to follow other verses in the same Bible that apply to them.

    “True happiness is from doing the right thing, for the right reasons, in celebration of what our Lord created – our bodies are temples to the Lord and we must treat them so.”

    I couldn’t agree more. Beethoven was given the gift of music from God and it would have been sinful for him not to have pursued it. It is the same for the gay or lesbian individual. God created them in His image; to deny who and what they are would be just as sinful.

  75. znorori
    December 21st, 2010 at 21:38 | #75

    someone should make reclaim the rainbow with a picture of Noah’s ark + animals bumper stickers and car decals. I would proudly put it on my car. We need not be afraid and show what we stand for.

  76. faithful
    December 22nd, 2010 at 07:35 | #76

    Amen! I have been saying this for years! I want the rainbow back!!

  77. Paul H
    December 22nd, 2010 at 08:29 | #77

    Mark :
    Paul H., it would be helpful to stick to one point instead of confusing the issue with multiple points.
    First, if marriage is currently one man- one woman, what is the harm of allowing SSM?
    Second, if marriage is a union of two people, what it wrong with combining multiple people?
    See? It’s clearer to separate your points.

    From the way that you phrased the questions, I take it that you do not see any harm in allowing same-sex unions or unions of three or more people to be legally defined as marriage. If that is so, then I would be curious to know what restrictions, if any, do you think there should be, regarding who can marry and what types of relationships can be recognized as marriage?

    Also, if the definition of marriage is as free-form and unrestricted as you seem to desire, then why not have marriage be a private thing that the government does not get involved in? Or if you think that the government should be involved, then why? Why should the government have the job of deciding what relationship does or does not count as marriage, and why should the government provide legal benefits for married couples/groups, in your opinion?

  78. Sean
    December 22nd, 2010 at 11:44 | #78

    Like marriage, the rainbow and its colors can be used by both gay people and straight people.

  79. Jamie
    December 22nd, 2010 at 11:47 | #79

    @Paul H

    The government should be involved only to provide the necessary benefits for navigating the various bureaucratic institutions. For instance, visitation rights, adoption, next of kin, all that sort of thing. If that wasn’t needed as it is in this day an age, we would no require government involvement in marriage. As to weather or not multiple marriages should be allowed, I think much more research into the impact that has on children must be first conducted.

  80. bman
    December 22nd, 2010 at 21:03 | #80

    Mark :
    Marty: Race is no more relevant to marriage than so-called “sexual orientation”.”

    Mark: Than you must support same sex marriage.

    Your reply was totally disconnected from the context of Marty’s post.

    The full context of his statement said this:

    race doesn’t have anything to do with marriage. Meanwhile, the combination of 1 man and 1 woman has a potency that is umatched by anything else. Heck, even homosexuals know this, which is why they have to hire a 3rd party to create a family.
    Race is no more relevant to marriage than so-called “sexual orientation”. What matters — that is powerful — is when a man and a woman come together. Regardless of either one’s skin color or “orientation”.

    Clearly, his post meant this: “race and sexual orientation have nothing to do with marriage because what matters is opposite sex biology.”

    Its simply incoherent to respond to that with, “Then you must support same sex marriage.”

  81. Paul H
    December 23rd, 2010 at 05:47 | #81

    Jamie :
    @Paul H
    The government should be involved only to provide the necessary benefits for navigating the various bureaucratic institutions. For instance, visitation rights, adoption, next of kin, all that sort of thing. If that wasn’t needed as it is in this day an age, we would no require government involvement in marriage. As to weather or not multiple marriages should be allowed, I think much more research into the impact that has on children must be first conducted.

    Hi Jamie,

    Thanks for your very interesting response. I would say two things:

    First, visitation rights, adoption, and next of kin issues can mostly be worked out by going to a lawyer and filling out the appropriate legal forms. If there are cases where that doesn’t work, then I would support changing the law so that it does. (With the one exception being adoption, because I believe that children ideally need a mother and a father, and that therefore the state should not support other models of adoption.)

    Second, in regard to defining groups or three or more adults as marriages, you said, “I think much more research into the impact that has on children must be first conducted.” This seems like a very reasonable statement to me, and probably to most people who read it. And isn’t it interesting that you can say this about group marriages with very little fear of having anyone call you a bigot, a hater, or a homophobe! Yet those are exactly the things that I would most likely be called if I said we need more research into the impact on children of being raised by same-sex couples, before we decide to redefine marriage to include such couples.

    What does this tell us about the state of debate on this issue? What does this tell us about the assumptions that people are making about other people’s motives in this debate?

  82. Sean
    December 23rd, 2010 at 15:46 | #82

    “First, visitation rights, adoption, and next of kin issues can mostly be worked out by going to a lawyer and filling out the appropriate legal forms.”

    At great expense. What married couples get for a $35 license, same-sex couples spend hundreds, if not thousands, in legal fees. Is this fair? And it is impossible to legalize something like not having to testify against a spouse or partner in a court trial through contract. That is a benefit solely available to married couples.

    “isn’t it interesting that you can say this about group marriages with very little fear of having anyone call you a bigot, a hater, or a homophobe”

    That’s because no one’s identity is being attacked in discussing polygamy. There is no such thing as a polygamist identity. Polygamy is a behavior or status, not an identity. When people oppose same-sex marriage, they’re claiming that some couples, gay ones, are worth less than other, straight, couples. That’s a big problem, on a lot of levels!

  83. cheryl roe
    December 23rd, 2010 at 17:20 | #83

    I agree with you 100% Dr. Morse:

    The rainbow is the symbol from God promising us never again to flood the whole world. A communication directly from God to all humans, how pure and wonderful. Not at all meant to be put in a perverted and sinful meaning as the symbol for homosexuals, which by the way, God says homosexuality is an abomination and sinful. MY RAINBOW’s MEANING WILL STAY RIGHT WHERE IT BELONGS….A WONDERFUL PROMISE FROM GOD AND I WILL GLADLY DISPLAY IT WITH THAT INTENT ON MYSELf and/or MY PROPERTY! NO ONE IS STEALING THE TRUE MEANING AND SYMBOL OF THE RAINBOW FROM ME! Cheryl

  84. Paul H
    December 23rd, 2010 at 21:08 | #84

    Sean :
    “First, visitation rights, adoption, and next of kin issues can mostly be worked out by going to a lawyer and filling out the appropriate legal forms.”
    At great expense. What married couples get for a $35 license, same-sex couples spend hundreds, if not thousands, in legal fees. Is this fair? And it is impossible to legalize something like not having to testify against a spouse or partner in a court trial through contract. That is a benefit solely available to married couples.

    With the availability of services like legalzoom.com, I wonder if the “great expense” part is true. But if it is, then I would support measures to alleviate that expense. So we have no disagreement there. As for testifying against a spouse or partner in court, that is such a rare situation that I truly don’t believe it is going to be the sticking point in this argument. :-)

    “isn’t it interesting that you can say this about group marriages with very little fear of having anyone call you a bigot, a hater, or a homophobe”
    That’s because no one’s identity is being attacked in discussing polygamy. There is no such thing as a polygamist identity. Polygamy is a behavior or status, not an identity. When people oppose same-sex marriage, they’re claiming that some couples, gay ones, are worth less than other, straight, couples. That’s a big problem, on a lot of levels!

    So you believe that homosexual relationships and polygamous relationships are different in that the former is an identity, while the latter is a behavior. What do you base this distinction on? I see no basis at all for this distinction, other than that you say so.

    And you apparently think that I value same-sex couples less than opposite sex couples (I don’t, but evidently you feel that I do). Don’t you think that polygamists might feel the same way about people who oppose their “marriages”?

  85. Paul H
    December 23rd, 2010 at 21:17 | #85

    By the way, Sean, I really appreciate you replying to my comments above. I had also asked you a couple of questions in an earlier comment that you haven’t answered. I would be interested in your reply, though of course I understand if you don’t have time. Here is the part of my earlier comment containing these questions, with your earlier comment quoted as well for context:

    Paul H :

    Sean :
    “What about their rights to create a group marriage? And their rights to be protected from discrimination? Limiting marriage to only two partners is just so close-minded and discriminatory, right?”
    Limiting marriage to couples doesn’t violate anyone’s constitutional rights. These “slippery slope” arguments are rather weak, which you probably know but pursue them anyway. But so what if there were group marriage? If that’s what people want to do, so what? Tell us what harms come from it. If there are harms, then there are reasons to prohibit them, right? If there are no harms, beyond your personal disapproval, then why not legalize polygamy?

    Hi Sean,
    Let me re-quote your first sentence:
    “Limiting marriage to couples doesn’t violate anyone’s constitutional rights.”
    And now, let me add a similar sentence of my own:
    “Limiting marriage to one man and one woman doesn’t violate anyone’s constitutional rights.”
    Could you please explain to me why you think that one of these sentences is true, and the other is false? On what logical basis do you make a distinction?
    I could see how you might make this distinction if there weren’t any real people out there wanting to form marriages consisting of more than two people, but in fact there are.

  86. Jamie
    December 23rd, 2010 at 21:52 | #86

    @Paul H

    First, visitation rights, adoption, and next of kin issues can mostly be worked out by going to a lawyer and filling out the appropriate legal forms. If there are cases where that doesn’t work, then I would support changing the law so that it does. (With the one exception being adoption, because I believe that children ideally need a mother and a father, and that therefore the state should not support other models of adoption.)
    Second, in regard to defining groups or three or more adults as marriages, you said, “I think much more research into the impact that has on children must be first conducted.” This seems like a very reasonable statement to me, and probably to most people who read it. And isn’t it interesting that you can say this about group marriages with very little fear of having anyone call you a bigot, a hater, or a homophobe! Yet those are exactly the things that I would most likely be called if I said we need more research into the impact on children of being raised by same-sex couples, before we decide to redefine marriage to include such couples.

    First off, the last thing you said is very reasonable. Except, if you uh, talk to psychologists, they will tell you that homosexual couples raise children that perform roughly the same as heterosexual couples’ children. Same rate of mental dysfunction, same level of social functioning, similar IQ, etc etc. Next, they also go into to detriments to homosexual couples, homosexuals, and the children of homosexuals of deny them marriage.

    Towards your first paragraph, again, what sean said, it costs a rather large amount of money. Why should it not be the default? As for adoption, see the preceding paragraph.

    L

  87. Melly
    December 27th, 2010 at 15:46 | #87

    @Barbara
    Thank you, Barbara, for articulating the psychology behind same sex attraction. The APA used to define it as arrested psychological development, until that became politically incorrect.

  88. Melly
    December 27th, 2010 at 23:08 | #88

    @Mark
    No, it was homosexuality. Genesis 19:5
    I know homosexuals have been tormented, and that is wrong, but I have also seen a preacher spat on and an old woman threatened and the cross she was carrying knocked out of her hands.
    I have the right to disapprove of your lifestyle choice, and not be called names.
    You can’t make me hate you, because I will not allow you to have that power.
    Disapproval does not equal hate. I’ve seen much more vitriol under the rainbow.
    You have the right, as you say, to act upon your feelings, but I have the right to believe it is not a marriage. You don’t want merely the title, you want acceptance for something that all religions view as unacceptable, and religious people vilified for speaking against it.
    Through the power of His life and death and resurrection, Jesus can break any bondage that prevents us from having the abundant life He promised. He is the way, the truth and the life.

  89. Jamie
    December 29th, 2010 at 18:22 | #89

    @Melly

    Uh, no, thats not it at all. Take it from someone who studies psychology and is (shortly) going to be majoring in it. So, uh, if research says something, then maybe we should go on that? What Barbara said was utterly untrue.
    Also “You don’t want merely the title, you want acceptance for something that all religions view as unacceptable, and religious people vilified for speaking against it.” Buddhists don’t condemn it. I’m sure several religions don’t. And uh, I really don’t care what Jesus says when it comes to legal matters. Maybe if he had said them 10 years ago, rather than 2000. Regardless, despite what you may believe, our laws are now based on equality and justice, not Christian morality.

    “I know homosexuals have been tormented, and that is wrong, but I have also seen a preacher spat on and an old woman threatened and the cross she was carrying knocked out of her hands.”
    Justifying injustice with more injustice, how quaint.

  90. Paul H
    January 2nd, 2011 at 22:30 | #90

    Jamie :
    @Paul H

    Second, in regard to defining groups or three or more adults as marriages, you said, “I think much more research into the impact that has on children must be first conducted.” This seems like a very reasonable statement to me, and probably to most people who read it. And isn’t it interesting that you can say this about group marriages with very little fear of having anyone call you a bigot, a hater, or a homophobe! Yet those are exactly the things that I would most likely be called if I said we need more research into the impact on children of being raised by same-sex couples, before we decide to redefine marriage to include such couples.

    First off, the last thing you said is very reasonable. Except, if you uh, talk to psychologists, they will tell you that homosexual couples raise children that perform roughly the same as heterosexual couples’ children. Same rate of mental dysfunction, same level of social functioning, similar IQ, etc etc.
    But what if I’m just not satisfied/convinced by the current research into the effects of same-sex parents on children, especially since the research is not all one-sided. And what if I then say, just as you said about group marriages, “I think much more research into the impact that has on children must be first conducted.” Why will I likely be called a hateful bigot by certain people for saying this, and you won’t?

    (The answer quite simply is that pro-SSM supporters are conducting a long and hard-fought campaign to paint those who disagree with them as bigots, while the pro-polygamy crowd hasn’t gotten organized and tried that tactic, at least not yet.)

Comments are closed.