Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Law Cited in Canadian Polygamy Trial
April 1st, 2011
from WinnipegFreePress.com:
The last time Canadians had a debate about the definition of marriage, it was over whether gays and lesbians had a constitutional right to marry.In the end, the courts decided they did.
Now, as a British Columbia judge weighs whether polygamy should be decriminalized, advocates on both sides of the debate are pointing to the legalization of same-sex marriage to bolster their claims.
Loading ...
It seems to me that polygamy is already legal: a man or woman can have multiple spouses over a lifetime. I’m not sure I understand the distinction or importance of having only one spouse at a time. Polygamy seems odd to me, but mostly because of its roots in religion. But my lack of comfort with polygamy is no more rational that other peoples’ discomfort with same-sex marriage.
@Sean You are being disingenuous – you know very well that there is a difference between different partners over a lifetime and multiple parters at the same time.
I have no idea what you mean by polygamy having roots in religion – you might want to explain that.
No, it is rational to be uncomfortable with same-sex faux marriage because it is two incompatible human bodies doing something unnatural. At least in polygamy the biology is correct.
“You are being disingenuous – you know very well that there is a difference between different partners over a lifetime and multiple partners at the same time.”
Actually I don’t see what the real difference is, practically. What if a man wanted three women, and arranged to marry each of them, serially, for one year each, and repeating an annual divorce and remarriage cycle until he dies. Essentially he is in a polygamous arrangement. He may even be having sex with all three, while only being married to one at a time. He has created a multiple partner arrangement, skirting polygamy laws and doing nothing illegal. He can even proclaim his commitment to friends and family to all three women, and they to him.
Marriage isn’t based on biological compatibility but rather, law.
Just a note – the case in Canada is about legalizing polygamy not polygamous marriage.
Seems rather arbitrary to say that arrangement is doing nothing illegal even when it clearly isn’t recognized fully by the state, but a same arrangement where a man “proclaims his commitment to his friends and family” about another man that isn’t fully recognized by the state Sean claims is considered “illegal”.
The law treats both the same. They aren’t recognized as married, both the two of the three women, and the other man in the other scenario. But to Sean, one is calling the arrangement illegal, and the other is perfectly legal.
Its always interesting, these contradictions. The truth is both situations are legal, or both aren’t legal. You can’t have it both ways depending on who you want to arbitrarily or jealously restrict can be considered a victim.
@Sean Marriage is based on biological compatibility, because marriage has a definition. The law cannot arbitrarily redefine a word just because a bunch of activists want to be included in that definition.
@Glenn E. Chatfield
So you are okay with polygamy because the biology is right, but not with same-sex marriage because the biology is wrong? I just want to know at what point you draw the line.
Emma, based solely on the one-sexed scenario, can you justify a line against group SSM or even polygamous-like SSM? I doubt it.
Well at least polygamous and even incestous marriages have some historical and biological support. Same-sex marriage has neither. Might as well marry a shoe.
@Emma In the realm of nature, there is nothing wrong with polygamy. In the realm of morality, single spouse is the rule. I am not “okay” with polygamy because it is harmful to society, harmful to the wives, harmful to the children (I have studied polygamy quite extensively as part of my studies in the history of the Mormon church), and against God’s design for marriage.
I am against SSM from a biological standpoint right off the bat – it is unnatural and a misuse of human sexuality. It is harmful in too many ways. And of course, it goes against God’s design, as well as his command.
“Seems rather arbitrary to say that arrangement is doing nothing illegal even when it clearly isn’t recognized fully by the state, but a same arrangement where a man “proclaims his commitment to his friends and family” about another man that isn’t fully recognized by the state Sean claims is considered “illegal””
I’m not talking about recognition, I’m talking about polygamy. It is, for all intents and purposes, polygamy for a man to marry and divorce a set of three women on a regular cycle over a period of time. Sean does not claim that it is illegal for a man to proclaim his commitment to another man. It’s just not legal marriage unless the loving couple possess that all-important $35 marriage license we’re spending way too much time discussing.
“The law treats both the same. They aren’t recognized as married, both the two of the three women, and the other man in the other scenario. But to Sean, one is calling the arrangement illegal, and the other is perfectly legal.”
The law does not treat a married couple and an unmarried couple the same. There are over a thousand benefits and rights available to the married couple that are not available to the unmarried couple. That’s not exactly “treating them the same.”
It is perfectly legal, in the “traditional” marriage paradigm, for a man and three women to do as I have described, creating a polygamous arrangement. And so long as they’re straight, the religionists won’t object. So much for the sanctity of marriage, when straight people are involved.
“Its always interesting, these contradictions.”
It’s not very interesting if you are a same-sex couple in a committed relationship, and society says your relationship isn’t as important as the relationships of straight people.
“The truth is both situations are legal, or both aren’t legal. You can’t have it both ways depending on who you want to arbitrarily or jealously restrict can be considered a victim.”
I knew you would try to find some way to refute whatever point I happen to be making. But I think you’ve reached an impasse on this one. It is legal for a straight man to take three (or more!) wives, so long as they aren’t at the same time. It is not legal, in most states, for a gay man to have even one spouse. For reasons that remain unknown.
Different comment, same content.
A man with three wives (only one is recognized as a marriage) all three are legal in Sean’s book, but if he has a non-recognized husband then we need to label that as illegal.
Quite simple, Sean’s definition of legal is arbitrary based on how it promotes or causes sympathy for gays or not.
@Sean There are NOT “over a thousand benefits and rights available to the married couple that are not available to the unmarried couple.” There are very few rights, and they are based on federal and annuity benefits, as well as some insurance benefits, all of which are intended to foster the family as the bedrock of society – a normal family, that is, not one made up out of whole cloth of two of the same-sex and whatever they want to bring in. All other benefits are had easily by legal contracts.
You keep making blanket statements about what “religionists” will or will not do, but that word includes people of all religions, including secular humanism. How about narrowing down your claims?
SSM is NOT as important as normal marriage because SSM gives no benefit to society. And you keep claiming the reasons for this are unknown, yet deny that all the reasons have been provided.
“Besides love and companionship, there are many benefits to marriage, especially in the eyes of the law. In fact, there are 1,138 federal benefits, rights and responsibilities associated with marriage [ref]. In this section, we’ll list some of those benefits.
Spouses have or are entitled to:
visitation rights and can make medical decisions, unless otherwise specified in a living will
benefits for federal employees — many of which are also offered by private employers — such as sick leave, bereavement leave, days off for the birth of a child, pension and retirement benefits, family health insurance plans
some property and inheritance rights, even in the absence of a will
the ability to create life insurance trusts
tax benefits, such as being able to give tax free gifts to a spouse and to file joint tax returns
the ability to receive Medicare, Social Security, disability and veteran’s benefits for a spouse
discount or family rates for auto, health and homeowners insurance
immigration and residency benefits, making it easier to bring a spouse to the U.S. from abroad
visiting rights in jail”
So there are a lot of benefits, and not nearly all of them can be obtained outside of marriage. Besides, why should gay couples pay thousands when a simple $35 marriage license does the trick?
Don’t like religionists? Ok, how about “Christians,”?
Same-sex marriage benefits society by providing the children of same-sex couples the security of having married parents. Marriage also helps form families, and couples who take care of each other, instead of needing state assistance.
Sean’s reply to Glenn was just vague handwaving, but even then turns up lies and contradictions.
I just want to re-iterate this note in line with what I noted about Sean in the previous comment.
For all his complaining about what a man and a man might not receive, he’s perfectly happy to relegate two out of three spouses to the same fate. In fact he seems more than happy to do it.
@Sean Looks like some cut and paste, and there aren’t “1,138 federal benefits….”
VIsitation rights and medical decisions can be had by legal contract and powers-of-attorney. I know because I have one allowing such for unrelated individuals,
Bereavement leave is a subset of sick leave (I was a fed employee for 38 years). These types of leave are for the fostering of the normal family, not some bizarre construct. The normal family is the bedrock of society; same-sex unions provide no benefit to society. Same-sex couples can not have a baby by themselves, so how would they need maternity leave? But, the one having the baby always gets it whether married or not! And it is also a subset of sick leave, or can be taken from vacation leave. Pension/retirement benefits are also there for fostering the normal family unit as the bedrock of society. Family health insurance plans are also for that reason.
Many of these benefits were developed so the wife could stay home and raise the children and still be able to have income if her husband died, and still have insurance under her husband’s employment. This is something not needed in a same sex relationship unless they decide to punish children by forcing them to be part of it. Their relationship is not fostered because it does not help society.
Property and inheritance are secured by wills and not needed for marriage. Again, our will provides for these for non family members.
Tax laws tend to punished the married – that’s why they call it a “marriage penalty.” But again, it is to foster the bedrock unit of society.
Medicare, SS, etc are for providing for the bedrock unit of society – not any grouping of people who come along. Besides which, Medicare and SS should be done away with as they are unConstitutional.
This really shows what the main goal is – getting more money from the government!
Many health, life, car and home insurers now provide benefits for same-sex couples as they would for real marriages. But why force companies to raise their risks just to insure people they don’t want to insure? Homophiles can form their own insurance companies.
Immigration and residency are again for real marriages which build society, not cause its decay.
So where are these 1138 benefits? Or do count each type of insurance as another one? But these aren’t all “federal” which you claimed.
So now you single out Christians when there are many other religions who also say homosexuality is wrong. Sounds hateful and bigoted to me.
Same-sex unions with children are a small minority. So let’s see, 2% of the population is homophile, a very small percentage of them are interested in “marriage” (as demonstrated by the states who allow it), and even smaller percentage have forced children to be part of these unions, and yet you claim this is a reason for allowing “marriage”? SSM has no benefit to society and causes even more harm to society when children are part of it, as they foster the homosexual agenda.
@On Lawn
“When a child is born between two gay couples we’ll worry about this. Talk it up with John Howard all you want.”
First of all, there is damage being done right now by this remaining a legal possibility. It hurts kids and adults every day that goes by where it is legal. It wastes money and resources and energy to develop it, and requires unethical animal experiments and eventually unethical human experiments. It needs to be banned ASAP.
Second, what will you say when it happens? Or, what will you say when a lab announces it is ready to try it?
“Tax laws tend to punished the married – that’s why they call it a “marriage penalty.” But again, it is to foster the bedrock unit of society.”
That makes no sense. If the state wants to promote marriage, why would its tax system punish getting married?
“SSM has no benefit to society and causes even more harm to society when children are part of it, as they foster the homosexual agenda.”
Same-sex marriage benefits society no less than different-sex marriage: the creation of a family, with two adults caring for each other so the taxpayers don’t have to. I don’t know what the homosexual agenda is but I have come to strongly dislike the heterosexual agenda: a world where gay people are marginalized and children are forced to be raised outside of wedlock.
The tax system punishes dual income married families, as it should. Single income families have a smaller carbon footprint and are better for children.
@Sean
“I don’t know what the homosexual agenda is but I have come to strongly dislike the heterosexual agenda: a world where gay people are marginalized and children are forced to be raised outside of wedlock.”
Well, gay people could be assimilated and those children could be raised within the protections and security of civil unions defined as “marriage minus procreation rights” but you refuse that for them, because you think it is more important that the adults have the right to manufacture children together using artificial gametes. Explain that to those kids.
@Sean You redefine words and then claim homophiles are marginalized when they are not allowed to participate in their redefinition of words.
Yes, you are right that the gov’t tax policies, intended to foster the family, has – with liberal policies – turned into a penalty. But you are claiming there is a benefit to this marriage penalty that same-sex couples lack. If it doesn’t benefit real married people, how does it deprive a benefit to same-sex unions?
SSM has absolutely no benefits to society. Homophile can live together all they want, but they can never produce a family unit. They have to borrow children from normal systems and punish the children by being without a father or mother intentionally. The children forced to be in these same-sex unions are the ones forced to be raised outside of true wedlock.
Ahh, the echoes of the past, when people would argue that an all-white school benefits society no less than an integrated school.
Marriage equality — the equal recognition of the rights and responsibilities of the man, woman, and child they potentially have together, has benefits beyond what is possible in the relationship that excludes men, or the one that excludes women.
@On Lawn Why is it that homosexualists can’t understand that skin color can not be compared to sexual proclivities?
Marriage equality is a phrase made up by supporters of SSM. Marriage is equally available to all who are qualified. Those not qualified for marriage include same-sex couples.
Glenn, you know I’m no fan of your arguments. While you’ve made some good arguments, I find you generally more of a hindrance than a help.
My biggest problem with your arguments is how they hijack marriage into some war against homosexuality, with unseemly obeisance to the conservative v liberal political mosh pit of colloquial news. I have no such need to make such a war. I only want to defend families, the needs and responsibilities that children have claim on from their parents, and the needs and responsibilities that the wife and husband have on each other.
And in that lies how your arguments suffer from an even more intrinsic problem…
Ask anyone before 2000 what “marriage equality” means, and they’ll tell you an answer. They won’t complain that the term hasn’t been made up yet because SSM hasn’t become a public dialog.
Yet to you, the argument has narrowed your vision and put blinders on you. You only see the arguments and phrases of both sides. Like a guerrilla fighter you are so narrowly fixed on how your enemies are working the field, hoping to delay and molest them in their endeavors, you cede its most valuable territory to them.
Marriage equality is not a something only understood in the context of SSM. Nor is it valuable only in the context of SSM.
Marriage equality is how we govern the political unit of a family, with integration and equality between the man and the woman.
Gender integration is at least as valuable to a marriage as it is to racial integration in education. In fact, marriage is the oldest institution of integration there is.
A true understanding of equality and integration re-enforces the value of marriage, and compels us to not neuter its definition. It isn’t their territory in some war between left and right. Its marriage’s territory, always has and it always should be.
“Gender integration is at least as valuable to a marriage as it is to racial integration in education. In fact, marriage is the oldest institution of integration there is.”
That presupposes that men and women are at odds, and need to be integrated with some kind of external assistance. That is a false notion, and the concept of integration does not apply to males and females. They find themselves quite appealing, and have no problem coming together!
@On Lawn No, I don’t make marriage into a war against homosexuality. Homosexuality isn’t the issue. The issue is the demand to turn homosexual relations into “marriage.” My argument is always that you can’t redefine marriage to suit such an agenda.
The argument from the SSM side is that it hurts no one, and “mosh pit of colloquial news” as you call it, is to demonstrate that indeed it hurts everyone, let alone the institution of marriage and family itself.
I know what “marriage equality” is supposed to mean, but when I debate the phrase with those supporting SSM I have to use their redefinition of the term to mean SSM has to be allowed.
Your description of what you think my tactics are says to me that you aren’t paying attention as closely as you should be. I’m not tunnel-visioned – I’m attacking the basic premises of the arguments to demonstrate the illogic of their arguments. And you call that a hinderance?
If you demolish the poor premises – the foundations of their arguments – then they can’t get any territory at all. When you don’t allow them to use words by giving them new meanings, it makes it much more difficult for them to make their case – it takes ammunition away from them that they sorely need. It is indeed a war of words which ungirds the assault on marriage and family.
There is another way that marriage is related to equality: it is marriages that are equal to each other, all of them containing a man and a woman. Men and women cannot be equal by themselves, since women can be burdened by pregnancy, and men can not become pregnant. But by joining together into fully human marriages, the men and women in them become equal to the men and women in all other marriages.
That’s not equality folks, it must be more Sean-quality — the act of only supporting whatever promotes gays at the expense of others.
Exactly. Glad we agree.
“The issue is the demand to turn homosexual relations into “marriage.” My argument is always that you can’t redefine marriage to suit such an agenda.”
The issue is, does the government get to favor straight couples over gay couples, and if so, why? If the government gave white couples marriage licenses, but not black couples, we’d all agree that was wrong. So why is it so hard to see the similarity to discriminating against same-sex couples?
“The argument from the SSM side is that it hurts no one”
That’s the least of the argument. The far more important argument is, do we honor our nation’s constitution, and treat all citizens equally, lacking a public purpose to do otherwise? Do we look out for the welfare of children, hundreds of thousands of whom are being forced into having an upbringing outside the confines of marriage. Finally, do we use the force of law to impose religious beliefs on citizens? These are the primary, and most substantive issues.
“It is indeed a war of words which ungirds the assault on marriage and family.”
But if that were true, then the war is over: marriage has already been “redefined” as you call it, to include not just straight couples but also gay couples, in many jurisdictions. So the word has been “redefined” already. For the better, I might add. I would also add that an adult couple raising children in a home they all share are also called “family” by any definition. Your disdain for them doesn’t change that status.
“That’s not equality folks, it must be more Sean-quality — the act of only supporting whatever promotes gays at the expense of others.”
Legal same-sex marriage supports equal rights not just for gays but for children. Children deserve the security of having married parents. You may feel they are acceptable collateral damage in your disdain for gay couples but I don’t, and other decent folks don’t either.
There is no “expense” to others when same-sex marriage is legal, as witnessed in places where same-sex marriage is legal. There is only good: security and equal rights for gay and lesbian couples, greater security for their children, the satisfaction of the parents and siblings of gay people, who want their kin to have the advantages marriage brings.
@Sean “The issue is, does the government get to favor straight couples over gay couples, and if so, why? If the government gave white couples marriage licenses, but not black couples, we’d all agree that was wrong. So why is it so hard to see the similarity to discriminating against same-sex couples?”
It is not “favoring” normal couples over homophile couples for marriage; by definition marriage is ONLY normal couples. You again try to associate skin color with sexual behavior. Skin color is morally neutral and doesn’t affect marriage. Racists who have a problem with skin color were the problem – not the skin color itself. You are trying to compare apples with oak trees.
You can keep saying same-sex couples aren’t treated equally under the constitution just because they are denied marriage, but that is the same as complaining that a dog can’t call his tail a leg. Marriage is not only a religious belief, no matter how many times you want to claim that is the problem. It is a red herring.
Marriage has NOT been already redefined. Just because there are those liberal activist judges and others who try to do so, that doesn’t make it so. A dog’s tail is still a tail and not a leg, a dandelion is still a dandelion and not a rose. “Family” has never been defined by just a group of unrelated people gathering to live together.
@Sean Keep neutering the family and calling it just as good as a family. Children suffer great harm when FORCED to be without a mother or father and raised in a home where perversion is taught as proper human sexuality.
@Sean
Sean, you are the one in a real position to actually help those children of gay couples. You really could be a catalyst to getting their parents protections and recognition in all 50 states and by the federal government, in the form of Civil Unions defined as “marriage minus procreation rights.” But you continue to insist on their parents having a right to conceive offspring together, which is absolutely ridiculous!! How could that possibly help those kids? Give it up and put your money where your mouth is, stop demanding equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. It is not acceptable collateral damage for those families that need protections right now far more than they need equal reproduction rights. Give it up already!
And you are wrong that it won’t cost anything, there will surely be a small cost to pay for the social security survivor benefits and pensions and other benefits that male-female marriages are entitled to.
“It is not “favoring” normal couples over homophile couples for marriage; by definition marriage is ONLY normal couples.”
I wish you could get more widespread exposure: when religionists start referring to gay people as not normal, it is hugely helpful in advancing equality for them.
“You again try to associate skin color with sexual behavior”
I don’t know why you struggle so with the difference between behavior and feelings or longings. But I’ve given up trying to come up with new ways to describe the difference.
“You can keep saying same-sex couples aren’t treated equally under the constitution just because they are denied marriage, but that is the same as complaining that a dog can’t call his tail a leg.”
Ok well I guess Jews should stop calling what they do on Saturday “worshipping” because everybody knows worshipping God can only happen on Sundays! Tell those Jews to stop calling Saturday the Sabbath because everyone knows Sunday is the Sabbath.
“Marriage has NOT been already redefined.”
Marriage has been redefined so many times it’s hard to keep track. It used to be about a man adding a woman to his list of property. It used to be a lifetime commitment. It used to be one man and multiple women. And now, we are finally changing the outmoded “one man and one woman only” definition. It’s about time!
“Children suffer great harm when FORCED to be without a mother or father and raised in a home where perversion is taught as proper human sexuality.”
If there were any truth to that, it would have come out at the Prop 8 trial and the Appeals hearing. Nary a word about the “damage” to children, but plenty of experts who say that same-sex parents do just as good a job as different-sex parents!
“Sean, you are the one in a real position to actually help those children of gay couples. You really could be a catalyst to getting their parents protections and recognition in all 50 states and by the federal government, in the form of Civil Unions defined as “marriage minus procreation rights.””
That’s not true, JH. The same groups that oppose equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians, like NOM and TRI, also oppose civil unions, because they know civil unions will be turned into marriage by the courts (or even the legislatures, as in Connecticut).
There is no virtue in accepting a second-class existence, as civil unions would provide to same-sex couples. The more the religionists insist that gays not be allowed to marry, the more strongly I feel that civil unions are a second-class, “separate water fountains” institution.
“But you continue to insist on their parents having a right to conceive offspring together, which is absolutely ridiculous!!”
Yeah, but, but, but same-sex couples ALREADY have the right to conceive offspring together, whether they’re married or not!
“And you are wrong that it won’t cost anything, there will surely be a small cost to pay for the social security survivor benefits and pensions and other benefits that male-female marriages are entitled to.”
A much bigger savings can be had by letting ONLY same-sex couples have social security survivor benefits and pensions! Cut all the straight people out, and the taxpayers could save billions, if not trillions of dollars!
@Sean A person who thinks homosexuality is “normal” is certain not a normal human being. Normal human beings see homosexuality as a perversion of human sexuality. Science – i.e. biology – also proves homosexual behavior is abnormal.
You are the one who keeps trying to compare skin color with “feelings” (i.e. “behavior).
Drop the skin color argument – it doesn’t hold water. Skin color does not alter what marriage is.
Your logic is getting worse all the time. There is no definition of worship that requires Sunday mornings. In fact, worship can be any time at any place by any person of any religion. You worship homosexuality, for example.
Oh, and it would really be better if you didn’t discuss Scripture or Judaism or Christianity, because you keep demonstrating rank ignorance. The Sabbath is indeed from Friday Sundown to Saturday sundown. Some Christians claim Sunday replaced the Sabbath, but that is untrue because God defined what the Sabbath was.
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/05/are-christians-required-to-keep-sabbath.html
Marriage in all its permutations has still been defined as between members of the opposite sex. I guess it’s about time we redefine a tail as a leg because tail is really outmoded.
The harm to children DID come out at the Prop 8 trial – the judges just denied the evidence as not true. Just like people deny the Holocaust existed. The only “experts” who say SS “parents” do just as good as real parents in raising children are homosexualists. No legitimate researcher would ever make such a foolish statement.
The courts have rightly said that Civil Unions that give the same bundle of rights as marriage are unconstitutional expressions of animus. NOM, or Maggie anyway, has said she supports CU’s provided they aren’t stepping stones or identical to marriage. She agrees with the courts in that respect, as anyone with half a brain would. She would support these CU’s, and so would JRM, because they are defined to lack the essential sine qua non meaning of marriage, and could never be interpreted by the courts as being the same bundle of rights. And the courts would recognize that the distinction was rational, because people can only reproduce as one sex, with the other sex, due to the nature of sexual reproduction, which combines a male and female’s complementary genomic imprinting, so that trying to create children from same-sex parents would be expensive and unethical.
Yes, Civil Unions are second class, but everyone has an equal right to a first class marriage with conception rights. Same-sex couples cannot reproduce ethically.
It’s true it is not prohibited yet, yes. But we will soon enact an Egg and Sperm law prohibiting genetic engineering, which would limit everyone to heterosexual reproduction, whether they are married or not.
I didn’t fully answer this. The thing is, Sean, you insist that same-sex couples continue to have the right to create offspring together What you should do is agree to give up that right. To concede that it isn’t important, that you had been wrong about wanting equal rights. The point is you have to GIVE SOMETHING UP to get the federal recognition in return. Give up insisting on marriage and equality, agree to roll back marriages to CU’s defined as “marriage minus conception rights” and you’ll actually help thousands of families with children. If you truly care about those kids, you’d do that. If you care more about transhumanism, you won’t.
@Sean @Glenn E. Chatfield – Sean, you can’t ignore this. Glenn, don’t let Sean pretend he cares about those children of same-sex couples, or about same-sex couples security at all. All he cares about is that same-sex couples have equal conception rights. That’s one of the reasons to offer the Civil Union compromise: it exposes the real agenda. Sean can’t claim to care about those children if we offer him this compromise and he continues to refuse. You don’t have to endorse it if you don’t want to be complicit in endorsing same-sex couples, but it wouldn’t hurt to remind him that he refuses Civil Unions when they have been offered to him by others.
“A person who thinks homosexuality is “normal” is certain not a normal human being.”
Then I guess the vast majority of straight people aren’t normal beings.
“Normal human beings see homosexuality as a perversion of human sexuality.”
No that’s mostly religionists, who have been taught that being gay is wrong.
“Science – i.e. biology – also proves homosexual behavior is abnormal.”
Actually it’s science that proves it’s normal!
“You worship homosexuality, for example.”
Ok, then you worship heterosexuality, and want to see heterosexuals given special privileges.
“Marriage in all its permutations has still been defined as between members of the opposite sex.”
Except in Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Iowa, Canada, DC, Belgium, the Netherlands, South Africa, Spain, Argentina, Mexico City…..did I miss anyplace?
“The harm to children DID come out at the Prop 8 trial – the judges just denied the evidence as not true.”
What harm is there to children when same-sex couples marry?
@Sean If you think the vast majority of people think homosexuality is normal, you have really deceived yourself.
You keep referring to religionists as the only people who know that homosexuality is abnormal and wrong. Again, you have deceived yourself. You don’t have to be taught that homosexuality is wrong – that is a given by looking at biology. You have to be taught that it is okay!
You say “science” proves it to be normal, but there is no science that does so. Again, you are deceiving yourself.
There are no special privileges for people who are normal in their sexual attractions. You are demanding special privileges based on sexual behavior.
Again, just because some court of law says unions between members of the same sex is “marriage,” that doesn’t change the real definition any more than if they said a tail was a leg would change the definition of leg.
You keep asking the same question about harm to children in a same-sex union, and you have been given answers by more than one person on this blog, yet you continue to act as if the reasons do not exist. You deceive yourself so as to continue thumbing your nose at God.
There are no reasons that suggest that children are harmed by couples in same-sex unions. If there were harms, the state would prohibit the practice of gay and lesbian couples raising children. Letting such couples marry improves the situation enormously. So if it’s ok for gays and lesbians to raise children, it’s really ok for them to marry and raise children! Being raised by married couples is good for kids!
@Sean There is plenty of harm to children raised in SS unions, and you have been provided with plenty of information which you choose to deny or ignore. If you think the State wouldn’t put children in harmful situations, you are deceived. I have personally gone through the state adoption process and have also been involved in several situations with friends. Too often the state just wants to get the kids out of the system and don’t really care what sort of situation they send them in to. Being raised by real married couples is indeed good for kids, giving them mother and father. Being raised in a faux SSM situation is damaging to them.
Yes, there are.
CA9Doc 62
Sean offers what he considers to be a good enough reason to believe there is no harm. This is called a false dilemma…
Which isn’t true. There are many times when the optimal situation isn’t available to a child. It isn’t illegal, its the best they can do, just like two widowed sisters raising children together or a young mother moving in with elderly benefactors. Perhaps such mutual trust does need to be recognized with Reciprocal Beneficiaries. But marriage goes further in trying to promote equality between the man, woman, and child they potentially have together.
“Sean offers what he considers to be a good enough reason to believe there is no harm. This is called a false dilemma…”
OnLawn, I assure you, with all the bigotry against gay people, if there was evidence that same-sex parenting harmed children, you can bet it would be illegal in most southern states and Utah! But it isn’t, and even the rankest homophobes are too embarrassed of themselves to start trying to stop gay people from raising children! Homophobic people are keenly sensitive to what will fly and what won’t fly. Even they know their limits.
But marriage goes further in trying to promote equality between the man, woman, and child they potentially have together, as well as the equality between two same-sex persons, and the child they potentially have and raise together.
Sean goes from false dilemma…
And doubles down, putting all his chips down in full paranoia…
The beginning and end of the tautology is the homophobe in his closet when he is going to sleep at night.
It is the beginning of his justification, and the end at the same time.
@Sean What is really annoying is that homophiles and homosexualists use name-calling against anyone who dares stand against their agenda. “Homophobe” is a word which means “fear of sameness” and yet I have never yet met a person who is afraid of sameness, let alone one who is afraid of homophiles.
You claim “bigotry” so as to marginalize the bonafide concern for the destruction of society which is happening due to the promotion of the homosexual agenda. Try using a little less rhetoric and more rational, logical argumentation.
I already noted that state adoption services don’t care about the harm that comes to children – I’ve seen it over and over again. They are more interested in getting the kids out of the system.
Again, you have been provided with more than enough evidence that being raised in a homophile home is harmful to children in many, many ways. You just deny the facts because they don’t suit your purposes.
“What is really annoying is that homophiles and homosexualists use name-calling against anyone who dares stand against their agenda.”
What’s even more annoying is that heterophiles and heterosexualists want to have rights for themselves that they want denied to gay and lesbian Americans.
““Homophobe” is a word which means “fear of sameness””
As one who uses the word, “homophile,” I don’t think you’re really in much of a position to be correcting other peoples’ word usage. Homophobe is a term used to describe someone who fingers gay and lesbian people for different status or treatment. It doesn’t mean you hate gay people, just that you think they are different and should be treated thus.
“You claim “bigotry” so as to marginalize the bonafide concern for the destruction of society which is happening due to the promotion of the homosexual agenda. Try using a little less rhetoric and more rational, logical argumentation.”
It is bigotry to want to see gay and lesbian Americans treated differently than straight Americans. Human sexuality and its expression is not ruining American. Insisting that we fragment different groups, and give favored status to some, might be though.
Rationality and logic fail to sway the homophobe. They cling to their homophobia like a drowning man to a life preserver. No matter how often they are told that children are better off when their same-sex parents can marry, that our nation’s constitution requires treating all citizens equally, that there’s nothing wrong with being gay, they insist that gay people must be treated differently.
“You have been provided with more than enough evidence that being raised in a homophile home is harmful to children in many, many ways. You just deny the facts because they don’t suit your purposes.”
I have been presented with exactly no reasons why or how a “homophile” home is harmful to children.
Note how Sean immediately sets up a stage, hetero v homo, and look who he pronounces more disgusting…
Yep, for doing the same thing in Sean’s eyes, he judges one group more harshly than the other as “more annoying”.
Sorry, Glenn gets the point on that one. Homophobe is someone who suffers from homophobia, or the fear of homosexuality.
Glenn 4, Sean 1 (running tab).
Actually, Glenn’s idea is to treat them the same. For marriage expect a man and a woman (which recognizes a relationship) whether or not they are gays or lesbians or not.
Trying to set up a single institution where homosexuals are expected to behave differently because they are homosexuals is a special pleading.
Glenn 5, Sean 1.
And therin lies the fallacy of the special pleading. A child has two parents, a man and a woman who combined their identity to create the child.
But to Sean, that identity of male and female that is combined to create a child is meaningless — if they are homosexual. Then parent should mean anyone who has helped raise a child, or as Sean says, ” If a child has bonded with two adults whom he perceives as his caregivers, we should be very careful not to deny that child access to those caregivers. Bonding is a part of a child’s development, and he can be damaged if he is separated from a caregiver.”
The people may be gay or may not be gay. But the relationship and the identities the child was created from is not meaningless, and it is not meaningless that they are a man and a woman in every creation of a child.
But for Sean it is about denying that identity and meaning, putting the needs of our children and mothers and fathers under the bus of promoting gays and lesbians. Or in other words, since gay and lesbian relationships have no way to create children, then he has to throw everything about that act that is unique under the bus because it not in the homosexual relationship. So he instead remakes marriage after their image.