I just read an interesting paper with the thesis: "homosexual weddings constitute the predictable culmination of cultural changes that have radically denatured marriage."

The author, Dr. Bryce Christensen, purports that homosexuals who attempt to gain the right to marry are not killing the traditional marriage as much as putting another nail in the coffin, because it is already dead. He says that in the last century, marriage has lost its religious, economic, social, and sexual significance. What is left of the traditional marriage is a "'mere incidental parking place' for consumption and relaxation" as predicted in the 1950's by a Harvard sociologist. Christensen claims that the reason homosexuals want to marry now is precisely because all of the religious, economic, social, and sexual expectations from a healthy marriage are all but gone now. He says that the reason this whole thing happened is because now, the typical person values himself or herself above all, even the family. I'm not sure I buy all of his arguments (or his phrasing of his arguments), but I think there is a fundamental truth to what he says. Dr. Christensen cites studies and statistics all through his paper (with footnotes) to support his argument, and it is worth a read (though it is a bit longer-winded than most are used to).

Considering my typical post, I guess I can't complain...

Yeah, I'll probably read it later... I don't know about that being the reason or not, but those things are and have happened. *sigh*

Actually i kinda agree with that (even though i voted no on Missouri's marrige amendment).

Like what, 2/3 of all marriges end in divorce? Sadly it has become disposable, like a one time use camera. I've known people to get married 3 times. As far as the religous part goes, since marrige is a govenment institution with different taxation, so. sec. benefits, ect, that is pretty much gone too.

"Putting another nail in the coffin" exactly. Why put another nail in the coffin when you can pull nails out? Even considering to say that homosexual marraige is okay and should be widely accepted is preposterous! Anyone who supports or even acknowledges gay marraige as acceptable on any terms is a fool and carries a mark of sin in God's eyes. Even if you let it slide because you think, "Hey, it's okay with me as long as they don't bother me." Homosexuality is the biggest lie of the devil.

How about this, don't call them mariages anymore. Call them civil unions for heterosexuals or homosexual. Let churches do mariages.

At least among the activist crowd, the goal isn't marriage so much as the promotion of the legidmicy of their relationships. They won't be happy until they have "equality", whatever that means.

If gays want to live together and mess around in their own house that is their own business. Homosexuality is immoral, but I see no reason (or right) for the government to pass laws that force people to live morally.

The problem with gay marriages and civil unions is, not only do they go against the very definition of the word, but they force me to change how I live my life. If gay marriages are legal and I own a business, now I have to provide a gay partner with health insurance. If I own an adoption agency I have to treat them as a married couple.

If people want to do immoral things (and we all do), then that is their problem, not mine. However, when people want to take away my right to classify behavior as such, then they are not interfering with my rights.

Good job being the definitive "moral representative," God-boy.

marriage - (1) the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

And in what world do you live in that combining civil and union is contradictory?

If your comment was directed at me, and I'm not sure that it was, I think you misunderstood me. I was not trying to be a “moral representative,” but merely saying that – as many supporters of gay marriage will point out – it is not the government’s responsibility to legislate morality by banning gay marriages. My point was that it is also legislating morality if they force me to recognize such marriages.

Nobody would be legislating your morality by legalizing gay marriage. You have every right to think it's still morally unacceptable if it's legalized. But you would have to recognize that it is legal. Just like people who today are still racist - they believe that minorities shouldn't be allowed certain rights and are allowed to do so, but they are forced to recognize that those minorities do have those rights. There's a clear precedent.

Nobody's telling you that you can't think a certain way or practice your beliefs (as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else) as you see fit. If they did, then that would be legislating morality. Recognizing what you consider to be immoral is not in itself immoral. And if you're forced to recognize gay marriage, that's all you're doing. Seeing and recognizing what you believe to be immorality. You're in no way forced to do anything that's immoral.

Evan- Chad already explained why he feels that his rights would be violated if gay marriage were legalized. Read his first post. And I am tired of the gay rights - civil rights analogies. They do not apply.

Incidentally, gay marriage is not being legislated. I don't recall a single action by a legislature in the U.S. that supported gay marriage. All of this conflict is arising from legal actions and rediculous rulings by activist judges.

The last three paragraphs of this column by Walter Williams says very well what many people who oppose gay marriage can't quite put into words. As Cat already said in this forum, what gay couples want isn't marriage itself, they want legitimacy. Tying this thought back into the original thought of this thread, marriage is meaning less and less anymore. Marriage does not imply that you are settled down, monogamous, or even committed to your partner anymore. As Mr. Williams writes, all of the legal differences between married and unmarried couples can be resolved through means already at our disposal. The real impact of saying that you are married to someone is the resulting implied social legitimacy. That's what homosexual activists want and that's what they have wanted this whole time.

And the unvarnished truth is that homosexuality will never be legitimate to a very significant portion of the U.S. population. It will definitely be tolerated (and it is tolerated very much already). It is and will probably always be legal. But legitimacy cannot be legislated.

And Ben Laden, calling someone God-boy is just as offensive to some Christians (and I assume Jews) as faggot is to homosexuals. You're free to use whatever language you choose, but just realize that you are very ignorant, disrespectful, and hateful when you use the names of religious figures as insults.

Why me talking when you not listening me no understanding what happening not communicating what talking me saying are we understanding

Actually, I would take "God-boy" as a compliment.

It's a whole lot better than some of the things my mom has called me through the years.

Um, yeah. They do. Interracial marriage can be Biblical construed as immoral, but the Missouri, Virginia, and 7 other states were forced to recognize these marriages. Using the words of Black Uncle Tomss, such as Alan Keyes, to try and prove your point isn't sound logic. Especially when leader's of the modern African-American civil rights movement, like Carol Mosely-Braun and the Reverend Al Sharpton, are in favor of gay marriage and consider it a civil rights struggle.



Interestingly enough, the first Civil Rights movement succeeded through the courts as well. Brown v. Board of Education pre-dates the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by almost a decade. A white Congress did not magnimously decide to finally give African-Americans their basic constitutional rights; they were forced to do the right thing by the courts. The Supreme Court's role is to uphold the Constitution. By enforcing the equality rights given by various portions of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is not being 'activist', but merely performing their sacred duty.



Um, nope. We 'homosexual activists', or more properly Civil Rights activists, are much more basic in our desires. I want the 1,000+ federal rights given automatically to married couples. There is NOT, as Mr. Williams claims, anyway that my partner can automatically inherit my property. We will have to spend hundreds to thousands of dollars on extensive wills, and even then the playing field is not level. If my partner were to give me a valuable gift, anything over $10,000 would be considered taxable. This isn't true for married couples. More importantly, if my partner is sick in the hospital, there is no guarantee that I will be able to visit him, even if I have a legally certified power of attorney. And there is absolutely NO OPPORTUNITY, no 'contract available', for us to file joint income tax returns, and thus we will pay a higher amount of taxes. I can't even change my name without an elaborate court process; a married couple simply walks into the courthouse and all is arranged.

I am not fighting for legitimacy. I certainly do not need the approval of fantatical bigots. I don't even need the approval of your church, as I am very sound in my Christian faith, and I am sure that Jesus loves me (he never once mentioned homosexuality...interesting, huh?). And I am certain that, someday, our just cause will win. In the history of this country, freedom and liberty have always truimphed bigotry and hatred. It may not be this year, but it will certainly happen someday. In the meantime, I only have to look towards Canada for the image of what is to come.

Marty Rust
marust@umr.edu

Ohh dear god no. No. Ok. Now that I have that part out there in the same aspect that gay marriages constitute you having to give extra health care, so do any other form of marriages therefore they should all be legal. Surprisingly a lot of rights take that form, so therefore by giving them out to one group they are logically entitled to the other. My suggestion is go either way with it; I don't really care. Either give them all the rights or take all the rights away; either way its equal rights and that is the point. I would also have to agree with Mr. Rust as being classified as Civil Rights activists as I doubt that many people are solely doing it for gay marriage rights.