In 2003 Exodus said exgays numbered in the “thousands…”
In 2004 Exodus said exgays numbered in the “tens of thousands…”
In 2005 Exodus said exgays numbered in the “hundreds of thousands…”[*]
But now it’s 2006 so the order of magnitude is due for an increase. According to Jerry Falwell’s recent column in WorldNutDaily exgays now number in the millions!
If the shoe were on the other foot and he was a recovering homosexual (as millions of Americans are), Mr. Kenny wouldn’t be given the time of day by the networks.[*]
Wouldn’t they just be straight people?
Daniel, please enlighten me….
If straight people are a social majority anyway…what’s so important about the numbers of ex gays to Jerry Falwell or anyone else?
Are straight people supposed to care about how many other straight people are around?
Or how many LESS gay people or what?
What’s this race to be straight for? Is is just so people can compete more intensely for wives and husbands. Prettier children?
What?
Indeed, aren’t people who aren’t married or without children, valuable too?
Doesn’t this just set people up to think that being married, competing to marry and have children is the GREATEST thing, and it really isn’t for everyone?
The process that makes straight people or gay people, is yet unknown.
I don’t know how I got to be straight. I didn’t decide and neither did any of the other straight people I know.
If I had to figure out how I got straight, I’d get a headache and it certainly isn’t a MOVEMENT to inform the world HOW I GOT straight.
So what if some bachelor who couldn’t get married himself decided on a whole bunch of rules for other people to adhere to.
Who was he, and what is he to me? Would Jerry Falwell have married that guy if HE was a woman?
I have a pretty good idea of why it’s important to Randy Thomas or whoever.
It’s to show that gay people can be coerced and pressured into going along with the majority.
But unless and until such an exercise can be done WITHOUT a religious motive and expectation to convert to Christianity specifically, isn’t this withholding respect for individual rights for conformity with a religion not favored as a state religion?
If there is no state requirement (or interest) to be religious, why a requirement to be straight as a condition of equal citizenship?
At least according to Jerry Falwell?
If someone has to think this hard, and work their lives so much around political agendas that everyone MUST be straight…I got news for them.
Nobody should have to work that hard to be gay or straight!
According to Wikipedia, there are around 16 million Southern Baptists in the US. Assuming 3% of the population is gay, this means there are about 475,000 gay southern baptists. (Bear in mind: This statistic assumes Baptists are equally likely to be gay as the general population. This is probably not true because at some point in life, most gays will leave the denomination, almost assuredly.) This is just one denomination.
By this logic, if we consider other non-gay-affirming denominations, you would probably find the numbers of people struggling with reconciling their faith and sexuality to be in the millions. You would also probably find that most of them assume the problem can only lie with their sexuality and not their faith. If you use Falwell’s definition of a “recovering homosexual” — one who wants not to be homosexual for religious reasons, regardless of success — then the number would probably be in the millions.
I take issue here not with the “statistic”, but with the wording. What is a recovering homosexual? To a normal human, this would mean a homosexual who is progressing towards heterosexuality. Is this happening to millions? This is a staggering question, because it is hard enough to ascertain, in my mind, whether or not this is happening to anyone.
If it was happening in the millions the anti-gays wouldn’t be at all concerned about the “promotion of homosexuality”, it’d be obvious they’re able to convince most gays to “go straight” and they wouldn’t be concerned about any “gay agenda” or 20 to 25 percent of the population becoming bisexual.
Ya know,I’m really not interested in Falwell’s disrespect for other people’s religious faith. Yet, big fat surpriz, he’s the first to scream his faith is under attack if people even so much as ignore his version of things (let alone flat out reject his version or, as Falwell does in the piece, heap abuse on others who don’t believe the same way). He should be more tolerant of people’s religious beliefs.Anyhoo… millions hey?Looks like the earlier prediction at XGW is coming true. Before we know it EVERYONE will be exgay! Including those who weren’t even gay to begin with.(Oh, what’s that you say?…never-actually-gay-people are ALREADY claiming to be exgay. Wow.)
THere are tons of films with all variations on the theme. Just to pull one out quickly, Titanic. While her true love ends tragically, Rose still marries and goes on, but her true love was forbidden. Moulin Rouge is another in that vein. Foreign films like In the Mood for Love deal with that theme a lot. American films tend to be more classical Hollywood and so love almost always results in the true love being sustained, but still the themes tend to persist. I will provide more. Probably the most classic example of all time is Wuthering Heights–the two characters are in love but marry others for a variety of reasons. THey only find true love in death.
Blimey, there are lots of us ex-gays, even here in Blighty, but methinks Falwell stretches the point a tad…
Millions.
Looks like we’re rapidly closing in on that mythical 10% figure, if we haven’t passed it already.
Badda BING, Randi!
That makes perfect sense.
If there aren’t as many gay people, but more straight people…then indeed, what’s the friggin’ problem?!
More and more there are clear examples of statements without substance. Conjecture and doublespeak truly rule the discussion, primarily driven by the heteros who most have the opportunity to squawk.
It’s only succeeding among the lazy minded who don’t care to make or understand distinctions.
The act of rejecting religious doctrine is called an ‘attack’ on it.
Simple honesty towards society regarding orientation is called ‘promotion’ and demands for equal standards of protection, access and justice is called ‘the homosexual agenda’ which gives it an ominous note of conspiracy against straight institutions, rather than integration and inclusion in them.
I have been treated badly by ex gays with one exception.
And that one exception still has some high walls of denial in him.
He deepens misunderstanding and expectation with what he does.
Which is why I have a problem with it.
And his good intentions underestimate the majority’s political intent and influence and will undermine our purposes.
But at least he’s respectful and decent.
Jim! Ten percent is just so low. Lindy Harvey of Mission America seems to think the 20-25 percent range is feasible.
https://exgaywatch.com/blog/archives/2006/01/stephen_bennett_12.html
“Jim! Ten percent is just so low. Lindy Harvey of Mission America seems to think the 20-25 percent range is feasible.”
Well, yeah. Sure. Now it’s feasable since we’ve beefed up our 401(k) plan…
it’s feasable since we’ve beefed up our 401(k) planCouldn’t agree more Jim! What’s even better “our” — The International Gay Agenda (c) — has really low contribution rates to our plan because according to the AFA half of us will be dead by 30.And ya know… a decent 401(k) is so much better than all those flippin’ toasters. We ended up with so many that we cleared out the front room and opened up a discount electrical outlet; ToastersRus.
Grant, I couldn’t agree more.
My problem is that we were overwhelmed with waffle irons and crepe makers. Having reached age 45, I’m definitely on track for that 401K thing, but I’m awash in appliances that I have no use for now that I’m watching my carbs!
Some of the wingnuts claim that gays are no more than 1% of the population. With about 200 million adults in the US, that means 2 million gays. So if “millions” are now exgay, that means….I’m the only one left that’s still queer? Why didn’t I get the memo?!
Tara, your math is better than Falwell’s. He counts money, not gay people.
I like you already!
Christ does not keep homosexuals from kingdomLetter to the editor excerpts:- Peter J. LaBarbera’s statement that “there are thousands of ex ‘gays'” is unsubstantiated. There have been no long term studies of ex-gays determining the effectiveness of “reparative therapy.”- Basically, if the Illinois Family Institute were really interested in knowing if homosexual behavior was mutable behavior, it would fund a controlled study in the model Dr. Spitzer suggested, so they could authoritatively state that homosexuality is mutable. And then, if the organization really believed that all groups that exhibit mutable behaviors shouldn’t be included in governmental protected classes, then the Illinois Family Institute should be intellectually consistent and lobby to remove religious creed from the protected classes of civil rights laws…..I’ll not be holding my breath.
Hmmm…. Millions might be accurate if one uses a very loose standard for counting (like a lot of these groups do anyway regarding numbers of members, viewers, supporters, etc). Perhaps he knows that fundamentalist churches must have somewhere between two and ten percent struggling with sexual identity issues, and of course if they’re still IN those churches they must be ex-gay.
In my experience the average life cycle of an ‘ex-gay’ is maybe 5 or 10 years. Reality catches up sooner or later. Now I wonder how many ex-ex-gays there are out there? Hands up everyone!
“Perhaps he knows that fundamentalist churches must have somewhere between two and ten percent struggling with sexual identity issues, and of course if they’re still IN those churches they must be ex-gay.”
In order to be ex-anything, you have to have once been that thing. The whole point of the ex-gay ministries is that they “help people leave the homosexual lifestyle”.
It may be acurate to say that there are many people (who knows how many) within the churches that “fight their same sex attractions”, but there’s no possible way for there to be millions of “recovering homosexuals”.
It is so unfortunate that church leaders feel free to lie without caring whether what they say is true or the harm it will cause. If you believe in a God (as I do) then surely you should fear the anger God may have against you for the damage you are doing to lives.
Hi Autumn — that’s Robert Spitzer (not Mark). doh :)(Good to see you get a letter published in any case.)Perhaps you channeled Mark Spitz, an Olympic swimmer from the 70’s???
You may want to comment on this blog:
https://fgn.typepad.com/
Excerpt:
Reformation: The Gay Lifestyle… is it Sinful?
Written by Bernie Dehler
I once showed a video about the gay lifestyle. It showed how the “gay” lifestyle really isn’t so “gay.” To see it, you can download it from here (the 2-20-05 show). Here is an email comment I received:
Posted by: Bernie Dehler at January 16, 2006 12:59 PM
Bernie you don’t speak for all LGBTs. A lot of us have very gay lives with our special ones and are very happy with this part of our selves. Being same sex attracted is not a lifestyle it is a very important aspect of an emotional life that appears without choice to a minority of people.
Its very insulting to have you trivialize such an important aspect of self and try to take away LGBT self-determination by ignoring happy lives to dishonestly, broadly and blindly say all are unhappy.
A loving and just god wouldn’t punish for an eternity gay couples choosing to find happiness in a monogamous, supportive intimate relationship.
Reasonable religious people have accepted that and more realize it all the time. What matters is not the gender of the person we marry, its how we treat each other that’s important. Just because you made poor choices as a gay is no reason to deny other gays the right to be happy in a same sex relationship. Live your own life and stop trying to control how other people live theirs when it doesn’t hurt you at all. Its a selfish thing to want others to be exgay just to validate your own choice.
LOL, Randi – I don’t think Bernie claims to be gay – or ‘ex-gay’ – but he did say this on his blog: “Personally, I believe that anyone can be gay, if they let their mind go there.” I don’t know too many het guys who think of homosexuality as potentially attractive… so who knows? 😉
Also on his blog, Bernie goes to great lengths to refute John M’s well-stated opposition to the showing of the video “It’s Not Gay”. He believes that just because people like Michael Johnston aren’t completely free from homosexuality doesn’t mean they’re not recovering. Re: Johnston, I’ve never thought of his blatant sham ministry “Keruso” combined with his hotel room bareback parties as being evidence of any degree of ‘recovery.’ The truth is that people like Bernie will always have a ‘yes, but’ response to well-reasoned and well-documented letters like John M.’s. The facade and lure of internet stardom keeps these folks from any degree of objectivity.
Rick says:
“The truth is that people like Bernie will always have a ‘yes, but’ response to well-reasoned and well-documented letters like John M.’s. ”
I did a TV show before with three members from Portland Fellowship, an ex-gay ministry. Their testimonies are powerful and beautiful. I think the power of Christ can rescue us from sin… absolutely ANY sin (no sin is too big). If you don’t think it is a sin, then there’s no hope to change… a sick person won’t get better til they go to the doctor and seek medicine. Portland Fellowship doesn’t condemn. They are there only for those who are seeking change.
Just my opinion…
…Bernie
https://fgn.typepad.com/
Randi said:
“Live your own life and stop trying to control how other people live theirs when it doesn’t hurt you at all. ”
I’m concerned that how you live your life will negatively affect society, such as accepting gay marriage.
If gays can marry, why not polygamists? Why not groups (3 guys and 3 gals)? Seriously asking… they also want to live in peace and be accepted by society, and “aren’t hurting anyone.”
…Bernie
https://fgn.typepad.com/
Bernie,
I will take you at face value when you claim that you are “seriously asking”. If you wish to read a very well reasoned discussion about the impact that same-sex marriage, or the lack thereof, would have on society, I highly recommend a book by Jon Rauch called “Gay Marriage, why it’s good for gays, good for straights, and good for America”. In it Rauch discusses the purposes of marriage and why gay marriage will not lead to pluralistic marriage but will protect from it.
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/002-3571460-4392823?url=index%3Dblended&search-option=search-amazon&field-keywords=jon+rauch+gay+marriage
Bernie, I think you’re missing an important point here. You were challenged on your own site re: your decision to show the video “It’s Not Gay”, which you continue to promote. John M. demonstrated that the testimony of Michael Johnston is misleading if not dangerous given his spectacular fall. In your response, you stated that homosexuality is a sin similar in ways to murder, alcoholism, and drug abuse. Let me ask you this: If a Christian video was filmed giving the testimony of a reformed killer, would it be ethical to continue showing that video without sharing that information if the person had killed again? While I am personally offended that you have compared my life to a murderer, the fact remains that the ‘ex-gay’ promoted on ‘It’s Not Gay’ may in fact BE a murderer due to his choice to have unprotected sex with men he did not inform of his HIV status.
If you read more on this site, you will see that self-determination by GLBT persons seeking help to ‘change’ is not condemned. What is condemned is lies and deceit. While I cannot speak for all of those at Ex-Gay Watch, I would like to personally ask you: In light of what you have learned from John M. and from reading here, will you remove the links promoting the video “It’s Not Gay” from your site?
Bernie, speaking as one of the non-Christians on this board, why should I convert to Christianity in order to please a bunch of people that, frankly, I don’t give a damn about? That is what you’re saying when you say “I think the power of Christ can rescue us from sin… ”
My own religion doesn’t have any problems with my being gay, or gay marriage, gays and lesbians raising children, or living happy fulfilled lives as who we are and on our own terms. Yours apparently does. Are you trying to say that your religion is right and mine is wrong because it’s not the same as yours? How smug, arrogant, and chauvinistic!
Why should I change any aspect of my life to please a bunch of people whose opinion I don’t value and who seem to have what’s at least a very unhealthy interest in aspects of my life that are none of their business?
If you think that gay marriage is such a danger to society, I want to know exactly how. Don’t quote scripture to me, if you quote studies, make sure that they are legitimate and pass muster as scientifically sound.
Otherwise, pontificating on the so-called evils of homosexuality belongs in church and I suggest that’s where you keep it.
Timothy Kincaid said:
“In it Rauch discusses the purposes of marriage and why gay marriage will not lead to pluralistic marriage but will protect from it.”
What’s wrong with pluralistic marriage? How can you be against it if the adults are consenting… just like homosexuality? Isn’t that hypocritical?
To Rick:
I’m not comparing homosexuals to murderers. I’m saying, in my opinion, homosexuality and murder are both sins, and both affect the mind, in the way that once you do it and go down that path, it’s extremely hard to get reformed. About the guy in the video. I don’t know how he stumbled. I still think his testimony in the video is heartfelt and valid. His motive was to do right, in giving his story and opinion. A person may have anger, and preach against it. Just because he has an outburst doesn’t mean everything he said wasn’t heart-felt and true. I think the video is good for the point of giving an inside look of the gay lifestyle for non-gays. If the guy in the video recanted and wanted the video pulled, then that would be a reason to pull it. As it is, I think you should be able to appreciate another viewpoint,,, his. Freedom of speech and thought.
Phil said:
“Bernie, speaking as one of the non-Christians on this board, why should I convert to Christianity in order to please a bunch of people that, frankly, I don’t give a damn about? That is what you’re saying when you say “I think the power of Christ can rescue us from sin… ”
You shouldn’t come to Christ to please people. I think a person should come to Christ because they are seeking God and holiness… redemption. I think homosexuality is a sin, but of course there are many others. We all have our own crosses to bear.
Phil also said:
“If you think that gay marriage is such a danger to society,”
I think it is a danger in encouraging promiscuity. I think all sex outside of marriage is sin. How would anyone think they were a homosexual if they didn’t try it before marriage? It has nothing to do with attraction. Men can be attracted to each other naturally… doesn’t mean you have to have sex with each other. But once you focus on that and validate it, the brakes are off and anything goes.
,,,Bernie
https://fgn.typepad.com/
Bernie, exactly how is allowing two people to marry encouraging promiscuity? Seems to me it is doing the opposite.
Also Bernie, are you saying that unless we accept Christ as our savior we can’t come to God? Funny, that’s not what’s preached where I worship. Are you implying that I belong to a “bastard” religion?
Posted by: Bernie Dehler at January 16, 2006 06:17 PM
Bernie, at the very best all religions but one are false. Why should your particular religion and you get to control my life and not me yours – other than human might makes right? I am concerned that it is you who is negatively affecting society by interfering with gays bonding to support each other and become more productive members of society. A lot of gays have children from previous relationships or who were unwanted by heterosexuals, its a good thing for those children to be legally bound by marriage to two caregivers. In what way is anything I do with my boyfriend to make us happy going to deprive you or any particular heterosexual couple of anything? As long as we are not huting anyone we are morally correct in doing whatever we want. Its you that wants to hurt LGBTs by having us sacrifice a free life to repress what comes naturally to please you.
Bernie the reason why more than two people shouldn’t get married is as obvious as is your reason for failing to acknowledge it. Its simply hard enough to make one relationship work without the added trouble of trying to juggle more than one relationship.
Bernie, Michael Johnston’s fall was not an ‘outburst.’ It was a calculated deception acted out over a considerable period of time with multiple persons while he continued to publicly proclaim that he had been delivered from homosexual behavior. The HIV issue compounds it and makes it even more incidious. The fact that he had previously spoken on the video expressing his feelings, regardless how sincere, does not change the fact that he had NOT changed. Continuing to show the video AFTER THE FACT without disclosure of what happened subsequently is deceitful. When you look at the history of ex-gay personalities and see the revolving door of ministry leaders, it’s hard to defend such a film as ‘valid.’
Re: “the video is good for the point of giving an inside look of the gay lifestyle for non-gays”: This reveals your lack of understanding of homosexuality and sexual orientation in general. There IS no ‘gay lifestyle’ and the characature depicted in the video is based primarily on fabrications by Paul Cameron. I’m a church pastor who doesn’t drink or use drugs and am in a monogomous relationship. The video bears no resemblance whatsoever to my life or to the gay men and women I know.
Gay marriage encourages promiscuity? Huh????
Brokeback Mountain Blues: Thoughts of a celibate, gay Christian
Commentary: Sojourner Child of God
By David Ben-Ariel
UPI Religion & Spirituality Forum
COMMENTARY: Writing from the depths of my struggles, as a celibate homosexual and a Christian, Brokeback Mountain forcibly brings all these tumultuous thoughts, tormenting conflicts of interest and personal struggles to the surface, surging like lava from a volcano.
Bernie the reason why more than two people shouldn’t get married is as obvious as is your reason for failing to acknowledge it. Its simply hard enough to make one relationship work without the added trouble of trying to juggle more than one relationship.
I’m sorry, Randi, but I don’t see why “this type of relationship is more stressful” or “has more problems” is a valid reason not to allow it. If so, then one could easily dismiss not only homosexual relations on that account, but also interracial and interfaith marriages–and indeed, that very argument has been used to try and prevent these forms of marriages (If you want a citation, look up Albert Gordon’s book, Intermarriages).
Bernie:
“What’s wrong with pluralistic marriage? How can you be against it if the adults are consenting… just like homosexuality? Isn’t that hypocritical?”
The argument that acceptance of gay marriage must inevitably lead to pluralistic marriage carries within it the implicit admission that the person making it is incapable of making an argument against pluralistic marriage on its own merits. If there are valid arguments against pluralistic marriage, then those arguments must stand irregardless of the legal status of gay marriage, because they’re simply two different things.
“About the guy in the video. I don’t know how he stumbled.”
You have a responsibility to actually know something about him before promoting his false testimonial.
“I still think his testimony in the video is heartfelt and valid. His motive was to do right, in giving his story and opinion. A person may have anger, and preach against it. Just because he has an outburst doesn’t mean everything he said wasn’t heart-felt and true.”
Yes, actually, it does mean what he said wasn’t true. He claimed to have changed. He hadn’t. Therefore, his claim was not true. And as others have pointed out, this was a little more than an “outburst.”
“I think the video is good for the point of giving an inside look of the gay lifestyle for non-gays.”
That statement is pure bigotry. There is no such thing as “the gay lifestyle” anymore than there is “the black lifestyle.” If you claim that the existence of black people who have committed crimes shows that “the black lifestyle” is criminality, then you are practicing racism. If you claim that the existence of gay people who have been sexually irresponsible proves that all gay people are sexually irresponsible, you are practicing bigotry.
“If the guy in the video recanted and wanted the video pulled, then that would be a reason to pull it. As it is, I think you should be able to appreciate another viewpoint,,, his. Freedom of speech and thought.”
His viewpoint is based on wilfull deception. You have the right to promote deceptive speech if you choose to do so, and we have the right to point out that you are being irresponsible and bigoted and lying by omission.
“I think it is a danger in encouraging promiscuity. I think all sex outside of marriage is sin.”
Hence one of the main reasons we want the right to marry.
“How would anyone think they were a homosexual if they didn’t try it before marriage?”
How would anyone know they were a heterosexual if they didn’t try it before marriage? That’s just a really dumb question.
“It has nothing to do with attraction. Men can be attracted to each other naturally… doesn’t mean you have to have sex with each other.”
Of course not, anymore than straight men have to have sex with women.
“But once you focus on that and validate it, the brakes are off and anything goes.”
This statement makes no sense whatsoever. Once a straight man validates his natural attraction, the brakes are off and anything goes?
Posted by: Skemono at January 17, 2006 02:18 AM
I see your point Skemono. Perhaps I should have said we should caution people against the difficulties inherent in plural intimate relationships not prevent them. For me the key distinction between the situations you mentioned with plural marriages and gay, interfaith and interracial marriages all being more stressful is that gay, interfaith, and interracial marriages are more stressful because of external forces – the blind destructive social disapproval of society whereas plural marriages are inherently more stressful because the more people you have to please in a situation the more difficult it is.
Far be it for me to tell anyone they shouldn’t enter whatever kind of relationship they wish as long as its not hurting me. However, I think the inherent difficulties in pleasing more than two people in an intimate relationship justifies giving the label of marriage only to couples. As well, with only two people in a relationship its possible for the transmission of STDs to be minimized.
Bernie didn’t come on here to have his mind expanded or to become educated or even to see someone else’s viewpoint. He came on here to preach and argue and to try to get more traffic for his site. He’s very clearly uninformed and likes it that way.
So we’re wasting our time with him. He’s only going to try and pick at the minutia, tell us about sin, and try to suggest we’re being intolerant (the right wing’s new mantra).
Yes, but there’s also a point in trying to reach less insane people who might be credulous enough to believe him.
Phil says:
“Bernie, exactly how is allowing two people to marry encouraging promiscuity? Seems to me it is doing the opposite.”
The bigger problem is teaching kids in school (and people in society) that homosexuality is a normal sexual expression. This in turn gives them an opportunity to try it. I think it’s unhealthy and sinful. Do I have the right to express my viewpoint, even though you disagree? Once it’s accepted, then gay marriage is a no-brainer… why not?
Phil says:
“Also Bernie, are you saying that unless we accept Christ as our savior we can’t come to God? Funny, that’s not what’s preached where I worship. Are you implying that I belong to a “bastard” religion?”
I think that only Christ offers salvation… that’s why He came, to die on the cross for our sins. If there’s any other way to be saved, Christ died for nothing (Gal. 2:21). I understand there are different religions and belief systems, and that is mine.
,,,Bernie
https://fgn.typepad.com/
Rick says:
“There IS no ‘gay lifestyle’ and the characature depicted in the video is based primarily on fabrications by Paul Cameron. I’m a church pastor who doesn’t drink or use drugs and am in a monogomous relationship. The video bears no resemblance whatsoever to my life or to the gay men and women I know.”
I admit these video’s do seem to show a one-sided, just the negative side of it. I didn’t see that before reading a few of these comments. Next time I discuss the issue, I’ll try to be more balanced than these people were, while yet expressing my opinion.
…Bernie
https://fgn.typepad.com/
By the way, I never saw a reasonable explanation of why polygamy or plural merriages (3 gals and 3 guys) should also not be approved. If you allow gays to marry, why not groups? No one is hurt, right? To be against group marriage would be hypocritical for a gay, wouldn’t it?
…Bernie
https://fgn.typepad.com/
Bernie,
That last remark is brave and should be applauded. I would ask that if you are going to potray homosexuality in anyway that you take the time to present both sides of the story. If you decide not to do that, you end up engaging in “decept by omission” and that isn’t generally good for anyone’s crediblity.
I bet there are plenty of people out there who would help you maintain your moral view, but still present the truth. I would suggest visiting http://www.soulforce.org. I am sure people there would be happy to help you and no one would offend you.
As I said in my comments on your blog, you are a victim of the untruth, as we all are. The Journey for the truth is all that is important.
Bernie Says: The bigger problem is teaching kids in school (and people in society) that homosexuality is a normal sexual expression. This in turn gives them an opportunity to try it. I think it’s unhealthy and sinful. Do I have the right to express my viewpoint, even though you disagree? Once it’s accepted, then gay marriage is a no-brainer… why not?
Joe replies:
Kids may or may not try same sex experiences regardless of what they hear in school. I heard about lots of stuff in school, it didn’t make me want to try it. Same sex exeriences in children is pretty normal. It happens all the time and has for 1000’s of years. It also doesn’t make a kid homosexual, it makes them curious.
Homosexuality isn’t about just sex, it is about emotional desire to be with a memeber of the same sex. Even if kids hear about homosexuality in school will that make them suddenly fall in love with a member of the same sex? unlikely.
I that eating eating dirt was a normal activity kids indulge in. It usually means they are iron deficient. Upon heating this, I still had no desire to go out an eat dirt.
I obviously do not speak for anybody but myself, Bernie, but I have yet to see any argument against polygamy that should keep it illegal in theory (but I must confess, I have not bothered to look for any). It is as Randi says: “Far be it for me to tell anyone they shouldn’t enter whatever kind of relationship they wish as long as its not hurting me [or anyone else].”
There are of course many practical matters to take into consideration (alimony, divorce, child support, any number of spousal rights, &c.) that would likely deter any enactment of polygamy.
Skemono, my point, once homosexuals are allowed to marry, there’s no reason to justify denying it also to polygamists and group marriages. All the “practical” issues can be dealt with. Divorce is never “fair” anyway… just ask people who have been through a contested divorce.
…Bernie
Bernie, Tim Kincaid is right in his post above. I’m not going to engage you in anymore discussion. It’s a waste of my time. You did not come here to enlighten yourself, you came here to preach to the uninterested.
Bernie,
I have a question for you. Every time a straight person is discussing gay lives and the marriage issue, is gay marriage will lead to the inability to deny others whatever type of marriage they wish.
Why is that?
So far, no one gay, seriously invested in their need and obligation to marry has brought the argument for plural marriage.
Bernie, as marriage stands in law and state’s interest: marriage is and now for two consenting, non related adults to become first of kin to each other and primary custodian to that individual.
Two gay men or women doesn’t change that.
The already married or already related are respected in the law and those relationships are already recognized as primary, THAT’S why there’s no point in the state recognizing plural marriages.
It’s redundant. Rendering it unnecessary.
It’s also why, despite wills and contracts between the gay parties, gay survivors have had their inheritance of property or pensions taken away in favor of next of kin to their dead partner. However estranged or remote that relationship.
Another reason for the necessity of gay couples to wed, protection from this sort of attack.
And no, children and the intent of procreation isn’t requisite to marry. That’s not a standard that heteros have to bear to marry. So gay people shouldn’t either.
Equal standards, remember? Not NEW made up ones for gay people ALONE.
And plural marriage has nothing to do with homosexual people, does it?
Don’t ask stupid questions that aren’t allowed to be asked by the state regarding hetero people.
This is about equal standards (not impossible ones) for gay people, and conjecture is a worse reason for amendments.
You’re new here.
But I’m a black woman married to a white man.
What this is about is trying to decide if gay people are inferior or not.
If gay people are civilized enough to participate in marriage.
This judgement was heaped on BLACK people historically as well. Even marriage between black people, let alone interracially.
I’m real tired of this argument being taken off the rails and into a wall by straight people like YOU, Bernie.
Get REAL.
And just SAY IT.
You wish that gay people were inferior. And in reality, every time gay people prove straight people wrong, they get punished for it.
Or at the very least, heteros like reserving institutions for themselves to weed out gay people.
Don’t bring up the plural marriage thing again. Gay people aren’t the ones advocating for it. So don’t speak as if the state won’t be able to continue in it’s best interests against plural anything.
I just thought of something Bernie, and it is the main reason, only touched on here.
Plural marriage WOULD complicate the state’s needs where the government intervenes or is supported by a household.
During crisis, interpersonal decisions are left to spouses, the state defers to the spouse.
The state’s interest is facilitated by ONE spouse to defer to.
More than one spouse would interfere with the workings of the relationship of state and citizen.
Serial divorce and remarriage, is the closest cousin of plural marriage there is.
And the state recognizes and allows serial divorce and remarriage.
So far, there have been no serious political movements to make plural marriage a legal option.
Not on the scale that gay marriage has.
And those involved with serial divorce and remarriage aren’t a political movement to have this be a common occurance either.
That’s why marriage licenses and divorce decrees don’t have automatic expiration dates.
And why children from previous marriages don’t become automatic heirs within step family.
You don’t seem to be paying attention to WHAT IS, Bernie.
Just fantansies of what isn’t and trying to base discrimination on what isn’t.
I am sure that you will all just yell at me for saying this, but unlike many other anti-gay posters I have seen, Bernie seems willing to listen and I believe he hears as well. Look at his statement from earlier.
In regards to the video Bernie said:I admit these video’s do seem to show a one-sided, just the negative side of it. I didn’t see that before reading a few of these comments. Next time I discuss the issue, I’ll try to be more balanced than these people were, while yet expressing my opinion.
That show a person who is willing to look for the truth. If you all are willing to look for the truth with Bernie, and realize we all suffer from the untruth. We may all find a middle ground. Give the guy a chance.
And Bernie, You won’t get far with this group or anyone else if you are just trying to come up with arguments. Try asking questions, learning about people. I think you will find they will be happy to guide you in your search for the truth. But don’t antagonize people. Talk, discuss, learn. We have as much to learn from you as you have from us.
Bernie,
If you truly want to know why gay marriage does not lead to straight marriage (as opposed to setting up a strawman argument) I’ll give you a brief answer.
Gay marriage protects the paradigm of two people exclusively committed to the care of each other. It places full responsibility of all decisions on one person, not a committee, for any decisions about the other should anything happen to them. It continues and encourages the establishment of next of kin, not bunch of kin.
The current system excludes from this system an identifiably group of people. Decent legislators recognize that it is unfair to establish and codify hardship against these people simly because they are gay and, like it or not, these legislators are going to go about some manner of alleviating harm.
If they use some method OTHER than marriage, it will establish in the culture that there are acceptable alternatives to marriage, which does not strengthen the institution.
The choices are:
a) do nothing and plug your ears and cover your eyes to the real harm that occurs to gay couples – I don’t think this one will last much longer; it goes against everything we as Americans believe about fairness and equality.
b) set up other institutions – as these tend to be unequal to marriage it opens up the cultural concept that there are a whole bunch of possible stuctures – this one has the greatest risk of leading to polygamy, etc.
c) keep marriage the same but open it up to gay people as well, with all of society’s same expectations and demands – this will strengthen the idea that marriage is a commitment, binding and important, which provides a carer and nurturer til death do they part.
Choice C seems to me to be the one that will benefit society the most: it protects the two-party institution and provides an equal responsibility and obligation for gay couples and straight couples. It also goes a long ways towards ensuring that there is a person for everyone to answer to, go home to, be responsible for, and take care of.
I’ve not said that nearly as well as does Jon Rauch in his book I referenced above. So if you would like to argue with this, please read him first.
I have a serious question but it seems no one wants to answer it. Suppose it does get legal for gays to marry, nationwide. What is stopping polygamists or groups from getting married? They will have the same argument… it’s between consenting adults, so mind your own business,,, get a life. If you are a homosexual, and against polygamy or group marriage (two different things), then wouldn’t you be a hypocrite?
Regan said:
“Don’t ask stupid questions that aren’t allowed to be asked by the state regarding hetero people.”
That’s just rude and I’m not talking like that.
Regan also tried to play the race card:
“But I’m a black woman married to a white man.”
It’s just as disgusting to play it here as when Johnnie played it in the OJ case. There are many blacks against the gay movement, and are not happy of being affiliated with it. You’re not speaking for all blacks when linking homosexual rights with racial rights. Part of the debate has to do with nature vs. nurture. If you’re born with it, then I see the case of linking it with racial issues. If choice, then it’s out-of-place. We disagree on nature vs. choice. I’m familiar with the nature vs. nurture debate and I don’t think you’ll have anything new to share with me on that issue.
But I would like you to take my question seriously… and try to answer it.
…Bernie
No one is going to answer the question because the doubt your motive for asking it. What is your motive? Is it to find the truth? or to antagonize people and demean them for being gay.
Calling people names like hypocrite isn’t going to get you an answer. It puts people on the defense. If you are truely seeking answers than ask real questions without insulting anyone. You will be surprised how much futher you get with the group.
Ask with good intentions, phrase you questions in a way that seeks the truth unless you are just here to start an argument to prove some point, in that case, people will see right though you.
Bernie,
These are real life stories about gay couples and families…..maybe if you see the harm in not allowing gay marriage you will understand the reason we fight so hard…. I am sorry I cannot make these links, so you will need to cut and paste….
from myspace groups….
osted: Jan 17, 2006 9:59 PM
my school recently started a gsa.. and everyone is practically against it.. i dunno y but ppl have a major ignorance towardz thingz they themselvez dun fucking understand.. i hate it and i think itz fuckin stupid. my gsa has a myspace.. in return we have studentz from my school in a club called “super sexy straights” on myspace… itz kinda hard knowing so many ppl could be so against that shit… i mean… how would they feel for being the minority for once… i dunno just a lil hurt by it thatz all i guess.. the further u go north here.. the more hate and the more cold the ppl r.. not just the weather ;.. i wish i was back in ga.. it is in the bible belt.. but at least i didnt feel too alone..
or this which breaks my heart everytime I see it….clikc the link in the start of the article to watch the video. Maybe you need to see what gay marriage means to people…
go here, view the video and write or call the ocean county freeholders
https://www.gardenstateequality.org/hester.htm
Ocean County Public Affairs
P.O. Box 2191, Toms River, NJ, 08754-2191
Phone: (732) 929-2000, Fax: (732) 506-5370
TDD: (732) 506-5062
oops, silly me, I posted the wrong one…this is the myspace post I wanted you to read:
Posted: Jan 17, 2006 2:17 AM
Ok so I’m in the middle of applying for financial aid because I am going to college next year. Now my mom and my stepmom have a domestic partnership and so FAFSA(Free Application for Federal Student Aid) wants me to include my stepmoms income into the total household income, which is fair because I live with her BUT my stepmom also served in the army yet FAFSA doesn’t think I should qualify for any “children of veterans” scholarships because its JUST a domestic partnership.
So lets review, I have to include her salary, decreasing the amount I will be given but even though she served her country in saudi arabia I don’t get to benefit from any of it through scholarships.
Bernie I gave you perfectly valid arguments why marriage should be limited to two people and Timothy gave you some similar points. Don’t say no one wants to answer when you are simply ignoring the answer. If you find the answer inadequate the onus is on you to give a reasonable explanation why. That you’ve failed to do so suggests you can’t.
Its reasonable to restrict marriage to couples only because at best one person can only be completely committed to one other person and this is the best way to minimize the spread of STDs.
It is you who’ve avoided answering serious questions. Why should you have the right to control my life rather than just your own? Don’t I have just as much right to prevent you from marrying the one you love most as you do to prevent me? I find your attitude incredibly offensive – if you can’t make a convincing argument why you should have my self determination you’ll get it when you pry it from my cold dead hands.
The polygamy thing is a red herring. Even when plural marriage has been allowed the vast majority of people shy away from it for practical reasons. If same sex and polygamous marriage were allowed the vast majority of marriages would continue to be heterosexual couples and that is the symbolism and image that will predominate regardless. Same sex or alternative types of marriages would barely be a blip on the radar to anyone other than the couples involved if it weren’t for the vocal complaining of people like you Bernie. If you’d just shut up about it in almost every case marriage will continue to be seen as exactly the heterosexual couple thing you want to promote. You’ve got your life your way, let us have ours. You have no more moral right to dictate LGBT lives than we do to dictate yours.
Bernie,
Does it not occur to YOU what rude questions you’re asking?
I am responding in kind.
And it’s not the race card. That’s historically and empirically correct what I said.
It’s very tiresome to justify who you are and whether you are human enough to have the same considerations as your fellow human beings.
I don’t expect that you’ve had a LIFETIME of such a thing, now have you?
Your questions are rude.
No one gay should have to justify their humanity now should they?
And here you are…suggesting that you’re here for rhetorical reasons.
Perhaps you don’t like the tone of what I said, but I’m not certain of the sincerity of why you asked.
Trust has been broken a long time ago between me and men like you.
I came here in search for answers too.
I have experienced first hand the sorts of questions someone is asking because they really are willing to or want to understand.
And their visiting an online situation like this to negatively stir the pot.
Now, if you think I played a race card, which one are you?
The one who has known prejudice?
Or are you the type for which it’s a rumor you heard?
Are you here to have that rumor clarified?
Or here to tell us that you know better about us than we do?
Explain YOURSELF, for once.
BTW, Bernie.
Once the decision to desegregate schools was made, segregationists used BLACK SEXUALITY to disqualify blacks from equal opportunity and justification for discrimination.
NOT COLOR.
Skin WAS character.
Color was a means of achieving Jim Crow, but not the basis for it’s implementation.
So, yes, I know how many black people don’t like to think that gay people’s struggles are similar to their own.
And THEY ARE WRONG!!!
I didn’t play a race card, I made a legitimate analogy.
Just because you don’t LIKE it, just shows how conceited you are.
Jews are not blacks, women are not gays and the poor are not the illiterate.
We’re all different and nobody’s blues are the same.
But the same groups have historical connection and similar treatment from unfair political programs against them exclusively.
And none of it was right, Bernie.
And it’s inexcusable for gay people to suffer exclusion based on orientation, than it would be for someone to based on their religion (which definitely is a choice, right?)
I WAS THERE for a lot of history and personal experience, man.
Where have YOU been?
Your questions have been seriously answered all up and down this thread.
Now, it’s up to you to believe what we tell you.
Posted by: Regan DuCasse at January 17, 2006 09:17 PM
Oh thank you Regan, you are so wonderful girl!
I’m confused. Am I a “nobody”? Does my answer to Bernie’s (completely irrelevant) question not count?
In case you simply missed it, Bernie, I have already gone on record as saying I don’t give a damn whether or not polygamy is made legal. Let ’em! Your slippery-slope of “gay marriage will lead to polygamous marriages” still does not present any reason to be against gay marriage, except that it plays to popular and irrational biases. What a way to set the discourse!
And now that I have eliminated your “you’re not answer my question” canard, will you finally address the issues being presented to you? Wait, here’s some more:
There are many blacks against the gay movement, and are not happy of being affiliated with it.
So what’s your point? That black people are not all completely the same? That they are real people with their own personalities, opinions, habits, views, hobbies, skills, traits, and everything that you seem to deny to gays in favor of a belief in a “homosexual lifestyle”? Who’d have thought it!
Honestly, Bernie, who cares that not all blacks agree with the gay rights movement? There are blacks who agreed and allied with the Ku Klux Klan, for hell’s sake (see Marcus Garvey). That doesn’t mean we have to allow our rights to be subject to their–or your–opinions.
You’re not speaking for all blacks when linking homosexual rights with racial rights.
I don’t recall her ever claiming to be.
If you’re born with it, then I see the case of linking it with racial issues. If choice, then it’s out-of-place.
Right, I remember now, that’s why choices like religion aren’t protected.
We disagree on nature vs. choice.
Yeah–I’m on the side with the facts.
Bernie,What is stopping polygamists getting married now?Is it because gay couples cannot marry?Whatever “debate” there is around multiple-partner marriages — I’m dead sure it’s not gay couples leading it. Nope, you need to go find some strict Mormoms. Allowing, or refusing, polygamous marriage is an issue that can stand or fall on it’s own.As for the rest… frankly, you are as ignorant as they come. You’re entitled to believe any religous mumbo-jumbo you want, but that doesn’t excuse your wilful ignorance on matters that have nothing to do with religion.I see you’re a big fan of Portland Fellowship, and it’s Director Jason Thompson — a character who was never gay to begin with.Next time you speak to him… ask him about John Paulk.And then ask him how Phil Hobizal is doing these days. Haven’t heard much from him since he went on leave in 2003 after “he found himself involved in an unhealthy emotionally entangled relationship.” That was noted in the PF newsletter.And I’ve yet to see you apologise for spreading the filthy lies that is the “It’s Not Gay” video. It’s not “the other side”; it’s a vile swill of half-truths and total fabrications, and all presented by two known liars — Richard Cohen (who was kicked out of his professional body for ethics violation) and Michael Johnston (who’s disturbed life should have given you fair warning about what sort of people you’re dealing with).If your religious view holds that homosexuality is a sin, I have only one piece of advice for you.
Bernie:
There is another, biological, argument for not limiting marriage rights to one “man” and one “woman.” Simply, human beings do not come only in two forms. What gender is a child who is born with a penis, a testicle, an ovary and a fallopian tube? What gender is a person who is genetically male (XY chromosones) but appears female (like the protagonist in the award-winning novel “Middlesex”)? What about someone with XXY chormosones (a relatively common genetic “error” in humans)?
The reality is that the intersexed – those who are physically and genetically between the two genders – exist, and by some estimates there are a quarter million in this country alone. As they are neither male nor female, they do not qualify for any marriage under the laws promoted by conservatives. Your laws are actually barring people from being married to anyone at all.
The reason there is no link between gays being married and polygamy is that the issue we have with marriage laws is not the number of people in the contract, it is the limitation made specifically on gender. We argue that gender should not be a factor in creating new family relationships by unmarried adults. As Regan has pointed out, the contractual difficulties inherent in mulitiple marriages are sufficient to ban such legal relationships (no one can stop polygamists from living with several “spouses” at once). Marriages between those of the same gender do not change the basic contractual make-up of the relationship. Not only that, but there is no “polygamous” orientation. Polygamists are simply forced to have serial, rather than concurrent marriages. Gays and the intersexed cannot form legal relationships at all.
Here’s the last and most important reason against plural marriages Bernie.
Historically and empirically, they have been tried and are a FAILURE and unsupportable.
Plural marriage has proven to be a serious breach against female self determination and freedoms.
The abuses within this marriage trend is well documented, especially here in the US.
Modern marriage, between gay couples in the mainstream is relatively new.
But in First World countries where it’s legal, and in the US, the state of Massachussetts, it’s been a social success.
The fact that straight politicians, religious right organizations are committed to complicate gay lives is the point.
What they are afraid of isn’t gay people complicating hetero lives, but that gay people are, and have always been proving them wrong.
That gay self determination improves EVERYONE’S life, gay or not.
Gay people are normal. Gay success and function and basic compassion is well documented and a fact of life.
Still…gay people rise.
Of course that would be frustrating to people whose life’s work is keeping gay people down.
“I’m the only ex-gay in this village!” — Daffyd, post-Exodus
Regan said:
“Here’s the last and most important reason against plural marriages Bernie. Historically and empirically, they have been tried and are a FAILURE and unsupportable. Plural marriage has proven to be a serious breach against female self determination and freedoms. The abuses within this marriage trend is well documented, especially here in the US.”
1. what evidence are you referring to against plural marriage?
2. How can it be against women when a group can consist of multiple women with one man, or multiple men with one woman?
3. Yes, I’m sure there are documented abuses, just as there are of those in the gay community. As the gay argument goes, don’t paint all relationships with the same broad brush.
Finally, what would you say to a group that promotes plural marriage, that says to you “keep your nose out of our business; get a life; we aren’t hurting anyone” (just as gays do now regarding marriage). There may be no such group doing it now, just as there were no gay groups pushing for marriage 50 years ago.
Randi, your answer against plural marriage:
“Its reasonable to restrict marriage to couples only because at best one person can only be completely committed to one other person and this is the best way to minimize the spread of STDs.”
As the gays say for gay marriage, why penalize all the people who are responsible and want group marriage?
I’m not against homosexual marriage because it’s a slipperly slope to plural marriage; I’m against it because I think it’s immoral. I bring up the example to prove that once you redefine marriage, you lose the definition entirely. Challenge the gender basis,,, then why not challenge the number basis, too? If people want to do it, who are you to object? I think for a gay to object would be hypocritial.
Just my opinion,,, and in America, all opinions should be valued. To not tolerate other opinions is the definition of a bigot.
…Bernie
https://fgn.typepad.com/
Joe said:
“Calling people names like hypocrite isn’t going to get you an answer. ”
I didn’t call anyone a hypocrite. I asked if it would be hypocritical for a gay to be against plural marriage. As one person responded, they could care less if plural marriage was allowed. I find that consistant… and non-hypocritical.
…Bernie
https://fgn.typepad.com/
Bernie:
“I bring up the example to prove that once you redefine marriage, you lose the definition entirely.”
This claim is ridiculous on its face. The definition of marriage has changed many times over the course of human history and was never lost entirely. Plural marriage used to be accepted in many cultures, and still are in some, yet when other cultures changed the definition to only two people, that didn’t destroy the definition of marriage entirely. Nor did changing the definition of marriage to allow two people of different races to marry. And when miscegnation laws were struck down, people just like you were making the same “now anything goes!” argument. It was bunk then, and it’s bunk now.
“Just my opinion,,, and in America, all opinions should be valued. To not tolerate other opinions is the definition of a bigot.”
Pointing out the logical flaws and bad arguments behind your opinions is not being intolerant of them. I notice your website still links directly to the “It’s Not Gay” video without any disclaimers that the claims in the video are demonstrably false. Do you believe God is served by promoting lies?
“Finally, what would you say to a group that promotes plural marriage, that says to you “keep your nose out of our business; get a life; we aren’t hurting anyone” (just as gays do now regarding marriage). There may be no such group doing it now, just as there were no gay groups pushing for marriage 50 years ago.”
I would say what any intelligent person who is not one of your strawmen would say: marriage is not a private matter. Marriage is a social institution and gay marriages are good for society in ways plural marriages are not.
Bernie said “As the gays say for gay marriage, why penalize all the people who are responsible and want group marriage?”
As I said Bernie, more than two people in a relationship is not responsible. Its reasonable to restrict marriage to couples only because at best one person can only be completely committed to one other person and this is the best way to minimize the spread of STDs.
From your perspective, a more fair statement would be, “anyone supporting same-sex marriage but rejecting group marriage would be hypocritical”.
There are people who believe that marriage should only be between two people, regardless of the gender of the two involved.
Same-sex marriage bears no direct correlation to group marriage at all. Put same-sex marriage as being the “norm” in place of heterosexual marriage: if we allow heterosexual couples to marry, what’s stopping us from allowing group marriage or marriage to animals? For a straight person to support heterosexual marriage but object to group marriage would be hypocritical.
It’s convenient for you to simply use the slippery slope approach.
Just my opinion,,, and in America, all opinions should be valued. To not tolerate other opinions is the definition of a bigot.
Bullshit.
Says nothing about being intolerant of “opinions”. I can be completely intolerant of the “opinion” that blacks are apes or that Jews are the offspring of Satan. Bigotry is being intolerant of entire groups of people regardless of their personal merits for irrational reasons–like your belief that homosexuality is a “sin”. Homosexuality is an orientation, a mere facet of being that harms no-one. It’s never a sin simply to exist.
Challenge the gender basis,,, then why not challenge the number basis, too?
Because the gender of the married has absolutely no bearing on the institution of marriage as it stands today. There are no roles that the bride must adopt or the groom must adopt. Therefore, the gender of bride/groom is completely irrelevant. It makes just as much sense for them both to be male as it does for one to be female and the other male; it doesn’t affect the marriage in any way.
This is not true, however, of polygamy. A huge amount of infrastructure has been built up around marriage as being based only on two people, as I have already stated.
Also, speaking from a purely legal standpoint, sex is a class protected from discrimination. Numbers aren’t.
Guys,
Twice now Bernie has ignored my posting relating to real and legitimate reasons why gay marriage would stengthen the institution of marriage and would help protect from plural marriages, as well as most other reasoned answers.
He’s not interested in an exchange of ideas, though that is what he claimed. As we saw, he was just trying to make a tired old argument. Regardless of what was said, he was just looking for sentences he could cut and try to refute outside their context. But since we weren’t eager to play that game, he had to claim a real interest to get the response.
As usual, unfortunately, another Christian feels comfortable lying about his motivations to further his agenda. And that’s sad.
How can a Christian even invite a friend to church when they answer “But Christians all lie. I’m not willing to lower my morals to be with liars.”?
Bernie, like so many others, are so set on fightin’ the gay that they don’t care about the harm they do to the message of Christ. As a Christian, I find that terribly sad.
skemeno
“Because the gender of the married has absolutely no bearing on the institution of marriage as it stands today. There are no roles that the bride must adopt or the groom must adopt. Therefore, the gender of bride/groom is completely irrelevant. It makes just as much sense for them both to be male as it does for one to be female and the other male; it doesn’t affect the marriage in any way.”
Very good point. Although I imagine that many who oppose gay marriage also believe that there are set roles within marriage. The probably believe that men are the head of the household and the woman is subservient.
It is rather telling, though, that they do not try to make illegal those marriages in which both partner enter with an intent on equality
and neither being the head. Surely any marriage in which the woman does not promise to “honor and obey” is as much a threat to “traditional marriage” as is gay marriage.
Timothy, I fogot to emphasize that Bernie ignored your reasons for favouring two person marriage over multiple person marriage.
As well, another reason to oppose polygamy is that historically its been one man taking many women. Polygamous communities have shown this can create a shortage of women giving young men little hope for the future in their community. The essence of marriage is saying “This one person is special above all others, deserving of my total devotion”.
I am bisexual, given my druthers I’d prefer to be in a relationship with a person of each gender. Practically speaking I’ve found that to be unrealistic and have only had monogamous relationships with each gender. If I was ever to be in a relationship with a person of each gender I certainly wouldn’t expect anyone to call it a marriage.
The reason I haven’t bothered to weigh in on whether polygamy should be legalized (I’m against it) or not is simple. There is no serious effort to have it legalized.
The whole subject of polygamy is a red herring. I’m not willing to engage opponents on their own terms with something as irrelevant as this, because to do so implies that this topic merits discussion in conjunction with same-sex marriage. It doesn’t. These are apples and oranges.
But this is classic: He chose the debate topic, he put the topic in motion in this comment thread, and he has us debating the pros/cons of an argument that is not of our choosing — in fact, an argument that is irrelevant to us.
And the best part is this: After he has us debating his hypothetical and irrelevant scenario, he gets to sit back and says “aha — look at all of those inconsistencies!”
Silly, isn’t it? That’s why I’ll just sit this one out.
But I’m grateful that Bernie is polite enough to refrain from comparing same-sex marriage to people marrying box turtles or other such nonsense. At least in this comment thread.
“As well, another reason to oppose polygamy is that historically its been one man taking many women. Polygamous communities have shown this can create a shortage of women giving young men little hope for the future in their community.”
Good point.
At the risk of sounding like a shill for Jon Rauch (whom I’ve never met and have no financial stake in his book), he discusses how just such a scenario leaves a large population of unattached men with no hope of finding a spouse (plural marriages historically have ALWAYS been one man – many women). About the only thing you can do with such a volitile and hopeless group is create an army. We know where that leads.
Jim Burroway at January 18, 2006 08:35 PM
good point. I’ll stop now.
Chambers is back to claiming only “hundreds of thousands” of ex-gays.
https://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/1/182006f.asp
Bernie, once again: you’re asking questions that are circular.
You already said it: you think homosexuals and marriage between them is immoral.
You never really wanted to know what WE think.
You already have your own answers and don’t care to hear about reasoned and supportable answers.
You don’t want to learn anything different at all.
You are tiresome, so is your presence here.
And NO, not all opinions are valid just because you have them.
You simply have opinions, and nothing to back them up.
Evidenced by having the same question, asked in different ways. But the same question nonetheless.
And such behavior, and pretending to expect a different outcome of the same question is insanity.
You can hang around if you want to.
But I think you’re conceited, and likely crazy.
Bernie:
Just for the hell of answering you because your questions make you look like you’ve been under a rock.
http://www.tapestry.org
It’s an organization for Mormon girls who are fleeing from polygamous families.
Shir’ia law in the Muslim culture has been very brutal to women.
And polygamy historically has meant one man with many wives.
Polyandry is one woman with many husbands.
This is a very rare marital arrangement and certainly no current cultures are practicing it.
Although a few Native American tribes and some in Brazil were known to.
In Saudi Arabia a man is allowed up to four wives.
But women in SA aren’t allowed to drive, travel in public alone or associate openly with men who aren’t related to them. Marriages are still arranged.
There are abuses within Islam of women as there have been by Mormons of women.
Those individuals or groups who support plural marriage NEVER had to wait for the legalization of gay marriage to make their stand and didn’t. They involved the state in their business because of the women who complained to the state about their treatment.
And the most notorious plural marriage cases were on welfare, abused underage females and courted incest by marrying close relatives.
So they couldn’t just tell the state to stay out of their business for those reasons alone.
What you call ‘documented abuses’ among the gay community, are not political, nor social…they are interpersonal and anecdotal.
Big difference.
And gays and lesbian political agendas don’t involve doing anything at the expense of hetero people.
And no, I don’t have to and shouldn’t all value opinions.
I have no respect whatsoever for opinions that imply or infer that gay people are an inferior species of human being.
I don’t have to accept the political standards that negatively set up gay people unequal to heterosexual people.
Nazis and Klan have opinons that should be rejected, when they weren’t-people died.
And it’s no less for gay people now. There is a direct line from teaching young people that gay people and what they do is an abomination, to some young gay person losing their lives.
And saying violence isn’t condoned in that edict, is little comfort to the gay person.
And I for damn sure don’t accept selective religious opinions that vilify gay people regarding marriage-when adulterers, thieves, serially divorced and remarried and worst yet, convicted and incacerated murderers and clinically mentally ill can ALL marry and bear kids, only because they aren’t gay…and yet, socially successful and gay people compassionate enough to adopt thrownaway children cannot.
That in itself is the greatest immoral insult shoved in the face of gay people.
And, the moral courage and standards of bravery that gay soldiers display cannot be forgotten.
To risk life and limb for YOUR security and freedom to misspeak and vilify them and deny them equal protections and access at home, speaks of greater persons than YOURSELF, Bernie.
And if you think youself morally superior under those circumstances, you are unequivocally conceited and I don’t have to respect that either.
Now, I ANSWERED you and your list. I brought it.
I can, and I did.
I bet you can’t respond without you saying the same thing all over again, can you?
Ultimately, it boils down to “is homosexuality a sin?” If yes, then it should, of course, not be validated, with same-sex marriage for example. If it is not a sin, then they should get full rights as any other person of another race, religion, nationality, gender, etc. Because we think differently on this foundational question, we are in two different camps. I think it is sinful, and there is a better way,,, of reformation. I do believe in hope, and I think it is unloving to validate a lifestyle of homosexuality… in the same way it would be unloving to not confront an alcoholic with a drinking problem. As drinking is to an abuse of alcohol, homosexuality is an abuse to sexuality.
Just my 2 cents…
…Bernie
https://fgn.typepad.com/
I have responded to Bernie Dehler here.
This discussion has drifted far off topic. If it cannot return to Falwell’s misrepresentations about exgays, then this discussion will be closed.
No Bernie, it doesn’t boil down to what sin is.
You’re not paying attention to what a typically anti gay person has to say, or even the analogies you yourself are saying.
You didn’t pay attention to what I said were all manner of basic failures of character or mental illness that are not LEGISLATED as sins to concern the state to ban homosexuals from marrying each other.
This is about what the state is willing to allow for FUNCTIONING, SUCCESSFUL and PRODUCTIVE citizens.
Now, you put up that tiresome old saw, comparing homosexuality with alcoholism.
And that’s the problem with people who think like you.
You can’t think BEYOND convenient beliefs that bear no resemblence to your own comparisons.
You and those who keep saying the same things over and over about homosexuality place it all over the map.
It’s an addiction
It’s a mental illness
It’s an emotional disorder
It’s unnatural
It’s not meant to happen
It’s like kleptomania
It’s like murder
It’s destructive
It’s a choice.
It’s a mental illness.
Well…that just is a way to cover all your bases.
That way you’ll arrive everywhere but where you SHOULD be arriving.
In our basic civil laws Bernie, all manner of human being, REGARDLESS of their criminal, moral, ethical or physical or emotional or mental differences with the exception of gay people…CAN MARRY AND HAVE CHILDREN FREELY.
Our government does not base the freedom to do so on the CHARACTER or physical condition of any other citizen.
And alcoholics cannot function when they drink.
Their physical and mental state is ALTERED by the consumption of that substance.
They MUST abstain for those reasons.
Homosexual sex doesn’t do that. A person who regularly has gay sex can still function, maintain a family and intimate relationships and their physical health is unburdened by it as well
and in no way unequal to or with any other unbearable risks that heterosexual sex doesn’t also bear.
People who proclaim that it’s unloving to support gay sex, are full of crap.
It’s just a way to dodge your civil responsibility as a citizen who respects the Constitution.
It’s a way to turn your back on a HARD REALITY.
And that hard reality is, that whatever was said about gay people in the Bible was an ignorant a statement that declared that women on their periods were untouchable.
The same ignorance that put the onus of the world’s troubles on women.
It’s the same blindness and cowardice that put Galileo in prison for his discovery regarding the Earth’s rotation.
You’re THAT kind of guy, Bernie.
You’d rather ignore scientific facts and empirical evidence of the normalcy of homosexuals and homosexuality.
Because it’s EASY.
It’s and excuse for you to take whatever Biblical selections you please and use them in civil discourse about how the government is supposed to treat gay people.
Our society did that before to other people based on their GROUP, and we haven’t recovered from it.
YOu don’t have to accept homosexuality.
But the government does.
Because gay people function just fine WITHOUT your help.
Indeed, YOUR form of help, couched in conceit is actually the detrement to gay lives.
The reason that so many gay lives (and that of the straight people who loved them) have BEEN RUINED, not improved by your kind of ministry.
Your religion makes a promise it can’t keep and writes a check on gay lives it can’t cash.
You want an excuse to NOT LEARN anymore about gay people because your religion PROHIBITS you learning more about the reality of gay life.
And if that is so…then why are you here?
If you are prohibited from dealing with anything really true about gay people and their needs and obligations to their families and citizenship, than you’ve wasted our time and yours.
But if you think that morals are legislated for everyone else, and you think the role of GENDER in marriage can be legislated…you’re truly CONSTITUTIONALLY ignorant and like being that way.
I don’t have to live according to YOUR religious choice.
And neither do gay people.
We are subjects to the Constitution.
And that’s why our laws have to be consistent for and with good citizens.
And for now, they are not when it comes to production, contributing citizens who are gay.
And being gay, doesn’t prohibit a person from being a good citizen, spouse, parent or professional.
So our laws cannot KEEP them from being so, and neither should fellow citizens.