**Ok so I've been working on this the last few days, I found this article, and I have chosen to reply to it all. Kind of a debate I guess, but really I've just been wanting to give my opinions on all of the nonsense going on these days about same-sex marriage. In a way I find Dr. Dobson funny, but everything he writes about, is how alot of Americans actually feel and think. So well, between his and opinion and mine, you can decide for yourself. And if you'd like to reply to add to either opinions feel free and comment. Well I hope you enjoy, and remember both of these are simply opinions, and in no way were they intended to offend anyone, and it shouldn't because they are just opinions. Ok thats all, Laters. **
May 23, 2004
Eleven Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage
by Dr. James Dobson
An argument in favor of homosexual marriage that you are likely to hear again and again on radio talk shows, on national television, and on the Internet, reflects a line of reasoning that you must be prepared to counter. It is embodied in these kinds of questions: Why all the fuss about gay marriage anyway? And why should it matter to you if a gay couple marries and moves into your neighborhood? Why shouldn’t our definition of family be broadened and modernized? After all, what harm could possibly be done by yielding to the demands of those who say traditional notions of family are outmoded and irrelevant? Columnist Steve Blow, in a recent edition of The Dallas Morning News, echoed some of these questions. His op-ed piece was titled “Gay Marriage: Why Would It Affect Me?” and was apparently written after he had read one of my recent newsletters on the subject. Blow wrote:
When opponents talk about the “defense of marriage,” they lose me. James Dobson’s Focus on the Family just sent out a mailer to 2.5 million homes saying: “The homosexual activists’ movement is poised to administer a devastating and potentially fatal blow to the traditional family.” And I say, “Huh?” How does anyone’s pledge of love and commitment turn into a fatal blow to families?
May 23, 2004
Eleven Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage
by Dr. James Dobson
An argument in favor of homosexual marriage that you are likely to hear again and again on radio talk shows, on national television, and on the Internet, reflects a line of reasoning that you must be prepared to counter. It is embodied in these kinds of questions: Why all the fuss about gay marriage anyway? And why should it matter to you if a gay couple marries and moves into your neighborhood? Why shouldn’t our definition of family be broadened and modernized? After all, what harm could possibly be done by yielding to the demands of those who say traditional notions of family are outmoded and irrelevant? Columnist Steve Blow, in a recent edition of The Dallas Morning News, echoed some of these questions. His op-ed piece was titled “Gay Marriage: Why Would It Affect Me?” and was apparently written after he had read one of my recent newsletters on the subject. Blow wrote:
When opponents talk about the “defense of marriage,” they lose me. James Dobson’s Focus on the Family just sent out a mailer to 2.5 million homes saying: “The homosexual activists’ movement is poised to administer a devastating and potentially fatal blow to the traditional family.” And I say, “Huh?” How does anyone’s pledge of love and commitment turn into a fatal blow to families?
Mr. Blow clearly believes that the only reason for not legalizing homosexual marriage is sheer bigotry. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are very compelling arguments against marriage between homosexuals that should be considered by anyone who has not yet become familiar with the issues. Unfortunately, the American people, as a whole, have not yet thought through the consequences and measured the impact of this revolutionary concept. I could list fifty or more legitimate concerns. Let me focus on only eleven:
1. The legalization of homosexual marriage will quickly destroy the traditional family.
We’ve already seen evidence from the Scandinavian countries that de-facto homosexual marriage destroys the real Mc Coy. These two entities cannot coexist because they represent opposite ends of the universe. A book could be written on the reasons for this collision between matter and antimatter, but I will cite three of them. First, when the State sanctions homosexual relationships and gives them its blessing, the younger generation becomes confused about sexual identity and quickly loses its understanding of lifelong commitments, emotional bonding, sexual purity, the role of children in a family, and from a spiritual perspective, the “sanctity” of marriage. Marriage is reduced to something of a partnership that provides attractive benefits and sexual convenience, but cannot offer the intimacy described in Genesis. Cohabitation and short-term relationships are the inevitable result. Ask the Norwegians, the Swedes, and the people from the Netherlands. That is exactly what is happening there.
*~*~If you really think think about it, marriage between a man and a woman is the same with any same-sex marriage, or would be the same if same-sex marriage was allowed. This says cohabitation and short-term relationships are the inevitable results of same-sex marriage being recognized. Look at how high the rate of divorce is these days, and yes divorce of a heterosexual marriage. Any type of marriage is bound to have divorces. And many heterosexual marriages reduce it just for the benefits and sexual convenience.
Second, the introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one man/one woman unions. In Utah polygamist Tom Green, who claims five wives, is citing Lawrence v. Texas as the legal authority for his appeal. In January 2004, a Salt Lake City civil rights attorney filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of another couple wanting to engage in legal polygamy. Their justification? Lawrence v. Texas. The ACLU of Utah has actually suggested that the state will “have to step up to prove that a polygamous relationship is detrimental to society” — as opposed to the polygamists having to prove that plural marriage is not harmful to the culture. Do you see how the game is played? The responsibility to defend the family now rests on you and me to prove that polygamy is unhealthy. The ACLU went on to say that the nuclear family “may not be necessarily the best model.” Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia warned of this likelihood in his statement for the minority in the Lawrence case. It took less than six months for His prediction to become a reality. Why will gay marriage set the table for polygamy? Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a foundation of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people. After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have reached their dubious decisions, the family will consist of little more than someone’s interpretation of “rights.” Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men or three women can marry. Or five men and two women. Or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against Christians who espouse biblical values!) How about group marriage, or marriage between cousins, or marriage between daddies and little girls? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to “civil rights” will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed.
*~*~I don't understand this completely, a man with 5 wives was seen not detrimental (but Dobson believes otherwise), and then Dobson goes into other things I guess he sees also has detrimental. He doesn't make sense with the paragraph, he doesn't connect well, in my opinion. A woman could have 5 husbands, a man could have 5 husbands. Anything is possible, but it was up to the government to legally prove them detrimental. In this case, one man's opinion is all it is. Based on the U.S. Constitution when it was origianlly written, a person should have the right to decide what his or her family will consisit of, it is up to them. And it shouldn't matter is someone has a difference of opinion of them, because it was not there decision.
The third reason marriage between homosexuals will destroy traditional marriage is that this is the ultimate goal of activists, and they will not stop until they achieve it. The history of the gay and lesbian movement has been that its adherents quickly move the goal line as soon as the previous one has been breached, revealing even more shocking and outrageous objectives. In the present instance, homosexual activists, heady with power and exhilaration, feel the political climate is right to tell us what they have wanted all along. This is the real deal: Most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to create an entirely different legal structure.
*~*~I believe this comment is even more shocking and outrageous, and the information is biased. I believe he is wrong, most gays and lesbians do want to marry each other for love and to have the benefits and and acknowledgement of their love just like a heterosexual couple. Based on the constitution and struggles throughout time, this country was made so that everyone was eligible to have equal rights. So what makes homosexual marriages different that heterosexual marriage when it comes to equal rights, homosexuals should be granted the same rights as everyone else, but yet we aren't granted the right of marriage. If you disagree with this, then you are saying our U.S. constitution is wrong in the sense that everyone has equal rights.
With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, and much more) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would “couples” be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed. If you doubt that this is the motive, read what is in the literature today. Activists have created a new word to replace the outmoded terms infidelity, adultery, cheating and promiscuity. The new concept is polyamorous. It means the same thing (literally “many loves”) but with the agreement of the primary sexual partner. Why not? He or she is probably polyamorous, too.
*~*~Why does Dobson continue to go with the polygamy view? I don't believe this is where the movement is headed. As a gay, I don't desire to marry more than one person, and every homosexual person I know is monogamous. Again I feel Dobson is being biased.
Liberal columnist Michael Kinsley wrote a July 2003 op-ed piece in The Washington Post titled, “Abolish Marriage: Let’s Really Get the Government Out Of Our Bedrooms.” In this revealing editorial, Kinsley writes, “[The] solution is to end the institution of marriage, or rather, the solution is to end the institution of government monopoly on marriage. And yes, if three people want to get married, or one person wants to marry herself and someone else wants to conduct a ceremony and declare them married, let ’em. If you and your government aren’t implicated, what do you care? If marriage were an entirely private affair, all the disputes over gay marriages would become irrelevant.” Otherwise, the author warns, “it’s going to get ugly.”
Judith Levine, writing in The Village Voice, offered support for these ideas in an article titled “Stop the Wedding: Why Gay Marriage Isn’t Radical Enough.” She wrote, “Because American marriage is inextricable from Christianity, it admits participants as Noah let animals on the ark. But it doesn’t have to be that way. In 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations demanded the ‘repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.’ Group marriage could comprise any combination of genders.”
Stanley Kurtz, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, summed up the situation in a recent Weekly Standard article. He noted that if gay marriage is legalized, “marriage will be transformed into a variety of relationship contracts, linking two, three or more individuals (however weakly or temporarily) in every conceivable combination of male and female … the bottom of this slope is visible from where we now stand.”
*~*~I still don't see how this author is saying that 2 people speak for the entire gay community. And as for Michael Kinsley, what he wrote in his article was simply his own opinion or thoughts. And I don't see how Dobson is linking each of these individuals as a major problem. As far as I see it they are speaking for themselves not the majority.
We must all become soberly aware of a deeply disturbing reality: The homosexual agenda is not marriage for gays. It is marriage for no one. And despite what you read or see in the media, it is definitely not monogamous. What will happen sociologically if marriage becomes anything or everything or nothing? The short answer is that the State will lose its compelling interest in marital relationships altogether. After marriage has been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver’s license or a hunting permit. With the family out of the way, all rights and privileges of marriage will accrue to gay and lesbian partners without the legal entanglements and commitments heretofore associated with it. These are just a few reasons why homosexual marriage is truly revolutionary. Legalizing it will change everything, especially for the institution of the family.
*~*~Does Dobson seriously believe that homosexuals would not have any legal commitments. A marriage is a marriage it would not change legal status just because it was between a man and man or between a woman and a woman. Why would the government change the rules and commitments of a marriage just because it would be a couple of the same sex. I think Dobson is out of line here.
2. Children will suffer most.
The implications for children in a world of decaying families are profound. Because homosexuals are rarely monogamous, often having as many as three hundred or more partners in a lifetime — some studies say it is typically more than one thousand — children in those polyamorous situations are caught in a perpetual coming and going. It is devastating to kids, who by their nature are enormously conservative creatures. They like things to stay just the way they are, and they hate change. Some have been known to eat the same brand of peanut butter throughout childhood. More than ten thousand studies have concluded that kids do best when they are raised by loving and committed mothers and fathers. They are less likely to be on illegal drugs, less likely to be retained in a grade, less likely to drop out of school, less likely to commit suicide, less likely to be in poverty, less likely to become juvenile delinquents, and for the girls, less likely to become teen mothers. They are healthier both emotionally and physically, even thirty years later, than those not so blessed by traditional parents.
*~*~Oh wow, I can't even believe what Dobson just said here. "Homosexuals are rarely monogamous and often have up to 300 partners and sometimes more than a thousand partners in a lifetime." Ok one he is completely exaggerating, and two that is complete bullshit to be blunt. The fact that he even says that is shocking to me, but yet other people still believe it simply because some scientist guy said it, it must be true. Ok and then he talks about kids with a mother and father are less likely to blah, blah, blah. Ok let me say this, any child with any kind of parent can go any sort of way with their life, good or bad. Heterosexual parents are in no way the ideal parents, they have the ability to screw up just like the next person. I know this, my parents divorced when I was 4. I have seen many homosexual parents, those either had them or adopted, and they are far more better parents than I have ever seen.
Social scientists have been surprisingly consistent in warning about the impact of fractured families. If present trends continue, the majority of children will have several “moms” and “dads,” perhaps six or eight “grandparents,” and dozens of half-siblings. It will be a world where little boys and girls are shuffled from pillar to post in an ever-changing pattern of living arrangements; where huge numbers of them will be raised in foster-care homes or living on the street, as millions do in countries all over the world today. Imagine an environment where nothing is stable and where people think primarily about themselves and their own self-preservation. And have you considered what will happen when homosexuals with children become divorced? Instead of two moms and two dads, they will have to contend with four moms or four dads. How would you like to be a new husband a generation later who instantly had four or six or eight mother-in-laws.
*~*~What happens when a divorced heterosexual family occurs, they have more grandpas and grandmas, theres not much of a difference. Any divorced family is going to have a change in living arrangements, etc. But I do not believe they would be raised in foster-care or on the street. They would still have a family even if they got divorced, their family would not abandon them. At the most, by today's law, a new husband would only have 4 mother in laws, well really just two. The original parents, and then the women married to those two would not directly be mother-in-laws because they are step-parents to the child.
We must also consider a world of the future where immorality is even more rampant than today, where both unbridled homosexual and heterosexual liaisons are the norm. The apostle Paul described such a society in the book of Romans, referring apparently to ancient Rome. He wrote, “They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless” (Romans 1:29–31). It appears likely now that the demise of families will accelerate this type of decline dramatically, resulting in a chaotic culture that will rip kids apart emotionally.
*~*~ It would not be immoral, but it is becoming more of a norm. But you do have to realize that unbridled homosexual relationships are that way because it is not legal to be married. But either way, unbridled relationships are becoming more common. My opinion is because the divorce rate is one the rise, and instead of becoming a statistic, couples are becoming smarter and choose to live together, etc. to test to see if they can end up spending the rest of their lives together. And as for what Apostle Paul said, that description is how all of the world is, and how it was then, after all everyone is a sinner. I don't believe it can accelerate or decelerate, it just is that way. I don't believe it will result in a chaotic culture or rip kids apart emotionally. And as for that, I believe kids growing up with homosexual parents have a more understanding view of the world, and are much more open-minded about everything. They are not as sheltered from the truth, like a kid would be with heterosexual parents. I base that opinion on my own life (with heterosexual paents, divorced, in which I grew up with a different view of life than most, and I'm also gay so thats another part of my view), and lives of kids that I know grew up with homosexual parents.
3. Public schools in every state will embrace homosexuality.
With the legalization of homosexual marriage, every public school in the nation will be required to teach this perversion as the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Textbooks, even in conservative regions, will have to depict man/man and woman/woman relationships, and stories written for children as young as elementary school, or even kindergarten, will have to give equal space and emphasis to homosexuals. How can a child, fresh out of toddlerhood, comprehend the meaning of adult sexuality? The answer is, they can’t, but it is happening in the state of California already.
*~*~Growing up, I don't remember being taught about sex in school until maybe 4th or 5th grade. But thats beside the point, why would it be so wrong for kids to understand how the world really is, rather than sheltering them from the truth. Its not as harmful as you think. If your honest with kids and they are able to have knowledge about things, then they can learn to think for themselves early in life and build their own opinions. Yes they would have to give equal space and emphasis to homosexuals, but it shouldn't be such a big deal, everyone deserves equal space and emphasis.
4. Adoption laws will be instantly obsolete.
From the moment that homosexual marriage becomes legal, courts will not be able to favor a traditional couple of one man and one woman in matters of adoption. Children will be placed in homes with parents representing only one sex on an equal basis with those having a mom and a dad. Even the polyamorous couples won’t be excluded. The prospect of fatherless and motherless children will not be considered in the evaluation of eligibility. It will be the law.
*~*~Adoption laws would not instantly be obsolete (no longer in use). And notice what Dobson says, the courts won't be able to favor a traditional couple of heterosexuals. When it comes to adoption companys or the people who do the legal stuff in adoption. They check out each family and decide if they are eligble to adopt, meaning they look at if they would be a responsible and safe family to have a adopted child. They don't just randomly give out kids to strange people. I believe any child with knowledge is able to put in their opinion of what type of parent they would like to be placed with. But most kids just want a safe loving home. And to reply to the parents only representing only one sex, well what about those single people who adopt, they are only representing one sex. It is actually fairly common for a single person to adopt than most people think.
5. Foster-care programs will be impacted dramatically.
Foster-care parents will be required to undergo “sensitivity training” to rid themselves of bias in favor of heterosexuality, and will have to affirm homosexuality in children and teens. Moral training, at least as it applies to sexuality, will be forbidden. Again, this is the current law in California.
*~*~Who cares if its a current law in California, I'm just saying that just cause Dobson says it like it a plague or something. Again, foster parents just like adopting parents have a choice in what type of child they receive (which technically they're all the same, but their sexual preference is simply different). But they do have a choice when they apply (or however they do it) to be able to receive a child. And if occasionally its against their will, it would be a learning experience. I believe more people need to open their eyes and see the world is different, but just because it may be different from them, doesn't mean it is wrong.
6. The health care system will stagger and perhaps collapse.
This could be the straw that breaks the back of the insurance industry in Western nations, as millions of new dependents become eligible for coverage. Every HIV-positive patient needs only to find a partner to receive the same coverage as offered to an employee. It is estimated by some analysts that an initial threefold increase in premiums can be anticipated; even with that, it may not be profitable for companies to stay in business. And how about the cost to American businesses? Will they be able to provide health benefits? If not, can physicians, nurses, and technicians be expected to work for nothing or to provide their services in exchange for a vague promise of payments from indigent patients? Try selling that to a neurosurgeon or an orthopedist who has to pay increased premiums for malpractice insurance. The entire health care system could implode. Is it possible? Yes. Will it happen? I don’t know.
*~*~And how exactly does being homosexual tie into this? Correct me if I'm wrong, each person pays for their insurance. And if you work some sort of money comes out of your paycheck to pay for some insurance or health tax. If you logically think about it, if you work and have health benefits, in some way you are really paying for those benefits. Nearly everything in this country is a contradiction. For example, something says buy one get one free, and you think well thats a higher price, but I'm getting two. But if you really do the math its the price of individual things just added together, and labeled that your getting two. At the most your saving a few cents. So having your employer give you benefits is similar, but easier to you because it seems as if they're paying for it, and is less of a financial hassle for you. Again you have to really think about it to catch my concept. But again how does being homosexual tie into this, it doesn't.
And I still don't understand how people always referring to homosexuals and HIV in the same sentence. I really don't understand that scheme. You get HIV from having sex, yes, and drug use (in which usuing needles), any random cuts, etc. But its not just a homosexual thing, and I think its time for America to stop looking at it that way. A very high percentage of people in Africa have HIV, but are they all homosexual, hell no they aren't. And I think americans realize that about the people in Africa. But they look at the people in their very own country differently. Accidents and mistakes happen, but its not one single person's, heterosexual or homesexual, one race, one age, or one gender's fault. People need to accept and realize that.
7. Social Security will be severely stressed.
Again, with millions of new eligible dependents, what will happen to the Social Security system that is already facing bankruptcy? If it does collapse, what will that mean for elderly people who must rely totally on that meager support? Who is thinking through these draconian possibilities as we careen toward “a brave new world”?
*~*~This is complete bullshit and unbased information. The definition of Social Security: a government program of monthly payments to te elderly, the disabled, and the unemployed, financed by taxation of employers and employees. How does the factor of being a homosexual key into this, it doesn't. Everyone, homosexual or heterosexual, is actually equal when it comes to social security. Honestly, I think Dobson was desperate for something to bitch about. Seriously being a homosexual does not make a difference in the way social security works, and if a collapse does occur then it will have the same effect on everyone.
8. Religious freedom will almost certainly be jeopardized.
In order to get a perspective on where the homosexual activist movement is taking us, one can simply look at our neighbors to the north. Canada is leading the way on this revolutionary path. I could cite dozens of examples indicating that religious freedom in that country is dying. Indeed, on April 28, 2004, the Parliament passed bill C 250, which effectively criminalized speech or writings that criticize homosexuality. Anything deemed to be “homophobic” can be punished by six months in prison or by other severe penalties. Pastors and priests in Canada are wondering if they can preach from Leviticus or Romans 1 or other passages from the writings of the apostle Paul. Will a new Bible be mandated that is bereft of “hate speech”? Consider this: A man who owned a printing press in Canada was fined $3,400 for refusing to print stationary for a homosexual activist organization. Censorship is already in full swing. One of our Focus on the Family radio programs on the subject of homosexuality was judged by the Canadian Radio and Television Commission to be “homophobic.” The radio station that carried the broadcast was censured for airing it, and I have not been able to address the issue since. Is that kind of censorship coming to the United States. Yes, I believe it is. Once homosexual marriage is legalized, if indeed that is where we are headed, laws based on what will be considered “equality” will bring many changes in the law. Furthermore, it is likely that non-profit organizations that refuse to hire homosexuals on religious grounds will lose their tax exemptions. Some Christian colleges and universities are already worrying about that possibility.
*~*~ Aww.... good ol' religious freedom, its been bullshit since the beginning of this country. Christianity as been imposed on americans, seriously think about it. Americans have relgious freedom, but yet when someone did witchcraft back in the day, they were burned or hung, just for thinking different, and going against the accepted norm. In the 1950's (specifically when, i'm not sure), "In God We Trust" was put into the pledge of allegiance. Now let me ask you, did they ask everyone in America if they wanted that in the pledge? No they didn't, but even so, the majority wins, and many legal battles have gone on since, but that just brings in more money for government. Ok and when you bring up Canada's decisions you have to realize they are not the United States, they have different laws than us. Here in America, we have the right of free press etc. Which makes it easier to plead your case if you publish something that is homophobic, you have that right. Businesses have the right to refuse business to anyone . However, you can not discriminate on basis of being prejudice. One thing about America, its full of contradictions, get used to it.
Honestly, I'm proud of Canada for criminalizing homophobic speeches and writings. Its promotes more understanding. Sure I don't think it would be a problem for pastors to preech their teachings of the bible, and whatever it says against homosexuals, in church. But thats simply it, it should stay in church. What is it about Christianity, and them trying to force religion on you. Don't deny it, thats what they do. In the old days, and still in today's society you are criticized and looked down upon for being different, hate crimes (physically and emotionally) still occur. I don't think homosexual marriages will bring on such changes (or not near as dramatic as Dobson makes them out to be) to America, sure things will change, equality will be more promoted. Get used to it. There are boundaries to everything. Religion will have its boundaries, keep it inside church, where it belongs.
And as for people saying they don't want to see any homosexual couples or whatever, well let me say this, I don't want to see any heterosexual couples either. Seriously I don't know how many times I'm seen straight couples making out at school and everyone else, I don't want to see it as much as the next person, save it for your home, please. I don't want to see them make out, and people don't want to see homosexuals make out either. There should be a balance with that. But homosexuals are shunned and criticizes for their PDA. I would like to be able to hold hands with whoever I am dating in public just like every straight couple is allowed to do, but being a homosexual I can't without some sort of negative result, atleast one person will give you a "your going to hell" look. I wish I could have equal rights and results just like a straight couple would. Homosexuals are no different than a straight couple, so why should we be treated differently. And seriously, any couple, gay or straight, save the making out and being all over each other for some place private, like your own home, I don't want to see it. Simple kisses and holding hands is ok, simple is ok. Any one else agree with that last part? I hope someone does, lol.
9. Other nations are watching our march toward homosexual marriage and will follow our lead.
Marriage among homosexuals will spread throughout the world, just as pornography did after the Nixon Commission declared obscene material “beneficial” to mankind. Almost instantly, the English-speaking countries liberalized their laws against smut. America continues to be the fountainhead of filth and immorality, and its influence is global. Dr. Darrell Reid, president of Focus on the Family Canada, told me recently that his country is carefully monitoring what is happening in the United States. If we take this step off a cliff, the family on every continent will splinter at an accelerated rate. Conversely, our Supreme Court has made it clear that it looks to European and Canadian law in the interpretation of our Constitution. What an outrage! That should have been grounds for impeachment, but the Congress, as usual, remained passive and silent.
*~*~Foreign countries should follow our lead, but really as far as understanding goes, other countries are far ahead of us americans, when it comes to homosexuality that is. As far as the Nixon/smut part, until Christianity came along, was nudity not a bad thing. America is full of "filth and immorality" but so is every other country in the world. Ok so its an "outrage!" for our own government to look to other countries to see how they interpret our constitution, how is that wrong, its simply informative. And once more, homosexual marriage would not be a bad thing.
10. The gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed.
The family has been God’s primary vehicle for evangelism since the beginning. Its most important assignment has been the propagation of the human race and the handing down of the faith to our children. Malachi 2:15 reads, referring to husbands and wives, “Has not the Lord made them one? In flesh and spirit they are His. And why one? Because He was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth.” That responsibility to teach the next generation will never recover from the loss of committed, God-fearing families. The younger generation and those yet to come will be deprived of the Good News, as has already occurred in France, Germany, and other European countries. Instead of providing for a father and mother, the advent of homosexual marriage will create millions of motherless children and fatherless kids. Are we now going to join the Netherlands and Belgium to become the third country in the history of the world to “normalize” and legalize behavior that has been prohibited by God himself? Heaven help us if we do!
*~*~You know what I find funny "God-fearing families" is it ever a good thing to fear someone? "The advent of homosexual marriage will create milions of motherless and fatherless kids," how is that exactly?? Their are orphans out there, but they are the only ones without parents. So how does a homosexual marriage tie into that, it doesn't, most homosexual couples want kids but can't have them without more complicated actions. So most of the couples want to adopt kids, and if homosexuals weren't so discriminated, I believe more of those orphans would have families.
I find it funny when Dobson is talking about other countries that have legalized homosexual marriages or "behaviors," simply because he says its been prohibited by God himself. God created every man equal, every man is a sinner, but he loves each and everyone still. I know my religion well enough. But really this paragraph just proves to me more that people are forcing religion on others. Why not let people make up their own minds about their life. Yeah its obvious only men's sperm and women's eggs can make a child. But I think things would balance out, between straight couples and their kids and homosexual couples to would like to adopt (and granted some of those couples actually take the harder way to be able to have their own kids). But only with Christianity (and its followers), does it make it seem wrong for two of the same sex to be together.
Oh and something I always say to people, man is the ultimate sinner right? Man is the one who wrote the bible, the bible could be the ultimate fictious noval, think about it. Now believe me, I'm not one person to try and get people to question their faith, or think of me as the devil acting out by getting me to test people's faith. By any means I'm not like that, I'm just trying to get people to think about things logically. I don't believe in worshiping someone or something, I believe in morals, virtues and living the everyday life the best I can. I want people to think and realize everyone is the same, inside and out. Different personalities, and different preferences in life, but in no way should those differences make someone wrong. I know people make mistakes, huge mistakes, but I can forgive and forget, I get over it. I can't say I am a believer in God, but I do think alot of teachings in the bible are good. Sure I wonder how the world came about and where we go when we die and all of that. But I've never been able to bring myself to stick with Christianity. I'm a worldly person, I believe in alot of things, I believe in life, and living it, and treating each and every person the way I'd like to be treated.
11. The culture war will be over, and the world may soon become “as it was in the days of Noah” (Matthew 24:37).
This is the climactic moment in the battle to preserve the family, and future generations hang in the balance. This apocalyptic and pessimistic view of the institution of the family and its future will sound alarmist to many, but I think it will prove accurate unless — unless — God’s people awaken and begin an even greater vigil of prayer for our nation. That’s why we are urgently seeking the Lord’s favor and asking Him to hear the petitions of His people and heal our land. As of this time, however, large segments of the church still appear to be unaware of the danger; its leaders are surprisingly silent about our peril (although we are tremendously thankful for the efforts of those who have spoken out on this issue). This reticence on behalf of Christians is deeply troubling. Marriage is a sacrament designed by God that serves as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and His church. Tampering with His plan for the family is immoral and wrong. To violate the Lord’s expressed will for humankind, especially in regard to behavior that He has prohibited, is to court disaster.
*~*~Marriage is a sacrament designed by the people, as a legal acknowledgement of their love. Meh... to preserve the family, thats near impossible, you'd have to stop all of the divorces with normal heterosexual families first, then you'd have to prevent any homosexual marriages too. But thats in the eyes of Christianity. Its all going to be based on religion But you have to think about it, before Christianity was actually around, being a homosexual was not a bad thing. Like back when the Romans ruled, most male leaders had a male "mistress." Like Ceasar. It just wasn't a big deal back then. I don't have a whole lot of specifics on that, but I do know its true.
But really though, you have to really think about it, before Christianity came around, being a homosexual really just wasn't that big of a deal. So why has it made such a difference? But ever since it did come around, and the spreading of it (most of which was imposed), it has been forced on people as they were being raised as child. I probably would be just like the next christian person, but I learned to think for myself and to think outside of the box when growing up. The world isn't just peachy like to many Christians choose to believe, or I should say ignore, you can't follow one path and ignore the rest of the world. Not in today's society, you have to interact with millions of other people who are different than your self, of different races, religions, ages, genders, sexual preferences, etc.
No one single person is exactly like you, and people need to realize that, and accept it. Otherwise I believe there will always be struggles, I know that well after I die for me more generations, the culture war will not be over lol. Christians could believe like Dobson, that God will come down and flood the world and only save the believers and wash away all the sinners. But what about all the other nonbelievers in the world today, the don't belive in God or that he'll come and flood the world. To the Christians, ya'll are not the only people in the world, you do not control the world, yes your opinion matters, but stop imposing on the way other people want and choose to live. Live your life the way you want to, and let the other people live theres.
Link to Dobson's article
1. The legalization of homosexual marriage will quickly destroy the traditional family.
We’ve already seen evidence from the Scandinavian countries that de-facto homosexual marriage destroys the real Mc Coy. These two entities cannot coexist because they represent opposite ends of the universe. A book could be written on the reasons for this collision between matter and antimatter, but I will cite three of them. First, when the State sanctions homosexual relationships and gives them its blessing, the younger generation becomes confused about sexual identity and quickly loses its understanding of lifelong commitments, emotional bonding, sexual purity, the role of children in a family, and from a spiritual perspective, the “sanctity” of marriage. Marriage is reduced to something of a partnership that provides attractive benefits and sexual convenience, but cannot offer the intimacy described in Genesis. Cohabitation and short-term relationships are the inevitable result. Ask the Norwegians, the Swedes, and the people from the Netherlands. That is exactly what is happening there.
*~*~If you really think think about it, marriage between a man and a woman is the same with any same-sex marriage, or would be the same if same-sex marriage was allowed. This says cohabitation and short-term relationships are the inevitable results of same-sex marriage being recognized. Look at how high the rate of divorce is these days, and yes divorce of a heterosexual marriage. Any type of marriage is bound to have divorces. And many heterosexual marriages reduce it just for the benefits and sexual convenience.
Second, the introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one man/one woman unions. In Utah polygamist Tom Green, who claims five wives, is citing Lawrence v. Texas as the legal authority for his appeal. In January 2004, a Salt Lake City civil rights attorney filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of another couple wanting to engage in legal polygamy. Their justification? Lawrence v. Texas. The ACLU of Utah has actually suggested that the state will “have to step up to prove that a polygamous relationship is detrimental to society” — as opposed to the polygamists having to prove that plural marriage is not harmful to the culture. Do you see how the game is played? The responsibility to defend the family now rests on you and me to prove that polygamy is unhealthy. The ACLU went on to say that the nuclear family “may not be necessarily the best model.” Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia warned of this likelihood in his statement for the minority in the Lawrence case. It took less than six months for His prediction to become a reality. Why will gay marriage set the table for polygamy? Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a foundation of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people. After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have reached their dubious decisions, the family will consist of little more than someone’s interpretation of “rights.” Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men or three women can marry. Or five men and two women. Or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against Christians who espouse biblical values!) How about group marriage, or marriage between cousins, or marriage between daddies and little girls? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to “civil rights” will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed.
*~*~I don't understand this completely, a man with 5 wives was seen not detrimental (but Dobson believes otherwise), and then Dobson goes into other things I guess he sees also has detrimental. He doesn't make sense with the paragraph, he doesn't connect well, in my opinion. A woman could have 5 husbands, a man could have 5 husbands. Anything is possible, but it was up to the government to legally prove them detrimental. In this case, one man's opinion is all it is. Based on the U.S. Constitution when it was origianlly written, a person should have the right to decide what his or her family will consisit of, it is up to them. And it shouldn't matter is someone has a difference of opinion of them, because it was not there decision.
The third reason marriage between homosexuals will destroy traditional marriage is that this is the ultimate goal of activists, and they will not stop until they achieve it. The history of the gay and lesbian movement has been that its adherents quickly move the goal line as soon as the previous one has been breached, revealing even more shocking and outrageous objectives. In the present instance, homosexual activists, heady with power and exhilaration, feel the political climate is right to tell us what they have wanted all along. This is the real deal: Most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to create an entirely different legal structure.
*~*~I believe this comment is even more shocking and outrageous, and the information is biased. I believe he is wrong, most gays and lesbians do want to marry each other for love and to have the benefits and and acknowledgement of their love just like a heterosexual couple. Based on the constitution and struggles throughout time, this country was made so that everyone was eligible to have equal rights. So what makes homosexual marriages different that heterosexual marriage when it comes to equal rights, homosexuals should be granted the same rights as everyone else, but yet we aren't granted the right of marriage. If you disagree with this, then you are saying our U.S. constitution is wrong in the sense that everyone has equal rights.
With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, and much more) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would “couples” be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed. If you doubt that this is the motive, read what is in the literature today. Activists have created a new word to replace the outmoded terms infidelity, adultery, cheating and promiscuity. The new concept is polyamorous. It means the same thing (literally “many loves”) but with the agreement of the primary sexual partner. Why not? He or she is probably polyamorous, too.
*~*~Why does Dobson continue to go with the polygamy view? I don't believe this is where the movement is headed. As a gay, I don't desire to marry more than one person, and every homosexual person I know is monogamous. Again I feel Dobson is being biased.
Liberal columnist Michael Kinsley wrote a July 2003 op-ed piece in The Washington Post titled, “Abolish Marriage: Let’s Really Get the Government Out Of Our Bedrooms.” In this revealing editorial, Kinsley writes, “[The] solution is to end the institution of marriage, or rather, the solution is to end the institution of government monopoly on marriage. And yes, if three people want to get married, or one person wants to marry herself and someone else wants to conduct a ceremony and declare them married, let ’em. If you and your government aren’t implicated, what do you care? If marriage were an entirely private affair, all the disputes over gay marriages would become irrelevant.” Otherwise, the author warns, “it’s going to get ugly.”
Judith Levine, writing in The Village Voice, offered support for these ideas in an article titled “Stop the Wedding: Why Gay Marriage Isn’t Radical Enough.” She wrote, “Because American marriage is inextricable from Christianity, it admits participants as Noah let animals on the ark. But it doesn’t have to be that way. In 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations demanded the ‘repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.’ Group marriage could comprise any combination of genders.”
Stanley Kurtz, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, summed up the situation in a recent Weekly Standard article. He noted that if gay marriage is legalized, “marriage will be transformed into a variety of relationship contracts, linking two, three or more individuals (however weakly or temporarily) in every conceivable combination of male and female … the bottom of this slope is visible from where we now stand.”
*~*~I still don't see how this author is saying that 2 people speak for the entire gay community. And as for Michael Kinsley, what he wrote in his article was simply his own opinion or thoughts. And I don't see how Dobson is linking each of these individuals as a major problem. As far as I see it they are speaking for themselves not the majority.
We must all become soberly aware of a deeply disturbing reality: The homosexual agenda is not marriage for gays. It is marriage for no one. And despite what you read or see in the media, it is definitely not monogamous. What will happen sociologically if marriage becomes anything or everything or nothing? The short answer is that the State will lose its compelling interest in marital relationships altogether. After marriage has been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver’s license or a hunting permit. With the family out of the way, all rights and privileges of marriage will accrue to gay and lesbian partners without the legal entanglements and commitments heretofore associated with it. These are just a few reasons why homosexual marriage is truly revolutionary. Legalizing it will change everything, especially for the institution of the family.
*~*~Does Dobson seriously believe that homosexuals would not have any legal commitments. A marriage is a marriage it would not change legal status just because it was between a man and man or between a woman and a woman. Why would the government change the rules and commitments of a marriage just because it would be a couple of the same sex. I think Dobson is out of line here.
2. Children will suffer most.
The implications for children in a world of decaying families are profound. Because homosexuals are rarely monogamous, often having as many as three hundred or more partners in a lifetime — some studies say it is typically more than one thousand — children in those polyamorous situations are caught in a perpetual coming and going. It is devastating to kids, who by their nature are enormously conservative creatures. They like things to stay just the way they are, and they hate change. Some have been known to eat the same brand of peanut butter throughout childhood. More than ten thousand studies have concluded that kids do best when they are raised by loving and committed mothers and fathers. They are less likely to be on illegal drugs, less likely to be retained in a grade, less likely to drop out of school, less likely to commit suicide, less likely to be in poverty, less likely to become juvenile delinquents, and for the girls, less likely to become teen mothers. They are healthier both emotionally and physically, even thirty years later, than those not so blessed by traditional parents.
*~*~Oh wow, I can't even believe what Dobson just said here. "Homosexuals are rarely monogamous and often have up to 300 partners and sometimes more than a thousand partners in a lifetime." Ok one he is completely exaggerating, and two that is complete bullshit to be blunt. The fact that he even says that is shocking to me, but yet other people still believe it simply because some scientist guy said it, it must be true. Ok and then he talks about kids with a mother and father are less likely to blah, blah, blah. Ok let me say this, any child with any kind of parent can go any sort of way with their life, good or bad. Heterosexual parents are in no way the ideal parents, they have the ability to screw up just like the next person. I know this, my parents divorced when I was 4. I have seen many homosexual parents, those either had them or adopted, and they are far more better parents than I have ever seen.
Social scientists have been surprisingly consistent in warning about the impact of fractured families. If present trends continue, the majority of children will have several “moms” and “dads,” perhaps six or eight “grandparents,” and dozens of half-siblings. It will be a world where little boys and girls are shuffled from pillar to post in an ever-changing pattern of living arrangements; where huge numbers of them will be raised in foster-care homes or living on the street, as millions do in countries all over the world today. Imagine an environment where nothing is stable and where people think primarily about themselves and their own self-preservation. And have you considered what will happen when homosexuals with children become divorced? Instead of two moms and two dads, they will have to contend with four moms or four dads. How would you like to be a new husband a generation later who instantly had four or six or eight mother-in-laws.
*~*~What happens when a divorced heterosexual family occurs, they have more grandpas and grandmas, theres not much of a difference. Any divorced family is going to have a change in living arrangements, etc. But I do not believe they would be raised in foster-care or on the street. They would still have a family even if they got divorced, their family would not abandon them. At the most, by today's law, a new husband would only have 4 mother in laws, well really just two. The original parents, and then the women married to those two would not directly be mother-in-laws because they are step-parents to the child.
We must also consider a world of the future where immorality is even more rampant than today, where both unbridled homosexual and heterosexual liaisons are the norm. The apostle Paul described such a society in the book of Romans, referring apparently to ancient Rome. He wrote, “They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless” (Romans 1:29–31). It appears likely now that the demise of families will accelerate this type of decline dramatically, resulting in a chaotic culture that will rip kids apart emotionally.
*~*~ It would not be immoral, but it is becoming more of a norm. But you do have to realize that unbridled homosexual relationships are that way because it is not legal to be married. But either way, unbridled relationships are becoming more common. My opinion is because the divorce rate is one the rise, and instead of becoming a statistic, couples are becoming smarter and choose to live together, etc. to test to see if they can end up spending the rest of their lives together. And as for what Apostle Paul said, that description is how all of the world is, and how it was then, after all everyone is a sinner. I don't believe it can accelerate or decelerate, it just is that way. I don't believe it will result in a chaotic culture or rip kids apart emotionally. And as for that, I believe kids growing up with homosexual parents have a more understanding view of the world, and are much more open-minded about everything. They are not as sheltered from the truth, like a kid would be with heterosexual parents. I base that opinion on my own life (with heterosexual paents, divorced, in which I grew up with a different view of life than most, and I'm also gay so thats another part of my view), and lives of kids that I know grew up with homosexual parents.
3. Public schools in every state will embrace homosexuality.
With the legalization of homosexual marriage, every public school in the nation will be required to teach this perversion as the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Textbooks, even in conservative regions, will have to depict man/man and woman/woman relationships, and stories written for children as young as elementary school, or even kindergarten, will have to give equal space and emphasis to homosexuals. How can a child, fresh out of toddlerhood, comprehend the meaning of adult sexuality? The answer is, they can’t, but it is happening in the state of California already.
*~*~Growing up, I don't remember being taught about sex in school until maybe 4th or 5th grade. But thats beside the point, why would it be so wrong for kids to understand how the world really is, rather than sheltering them from the truth. Its not as harmful as you think. If your honest with kids and they are able to have knowledge about things, then they can learn to think for themselves early in life and build their own opinions. Yes they would have to give equal space and emphasis to homosexuals, but it shouldn't be such a big deal, everyone deserves equal space and emphasis.
4. Adoption laws will be instantly obsolete.
From the moment that homosexual marriage becomes legal, courts will not be able to favor a traditional couple of one man and one woman in matters of adoption. Children will be placed in homes with parents representing only one sex on an equal basis with those having a mom and a dad. Even the polyamorous couples won’t be excluded. The prospect of fatherless and motherless children will not be considered in the evaluation of eligibility. It will be the law.
*~*~Adoption laws would not instantly be obsolete (no longer in use). And notice what Dobson says, the courts won't be able to favor a traditional couple of heterosexuals. When it comes to adoption companys or the people who do the legal stuff in adoption. They check out each family and decide if they are eligble to adopt, meaning they look at if they would be a responsible and safe family to have a adopted child. They don't just randomly give out kids to strange people. I believe any child with knowledge is able to put in their opinion of what type of parent they would like to be placed with. But most kids just want a safe loving home. And to reply to the parents only representing only one sex, well what about those single people who adopt, they are only representing one sex. It is actually fairly common for a single person to adopt than most people think.
5. Foster-care programs will be impacted dramatically.
Foster-care parents will be required to undergo “sensitivity training” to rid themselves of bias in favor of heterosexuality, and will have to affirm homosexuality in children and teens. Moral training, at least as it applies to sexuality, will be forbidden. Again, this is the current law in California.
*~*~Who cares if its a current law in California, I'm just saying that just cause Dobson says it like it a plague or something. Again, foster parents just like adopting parents have a choice in what type of child they receive (which technically they're all the same, but their sexual preference is simply different). But they do have a choice when they apply (or however they do it) to be able to receive a child. And if occasionally its against their will, it would be a learning experience. I believe more people need to open their eyes and see the world is different, but just because it may be different from them, doesn't mean it is wrong.
6. The health care system will stagger and perhaps collapse.
This could be the straw that breaks the back of the insurance industry in Western nations, as millions of new dependents become eligible for coverage. Every HIV-positive patient needs only to find a partner to receive the same coverage as offered to an employee. It is estimated by some analysts that an initial threefold increase in premiums can be anticipated; even with that, it may not be profitable for companies to stay in business. And how about the cost to American businesses? Will they be able to provide health benefits? If not, can physicians, nurses, and technicians be expected to work for nothing or to provide their services in exchange for a vague promise of payments from indigent patients? Try selling that to a neurosurgeon or an orthopedist who has to pay increased premiums for malpractice insurance. The entire health care system could implode. Is it possible? Yes. Will it happen? I don’t know.
*~*~And how exactly does being homosexual tie into this? Correct me if I'm wrong, each person pays for their insurance. And if you work some sort of money comes out of your paycheck to pay for some insurance or health tax. If you logically think about it, if you work and have health benefits, in some way you are really paying for those benefits. Nearly everything in this country is a contradiction. For example, something says buy one get one free, and you think well thats a higher price, but I'm getting two. But if you really do the math its the price of individual things just added together, and labeled that your getting two. At the most your saving a few cents. So having your employer give you benefits is similar, but easier to you because it seems as if they're paying for it, and is less of a financial hassle for you. Again you have to really think about it to catch my concept. But again how does being homosexual tie into this, it doesn't.
And I still don't understand how people always referring to homosexuals and HIV in the same sentence. I really don't understand that scheme. You get HIV from having sex, yes, and drug use (in which usuing needles), any random cuts, etc. But its not just a homosexual thing, and I think its time for America to stop looking at it that way. A very high percentage of people in Africa have HIV, but are they all homosexual, hell no they aren't. And I think americans realize that about the people in Africa. But they look at the people in their very own country differently. Accidents and mistakes happen, but its not one single person's, heterosexual or homesexual, one race, one age, or one gender's fault. People need to accept and realize that.
7. Social Security will be severely stressed.
Again, with millions of new eligible dependents, what will happen to the Social Security system that is already facing bankruptcy? If it does collapse, what will that mean for elderly people who must rely totally on that meager support? Who is thinking through these draconian possibilities as we careen toward “a brave new world”?
*~*~This is complete bullshit and unbased information. The definition of Social Security: a government program of monthly payments to te elderly, the disabled, and the unemployed, financed by taxation of employers and employees. How does the factor of being a homosexual key into this, it doesn't. Everyone, homosexual or heterosexual, is actually equal when it comes to social security. Honestly, I think Dobson was desperate for something to bitch about. Seriously being a homosexual does not make a difference in the way social security works, and if a collapse does occur then it will have the same effect on everyone.
8. Religious freedom will almost certainly be jeopardized.
In order to get a perspective on where the homosexual activist movement is taking us, one can simply look at our neighbors to the north. Canada is leading the way on this revolutionary path. I could cite dozens of examples indicating that religious freedom in that country is dying. Indeed, on April 28, 2004, the Parliament passed bill C 250, which effectively criminalized speech or writings that criticize homosexuality. Anything deemed to be “homophobic” can be punished by six months in prison or by other severe penalties. Pastors and priests in Canada are wondering if they can preach from Leviticus or Romans 1 or other passages from the writings of the apostle Paul. Will a new Bible be mandated that is bereft of “hate speech”? Consider this: A man who owned a printing press in Canada was fined $3,400 for refusing to print stationary for a homosexual activist organization. Censorship is already in full swing. One of our Focus on the Family radio programs on the subject of homosexuality was judged by the Canadian Radio and Television Commission to be “homophobic.” The radio station that carried the broadcast was censured for airing it, and I have not been able to address the issue since. Is that kind of censorship coming to the United States. Yes, I believe it is. Once homosexual marriage is legalized, if indeed that is where we are headed, laws based on what will be considered “equality” will bring many changes in the law. Furthermore, it is likely that non-profit organizations that refuse to hire homosexuals on religious grounds will lose their tax exemptions. Some Christian colleges and universities are already worrying about that possibility.
*~*~ Aww.... good ol' religious freedom, its been bullshit since the beginning of this country. Christianity as been imposed on americans, seriously think about it. Americans have relgious freedom, but yet when someone did witchcraft back in the day, they were burned or hung, just for thinking different, and going against the accepted norm. In the 1950's (specifically when, i'm not sure), "In God We Trust" was put into the pledge of allegiance. Now let me ask you, did they ask everyone in America if they wanted that in the pledge? No they didn't, but even so, the majority wins, and many legal battles have gone on since, but that just brings in more money for government. Ok and when you bring up Canada's decisions you have to realize they are not the United States, they have different laws than us. Here in America, we have the right of free press etc. Which makes it easier to plead your case if you publish something that is homophobic, you have that right. Businesses have the right to refuse business to anyone . However, you can not discriminate on basis of being prejudice. One thing about America, its full of contradictions, get used to it.
Honestly, I'm proud of Canada for criminalizing homophobic speeches and writings. Its promotes more understanding. Sure I don't think it would be a problem for pastors to preech their teachings of the bible, and whatever it says against homosexuals, in church. But thats simply it, it should stay in church. What is it about Christianity, and them trying to force religion on you. Don't deny it, thats what they do. In the old days, and still in today's society you are criticized and looked down upon for being different, hate crimes (physically and emotionally) still occur. I don't think homosexual marriages will bring on such changes (or not near as dramatic as Dobson makes them out to be) to America, sure things will change, equality will be more promoted. Get used to it. There are boundaries to everything. Religion will have its boundaries, keep it inside church, where it belongs.
And as for people saying they don't want to see any homosexual couples or whatever, well let me say this, I don't want to see any heterosexual couples either. Seriously I don't know how many times I'm seen straight couples making out at school and everyone else, I don't want to see it as much as the next person, save it for your home, please. I don't want to see them make out, and people don't want to see homosexuals make out either. There should be a balance with that. But homosexuals are shunned and criticizes for their PDA. I would like to be able to hold hands with whoever I am dating in public just like every straight couple is allowed to do, but being a homosexual I can't without some sort of negative result, atleast one person will give you a "your going to hell" look. I wish I could have equal rights and results just like a straight couple would. Homosexuals are no different than a straight couple, so why should we be treated differently. And seriously, any couple, gay or straight, save the making out and being all over each other for some place private, like your own home, I don't want to see it. Simple kisses and holding hands is ok, simple is ok. Any one else agree with that last part? I hope someone does, lol.
9. Other nations are watching our march toward homosexual marriage and will follow our lead.
Marriage among homosexuals will spread throughout the world, just as pornography did after the Nixon Commission declared obscene material “beneficial” to mankind. Almost instantly, the English-speaking countries liberalized their laws against smut. America continues to be the fountainhead of filth and immorality, and its influence is global. Dr. Darrell Reid, president of Focus on the Family Canada, told me recently that his country is carefully monitoring what is happening in the United States. If we take this step off a cliff, the family on every continent will splinter at an accelerated rate. Conversely, our Supreme Court has made it clear that it looks to European and Canadian law in the interpretation of our Constitution. What an outrage! That should have been grounds for impeachment, but the Congress, as usual, remained passive and silent.
*~*~Foreign countries should follow our lead, but really as far as understanding goes, other countries are far ahead of us americans, when it comes to homosexuality that is. As far as the Nixon/smut part, until Christianity came along, was nudity not a bad thing. America is full of "filth and immorality" but so is every other country in the world. Ok so its an "outrage!" for our own government to look to other countries to see how they interpret our constitution, how is that wrong, its simply informative. And once more, homosexual marriage would not be a bad thing.
10. The gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed.
The family has been God’s primary vehicle for evangelism since the beginning. Its most important assignment has been the propagation of the human race and the handing down of the faith to our children. Malachi 2:15 reads, referring to husbands and wives, “Has not the Lord made them one? In flesh and spirit they are His. And why one? Because He was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth.” That responsibility to teach the next generation will never recover from the loss of committed, God-fearing families. The younger generation and those yet to come will be deprived of the Good News, as has already occurred in France, Germany, and other European countries. Instead of providing for a father and mother, the advent of homosexual marriage will create millions of motherless children and fatherless kids. Are we now going to join the Netherlands and Belgium to become the third country in the history of the world to “normalize” and legalize behavior that has been prohibited by God himself? Heaven help us if we do!
*~*~You know what I find funny "God-fearing families" is it ever a good thing to fear someone? "The advent of homosexual marriage will create milions of motherless and fatherless kids," how is that exactly?? Their are orphans out there, but they are the only ones without parents. So how does a homosexual marriage tie into that, it doesn't, most homosexual couples want kids but can't have them without more complicated actions. So most of the couples want to adopt kids, and if homosexuals weren't so discriminated, I believe more of those orphans would have families.
I find it funny when Dobson is talking about other countries that have legalized homosexual marriages or "behaviors," simply because he says its been prohibited by God himself. God created every man equal, every man is a sinner, but he loves each and everyone still. I know my religion well enough. But really this paragraph just proves to me more that people are forcing religion on others. Why not let people make up their own minds about their life. Yeah its obvious only men's sperm and women's eggs can make a child. But I think things would balance out, between straight couples and their kids and homosexual couples to would like to adopt (and granted some of those couples actually take the harder way to be able to have their own kids). But only with Christianity (and its followers), does it make it seem wrong for two of the same sex to be together.
Oh and something I always say to people, man is the ultimate sinner right? Man is the one who wrote the bible, the bible could be the ultimate fictious noval, think about it. Now believe me, I'm not one person to try and get people to question their faith, or think of me as the devil acting out by getting me to test people's faith. By any means I'm not like that, I'm just trying to get people to think about things logically. I don't believe in worshiping someone or something, I believe in morals, virtues and living the everyday life the best I can. I want people to think and realize everyone is the same, inside and out. Different personalities, and different preferences in life, but in no way should those differences make someone wrong. I know people make mistakes, huge mistakes, but I can forgive and forget, I get over it. I can't say I am a believer in God, but I do think alot of teachings in the bible are good. Sure I wonder how the world came about and where we go when we die and all of that. But I've never been able to bring myself to stick with Christianity. I'm a worldly person, I believe in alot of things, I believe in life, and living it, and treating each and every person the way I'd like to be treated.
11. The culture war will be over, and the world may soon become “as it was in the days of Noah” (Matthew 24:37).
This is the climactic moment in the battle to preserve the family, and future generations hang in the balance. This apocalyptic and pessimistic view of the institution of the family and its future will sound alarmist to many, but I think it will prove accurate unless — unless — God’s people awaken and begin an even greater vigil of prayer for our nation. That’s why we are urgently seeking the Lord’s favor and asking Him to hear the petitions of His people and heal our land. As of this time, however, large segments of the church still appear to be unaware of the danger; its leaders are surprisingly silent about our peril (although we are tremendously thankful for the efforts of those who have spoken out on this issue). This reticence on behalf of Christians is deeply troubling. Marriage is a sacrament designed by God that serves as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and His church. Tampering with His plan for the family is immoral and wrong. To violate the Lord’s expressed will for humankind, especially in regard to behavior that He has prohibited, is to court disaster.
*~*~Marriage is a sacrament designed by the people, as a legal acknowledgement of their love. Meh... to preserve the family, thats near impossible, you'd have to stop all of the divorces with normal heterosexual families first, then you'd have to prevent any homosexual marriages too. But thats in the eyes of Christianity. Its all going to be based on religion But you have to think about it, before Christianity was actually around, being a homosexual was not a bad thing. Like back when the Romans ruled, most male leaders had a male "mistress." Like Ceasar. It just wasn't a big deal back then. I don't have a whole lot of specifics on that, but I do know its true.
But really though, you have to really think about it, before Christianity came around, being a homosexual really just wasn't that big of a deal. So why has it made such a difference? But ever since it did come around, and the spreading of it (most of which was imposed), it has been forced on people as they were being raised as child. I probably would be just like the next christian person, but I learned to think for myself and to think outside of the box when growing up. The world isn't just peachy like to many Christians choose to believe, or I should say ignore, you can't follow one path and ignore the rest of the world. Not in today's society, you have to interact with millions of other people who are different than your self, of different races, religions, ages, genders, sexual preferences, etc.
No one single person is exactly like you, and people need to realize that, and accept it. Otherwise I believe there will always be struggles, I know that well after I die for me more generations, the culture war will not be over lol. Christians could believe like Dobson, that God will come down and flood the world and only save the believers and wash away all the sinners. But what about all the other nonbelievers in the world today, the don't belive in God or that he'll come and flood the world. To the Christians, ya'll are not the only people in the world, you do not control the world, yes your opinion matters, but stop imposing on the way other people want and choose to live. Live your life the way you want to, and let the other people live theres.
Link to Dobson's article
2 comments:
Firstly, I want to thank you for posting this article with your adjoining comments into your blogger. Though it may seem like simply a small and distant voice that it not to be heard over the roar of society...it is information and views and voices like yours that help aid in the fight to achieve equality for all people. So, thank you for taking a stand and stating your opinion...for taking advantage of your right of freedom of speech and working towards a more just society.
It was refreshing to read your opinions in opposition of what Dobson stated, mostly in part because your views are so similar to mine. I believe this is due to the fact that I am gay as well. It still appals me how people, like Dobson, beleive that they have the authority to decide what is moral in this society, how a group of people can state that they do not agree with the sanction of homosexual marriage and decide that it is up to them to "cleanse" soceity of the "evil" of homosexuality. This relates to how Dobson stated that once the homosexual community receives something they were striving to acquire that they higher the bar and "even more shocking and outrageous objectives" stating that "the intention here is to create an entirely different legal structure". Homosexuals desire to be granted the freedoms of marriage, and even those more basic, that are granted to heterosexuals has nothing to do with trying to corrupt society or government...it's about equality and recognition. I, as a homosexual, am tired of being swept under the rug...I am in a relationship with a woman and we are married, but according to all heterosexuals we are not...the most they will give us is the title "committed"...and why...because they do not like the fact that I am a woman in love with another woman...if society was based on what people liked or didn't like...I don't think that it would survive...all other aspects are based on fairness and justice...but for some reason this issue seems to be more revolved around personal opinion and religion...two things that should not be involved in the decision of what is best for soceity. I still believe that the term "seperation of church and state" that was taught to me in high school still holds true, in mu mind it means that any aspect of the state, such as elections and the passing of laws, etc, should be completely unaffected by the church. I believe that this is a beneficial doing, for it helps decrease the biases present when taking on the task of bettering society. Most other political and soceital decisions and dilemmas are discussed and decided upon without the influence of church, but lately it seems as if church has been allowed to slowly seep into the political aspect of things and poison the system. When discussing the issue of gay marriage, or abortion which has also been affected, the first thing I tend to hear people say "Well in the Bible..." or "But that's not what God believed..." or they will quote passages to me and say that "that means homosexuality os bad"...I completely agree with your response on the Bible, I too have always wondered about the truth of the Bible, for all we know it may be true in evey word and sentence held within it...but what if the men who wrote it were corrupt...if they used it simply to preach their views and beliefs...a large scale way to make people believe and obey the things that they stated within it. The fact is that no one can be completely sure.
Many things in this world have not been allowed, African-American rights, women voting, etc. and when society took a chance and granted the oppressed an opportunity at the rights they had been denied society realized that it had made a mistake and swore never to oppress again, it was as if they had learned their lesson, but it seems to me that they have forgotten. Everyone says that everything is fair and just, companies are equal opportunity employers and people are not judging based on age, gender, race, or sexual orientation, but the government still refuses to allow homosexuals the rights that heterosexuals are granted. Once again oppressing a group, a thing that they seemed to have learned a lesson from in the past. Studies can be done and people have opinions on how the sanction of homosexual marriage will be a deteriment to society, but it is all hypothetical, until they give the homosexual community a chance, the truth is that they will never know. Homosexual marriage may, and in my opinion will, strengthen society upon its creation. It will strengthen the sanction of marriage, demonstrating committment and love to children, it will aid in the reduction of homeless and parentless children, helping to improve our future...and countless other things. The truth is that homosexual marriage and even homosexuals themselves may be able to improve or solve numerous problems that face society, contributing to it betterment, but as we are continually held down, society will never know our true potential. It is a continual fight, that I feel may never end, because it is not only about the governement and the laws they could pass, but also about the personal opinions of each individual, and as long as hate and prejudice exist our society is doing nothing but holding itself back from a better and more beautiful tomorrow.
Firstly, I want to thank you for posting this article with your adjoining comments into your blogger. Though it may seem like simply a small and distant voice that it not to be heard over the roar of society...it is information and views and voices like yours that help aid in the fight to achieve equality for all people. So, thank you for taking a stand and stating your opinion...for taking advantage of your right of freedom of speech and working towards a more just society.
It was refreshing to read your opinions in opposition of what Dobson stated, mostly in part because your views are so similar to mine. I believe this is due to the fact that I am gay as well. It still appals me how people, like Dobson, believe that they have the authority to decide what is moral in this society, how a group of people can state that they do not agree with the sanction of homosexual marriage and decide that it is up to them to "cleanse" society of the "evil" of homosexuality. This relates to how Dobson stated that once the homosexual community receives something they were striving to acquire that they higher the bar and work towards "even more shocking and outrageous objectives" stating that "the intention here is to create an entirely different legal structure". Homosexuals desire to be granted the freedoms of marriage, and even those more basic, that are granted to heterosexuals has nothing to do with trying to corrupt society or the government...it's about equality and recognition. I, as a homosexual, am tired of being swept under the rug, being given a minimal amount of rights, in an attempt to shut me up and then being forgotten...I am in a relationship with a woman and we are married, but according to all heterosexuals we are not...the most they will give us is the title "committed"...and why...because they do not like the fact that I am a woman in love with another woman...if society was based on what people liked or didn't like...I don't think that it would survive...all other aspects are based on fairness and justice...but for some reason this issue seems to be more revolved around personal opinion and religion...two things that should not be involved in the decision of what is best for soceity. I still believe that the term "seperation of church and state" that was taught to me in high school still holds true, in my mind it means that any aspect of the state, such as elections and the passing of laws, etc., should be completely unaffected by the church. I believe that this is a beneficial doing, for it helps decrease the biases present when taking on the task of bettering society. Most other political and societal decisions and dilemmas are discussed and decided upon without the influence of church, but lately it seems as if church has been allowed to slowly seep into the political aspect of things and poison the system. When discussing the issue of gay marriage, or abortion which has also been affected, the first thing I tend to hear people say is "Well in the Bible..." or "But that's not what God believed..." or they will quote passages to me and say that "that means homosexuality is bad"...I completely agree with your response on the Bible, I too have always wondered about the truth of the Bible, for all we know it may be true in evey word and sentence held within it...but what if the men who wrote it were corrupt...if they used it simply to preach their views and beliefs...a large scale way to make people believe and obey the things that they stated within it. The fact is that no one can be completely sure.
Many things in this world have not been allowed, African-American rights, women voting, etc. and when society took a chance and granted the oppressed an opportunity at the rights they had been denied society realized that it had made a mistake and swore never to oppress again, it was as if they had learned their lesson, but it seems to me that they have forgotten. Everyone says that everything is fair and just, companies are equal opportunity employers and people are not judging based on age, gender, race, or sexual orientation, but the government still refuses to allow homosexuals the rights that heterosexuals are granted, so things are not as "fair and just" as they try and make them out to be. Once again oppressing a group, a thing that they seemed to have learned a lesson from in the past. Studies can be done and people have opinions on how the sanction of homosexual marriage will be a deteriment to society, but it is all hypothetical, until they give the homosexual community a chance, the truth is that they will never know. Homosexual marriage may, and in my opinion will, strengthen society upon its creation. It will strengthen the sanction of marriage, demonstrating committment and love to children and society as a whole, it will aid in the reduction of homeless and parentless children, helping to improve our future...and countless other aspects of life. The truth is that homosexual marriage and even homosexuals themselves may be able to improve or solve numerous problems that face society, contributing to its betterment, but as we are continually held down, society will never know our true potential. It is a continual fight, that I fear may never end, because it is not only about the governement and the laws they could pass, but also about the personal opinions of each individual, and as long as hate and prejudice exist our society is doing nothing but holding itself back from a better and more beautiful tomorrow.
Post a Comment