College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students Jobs and internships for students -

The Daily Utah Chronicle > News

A call to action

U’s LGBT community aims for unity

By Celeste Chaney

Special to The Chronicle

|

Published: Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Updated: Wednesday, December 9, 2009

GayRGB.jpg

Tyler Cobb

Many gay-rights activities and events have taken place this year, including a demonstration and protest at Salt Lake City’s Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints headquarters.

Nate Currey, a gay senior in urban planning, converted to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and completed a mission in Lithuania before being excommunicated and expelled from BYU.

Currey said that though he always knew he was gay, he was initially scared of the idea and joined the LDS Church for guidance. He thought that if that’s what God wanted him to do, he’d get rid of it, he said.

Currey said three-quarters of the way through his mission, he realized that homosexuality was always going to be part of who he was.

“I thought, ‘I am doing everything that I know to do, everything that I’m being told God is expecting of me, and it’s not going away,’ ” he said. “People say it’s a choice to be gay; it is in a sense. It was my choice to accept it.”

Even though some parts of society aren’t accepting of Currey’s sexuality, he and others like him aren’t ready to call it quits in their fight for an identity, voice and place in America.

At the Utah Pride Festival in June, Cleve Jones, the festival’s grand marshal and an American AIDS and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender rights activist, told the festival’s rain-soaked crowd that he had two words from California for the LDS Church: thank you.

Those two words were in response to the millions of dollars the LDS Church donated in support of Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage in the 2008 November state elections.

“Thank you,” Jones said. “Thank you for uniting us, thank you for galvanizing us.”

In the months since the passing of Proposition 8, other LGBT fights and victories have begun to take shape as the LGBT movement, and its goals, evolve. During the U’s Pride Week in October, keynote speaker Lt. Dan Choi made a call to action and described a different fight with a common theme.

Choi, an Iraq combat veteran, was discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” after he came out on “The Rachel Maddow Show” in March. During Pride Week, he spoke of his recent journey and urged all members and allies of the LGBT community to take it upon themselves to either come out publicly or help their friends come out.

“The biggest reason to come out is not so you can be free, it’s not so you can be comfortable with who you are finally,” Choi said. “It’s not easy to come out of the closet, but we do it, not because it’s a right or because it’s a freedom, but because it’s a responsibility.”

Choi described fulfilling this call to action as the obligation of every member of the LGBT community—an ideology that was both admirable and disagreeable for some individuals who emphasized the difficulty of being openly gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender in the predominately Mormon state.

“We have this division between the LGBT community and the LDS Church, which has resulted in excommunications, in expulsion from BYU, in broken families, in homeless youth and in suicides,” said Jacob Whipple, a local gay rights activist. He said the choice between personal identity and personal beliefs has to be made among members of the LGBT community who are also LDS. “That choice is forced upon us by the church we once loved.”

Esther Kim, a student sociology and gender studies, said it’s different for every person. Coming out is something that people need to decide for themselves, she said.

“I know that there are people who don’t have the option to come out, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t still work toward the movement for equality within the queer community,” she said.

Although opinions might differ on what the appropriate action is, many are hopeful that the conversation concerning LGBT rights and LDS standards will continue.

“There is a huge need to have a dialogue out there between both the LDS community and the LGBT community about where that safe space is, where they intersect,” Currey said.
letters@chronicle.utah.edu
Chris Mumford and James Lowe contributed to
this article.
 

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

48 comments

Next »
123
Your name
Fri Dec 25 2009 14:57
The first post cut off the rest of my comment so I'm reposting them as two separate posts. John, you asked for some sited studies. One particular national study of adolescent outcomes in single parent, heterosexual couple, and homosexual couple families states "our strategy involves statistically controlling for socioeconomic status, race, and sex of child in an initial attempt to control for contextual issues surrounding different family structures". There findings indicate that "Youth in stepparent and single-parent families fare worse than their counterparts in two parent biological families, reporting significantly higher scores on deviance, drug use, school problems, and sexual partners, and significantly lower scores on grades and parental aspirations..." whereas, "Adolescents in two-parent biological families report significantly less delinquency and drug use, as well as fewer school problems and sexual partners than do their peers in single-parent families. Their academic lives are better, as well: students in two parent biological families have higher grades, and their parents expect them to go farther in school".

As far as homosexual couples versus biological parent families go, more long-term studies are necessary, however the consensus of this particular study seems to be that children simply fair better in households where BOTH their parents communicate well (whether homosexual or heterosexual), however "Findings for youth raised by two gay male parents and those raised by two lesbian parents show a similar pattern, with one exception: adolescents raised by gay male parents report almost twice as many sexual partners as do those raised by two lesbian parents... and those (adolescents) raised by two lesbian parents report almost twice as many sexual partners as do those raised by two-parent biological families". This is a little eye-raising to say the least. Anyway, I'm sure there are good gay people out there who would do everything possible to raise their children to be the best they could, but I also know that men and women are inherently different (physically, hormonally, mentally, emotionally, etc.), and that these differences create parenting styles and techniques that are different, yes--but COMPLEMENTARY to one another. What one lacks in one area the other makes up for in another area, creating a physically, emotionally, and mentally well-rounded child. If God made it to be that way then who are we to interfere?

Your name
Fri Dec 25 2009 14:56
Whoops, I mean John 1) My scripture fails to name WHICH scripture that contradicts it? What are you talking about? Are you saying there's another scripture in the Bible that says marriage isn't between a man and a woman? There are no scriptures in the Bible that discuss two separate marriages (civil and religious) because God ordained marriage as a religious contract (in a way) between a man and woman and Himself; two thousand years ago there was no disconnect between religious life and civil life--they were one in the same. 2) All Christian churches who read Mark 10 interpret it as meaning that since the beginning God created the different genders, male and female, and for that reason "shall a man" (when he is of age) leave his parents and unite (physically, emotionally, materially, etc.) to his lawfully married "wife" (not to his unwed girlfriend, and not to a "husband"). I'd like you to show me a church that interprets it differently. And dude, don't you know that Christian's don't follow the Law of Moses anymore as contained in the Old Testament (which includes sacrificing animals on an altar, eating a kosher diet, and stoning people to death). When Christ came he "fulfilled" that ancient law and after then it was only necessary to follow his new teachings.

The major countries of Europe today that have legalized gay marriage are Spain, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands. These countries have a cohesion of very "open" secular attitudes toward sexuality--an attitude that embraces the idea that whatever is inherently "natural" is okay to give into--and that religious teachings toward the sacredness of sex and importance of self-mastery are no longer valid. This pushing out of religious ideals has led to a society focused more on self-gratification and fulfillment than on self-sacrifice and commitment, which is partly responsible for why there are higher rates of divorce. Having lived in Spain myself for over 18 months I witnessed first hand their attitudes towards the sanctity of marriage and I can say that it is an institution practiced even less than in the United States. But since the U.S. is growing in it's secular attitudes toward sex and the legalizing of gay marriage, our already high rates of divorce and declined marriage will only continue to grow. If you look at any marriage statistics chart from 1970 until now you can clearly see this dramatic change (which is closely related to the depreciating of religious values and the increase of secular attitudes).

"If given the choice would you personally prefer to be raised by both your biological parents, or by just your mother, or just your father, or by a stepparent you hardly know, or by a lesbian woman or by two gay men who adopted you? Really, if given the choice which would YOU choose?" You stated that this question was irrelevant because no one can choose which situation they are born into. Of course no one can choose, but you can ponder the hypothetical possibility, right? IF given the choice, we can at least agree that the majority (maybe 95%) of people would prefer to live with both their biological parents. Knowing this, is it not ethical for us to do everything within our power to ensure that every child has the EQUAL RIGHT to be born into such a family unit--which will benefit that child's emotional, mental, and physical development well into their adult lives and therefore, create a more well-adjusted, healthy society in general?

Your name
Fri Dec 25 2009 14:53
Patrick, 1) My scripture fails to name WHICH scripture that contradicts it? What are you talking about? Are you saying there's another scripture in the Bible that says marriage isn't between a man and a woman? There are no scriptures in the Bible that discuss two separate marriages (civil and religious) because God ordained marriage as a religious contract (in a way) between a man and woman and Himself; two thousand years ago there was no disconnect between religious life and civil life--they were one in the same. 2) All Christian churches who read Mark 10 interpret it as meaning that since the beginning God created the different genders, male and female, and for that reason "shall a man" (when he is of age) leave his parents and unite (physically, emotionally, materially, etc.) to his lawfully married "wife" (not to his unwed girlfriend, and not to a "husband"). I'd like you to show me a church that interprets it differently. And dude, don't you know that Christian's don't follow the Law of Moses anymore as contained in the Old Testament (which includes sacrificing animals on an altar, eating a kosher diet, and stoning people to death). When Christ came he "fulfilled" that ancient law and after then it was only necessary to follow his new teachings. The major countries of Europe today that have legalized gay marriage are Spain, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands. These countries have a cohesion of very "open" secular attitudes toward sexuality--an attitude that embraces the idea that whatever is inherently "natural" is okay to give into--and that religious teachings toward the sacredness of sex and importance of self-mastery are no longer valid. This pushing out of religious ideals has led to a society focused more on self-gratification and fulfillment than on self-sacrifice and commitment, which is partly responsible for why there are higher rates of divorce. Having lived in Spain myself for over 18 months I witnessed first hand their attitudes towards the sanctity of marriage and I can say that it is an institution practiced even less than in the United States. But since the U.S. is growing in it's secular attitudes toward sex and the legalizing of gay marriage, our already high rates of divorce and declined marriage will only continue to grow. If you look at any marriage statistics chart from 1970 until now you can clearly see this dramatic change (which is closely related to the depreciating of religious values and the increase of secular attitudes)."If given the choice would you personally prefer to be raised by both your biological parents, or by just your mother, or just your father, or by a stepparent you hardly know, or by a lesbian woman or by two gay men who adopted you? Really, if given the choice which would YOU choose?" You stated that this question was irrelevant because no one can choose which situation they are born into. Of course no one can choose, but you can ponder the hypothetical possibility, right? IF given the choice, we can at least agree that the majority (maybe 95%) of people would prefer to live with both their biological parents. Knowing this, is it not ethical for us to do everything within our power to ensure that every child has the EQUAL RIGHT to be born into such a family unit--which will benefit that child's emotional, mental, and physical development well into their adult lives and therefore, create a more well-adjusted, healthy society in general?You asked for some sited studies. One particular national study of adolescent outcomes in single parent, heterosexual couple, and homosexual couple families states "our strategy involves statistically controlling for socioeconomic status, race, and sex of child in an initial attempt to control for contextual issues surrounding different family structures". There findings indicate that "Youth in stepparent and single-parent families fare worse than their counterparts in two parent biological families, reporting significantly higher scores on deviance, drug use, school problems, and sexual partners, and significantly lower scores on grades and parental aspirations..." whereas, "Adolescents in two-parent biological families report significantly less delinquency and drug use, as well as fewer school problems and sexual partners than do their peers in single-parent families. Their academic lives are better, as well: students in two parent biological families have higher grades, and their parents expect them to go farther in school". As far as homosexual couples versus biological parent families go, more long-term studies are necessary, however the consensus of this particular study seems to be that children simply fair better in households where BOTH their parents communicate well (whether homosexual or heterosexual), however "Findings for youth raised by two gay male parents and those raised by two lesbian parents show a similar pattern, with one exception: adolescents raised by gay male parents report almost...
John
Wed Dec 23 2009 01:31
"We can see today in nations where gay marriage is already legal that the rates of divorce, and the decline of marriage all together continues to climb."

because in the US, where the vast majority of population or land mass (whichever way you choose to measure it) prohibits marriages are so successful. Err, wait, not I'm sorry, something like 50% of them fail, and the rate of divorce is increasing.

"If given the choice would you personally prefer to be raised by both your biological parents, or by just your mother, or just your father, or by a stepparent you hardly know, or by a lesbian woman or by two gay men who adopted you? Really, if given the choice which would YOU choose?"

Like, would I choose to be born in America or Africa, I mean, if I could really choose, which I choose. This question is irrelevant. There are some many situation that if you could choose to not be in you would. Problem is, many of them you can't. Beyond that, you claim that homosexual couples raise children who are more likely to use drugs, fail in school and so on. Can you cite any studies that actually demonstrate this. I mean, no doubt, single parents often suffer from this problem, though this may be more socio-economic, and not necessarily inherently because the parent is single.

You're scripture is pointless. It fails to address several of the key issues from lower in the debate. Namely, that religious marriage and civil marriage are separate things. Additionally it fails to address 1) scripture that contradicts it. 2) The fact that EVERY church interrupts what scripture means, which to follow, which to ignore (such as stoning people).

have a great day though.

Your name
Tue Dec 22 2009 21:49
Gay marriage will never be allowed in a church that actually follows the scriptures. Of course there will be reformed churches (there actually are several episcopalian/presbyterian churches) that feel they want to "bless" gay unions--but if they do so it is by their own bowing to social pressure/opinion and not according to what Jesus taught, "From the beginning of the creation God made them MALE and FEMALE. For this cause shall a MAN leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his WIFE; and they twain shall be one flesh... what therefore GOD hath joined together, LET NO MAN put asunder" (Mark 10:6-9).

To bless a gay union would be equivalent to "blessing" a heterosexual couple in church that wants to have sexual relations without marriage. It's just not gonna happen. God does not discriminate against persons, only sin. Sin is sin (sodomy, fornication), and a church that represents the God of the Muslims, Jews, and Christians will not look upon sin with any degree of allowance--much less "bless" it. It's not discrimination against people, but discrimination against the normalization of sin. It is stemmed from obedience to a "higher law", not man's law. This belief is engrained in billions of people's core values and deepest sentiments, and that's why many will not stop fighting.

We can see today in nations where gay marriage is already legal that the rates of divorce, and the decline of marriage all together continues to climb. Marriage will soon no longer be valued in society, and with it will go the desire for parents to stay committed to each other and their children. Gay couple, single-parent, and stepparent families will become the norm rather than the exception, and studies show that children who are raised in such environments have higher incidents of sexual promiscuity, drug-use, and difficulty in school than those raised with both their biological parents. How fair is that to the next generation? How will that affect the future structure of our society? If given the choice would you personally prefer to be raised by both your biological parents, or by just your mother, or just your father, or by a stepparent you hardly know, or by a lesbian woman or by two gay men who adopted you? Really, if given the choice which would YOU choose?

Your name
Tue Dec 22 2009 12:26
oh well, one of these days someone is going to have a "revelation" that gay marriage is okay (in other words there was finally enough pressure to change people's minds on the issue) and slowly but surely we will get there. It's just hard sitting and waiting while i watch people discriminate in the 21st century....i would have hoped we were further along than that!

Just remember.....equal rights are not special rights, taking for granted your rights as a heterosexual shouldn't translate into prejudice towards "the other"

Patrick
Mon Dec 21 2009 20:05
"18th century we were approaching a billion people on this planet--hardly sounds like a necessity to marry off young girls for the sake of the survival of the species."

right, except procreation serves other purposes besides the simple propagation of the species. Namely cheap labor.

"I understand this, and these rights are already offered through civil unions and domestic partnerships that are legal in several states in the nation."

Couple points on this one: 1) separate is not equal. If we were to build seperate schools for black and whites for instance and they all had exactly the same materials, teachers of equal quality and on and on but we forced the white kids to go to white school and the black kids to go to black school the schools would inherently become unequal. 2) They do not provide the same rights in several ways. Namely, they exclude some rights/privileges, such as that of joint tax filing. They are not required to be recognized between states (in blatant disregard for the "full faith and credit" clause). Even if both those issues were resolved, and I'm sure there would be other that needed to be, and they differed in name only I would have to refer you back to point one. Now, if you still don't want homosexuals getting "married" we can finally come to a simple solution. Change the name of the civil contract. Marriage would then only be a religious act and would generally be excluded from state regulation. If that happens and homosexual couples and hetersexual couples and who ever else wants that is capable of consenting wants get go get "civil unioned" or "soul drained" or whatever the hell people want to call the civil contract, then, and only then will I support the proposition that homosexuals don't have a right to be married (by some given church) in this country.

Alisa
Mon Dec 21 2009 17:01
Sounds to me like most people are just creeped out about the idea of giving polygamists and cousins the right to marry, which is exactly what creeps other people out about giving gays the right to marry. Admit it, you all have your boundaries when it comes to marriage. You all have your hang ups.
Your name
Mon Dec 21 2009 16:04
"how many cousins do you see fighting for the right to get married?" There are actually more than you think--but given the taboo on the topic most of them just don't talk about it (like how 60 years ago all the gays in the U.S. stayed closeted, but then all emerged when it was more socially acceptable). Besides, don't even small groups deserve the right to fight for what they believe in? The constitution is supposed to protect the rights of the minority, right?

Patrick, in the 18th century we were approaching a billion people on this planet--hardly sounds like a necessity to marry off young girls for the sake of the survival of the species.

Your main argument seems to be based on "the real reasons" that gays should "get civilly married are the legal rights, such as power of attorney, wealth sharing, etc." I understand this, and these rights are already offered through civil unions and domestic partnerships that are legal in several states in the nation. Yet when gays protest for gay marriage many of their signs read, "I didn't ask my partner to 'civil union' me!"--meaning they don't just want a civil marriage, they want a "marriage" as defined for a heterosexual couple. Therefore, it's not just about the "rights" of marriage that gays want, they want to change the definition of the term "marriage" for everyone.

Patrick
Mon Dec 21 2009 12:42
"Sure, it's easy to defend why people shouldn't marry animals, but the argument for children and first cousins isn't so easy. According to nature a girl has physically matured and is ready to reproduce at 13, 12, and even 11 years old, which is why in the 18th century and earlier (and even today in certain cultures) girls were married off at those ages to other teenagers or to men 20 years older than them. If we were meant to procreate early on in life, why then do we create laws saying it is too young? The truth is there is a stigma attached to it in our culture and we say 12 and 13 year olds "are too young to make competent decisions", yet it's not a problem in other cultures."

I'm sorry, maybe I'm just confused but I don't see how that supports an argument against homosexual marriage at all. We used to "marry" (or otherwise) young girls off for the sake of the survival of the species (ie- procreation) as soon as they were sexually mature (ie- the point at which they were capable of baring children). We have since changed our minds about that and decided there is something other than simple procreation to the institution of marriage. We should therefore deny the right of marriage to others based on the fact that it is "unnatural?"

"As for cousins--anytime anyone mentions the idea of marrying a cousin, disgust ensues and a few snide jabs at Tennessee are made." I have to say, that seeing as it is not illegal to have sex with your cousin, sister, perhaps even your mother or father assuming you are now of age, I don't think the logical argument as to why they are illegal is that of birth defects. That being said, and I'll probably lose alot of people here, I would again see no reason why a marriage to a close relative should be illegal. Marriage, in the legal sense, is nothing more than a civil contract signed between to consenting individuals. There is nothing in it that inherently involves sex or reproduction. The real reasons to get civilly married are the legal rights, such as power of attorney, wealth sharing, etc. Thus a main reason not to marry a close relative is often they can easily obtain any of these rights they do not inherently have (ie- who decides to pull a plug at the hospital, etc) with little later dispute due to their close genetic relation.

In the case of homosexual couples however this becomes problematic. Their family can try and dispute their partners right to such decisions/inheritance on the grounds of duress or coercion or other such legal mombojumbo. The ability to marry would help to medigate some of this.

Inevitably it comes down to who has the rights to your wealth, and decisions pertaining to your wealth and health when you are incapable of making them. Should this be granted, without dispute, to the person whom you choose or the person the state chooses. Why do you wish to live a life as free from government interference as possible yet when others want the same, on a issue that fundamentally does not directly effect your ability to live your life in the way you choose, you take issue... Why should they be denied these protections while you are granted them?

Your name
Mon Dec 21 2009 11:39
how many cousins do you see fighting for the right to get married? that was possibly the most ridiculous argument i''ve heard
Jeff
Sat Dec 19 2009 02:17
What's funny about the polygamy situation is how the government doesn't punish men for running around and having children with three or four different women. As a matter of fact, the law binds that man to his children, which is essentially a back door sanctioning of polygamous behavior.
Your name
Fri Dec 18 2009 21:02
"Ultimately it’s a political question about what you allow individuals to do, and what that says about the structure of society," - zoologist Hamish Spencer
Your name
Fri Dec 18 2009 20:51
Patrick, I never said constitutional amendments mean a "free for all"--whatever that means. I said the first amendment protects my right to practice my religion in my house--which you were saying I would need to stop if it affected you. And second, I said that the second amendment protects gun ownership rights, not that ANY and EVERYONE who wants to get a gun gets one--which fits precisely well into my argument that marriage is the same way.

Now, I find it interesting that you admitted there is no legitimate reason why consenting adults can't enter into a polygamous relationship if they want to. Why then are so many people absolutely abhorred by that prospect and not by the idea of giving gays freedom to marry? Did you know that polygamy is actually accepted (not always practiced though) in 80% of nations, whereas gay marriage is only accepted in 2-3% of nations. The truth is there's a stigma and taboo attached to polygamy in this country--whereas agreeing with gay marriage is almost "hip" nowadays if you want people to see you as progressive and "open-minded". Really, if gays are allowed to marry then polygamists should also be given that right because there is no legitimate constitutional reason why they shouldn't be allowed to practice it (and it could be argued that such a right is already protected under the first amendment).

"As to why homosexuals should be allowed to marry but not say two children and an adult to a child or anyone to an animal is quite simple. Homosexuals are considered mentally competent to make decisions for themselves. This in in contrast to say animals which are, for all intents and purposes, incapable of giving informed consent."

Sure, it's easy to defend why people shouldn't marry animals, but the argument for children and first cousins isn't so easy. According to nature a girl has physically matured and is ready to reproduce at 13, 12, and even 11 years old, which is why in the 18th century and earlier (and even today in certain cultures) girls were married off at those ages to other teenagers or to men 20 years older than them. If we were meant to procreate early on in life, why then do we create laws saying it is too young? The truth is there is a stigma attached to it in our culture and we say 12 and 13 year olds "are too young to make competent decisions", yet it's not a problem in other cultures.

As for cousins--anytime anyone mentions the idea of marrying a cousin, disgust ensues and a few snide jabs at Tennessee are made. The truth is the marrying of first cousins was another common practice all over the world in the 19th century and earlier (especially in noble families) and according to Wired Science, "In an age of sexual liberation... laws against the unions are a socially legitimized form of genetic and sexual discrimination". According to the National Society of Genetic Counselors, birth defects are 2 - 3% more common in children born to first cousins than among the general population — a real risk, but not enough to justify the bans (otherwise we would get involved in the touchy debate of whether or not little people or other people who have a 2-3% chance of passing on a birth defect to their children should be allowed to marry).

The reason I say all this is because if anyone feels that polygamy, or cousin marriages, or even young marriages are too taboo and should not be allowed--yet they agree with gay marriage--then essentially they are hypocrites because according to their argument (gays are competent, consenting adults) anyone who is a competent consenting adult should have that right too, and plenty of legitimate arguments can be made for the majority of people who are currently banned from marrying.

Patrick
Thu Dec 17 2009 19:32
"you can't deny that marriage is not a right afforded to ANYONE who wants to exercise it whenever and however they may. For example, you must be of a certain age (children under 14 can't marry); you can't already be married (must be legally divorced from previous wife, etc. (no polygamy allowed)); you can't be related (no sisters or first cousins)"

Seems to contradict your premise that constitutional amendments mean a "free for all" in terms of said "rights." For example, there are many examples of "reasonable" restrictions being place upon gun ownership- must be a certain age to purchase, can't be a convicted felon, etc. The same is true for religion/religious practice, and thus no placing children in pits of rattlesnakes or use of hallucinogenic agents.

Additionally, the constitution is not a fixed document and can be amended, interrupted and changed (thus we can drink alcohol, african american's are worth a "whole person" and can't be owned, presidents can only serve two terms....). While I doubt the public is currently in favor of an amendment giving the "right" of marriage to anyone I suspect this wouldn't end the debate for most.

As to why homosexuals should be allowed to marry but not say two children and an adult to a child or anyone to an animal is quite simple. Homosexuals are considered mentally competent to make decisions for themselves. This in in contrast to say animals which are, for all intents and purposes, incapable of giving informed consent. Why are you only allowed to marry one other individual? For the same arcane, ridiculous reasons that homosexuals are not allowed to marry (I'll probably lose alot of people, especially in this state, with that though). I mean is there really a good reason multiple consenting adults shouldn't be able to marry each other? Complication of tax issues perhaps, or end of life decision making... but these are easily fix legislatively and by and large already exist (look at the size of the US tax code...).

"we can take a logical, unbiased scientific approach and look at the data. Read "Born or Bred?" by Robert Knight. It's a pretty comprehensive review of relevant findings."

If you want to go scientific, why don't you cite a peer review article from a respectable scientific journal instead of some article published by a biased religious organization. I think I've made clear it is irrelevant to me if homosexuality is genetic or not. Additional, it not being genetic doesn't make it inherently a "choice" either. There are many examples of non-genetic diseases. Would this then imply that those who suffer from them have a "choice" or not as to whether to live with them? (Not to imply homosexuality is a "disease").

"I'm just tired of hearing the justifications for it and the more I hear it's genetic because if it were, we would have proven it by now."

There are, give or take (depending on what you define as a gene) 20,000 in the human genome. 20 years ago, people would have told your there were 50,000+. A large amount of the human genome doesn't code for protein and 10 or less years ago many would have told you it was all "junk." We barely have an inkling of what most of these genes do, let alone the rest of the DNA.

Your name
Thu Dec 17 2009 13:36
oh, and saying all those that enter gay marriage just want to be open and fool around with other people is a gross over-generalization... just like me say all people in the church are as close-minded as you guys are...but fortunately they are not...so get with the times! it would surprise me if you still thought people from different ethnicities shouldn't be married either, after all that was once an "abomination" eh?
Your name
Thu Dec 17 2009 13:29
if you don't like gay marriage...don't be in one! I'm a firm believer in separation of church and state, so if you wanna discriminate and hide behind "god's message" as your reasoning, do it inside your church buildings and leave out of the government or anywhere else for that matter. Not everyone is religious and has to follow your beliefs...
Chuck B.
Thu Dec 17 2009 08:27
Patrick

Again, you've completely misdirected my argument to fit some point you're trying to make. I had said nothing of the legal ramifications of homosexuality. And again, I must compliment you on your rhetoric. Alluding to the ridiculous statements someone may say next in to make their original argument look equally ridiculous? Come on, that's just childish.

I simply asserted, and it's unequivocally supported, that there's no scientific evidence to support the claim that homosexuality is genetic or inherent. The tangent you shot off on is an ethical issue, which I didn't even attempt to address, nor would I, given it's murkiness. And don't tell me what it is that I have a problem with as if you could deduct it from a completely unrelated argument. I absolutely agree that everybody is entitled to act according to their own will, however, it's the justification for the behavior that may or may not have any merit and which can often be proven right or wrong. Central to this issue is whether or not homosexuality is an inherent behavior in some and as far as I see it, there are two ways to approach finding an answer. We can debate it out until we reach some conclusion, which has clearly gotten us nowhere from the start. Or, we can take a logical, unbiased scientific approach and look at the data. Read "Born or Bred?" by Robert Knight. It's a pretty comprehensive review of relevant findings. Look, if someone wants to be homosexual, that's their choice and it's not up to me to prevent them from doing so. I'm just tired of hearing the justifications for it and the more I hear it's genetic because if it were, we would have proven it by now.

Your name
Wed Dec 16 2009 16:49
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" There goes your argument that I have to stop practicing my religion in my house. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". There goes your gun ownership argument.

The issue here is that gays want to change the definition of marriage--which for thousands of years has always been defined as between a man and woman. Even if there are two separate marriages (a civil marriage, and a religious marriage) you can't deny that marriage is not a right afforded to ANYONE who wants to exercise it whenever and however they may. For example, you must be of a certain age (children under 14 can't marry); you can't already be married (must be legally divorced from previous wife, etc. (no polygamy allowed)); you can't be related (no sisters or first cousins); you can't marry another species, and until recently (in a few countries), you had to be of the opposite sex. Why then do gays get the privilege of changing that definition and law when so many other people who are "in love" too, but who are not able to abide by these restrictions, are not allowed to change it either?

Patrick
Wed Dec 16 2009 11:53
You're arguement is off topic there big guy. 1) Marriage already is two institutions- a. a marriage between two people in the eyes of "G/god(s)" for those who choose to seek it and b. a civil, legally binding contract between two individuals.

The marriage "tax break" is a farce, look at the tax code.

How your God defines anything is irrelevant when discussing government policy. If you want government to stay out of your church the opposite must inherently be true as well.

Finally, if you want to make the argument that what happens in "one's house" effect those outside this house that is fine. You must however be willing to quickly give up many "rights" you have come to enjoy. Gun ownership and religious choice come to mind, and I can think of several ways in which your decisions on those two issues within your own house can effect me, outside your house. On the other hand, if these things are non of mine or the governments business than neither is whom one choose to marry (in the civil, legal sense).

What has really clouded this issue actually is mainly the use of the term "marriage" in relation to the civil contract that two people sign. The religious groups in the country have since had a hard time realizing the difference between a legal "marriage" and a religious "marriage." They are two entirely unique, independent acts. Namely, one can be marriage in the civil sense and not in the eyes of "G/god(s)" or in theory, depending on your particular religious beliefs, vis versa.

Oh, and drop the B.S. "liberal courts" stuff. The government of this country was inherently (though initially poorly executed, ie- slavery) to protect the rights of a minority against the will of the majority. Which is to say that just because a "majority" (or as more often the case a plurality) believe something to be right does not make it so. Hence, separation of powers, filibustering, vetoes and so on and so on.

Next »
123






log out