This is a response Ken gave to a young man that was questioning my desire for a small government when I am against abortion and gay marriage ~
You have many interesting points which I cannot address all at this time. It
seems that your major issue relates to gay marriage, which has nothing to do
with Lori's post... but somehow you infer it because of your premise that government
is intruding on privacy if it does not allow it.
No... I would argue that assigning a privileged status to heterosexual couples with marriage is a time honored societal norm and requirement for a healthy society. Your link showing 11 countries that now allow gay marriage proves Lori's point that until 11 years ago, no previous society ever sanctioned gay marriage. The concept of gay marriage is relatively non-existent and to support your position with something that changed 11 years ago as compared to 4000+ years of civilized society proves Lori's point.
You write, " I fail to see how something like gay marriage harms you, and by your own definition, we need to protect the rights to freedom as long as those freedoms do not infringe upon the rights of others." Nature dictates that marriage should be between a man and a woman, not two of the same sex. Companionship, loving a best friend, love for others can still take place without calling it "marriage." Any cursory study of the word marriage will lead you regularly back to one theme, and that is the procreation of children and the making of a family. Two of the same sex are not able to make children, hence, should what they do together be called a marriage?
As you know, we would oppose gay sex on many grounds, moral and natural, but putting that aside, the concept of marriage is, and has been from the beginning of time, a societal recognition of a heterosexual couple who desires to both live together and procreate together. It created a structure for society around which the family was central, primarily because of the need to continue the repopulation of the society.
Now you, and others like you want to rewrite the definition of marriage, and you vehemently protest, unreasonably, that somehow a gay couple is harmed because they are not given marriage status. The reality is that such harm is minimal at best, as civil unions in most states provide almost all the same rights for gay couples as does marriage.
So what are you really fighting for? Recognition that somehow same sex couples deserve the same recognition as married couples, even though such couples cannot procreate? Yes, they can adopt, and I believe that such adoptions are unfair to the child who will not experience the normalcy of a mom and dad in his/her upbringing. Regardless, I still would not oppose same sex couples adopting, BUT they cannot contribute to society what most heterosexual couples can contribute... offspring.
There are few societies until China that did not only desire children and large families but encouraged it as it meant the survival of the society. France is on track to lose most of its cultural survival because the French will not produce a 2 for 2 minimum required to sustain the society, and instead the immigrants are taking over. If you are a "one world" advocate this may not alarm you, but for those of us who love and appreciate cultures passing down from one generation to another, we find that modern society may be doomed, and gay marriage will hasten our demise.
I would challenge you to tell me what rights are taken away from a civil union couple as compared to a married couple, and then hopefully admit, this whole gay marriage issue is nothing much more than the gays wanting to have equal status with heterosexual couples, even when they have three strikes against them; they cannot create offspring together, they cannot give the normalcy of a mom and dad to their child, and the parts do not fit. Yet, you and others somehow feel that gay unions deserve the status as marriage when it falls short in at least three vital areas.
No, it is really about trying to say that homosexuality is OK, when it is not. No legal status of marriage given by the government will ultimately make the parts fit, nor allow the two to procreate with each other, nor make them a normal family. You want a dangerous experiment and then to wait and see where our society and world is in 50-100 years. And besides, giving a privileged status to those who can procreate is not unreasonable and a standard throughout history until very recently, so you cannot blame some of us for believing gay marriage to be a huge mistake.
We do not dislike gays, and some of my friends are gay. Some of my friends drink too much, others watch porn, the list goes on. We love them all, but we do not, and cannot condone the destruction that they do to themselves, so we make an attempt to speak the truth and common sense and decency in love.
No... I would argue that assigning a privileged status to heterosexual couples with marriage is a time honored societal norm and requirement for a healthy society. Your link showing 11 countries that now allow gay marriage proves Lori's point that until 11 years ago, no previous society ever sanctioned gay marriage. The concept of gay marriage is relatively non-existent and to support your position with something that changed 11 years ago as compared to 4000+ years of civilized society proves Lori's point.
You write, " I fail to see how something like gay marriage harms you, and by your own definition, we need to protect the rights to freedom as long as those freedoms do not infringe upon the rights of others." Nature dictates that marriage should be between a man and a woman, not two of the same sex. Companionship, loving a best friend, love for others can still take place without calling it "marriage." Any cursory study of the word marriage will lead you regularly back to one theme, and that is the procreation of children and the making of a family. Two of the same sex are not able to make children, hence, should what they do together be called a marriage?
As you know, we would oppose gay sex on many grounds, moral and natural, but putting that aside, the concept of marriage is, and has been from the beginning of time, a societal recognition of a heterosexual couple who desires to both live together and procreate together. It created a structure for society around which the family was central, primarily because of the need to continue the repopulation of the society.
Now you, and others like you want to rewrite the definition of marriage, and you vehemently protest, unreasonably, that somehow a gay couple is harmed because they are not given marriage status. The reality is that such harm is minimal at best, as civil unions in most states provide almost all the same rights for gay couples as does marriage.
So what are you really fighting for? Recognition that somehow same sex couples deserve the same recognition as married couples, even though such couples cannot procreate? Yes, they can adopt, and I believe that such adoptions are unfair to the child who will not experience the normalcy of a mom and dad in his/her upbringing. Regardless, I still would not oppose same sex couples adopting, BUT they cannot contribute to society what most heterosexual couples can contribute... offspring.
There are few societies until China that did not only desire children and large families but encouraged it as it meant the survival of the society. France is on track to lose most of its cultural survival because the French will not produce a 2 for 2 minimum required to sustain the society, and instead the immigrants are taking over. If you are a "one world" advocate this may not alarm you, but for those of us who love and appreciate cultures passing down from one generation to another, we find that modern society may be doomed, and gay marriage will hasten our demise.
I would challenge you to tell me what rights are taken away from a civil union couple as compared to a married couple, and then hopefully admit, this whole gay marriage issue is nothing much more than the gays wanting to have equal status with heterosexual couples, even when they have three strikes against them; they cannot create offspring together, they cannot give the normalcy of a mom and dad to their child, and the parts do not fit. Yet, you and others somehow feel that gay unions deserve the status as marriage when it falls short in at least three vital areas.
No, it is really about trying to say that homosexuality is OK, when it is not. No legal status of marriage given by the government will ultimately make the parts fit, nor allow the two to procreate with each other, nor make them a normal family. You want a dangerous experiment and then to wait and see where our society and world is in 50-100 years. And besides, giving a privileged status to those who can procreate is not unreasonable and a standard throughout history until very recently, so you cannot blame some of us for believing gay marriage to be a huge mistake.
We do not dislike gays, and some of my friends are gay. Some of my friends drink too much, others watch porn, the list goes on. We love them all, but we do not, and cannot condone the destruction that they do to themselves, so we make an attempt to speak the truth and common sense and decency in love.
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother
and be united to his
wife,
and they will become one flesh.
Logging you in...
enthusiasticallydawn 40p · 652 weeks ago
Daniel · 651 weeks ago
Tiffany · 651 weeks ago
Fran · 651 weeks ago
creatingfamilyconnections 47p · 651 weeks ago
Thank you both for taking a stand for what God says is right!
Cathy · 651 weeks ago
Lisa · 651 weeks ago
jbeane6 36p · 651 weeks ago
Kim · 651 weeks ago
Gem · 651 weeks ago
Although I don't agree with everything you said, I can see your reasoning. However, I was surprised to see you use France as an example of a society whose birthrate is not sufficient to maintain the current population. I am a French citizen, and this information is simply false. France has the second highest birthrate of all European nations (second to Ireland). Indeed, according to a recent article from the Economist, France's birthrate has surpassed that of America! (http://www.economist.com/blogs/feastandfamine/2012/08/america-and-europe) I would encourage you to check your statistics before using this example in the future.
Best regards!
I'm T · 651 weeks ago
I take issue with this statement. Civil unions only exist in eight states. Four states (plus DC) allow for domestic partnerships, which are essentially the same thing under a different name. Four more states have a much more limited definition of a civil union. So we're at 16/50 plus one.
Perhaps you were thinking of common law marriages, by which states recognize couples who have co-habitated for a number of years to have essentially the same rights as a married couple. Many states are doing away with common law marriages - only 10 states still allow for them.
We're still only at half of the country even when including those four states with very limited definitions of a civil union.
Heidi · 651 weeks ago
What concerns me about gay marriage the most is that in many countries where it has become legal it is granting them the "right" to defend themselves against "hate speech" which basically means they have the "right" to trample on religious expression. This isn't a live and let live issue because that's not what the activist element of the gay rights community is pursuing. Just look at the hooplah that goes on any time a public figure comes out against gay marriage. You would think that they'd called for lynching or prison camps because just having the view that a homosexual relationship is any different than a heterosexual one is being hateful and bigoted and will not be tolerated in the public eye.
Kelly · 651 weeks ago
Fran · 651 weeks ago
Ken · 651 weeks ago
Assigning fault is not an easy task, but fair mediators can do better at assigning blame and the splitting of the assets than a no-fault 50-50%. I think any professional who marries after they get their degree, woman or man, should have a prenup... but I know, many will disagree with me... as that somehow must mean you do not love or trust this person completely.
It has nothing to do with trust and everything to do with fairness in today's sad world of not even being able to watch believers get through 5-10 years of marriage together. I trust you now and rust you forever! So long as you never leave me... I trust you!
A Proverbs 31 Wife · 651 weeks ago
Ben Yarbrough · 651 weeks ago
Ken,
Lori's post is about the government interfering with people's personal freedoms. I responded with a question about how she viewed the differences between one kind of freedom and another, and the conversation went from there. While the conversation is not directly related to what she first posted, the sequence is logical.
The link to the website provides proof that Lori's claim about no society allowing gay marriage was false. Her claim was that no society has ever sanctioned it, not that no society has ever sanctioned it until 11 years ago, as you mistakenly assert. The reason I provided that link is to show that little of what you say can be taken seriously, because you both refuse to back up your "facts" with any sort of reliable evidence.
In response to this post, I'd first like to simply state that basing a large part of your argument on what people have been doing for the last 4,000 years is intellectually lazy to the extreme. Did your parents ever ask you as a child, "If everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you too?" Times change, Ken. There's a reason that slavery, for example, is no longer legally permitted in the United States. Although passages in the Bible make it seem as though slavery is acceptable or turn a blind eye to its practice, and countless people used the Bible as justification for maintaining the institution of slavery in the U.S., people later recognized that we should not blindly follow morally reprehensible traditions, no matter how accepted they are in our society.
Because any discussion of morals is necessarily subjective, I'd like to spend some time looking at your arguments that are objectively flawed. Take, for example, one of the other main points of your post: gay marriage should not be allowed because of the need to repopulate the planet. You argue that allowing gays to marry will result in the collapse of civilization as we know it due to lower birth rates. This data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that while the annual population change certainly decreases up until 2049 (the latest year for which estimates are available), we are in no danger of suddenly becoming extinct :http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/worldpop/table_population.php. Considering that the percentage of gays and lesbians of the total population is not huge (this study estimates it to be around 3.5% in the United States: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/... your argument that allowing gays to marry will lead to the collapse of mankind also fails to hold up. As people responding to this post have mentioned, you also fail to take into account single parent households, couples who cannot conceive for genetic reasons, and couples who simply opt not to have children. Your response to those people simply stepped around the subject and went back to your flawed historical argument.
You say, "I challenge you to tell me what rights are taken away from a civil union couple as compared to a married couple." You can read the GAO's 1997 study here: http://www.gao.gov/assets/230/223674.pdf. It found that there are "1,049 federal laws classified to the United States code in which marital status is a factor." I encourage you to read the study yourself. Maybe we are using a different system of measurements, but I would consider 1,049 differences to be quite a lot.
Reentering subjective territory, let's also talk about the harm to gays as a result of unequal legal treatment. You argue that the harm is minimal at best, and in this case I acknowledge that I cannot objectively prove you wrong. However, doesn’t common sense indicate that being considered a second-class citizen will have some sort of negative influence on your mental well-being? Try thinking about what you would feel like if the rest of the world suddenly decided that white people, as a minority, didn't deserve the same rights as everyone else. Something tells me you wouldn’t like it.
On a side note, your 8th paragraph is extremely disturbing. Immigrants in France are not "taking over," they are immigrating. Culture is not something that is frozen in time. Do you also think that sushi is ruining U.S. culture because it displaces time-honored U.S. foods like meatloaf? Should we be concerned about Gangnam style because people are choosing to listen to it in place of music produced by Americans? (If this sounds ridiculous to you, it's because these examples, like your claim that immigrants are ruining culture, are exactly that.) The reason why countries like the United States and France are such great places is precisely because of the myriad cultures contained within their borders and the way in which these cultures influence and change each other. Complaining that immigrants are ruining a culture does nothing more than expose your own intolerance of others.
Ben Yarbrough · 651 weeks ago
Finally, I'd like to clear up a misconception you have about my post. In fact, my main issue with this blog is not specific to your anti-gay marriage bias. The issue came up this time, but it's not the main problem I see with what both of you write. Rather, my problem is that you are deliberately spreading misinformation without backing up your sources, and you use the Bible to back up your own assertions that those different from you, whether they be gay, poor, or immigrants, are ruining society. These themes appear again and again on this blog. Giving your arguments anything more than a cursory glance reveals that they are flawed and do not stand up to a logical examination. I know that the two of you are beyond convincing, but I hope that this will show the readers of your blog that they should look a little harder at what you write and not take anything you say at face value. Anyway, it's been fun discussing this with you. I have no doubt that you will manage to find a way to make it seem as though everything you have said is perfectly reasonable and factually correct. I will not be responding again, because doing your research for you is rather time consuming. And might I suggest that since you took my last post and made it into its own topic you do the same with this one, so that people who might not be reading this anymore will have a chance to see it?
Sincerely,
Ben Yarbrough
Pomona College 2011
Ken · 651 weeks ago
We can go round and round on this... and Lori has been gracious to post your comments and rebukes. Your non-conservative bias is obvious, along with your inability to see, believe or understand the authority of God's Word. Most of your subjective thoughts are a good basis in objectivity until one realizes the foundation on which you stand is quicksand. Intellectual arguments will not change God's Word. It is called God's Word because that is what He intends for mankind and we will all be held accountable for living by it... to the degree of knowledge we possess concerning the scriptures.
There is so much I disagree with you on, and you obviously disagree with Lori's time tested wisdom based on God's Word. That's OK for us to disagree, and to realize that we cannot meet in the middle because our circles do no intersect. The scriptures are filled with warnings to not exult man's wisdom and seeming objectivity over His wisdom and exclusive right to be God. I do not claim to speak on His behalf, nor does Lori... nor do we think we know it all. Lori's blog is intended for the followers of Jesus Christ who choose to live their lives according to faith in God and His Word in a much more literal and all inclusive way than you appear to accept.
I do not know if you completely throw out God's Word, or if you are one who truly loves God, and is saved by His grace, but is searching to find the God's truth. There are some things that are hard to comprehend in God's Word and that is why Lori and I have made it our life's ambition to know His word intimately. Context will resolve most issues with the scriptures, especially the understanding that God takes mankind through history and grows up a people who love Him and desire to be with Him throughout eternity.
I can see you affirming that statement now, and wanting me to go further and say that because slavery is in the Bible and wrong, polygamy, mass wars, kings and kingdoms, all evolving to a much better understanding of the heart of God, that somehow we will some day appreciate that God created homosexuals, and it is an acceptable form of sexual expression. No way. Ben, you have yet to address the primary issue of homosexuality that the parts do not fit. Take God out of the equation and you are still left with a sin against nature. The harm done to the body through homosexual acts is not insignificant, and a cursory look at the diseases associated with the acts are well documented. You accuse us of not having the facts Ben, but you may need to do some further study, and if you will not accept God's Word on the matter, let nature cry out loud and clear on the subject.
I do not want you or the readers to misunderstand that Lori and I have no ill will towards them. I regularly counsel men who are into porn, or have other sins and addictions that control them. I am not immune to sin, and have my own struggles, so I certainly do not want to be the one casting the first stone. Any gay man or woman who wants to follow Jesus may do so in an instant, and Christ will come and live inside of them. Once that happens they then need to deal with cleaning up His new home to make it a place that is glorifying to Him, free from sin and filled with love. But as a believer, I have no choice but to carry on through my life and words the love and challenges of Jesus. It is no wonder many cannot follow Him because He demands allegiance to His Word. Please do not fault us for being true to what God teaches.
If we get to heaven and find out that somehow others who are not students of God's Word were more enlightened than we are, then so be it. I can hold my head low and humbly acknowledge that apart from Jesus I have nothing, and I am nothing. I am called to do my best for Him, and to please Him in all things. This is the mission of our lives and the purpose of Lori's blog. There are many others out there who may agree with you, but few who hold Jesus in as high an esteem, or with the desire to truly please Him in all things. It is most likely at the cross of Jesus we fundamentally disagree, and for that, I have no arguments that can convince the readers. Only an urging to read God's Word and let God Himself speak into their lives.
Thanks for the discussion. I enjoy it and hope we can shake hands with a smile soon. I wish I knew you better, and if we are together in DC, dinners on me at Wild Tomatoes :). Or better yet, come on down for a fun weekend and I promise it will not lead to trying to change your mind :).
Ken