June 18, 2003
In this article from the NY Times today, I was troubled to hear of some actions that Canada is taking, including legalization of small amounts of marijuana and same-sex marriages. The latter is what really troubles me. I'm conservative, religious, and as such, believe in the Bible, which condemns homosexuality. Currently, homosexuals don't affect me much, and though I don't agree with their practices, I have no reason or right to bother them or really even worry about them. However, I believe the family to be a sacred thing, as defined by The Family: A Proclamation to the World. Once gay and lesbian unions are accepted, I'm sure they soon will start to raise children (some already do). I think it is very important for a child to have both a mother and a father, not two individuals who are somewhere in between. I don't think children should be raised in that environment, nor that they can be raised normally.
Posted by charr at 9:04 AM
Reader Comments
Ah, but they can't be raised normally only because of the intolerance of people like you.At least, that's the argument they would give you, right?There have been cultures who sank to some rather decadent levels. We all know what happened to them - only because we can read about them in our history books. They certainly didn't last. Collectively, we're hell-bent on repeating history, I guess. These issues are being pushed at the state level all around the U.S., too.
Since I have no experience as a father, I have only to go off my experience as a child and the many statements of figures of authority in this matter. From this limited view, I can't help but think there'd be some psychological problems develop in the children come elementary school time.I will be called old-fashioned here, and that brings up an interesting point on where you draw the line between the core of religion, which should never change (God is the same...), and modern trends. They're not completely mutually exclusive, so there's room for some change I think, but not as much as some would think.
When a child has a daddy day at school. Which father would he take? Both? "Here is my sperm father and here is his partner. I call them both daddy. I don't have a mommy."Being a child is hard enough. I feel very fortunate to have a mother and father who are still married and love each other very much. It was still hard to deal with issues as a kid even under normal circumstances. I've seen many children in divorce cases struggle with their separate parents. Just imagine how much more difficult it will be for children who have same sex parents? I want to cry for the children who have to explain to their friends why daddys friend is helping to raise him.
What I'm really trying to say is: If people thought more about the children then themselves, things would be very different.
Just them thinking about the children won't make them reconsider. From their point of view, raising children in a homosexual partnership will give the child increased tolerance of such relationships, which they believe is a good thing. We're talking about fundamentally incompatible worldviews here; they firmly believe they're in the right and that a child raised by them would be every bit as healthy as a child raised by a heterosexual couple; maybe even more so.Anyway, I'm not trying to be contrary or argumentative (this time), I'm just making observations about how this sort of thing comes about and why it's likely to continue. Probably the only thing that would convince them to the contrary is scientific research; yet family/social science is a pretty fuzzy subject and, from my experience, is rather tainted by the biases of the particular researchers.
I believe that same sex-marriages are "god sent". Although english translations of the bible may appear to condemn homosexual marriages, not all versions do. Also, there are 8 different family types mentioned in the Bible, here in the U.S., we only practice one, thus we are already not entirely following the outdated text, which also has "thou shall not eat pork" written in it, so i hope you are a vegatarian. The Bible doesn't have an elastic clause, but it needs one, for as society changes, religion needs to change as well. Just as I believe women are qualified to be priests, if God made us equal.
Dont get me wrong, i am religious, but I would never condemn a family with two fathers. For children will only pick on that certain child if they are taught to hate in that way, just as inter-race marriages started out. In fact studies have shown the children of a homosexual family to be much more tolerant of minorites than most heterosexual families. Isn't that what we want? Justice and Liberty for all?
Well, you're assuming every Bible is the word of God, which is an impossible paradox, because they often contradict themselves. You're also confusing the Law of Moses with the new law given in the New testament, a common inconvenience used by people to justify their maligned claims.The fact is, both in the Old Testament, and the New Testament of the King James Version (the most widely used) of the Bible, homosexuality is wrong. Plus there are countless areas where marriage is talked about in terms of a man and a woman cleaving unto one another. The fact is, gay marriage is wrong.
Mary Mostert weighs in on the issue of gay marriage. This article is a reason why she's one of my heroes.
She makes some good points, such as the fact that if marriage serves no interest, why is the government involved?
Exactly. If marriage was not important to society, why legislate it in the first place? Why specify in a zillion dictionaries that it is the union between a man and woman? It's because marriage is an important part of any society. The way different cultures treat marriage says quite a bit about that culture. What gay marriage says about our American culture, I don't know.
>What gay marriage says about our American culture, I don't know. How about, "We think we are enlightened and ignore that cultures which reveled in certain behaviors never succeeded for long."
A little foolishness, enough to enjoy life and a little wisdom to avoid the errors, that will do
What would happen if the world was turned upside down suddenly and heterosexual marriage was forbidden. I, too, am I practicing Catholic but I firmly believe that no one should be forbidden the right to be happy, which in some cases means the marriage of a homosexual couple. For those who oppose gay marriage think not as if they are a different people of a different breed. How would you feel if you were not allowed to marry the one you love? I do not think that an amendment should be added to the Constitution banning gay marriage because the passage of marriage laws is specifically a reserved power, which means that it is a right vested to states. And if you are a homosexual and you cannot be with the one you love, come to Massachusetts. Ignorance does not dwell in places where the mind is open.
Kaitlyn,
People with open minds must be careful what they're open to. What if killing people that drove too slow made me happy? Should you accept that? No, you shouldn't. Being open is not necessarily right. If you are a practicing Catholic, then I'd guess you believe in the Bible, which is against homosexuality. You should love others, but as is a common saying, "love the sinner, not the sin." God didn't intend for us to sin against His commandments and then say it's ok because we like to do it or it's fashionable.As for an ammendment, I'm undecided. I don't think we should allow gay marriage (since that would be a redefinition by my standards), but I'm not comfortable with constitutionally affecting social issues.
|
Ah, but they can't be raised normally only because of the intolerance of people like you.At least, that's the argument they would give you, right?There have been cultures who sank to some rather decadent levels. We all know what happened to them - only because we can read about them in our history books. They certainly didn't last. Collectively, we're hell-bent on repeating history, I guess. These issues are being pushed at the state level all around the U.S., too.
Posted by Renee at June 18, 2003 11:07 AM