It won’t work (Same-sex Marriage)

BP News ^ | 5 Mar 2004 | Kelly Boggs

[Jeremiahs Call]

McMINNVILLE, Ore. (BP)--So homosexuals want to get married, what’s the big deal? They say they love each other. Why deny them the privilege of forking over $60 (the cost of a marriage license in Multnomah County, Ore.) for the right to solemnize their commitment?

Solemnize? Yes, you read it right, solemnize. According to the Oregon Revised Statutes (number 106.041), Everyone wishing to enter into a marriage must obtain a license from the county clerk which will then be provided to “any person or religious organization or congregation authorized by [state statute] to solemnize marriages, and authorizing such person, organization or congregation to join together as husband and wife the persons named in the license.”

Solemnize, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, means to celebrate or observe with grace, dignity and gravity or to perform with formal ceremony.

In our postmodern world, where all definitions are subject to interpretation, it is probably acceptable for a woman to refer to herself as a husband and a man as a wife. So, I won’t bother commenting on the latter portion of the statute. However, I would like mull the idea of solemnizing.

It is my observation that many –- if not most -– of the same-sex couples who are participating in the matrimonial frenzy taking place in Portland (as well as in San Francisco) have long since “solemnized” their relationships.

I think you would be hard pressed to find very many same-sex couples waiting outside the Multnomah County Courthouse that have not previously declared their love for one another in some sort of ceremony. I am sure many have even had their relationships “solemnized” by a minister of some sort. Certain churches have been blessing same-sex relationships for years, some for decades.

So, why would a couple that has already “solemnized” their relationship go to all the trouble of waiting in a line and paying money only to repeat vows similar to ones shared in a previous ceremony? Validation is the reason.

Government sanctioned same-sex “marriage” is not about love or commitment. It is about societal acceptance. Homosexual activists believe that by obtaining marriage licenses their relationships suddenly will be viewed as equal with heterosexual matrimony. There is one serious flaw in this reasoning: It won’t work.

Current polls indicate the vast majority of Americans are opposed to the idea of homosexual “marriage.” Many citizens are willing to live-and-let-live and allow for arrangements that grant gay couples basic rights. However, they are opposed to any attempt to redefine the traditional concept (one man and one woman) of marriage.

Even if the court system forces government sanctioned same-sex “marriage” upon the American people, the action will not alter attitudes. In 1973 the Supreme Court imposed abortion on demand as law throughout the United States. Three decades later, opposition to abortion remains strong and even appears to be growing.

When government sanction of same-sex “marriage” does not result in society’s embrace of gay relationships, activists then will label any and all who disagree with homosexuality as dangerous bigots who are a threat to American democracy. Oh, I forgot, they do that already.

In a recent Wall Street Journal column, Mary Ann Glendon, Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard University, commented on the probable consequences of the government sanction of same-sex “marriage.” She wrote:

“Religious freedom, too, is at stake. As much as one may wish to live and let live, the experience in other countries reveals that once these arrangements become law, there will be no live-and-let-live policy for those who differ. Gay-marriage proponents use the language of openness, tolerance and diversity, yet one foreseeable effect of their success will be to usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination the likes of which we have rarely seen before. Every person and every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against. The ax will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don’t go along. Religious institutions will be hit with law suits if they refuse to compromise their principles.”

Why deny government sanction of same-sex “marriage”? Because the issue is not about love or commitment; it is about the validation of a lifestyle that most believe is wrong. Nothing will change that. Not the courts, not intimidation, not even coercion can force the American public, especially those with deep-seated religious convictions, to validate homosexuality. --30-- Kelly Boggs’ column appears each Friday in Baptist Press. He is pastor of the Portland-area Valley Baptist Church in McMinnville.

[longtermmemmory]

They can't find it. They may be able to find the gene that controls imprinting or the triggers for orgasm. Science will not find a "wants to put male genitals in another male" gene.

[King Prout]

again, I adjure you to patience.

I suspect it will eventually be determined that several combinations of genotypic, developmental-phenotypic, and environmental factors produce a range of observable sexual preferences and behaviors.

I suspect that that range, in the male, can be approximately represented graphically ae a dual-asymtotic curve defined by some variant of y=1/x, with the y-axis representing percentage of the population and the x-axis representing the sexual behavior range, with 0 equalling absolute and non-negotiable heterosexuality on the x-axis (the exterme of the x-axis being absolute and non-negotiable homosexuality).

Please rein in your passion - it detracts from your scientific ability.

Men express a wide range of sexual behaviors, which environmental factors alone are not entirely sufficient to explain. There are total queers who claim never to have been molested as youths (and, without hard data specific to their lives contradicting these individuals, their testimony must be accepted). There are absolute heterosexuals who are documented to have been sexually molested as youths. There are absolute queers, fully-functional bisexuals, and absolute heterosexuals who all claim with conviction to have KNOWN their orientations from the earliest stages of their lives they can recall, some who have been abused, some who have not.

This is enough to explode the notion that environment alone is the sole determinant.

Be patient. This is not too much to ask. To do otherwise is to be as much a chicken-little as the global-warming nuts. The science on this subject is far too young and far too scarce to make definitive statements one way or another. When the genomes of -say- 10,000 queer-as-get-out men have been mapped and those maps compared carefully to those of a like number of absolute straights... then we may begin to see in truth what is or is not going on and conclusively end this debate.

That day is not today.

So be patient.

[King Prout]

furthermore:

Science will not find a "wants to put male genitals in another male" gene.

Probably so - it simply does not seem likely that such a specific and counter-productive gene (or set of genes) could come to be.

However, science could very well discover (as assuredly there must be something along these lines) the gene or set thereof which code for the desire to "want to put male genitals into receptive female"... and then discover a series of malformations and transcription variants thereof leading to a range of expression - from fully and properly functional to utterly screwed up - in the phenotype.

again - calm yourself, and be patient.

[Kaslin]

They want children. Homosexuality is all about maximizing available sex partners.

If gays can produce children between themselves I have no problem them getting married. Meaning if two Gays can make and bear children without any of the other sex involved it's fine with me, the same for the lesbians. Otherwise leave our children alone

[xzins]

As a minister, I'd like to take on his suggestion that the "legalization of homosexual marriage" will result in discrimination against religions that refuse to adjust and accept the new rules.

But I can't take it on. He is correct.

Since the authority to "solemnize" is granted by application at county offices throughout this country, then it is a secular authorization. Those who refuse to solemnize can have their authorizations SECULARLY challenged for this or that type of "discrimination."

They will be told, "conduct whatever religious ceremony you wish, just don't think you'll be a representative of the state in the area of solemnizing."

Ministers will then be forced to conduct church weddings without the marriage receiving the state stamp of approval and subsequent listing on the books as an "authorized" marriage.

Then we will have come full circle. Those who believe only in Christian Holy Matrimony will be "unmarried" and "Bob and Rob" will be the ones with the licenses.

Exchanging the truth of God for a lie.....calling good 'evil' and evil 'good.'

[MinuteGal]

Gee, all the way through I misread "solemnize" as "sodomize" and now I have to go back and read it all again.

Leni

[walden]

I don't think it's genetic. Homosexual men vastly outnumber lesbians. So, while I think that some of it relates to emotional damage (including seduction by older same-sex partners), I think the vast bulk of male homosexuals are so due to something hormonal going wrong during gestation. I think something goes wrong with the interaction of the mothers hormones and the developing male baby's hormones. I see it as an environmental (rather than genetic) birth defect.

[DonQ]

The Michael Jackson - Lisa Marie Presley marriage -- a same-sex coupling if ever there was one -- outlasted Britney Spears's hetero marriage by a considerable difference.

[EdReform]

Bump

What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda
( www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1076476/posts )

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)
( www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1026551/posts )

The Stamp of Normality
( www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1085090/posts )

[Stretch]

HOW DID WE GET TO THIS POINT. It started with the hippie movement in the 60's. Then came the supreme court rulings on pornography. The adult book stores. Then Hollywood kept inserting more and more sexual scenes into movies. More violence of the hideous nature. then along came Satellite TV with the Xrated. then XX rated. then XXXrated. then XXXXrated. then between those was the abortion ruling by the Supremes. Then during that same perio, along came "THE CLINTONS." They started early on with their support of hate for this country. backing such culture as the Black Panthers and the many civil rights groups who supported viollence. Then also was the ACLU who supported all of these fringe groups and did all of their dirty work for them under the guise of supporting freedom of speech and anti descrimination laws proposed by these fringe groups. AND let's not forget the LIBERAL MEDIA that supports, and enables such legislation to steal our rights from us.
They cultivated the black people of this country with false accusations against us conservatives and in so doing ended up with a voting constituency of near 95%. They infiltrated the education department, all labor uinions and such to the point of nearly a 100% block voting base. We as conservatives have sat by while all of this happened. It is what happened in Russia. It happened in Italy. It happened in Germany. AND IT IS HAPPENING HERE. UNDER OUR NOSES. AND WE ARE HELPLESS.
THE ONLY SOLUTION I SEE IS THIS; ORGANIZE; PICKET; DEMONSTRATAE IN FRONT OF ALL THE LIBERAL MEDIA HEADQUARTERS CONSTANTLY, NEVER GIVING UP; THE SUPREME COURT; THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROMOTE THIS EVIL; THE GOVERNORS WHO SUPPORT THIS; THE CONGRESSMEN AND SENATORS WHO SUPPORT ABORTION AND THE GAY AGENDA; THE SCHOOLS THAT TEACH THIS VICIOUS AGENDA; THE UNIONS; THEN AT THE SAME TIME GET CONSERVATIVE ATTORNEYS TO FILL THE COURTS UP WITH SUITS AGAINST THE SCHOOLS, THE UNIONS, THE ACLU yes, even against some of our senators and congressmen.
SUCH CONSERVATIVE TALK SHOW HOSTS AS RUSH, HANNITY, AND SAVAGE DO A LOT OF GOOD. BUT, REMEMBER, THEY ARE ON THE AIR DURING THE DAY WHERE MOST OF THEIR LISTENERS ARE THE STAY AT HOME MOMS AND RETIRED PEOPLE. THE VOTING PUBLIC IS WORKING AND NEVER GET TO HEAR THEIR MESSAGES. WE NEEDD RUSH ON THE AIR DAY AND NIGHT. OUR ONLY HOPE IS TO BRING DOWN THE LIBERAL BIASED MEDIA. THEY ARE EXPOUSEING A SOCIALISTIC, FACIST AND COMMUNIST IDEALOGY. UNTIL THEY ARE DESTROYED WE ARE HEADED FOR DOOM. AND WE HAVE NO TIME TO WASTE. IF BUSH LOSES IN NOVEMBER, WE ARE LOST. HE WILL REMAIN IN POWER UNTIL HILLARY TAKES OVER. we are almost lost. Canada, Germany, France and England are just about there to the point of no stopping. We are almost there.
STRETCH. The old geezer with over three quarters of a century of observation. Too old and not savvy enough to organize. BUT NOT TOO OLD TO JOIN IN THE FIGHT

[bk1000]

"how then is it perpetuated"

When it is accepted, reveered, promoted, etc., people are more likely to give it a try. Also, it is trendy or cool for liberal, progressive people to have homosexual friends. And then there is that whole Madonna/Britney thing. I don't mean this as a joke. Let the media show men up there kissing each other and watch the approval ratings fall. Notice how none of the sound bites show this aspect. Let those 'queer eye for the straight guy' guys start snogging on camera and see who watches it next week.

[King Prout]

I don't think it's genetic. Homosexual men vastly outnumber lesbians.

Non sequitur, and not exactly so.
The ballpark figures from recent studies indicate a 2% homo incidence among males and a 1.6% incidence among females. Not so very great that the size of the samples could not have produced a statistical fillip.
again: the science on this is still very young. I reserve judgement until a statistically significant number of genomes have been mapped and compared.

[kabar]

It is also about Federal and state benefits. Make no mistake about it.

[walden]

"The ballpark figures from recent studies indicate a 2% homo incidence among males and a 1.6% incidence among females. "

Do you have a source on that? I find these numbers surprisingly low. I've read numbers as high as 15% for males, but I really thought the numbers were around 10% for males and 2-3% for females.

[King Prout]

10%??? Oh, cripes - you are citing the TOTALLY EXPLODED Kinsey studies.
Much more recent and authentic studies in England, France, and Germany indicate the 2% ballpark range.
I do not have links to these studies, but someone here surely must.
LJ? Onyx? Got data?

[little jeremiah]

CHeck Post 31, the Categorical Index of links, and scroll down to the appropriate category. The Alan Guttmacher (sp?) Institute did a study some years ago (they're connecte with Planned Parenthood, so their bias is pro-"gay") and they found out to their disappointment that homosexuals are a much smaller percentage than previously thought, previous thoughts based primarily on the Kinsey fraud.

The figures I've seen have been pretty much between 1.5% and 2.5%. In a couple of days when I have time I'll try to look up some direct references, but if anyone wants to do their own research you can check out the Index linked to on post 31.

~~~I am ULTRA busy right now and can't do it for the next couple of days :-( ~~~