Elections tell you a lot about the worldview of Americans. Last night’s election is no exception. It reveals a lot about our moral views. This election reveals that our nation has become very accepting of homosexuality and same-sex marriage, as well as smoking pot.
Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Wisconsin elected the first openly gay U.S. Senator. Maine (53% vs. 47%) and Maryland (52% vs. 48%) voted to support the legalization of same-sex marriage. Maryland voters merely confirmed their support of a law allowing same-sex marriage that was recently signed into law by the governor. Maine chimed in on this same issue in 2009 after their legislature passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, and they rejected same-sex marriage with 53% of the vote. Look how quickly public opinion is shifting!
The significance of what happened in Maine and Maryland cannot be underestimated. This is the first time in history that same-sex marriage has been approved by the people of a state as opposed to the courts or legislature.
Washington also had an initiative to legalize same-sex marriage (same-sex marriage was already legal in all but name). Only half of the votes have been counted thus far, but at present 52% have voted in favor of same-sex marriage, and thus it is likely to become legal there as well. If so, nine states will have laws allowing same-sex marriage.
Minnesota tried to change their constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman, but the initiative was defeated 51% to 48%. The measure’s defeat, however, does not mean that same-sex marriage is legal. It’s just not on the books as being illegal.
On the international front, France is now in the process of trying to legalize same-sex marriage there. If it passes, they will become the 12th country in the world where same-sex couples can marry. And yesterday, Spain’s high court upheld a 2005 law that legalized same-sex marriage.
Marijuana
For all you potheads, Washington (55% vs. 45% with half of the votes counted) and Colorado (55% vs. 45%)) is your new vacation spot of choice. These states legalized the recreational use of pot (even though it is considered a controlled substance by the federal government, and hence illegal). Oregon defeated a similar measure (55% vs. 45%). Arkansas defeated (51% vs. 49%) a ballot initiative to legalize the use of “medical marijuana,” while Massachusetts approved one (63% vs. 37%). Montana already allowed medical marijuana in certain situations, but put an initiative on the ballot to keep the law the law. They succeeded with 57% of the vote.
Now I’ll turn my attention to some better news on the moral front.
Abortion
Surprisingly, there were only two ballot initiatives related to abortion this year. Florida voted down a measure to withhold public funds for abortion with 55% of the vote. Montana voted to institute a parental notification requirement before minors can obtain abortions (70% vs. 30%).
Death Penalty
Californians voted 53% to 47% to keep the death penalty.
Physician-assisted Suicide
Massachusetts narrowly defeated an initiative to legalize physician-assisted suicide in the state (51% vs. 49%). Oregon and Washington are the only states that allow it.
Thinking to Believe 
November 7, 2012 at 11:30 am
Well I’m glad to see Americans are putting their hatred aside for people different from themselves. That shows a lot of moral growth. It’s not that Americans are becoming accepting of homosexuality, it’s that they are becoming accepting of individual freedom, because we have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And thank goodness we are moving in the right direction with the prohibition of marijuana. This moves us away from an unprecedented incarceration rate for non-violent criminals, as well as minority and racial profiling. Not to mention this will lower deaths and violence stemming from the mexican drug cartel. So we now have individual freedom and we loosened the grip on the prison industrial complex. Sounds like we are moving in the right direction. Except we still have a president that knows nothing about our economy.
LikeLike
November 7, 2012 at 11:57 am
Hatred? Why is it that you liberals always view moral disapproval as hatred. Do people who think lying is wrong hate liars? That is a superficial thinking that shows one is out of touch with those who oppose homosexuality on moral grounds. Do some truly hate homosexuals? Surely, but you can’t broad-brush everyone because of a minority.
Freedom? Homosexuals already have the freedom to have same-sex intercourse and committ themselves to each other for life. What they don’t have, and what they have no right to, is for the government to sanction and regulate their relationships.
Jason
LikeLike
November 7, 2012 at 12:48 pm
Yes, I should have the right to marry my sister or have more than one wife. Put your hatred aside and let me have the right is do what is right in my own eyes. We should have the right to take out this thing that is growing inside (with a heartbeat), because it is only tissue. I want to have the right smoke and do drugs in the privacy of my own home in front of my children. I am to most important person in the world. As Bon Joni says, “It’s my life, It’s now or never, I ain’t gonna live forever, I just want to live while I’m alive, (It’s my life) My heart is like an open highway, Like Frankie said, I did it my way, I just wanna live while I’m alive, It’s my life.” Party on.
Signed,
Blind as a Bat
LikeLike
November 7, 2012 at 1:08 pm
Dane,
And yet one more liberal who can’t distinguish between moral disapproval and hatred.
Why should we allow you to do what is right in your own eyes? Should the government allow rapists to do what’s right in their own eyes? Do you support anarchy?
Only tissue? You reveal your scientific ignorance here. It’s not tissue. It’s a full-fledged member of the human species from the moment of conception. That’s an established scientific fact. The only thing that remains to be debated is whether or not the unborn members of the human race have the same value as the born.
LikeLike
November 7, 2012 at 1:45 pm
Jason,
Dane’s comment appears to be satire.
LikeLike
November 7, 2012 at 1:52 pm
But on topic,I think a big part of the problem is conservative politicians tend to be really bad at debating moral issues. I never hear the arguments you make against same sex marriage come from the mouths of politicians. Two senators lost elections due to poor defense of their stance on abortion in the cases of rape. I believe there’s still hope if the next generation of conservatives do their homework.
LikeLike
November 7, 2012 at 2:11 pm
Dane,
Perhaps it was. If so, my satire detector is not working well today. 🙂
I agree about politicians. They are not articulate. They know what they are for and against, but have a hard time explaining their view or persuading others to adopt it.
Jason
LikeLike
November 7, 2012 at 2:22 pm
Just because you believe something is morally wrong, shouldn’t take away someone else’s right to do it, especially when others are doing the same thing. Married couples get tax breaks and other things that non married couples don’t have. Making end of life decisions life’s well as other things. If one person has this right, then everyone should have the right. You don’t have to agree, but once one person has rights over another, you take away the liberty that this government has given to everyone. there shouldn’t be any stipulations for anyone according to race or gender. Laws should be made according to people, not groups. I believe a person has the right to marry another adult person, and those persons should have the same rights not matter their gender or race. And yes, you have more hatred than you care to admit Jason. In comes out in your words sometimes. Quietly, but it’s there.
LikeLike
November 7, 2012 at 2:30 pm
And for the record, I’m not a liberal, please stop calling me that, lol. I’m not a Democrat. I’m a Libertarian.
LikeLike
November 7, 2012 at 2:57 pm
Jason W,
In general, I agree with you that just because something is morally wrong does not mean we have to legislate against it. But clearly there are some things that should be legislated against, and the only reason for doing so is because one believes they are morally wrong.
Tax breaks for married couples? You must not be married. I always got refunds until I got married. Afterward, I got tax raped! You only get breaks for having kids.
Rights always have stipulations. My 5 year old can’t drive a car, for good reason. And two people of the same-sex should not be able to marry for good reason as well. It’s not discrimination just because not everyone is allowed to do something. It’s only discrimination if distinctions are made between classes that have no rational warrant.
Do you support a father and daughter marrying each other so long as the daughter is of consenting age? Do you support marriages between humans and animals?
I appreciate the psychoanalysis, but I think I’m in a better position to know my thoughts and intents than you. And no, I have no hatred toward those who disagree with me. I have plenty of friends and acquaintances who are homosexuals, and we get along fine. Most homosexuals I know are great people. But just because I like them as persons does not mean I have to approve of their sexual behavior.
Who says only democrats are liberal? Libertarians tend to be more liberal than democrats. But if you don’t like that label, I’ll try not using it of you. But I would like to know why you don’t think it is accurate. After all, a liberal is one who wants to change the status quo, whereas conservatives are those who are trying to “conserve” the way things are. Are you not in support of changing the moral status quo?
Jason
LikeLike
November 8, 2012 at 12:19 am
“Give’m an inch and They’le take a mile”.
Liberals will someday have prisons closed at the rate we’re going. Slap every crime or deed and call it its their right to the pursuit of happiness. Before you know it even murder will be legalized if that’s what tickles your fancy. But wait, it already is. People want sex, but pull the plug on pregnancy to keep having sex. This nation will soon turn reprobative and the empire will fall. God help us.
LikeLike
November 8, 2012 at 5:57 am
I’m socially liberal, but conservative in every other way. So yeah I do have some liberal tendencies, but I am a conservative. We shouldn’t keep the same laws they had 2,000 years ago, so yeah, change can be good. If it wasn’t for change, we’d still be stoning people in the streets for backtalking.
You say a 5 year old shouldn’t drive a car. OK, and every 5 year old doesn’t get to operate a vehicle, that makes sense. The law doesn’t say that heterosexual 5 year olds get to drive cars but gay 5 year olds do not? The difference should be made on an overall basis. Should a daughter marry a father? No, and no daughter can marry their father, nor son marry their mother. It is the same for everyone. If God gave us free will, why do you think we have the right to legislate it to particular groups of people?
No person shall murder. No person shall drive before they are 16. No person shall steal. These are how laws should be laid out. Truth is, you cannot come up with a reason why gay couples shouldn’t be allowed the same right as straight couples. Gays have always been around, and will always be around. That will not change, no matter how much you despise their choice. How is your life going to change, because Bob now has the right to tell the doctors what Richard wants at the end of his life?
Closing prisons and legalizing murder? My how we exxagerrate. I agree though, some prisons should be closed, especially when the private owners benefit from having more people in their jail. And murder is something that affects everyone, so I don’t see anyone wanting to change that law. It is only laws that target certain groups, or laws forcing religious views that should be changed.
Let me use a quote… “Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not to run their lives.” Ronald Reagan
The government needs to get out of people’s bedrooms and get back to business like they ought to be doing. This place is a mess and falling apart because democrats and republicans are more worried about padding their pockets and telling people what to do with their personal lives than getting this country straight and this economy straight. You cannot force morality, you cannot force religious views. The government’s job is to protect. Against murder, against theft, against anything someone does that may bring harm on another person. Bob marrying Richard doesn’t change your life in anyway, it doesn’t bother or effect you. What one does in their bedroom is between them and God, not them, God, and the government. As long as it is between two consenting adults, it is none of the govt’s business. You are wrong, mainly because the only reason you believe homosexuals shouldn’t marry is because of your religious beliefs, and you are trying to force them on others. Once government gives rights to some that others do not have, we risk tyranny. We need to get back to being a secular government and realize the diversity in this nation. The constitution doesn’t say anything about gays or homosexuals, and it shouldn’t. That is why these intitiatives to change the constitution fail. Because the constitution doesn’t discriminate. What kind of country would we be if we changed the constitution to be discriminatory? Whites should be the only ones to vote. Men should be the only ones to speak in church, and gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry. Yeah, that’s what this country needs, more discrimination, more hatred.
LikeLike
November 8, 2012 at 11:26 am
They will not endure sound teachings anymore …. Wed Nov 7 indeed was a turning point in USA history. I see a nation no longer in any light but darkness of a worse kind covering the nation where the only light will be the followers of Jesus.
USA can finally catch up with the darkness we followers have been facing for some time now in Canada. The darkness here has brought the gays out of the closet and the Christians moved in. The darkness here has laws to throw me in jail if I teach or preach against this issue up here.
LikeLike
November 8, 2012 at 11:52 am
Jason W,
So you are a fiscal conservative but social liberal. Gotcha.
The law doesn’t say that gay people can’t marry. They can. They have the same rights to marry that anyone else in this country has: the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. They choose not to avail themselves of this right. They want a new right: the right to marry someone of the same sex. The law says nothing about sexual orientation. It only speaks to gender, and there is a rational basis for that. Gender is integral to the concept of marriage because only a man and woman form a sexual whole and are able to produce children.
If you don’t think a father should have the right to marry his daughter, then you don’t really believe that everyone should be able to marry whom they want. The fact of the matter is that everyone believes in restrictions when it comes to marriage. The only question is which restrictions are justified, and which are not.
You said the government should stay out of people’s bedrooms. Whose bedrooms are they in? Who is saying gays can’t have gay sex? If you are referring to marriage, that has nothing to do with the bedroom. And besides, anyone who wants same-sex marriage to be legalized is asking for the government to come into people’s bedrooms!
I hear this “how will it affect you” so many times. This is so short-sighted. It’s not just about me, but society as a whole. And if you think it won’t affect society, you need to think again. We’re already seeing how it is affecting society. It is affecting business owners, the educational system, and even the liberty to speak against homosexuality. The same argument you are making is what people said about cohabitation. And now, some 30-40 years later, we’re seeing that it does affect society negatively.
Jason
LikeLike
November 8, 2012 at 1:04 pm
The law speaks to gender. Exactly. That makes it a discriminatory law. That is why it needs changed. What do you mean rational? If you are talking about the ability to produce offspring, that point is arbitrary.
This quote helps to address this point…
“Opponents of same-sex marriage and civil unions claim that this protects children, and thus we should give the state power to regulate marriage and so protect the next generation. To them, opposite sex parents are the best option for the healthy upbringing of a child.
This begs the question: By only legalizing the optimal, do we agree that anything suboptimal should be illegal? If the conditions for raising a child vary, and run along a spectrum from the worst (for example, being raised by wolves in the forest) to the optimal (being raised by loving, talented, brilliant billionaires), could government bureaucrats rule that anyone poorer than a billionaire was suboptimal and unfit to raise children? Would we demand wealth and intelligence tests before granting marriage licenses, because marriage could lead to childrearing, and that child could possibly be raised in a suboptimal environment?
“Optimal” is arbitrary, and this line of thought is dangerous to a free nation.”
You say…”The fact of the matter is that everyone believes in restrictions when it comes to marriage. The only question is which restrictions are justified, and which are not. ”
Incestual relationships are banned because of offspring and abuse of power mainly. There are many other reasons, most relating to offspring and reproducing. Homosexuals cannot reproduce, so they are not held to the same stipulation.
Oh and how is legalizing same sex marriage bringing in more government than restricting marriage laws? Whether govt is for or against, it is the same intrusion.
Basically, it comes down to rights, decisions, and benefits. Gays should have the same rights, decisions, and benefits, regardless of their sexual preference.
How will this effect you is shortsighted? LMAO, I dont believe you’re “liberty to speak against homosexuality” or should I say, you’re right to openly bash gays and spew hatred, is effected. You can still do that. And I seriously doubt that gays will be the death of society. They have been around since before religion itself and we are still here and thriving as a human race.
Gays marrying is effecting business owners, lol. Gays marrying is effecting the educational system, lol. Cohabitation? Really? Oh yeah, I remember the year cohabitation almost took down society, lol. Wow, this really just comes down to trying to regulate religious preferences. Seriously, you’re conspiracy runs deep.
LikeLike
November 8, 2012 at 1:11 pm
And to point out, the ability to produce offspring is different than incest, which causes congenital disorders, death, disability, and genetic diseases due to inbreeding.
LikeLike
November 8, 2012 at 2:01 pm
“And to point out, the ability to produce offspring is different than incest, which causes congenital disorders, death, disability, and genetic diseases due to inbreeding.”
This is not true. There is a gene that causes this and not all incestuous couples have it – couples can be checked out and breed healthy kids. Also, what about having more than one wife or husband? I think marrying your Dog is next 🙂 Kidding, I hope 🙂
LikeLike
November 8, 2012 at 2:06 pm
There is an institution that a society can promote, even if it’s not perfect, to provide and promote the optimal as the high standard. The Government gives all kinds of incentives that people fail at, but the ideal is still promoted. I have dealt with many same sex families and their children, and it is a mess. What is promoted on commercials and debated is nothing close to the reality of the child’s lives I have seen. You will always find exceptions to the rule, but the rule is what needs to be rewarded.
There is another view to look at. This institution is a religious ceremony that the State recognizes – not the other way around. If Gays want to have same sex marriage, then they need to create a two separate (but equal legally) classes or distinction. It is offensive to me to say that I am entering into the same covenant relationship as a Homosexual. Again, Marriage was a religious right that the State endorsed.
Homosexuals do not have the right to enter into something that is not a homosexual act. The act of Marriage is between and Man and Woman by definition historically and religiously. Let’s say Homosexuals had their “special act” of union that they had for 4000 years, and this tradition was finally accepted by the State, equal, but not that same, as Marriage, and some Man and Wife said they wanted to enter into this Homosexual tradition too. Are your eyes crossed yet?
Don’t mess with my marriage 🙂
LikeLike
November 8, 2012 at 2:52 pm
Dane, I agree with what you are saying. I argue on their behalf, but I am not homosexual, so I may view things differently than a homosexual couple would. I believe in the sanctity of marriage, and only have a problem with the benefits, etc being different. I agree with the religious aspect of marriage. I disagree with the political aspect, as far as couples not having the right to decide certain things, and such. The government shouldn’t make a difference, and they should get the same government benefits as any couple.
LikeLike
November 8, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Dane, even animals avoid inbreeding. Not so, as far as homosexuality. And I’m not saying to change marriage, just that these couples deserve certain rights that the govt gives to others.
LikeLike
November 8, 2012 at 3:11 pm
What rights? My point is they have the rights they need if they are willing to draw up their own legal contract. There are people that don’t marry – they are single with no “special” person, Should they have the same bennies as a married couple?
LikeLike
November 9, 2012 at 4:30 am
Jason W,
Not sure about the US, but in the UK, homosexuals have the same legal rights as heterosexuals when choosing a life partner. One is called a civil union and the other a marriage.
My main issue is that I do not think homosexuals gaining the definition “marriage” adds any benefit whatsoever, but it will cause harm (and already has done) in certain areas, not to mention the legal minefield that now awaits due to all mention of “husband / wife” etc.
Personally, I would have preferred the govt to have rejected the word marriage and just recognised the religious ceremony known as marriage to automatically allow the couple to be registered as part of a civil union. This would have upset no-one, and not caused such a big deal.
LikeLike
November 9, 2012 at 1:41 pm
Dane said: “Put your hatred aside and let me have the right is do what is right in my own eyes…”
Dwell on that just for a bit.
You’re telling somebody that shouldn’t have the right to tell you that you don’t have the right.
Have you considered just how hypocritical, illogical and selfish that is?
Just wondering.
LikeLike
November 9, 2012 at 8:49 pm
Readers,
I think the thing that those who would side with Jason W. fail to recognize is a principle. Those of us who accept, support, and promote the traditional, classic definition of marriage (1 man and 1 woman) do so from very solid principles:
1) the complimentary design of the male and female body (only admits 1);
2) what Jason Dulle pointed out — “Gender is integral to the concept of marriage because only a man and woman form a sexual whole and are able to produce children.”
By contrast, what do promoters / supporters of homosexual “marriage” have as a principle? I usually hear “If 2 people love each other, they should be allowed to marry and have the same benefits as everyone else.”
Of course not.
For starters, why limit the marriage relationship to 2 people? Why not 2 men and 1 woman, etc.?
Does it really mean 2 people? No, not any 2 people, as Jason Dulle pointed out by asking about a man wanting to marry his consenting daughter. I’ll go one more controversial step forward: What about two adult, gay brothers. If they want to marry and they both consent, what’s wrong with it?
If we want to appeal to disease as a reason it’s wrong, then you have to look at HIV, STD, and other statistics of the gay community. The US CDC shows that male homosexuals form the largest group of HIV-positive:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#exposure
Clinical depression is higher.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb02/newdata.aspx
Drug and alcohol abuse is higher.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/drug-use-seven-times-higher-among-gays-8165971.html
And lest I be accused of “hate” and “bigotry”, I’m into this to help people see that homosexual behavior is unhealthy and unnatural. And to say that we see it in the animal kingdom and it is therefore OK is to overlook all the other things done in the animal kingdom. For example, certain species of shark “rape”. Are we now justified in making a case for rape? (Rational people say no.)
The fact is we all have opinions about what constitutes moral and immoral behavior. We all draw a line somewhere.
Joshua
LikeLike
November 11, 2012 at 8:21 am
Jashua Well said!
LikeLike
November 11, 2012 at 9:57 am
So Joshua, are you saying that homosexuals should repent of their ways and guys should just start liking girls? That they just chose to be that way?
LikeLike
November 11, 2012 at 10:32 am
Jason W. It is always a choice.
What I find strange is the unhealthy lifestyle of homosexuality is being OK’d while people who are over weight are punished with higher insurance rates. This in and of itself is discrimination.
LikeLike
November 11, 2012 at 10:45 pm
@Jason W.
Well, sexual inclination and sexual behavior aren’t the same. Sexual inclination, simply put, appears to me to be the result of influence which, under general / natural circumstances, results in heterosexual inclinations Unnatural circumstances (that is, any type of abuse) can result in homosexual inclinations. For example, having known some male homosexuals and read works by some, there always seems to be an issue with males, either father / father-figures or male peers. One even confessed that he longed to be accepted by his father, a desire which morphed over time into a physical need which resulted in homosexual behavior.
Had you heard that before? What do you think about that?
Sexual behavior, on the other hand, is always a choice, except in the case of rape. To maintain that sexual behavior is hard-wired from birth would be a dangerous
And, besides, just because someone has an inclination doesn’t mean they should act on it. A man who has the tendency to violence wouldn’t be justified in beating the crap out of people, would he? (After all, did he “choose to be that way”?)
As a Christian, I’m convinced by both experience and the Bible that there is evil within the human heart (including my own) that sometimes gives us wrong inclinations and thoughts.
By the way, why do you think there is an overall elevated use of drugs, HIV, and clinical depression among the homosexual community?
Joshua
LikeLike
November 11, 2012 at 11:32 pm
“Jason W. Says:
November 11, 2012 at 9:57 am
So Joshua, are you saying that homosexuals should repent of their ways and guys should just start liking girls? That they just chose to be that way?”
Jason W, Are you saying they are born this way?
LikeLike
November 14, 2012 at 10:35 pm
Jason W,
We need to be clear on what discrimination is. It is treating two parties differently. But discrimination comes in two forms: unjust discrimination, and just discrimination. Unjust discrimination is when two equally situated parties are treated differently, whereas just discrimination is when two unequally situated parties are treated differently. So not all discrimination is bad. One merely needs to show a rational basis for viewing party A as being unequally situated to party B.
Secondly, it’s simply not the case that any law that is based on gender is automatically discriminatory. For example, what if there was a law passed saying every woman has a right to a free hysterectomy. Could males cry “discrimination!”? No, because there is a rational basis for limiting such a law to women: only women have uteruses, and thus hysterectomies are only applicable to women (men and women are unequally situated regarding the procedure). Men might think it is unfair that women get a woman’s-only medical procedure covered for free while they don’t get a man’s-only medical procedure covered for free, but the fact of the matter is that the law is not unjustly discriminating against men, and what they are seeking is not the same right as women, but a new right.
Thirdly, marriage law does not apply to one gender. It applies to both genders. It declares that any male and any female may marry someone of the opposite sex.
Fourthly, there is a rational basis for defining marriage in such a way: gender is relevant to marriage because only two people of the opposite gender can form a sexual whole and produce offspring. And because marriage has always been about children, the gender of its participants is relevant. Men who do not want to marry someone of the opposite sex are not being discriminated against. They are choosing not to participate in a state-sanctioned union that is available to them. They desire an additional right: the right to marry someone of the same gender. If society chooses not to grant them that right, there is no discrimination involved because they are unequally situated to heterosexual couples in the way their relationships function in society. Society could choose to give them the right to a state-sanctioned, state-regulated, state-recognized relationship, but in doing so they would be granting them a new right.
You wrote, “By only legalizing the optimal, do we agree that anything suboptimal should be illegal?” It’s not illegal for two people of the same sex to have sex with each other, set up house together, commit themselves to one another until death do them part, and even raise children together. So what’s your point? A failure to legally recognize same-sex relationships is not tantamount to making them illegal. This country has long had a “live and let live” attitude toward same-sex couples. No one is invading their bedrooms and preventing them from doing their thing.
Of course there are reasons why we do not allow incestuous marriages and polygamous marriages. That’s my point. We have reasons for the restrictions. Just because we say “relationship X is not a marital relationship” does not mean that we are unjustly discriminating against X. But the same is true of same-sex relationships. They do not serve the same purpose that heterosexual relationships do in society, and thus they should not be treated the same. Gender is integral to the concept of marriage.
How am I openly bashing gays and spewing out hatred? Can you point to any statement that I have made that fits these categories? I grow weary of the ad hominems that those on your side throw at those on my side. You apply labels even when they don’t apply because the labels give you the upper hand. Label and dismiss. It’s not that simple. I’m giving a reasoned defense against same-sex marriage that is not based on religious arguments, emotion, or name-calling and invectives.
If you don’t understand the negative effects of cohabitation, you need to read more. Cohabiting couples have dissolution rates that are much greater than married couples, and those cohabiting couples often have children. The negative effects of parental dissolution, including negative social effects, is clearly documented. Cohabitation is bad for the couples, and bad for society.
Jason
LikeLike
November 15, 2012 at 5:01 am
Cohabitation is no worse than marriage. If these couples were to get married, they would have divorced, then marriage would be worse. It’s moot to mention that they broke up, when the divorce rate is staggering, and would only be worse if those couples chose to marry. I think there is no reason why same sex couples shouldn’t get treated the same by the government than heterosexuals couples. And I don’t think that would effect my life at all. You separation of certain situations, then biased examples of how that only applies to that situation, is not accurate.
And yes, I do think most homosexuals are born that way. To say that all homosexuals were made that way because of abuse is ridiculous. Especially with the amount of people that are born that way. My cousin, who has never been abused, was born with a feminine side. I knew by the time he was 7 that he wasn’t going to be into girls. Lo and behold, he likes guys now. It seems as natural to me, as my attraction to women. No matter how much I could have been abused, I can never see me being attracted to guys in any way. I think the thought that they choose to be attracted to men is way off the mark. I think your biasness has clouded your judgment. Or maybe, my unbiasness has clouded mine.
LikeLike
November 26, 2012 at 1:48 pm
These stats are truly disheartening.
But not only do the election results
disclose the direction in which the pendulum of public sentiment sways concerning its morality,but the results are also instructive in ascertaining
America’s current perspective of the Republican Party.
In the final analysis, the Republican Party is currently, and is viewed as:
1-too white
2-too white male oriented
3-too extreme, racist, bias, and out of touch (i.e. the tea-party movement/and the Rush Limbaugh’s of the world ,etc.)
In light of the election, there has to be a significant amount of culpability that the Republican Party should bear for these results as well, because they didn’t address these previously know issues within it ranks. There must be a shift from blame to introspection and re-adjustment in order to increase the probability of future success.
As I was watching the results on election night,
I noticed something that troubled me.
As the stations were switching back and forth panning the audiences
of each political camp, it was obvious to me that there was a sea of diversity in the Democrats camp, but their was a dearth of diversity in the Republican camp.As the election results have shown, the issue of diversity in the Republican Party needs to seriously be addressed.
Because of how the Republican Party has
responded in various situations and presented itself,it appears that there’s not willingness, nor a desire for diversity within the party.
There has to be more than just giving lip service to a platform of religiosity and morality.People can discern between what’s pseudo and real.
Bro Dulle, on a previous blog I told you about the statistics that state that blacks and minorities receive longer jail time, and greater punishments than their white counterparts who commit the same crimes. I told you that this was blatant injustice and discrimination in our judicial system. You stated that you didn’t know about the stats.
My question to you is, do you want to know about the stats? Have you done any research on this yet? If not, why? If so, what have you found? How can the Republican Party address these injustices and bring about solutions?
On another occasion I also asked you why do you think
the majority of African Americans, (who are socially conservative) , tend to always vote for the Democratic party wholesale. You stated that you didn’t know that much about African Americans to answer that question.
My question to you is, why don’t you know? Do you want to know? Have you read up or researched this yet? If not, why? If so what have you found? How can the Republican Party reverse this trend?
Also, your two responses highlight the point that I’m trying to make, and that is how can minorities, and a more diverse demographic come into the Republican Party,when there is a dismissive attitude toward them, and they are not proactively engaged in order to know their issues and concerns?
It appears to me that there needs to be radical changes
made within the leading branches of conservatism
if the party wants to remain viable in the future.
America has changed, and the Republican Party needs to do so as well.
LikeLike
November 29, 2012 at 11:40 am
Milton,
I agree that the Republican Party needs to do some soul-searching, but some of the reason they may not appeal to some groups is because their platform includes positions that do not favor the group in question. For example, many Republicans are opposed to illegal immigration. Well, it’s no surprise that they don’t have Latinos breaking down their doors to join the party! But should that cause Republicans to change their position? No, not if their position is the right one. Diversity is great, but not if one must sacrifice their principles to obtain it. Anyone who changes their positions just to get votes is not worthy of the vote.
I didn’t realize I was involved in an inquisition. I don’t know the various stats that you have asked about, and I have not taken the time to obtain them largely because these are not areas of my concern. My focus is not politics, but religion. I only touch on the topic of politics as it relates to religious and moral issues.
Jason
LikeLike
December 11, 2012 at 5:07 pm
Jason W,
People who cohabit before getting married re more likely to divorce than those who do not cohabit first. They are also more likely to experience abuse, etc. Those are just the stats.
Of course there is a reason for the government to treat opposite-sex couples differently than same-sex couples: children. OS couples regularly produce children that need to be cared for, whereas SS couples never do (although a few will adopt). Don’t act like there’s no difference when there clearly and obviously is. Relationships that result in children are different from those that don’t.
You can think that homosexuals are born that way (i.e. biological cause), but there’s no evidence for it. But there is a lot of evidence for it being due to social causes early in childhood. The social causes go beyond abuse. For males, it’s usually the feeling of rejection by the parent of the same-sex. In other cases it is abuse, however.
No one said that homosexuals “choose” to be attracted to the same sex. Clearly the sexual attraction is not chosen. The only thing that is chosen is sexual behavior; i.e. whether or not they act on those desires.
Jason
LikeLike
January 14, 2013 at 2:44 pm
PTL Bro Jason,
My questions are by no means inquisitional in nature.
That’s not the spirit of my inquiries. (It never has nor will it ever be.)
I hold you (and what you do) in too high of a regard for that level of shallow contentiousness.
My impetus is merely to have a healthy and robust discussion on these issues (as is the norm on this venue) via the platform that you have so graciously provided.
A few of the main reasons why I have such great respect for you as a scholar and theologian, is because 1) the in depth and exhaustive way in which you deal with each subject addressed , 2) The way you “challenge” your audience to think outside of their normal parameters, 3) You “welcome” your audience to challenge your views as well.
(Your ministry is not for the thin skinned)
As such, due to the aggressiveness of some of the argumentations on your blog it’s easy to misjudge the bent of someone’s motive and heart, (yours and those in your audience).
I asked you the questions not to build a case against you my brother, but because I truly value your opinion on such matters, and I trust that (by Gods grace) that if anyone can be unbiased, and exercise due diligence on the subject matter it would be you.
I also ask the questions because I am always seeking to have a cogent presentation on such issues in the ministerial capacity that I operate in, and in the community that I minister to. In my opinion, your opinion caries weight.
As it pertains to your responses …I agree that parties should not change right positions/principles for the sake of diversity, but what they can do is purge themselves from wrong positions and expand their platform to include other right positions that can engender diversity. (Their moral ethic is too limited in scope)
You stated that “no one who changes their positions just to get votes is worthy of a vote”. But isn’t this the type of political flip flopping that both of the major parties do on a consistent basis? Politicians even sometimes flip flop in a major way by switching parties just to get votes and to get elected.
During the Bush years (and before that) the Republicans nor Democrats didn’t seem to have a “real” problem with illegal immigrants because everyone was profiting from their low cost labor (special interest groups and big businesses). Hispanics predominately voted for Bush during his tenor.
Now after pimping the Hispanic community everyone wants immigration reform, or to just get rid of them. That’s flip flopping for votes.
I’ve been a proponent for immigration reform for years, I’m just pointing out the glaring inconsistencies.
Even Mitt Romney flipped flop on his views for votes, and Republicans and conservatives still voted for him.
Bro Jason, I know that your “focus” is not politics but it is in your peripheral. And as you have stated you only delve into it only as it relates to religious and moral issues.
Based on (what I already knew and your statements), it is for these reasons (the religious and moral reasons) why I don’t understand why you have not researched the stats or addressed my previous questions related to the legal injustices and inequities that exist in the African American, Hispanic , and minority communities.
You stated that you don’t know the various stats nor have taken the time to obtain them largely because these are not areas of your concern. But why are you not concerned about people who are being treated unjustly?
Just like it is immoral and irreligious to abort babies, and to practices homosex,isn’t it morally and scripturally unethical to show partiality in judgment? (Ex 23:3, Deut 1:17, Rom 2:11, James 2:9.)
Shouldn’t we as believers not only fight for the rights of those in the womb but also for those outside the womb as well?
Why is your moral ethic so limited in scope?
In the Love of Christ Jesus our Lord
Milton
LikeLike
January 14, 2013 at 3:07 pm
Milton,
Thank you for your gracious words. The last comment simply made me feel like I was being interrogated. But I accept your word that this was not your intent. Emotions are cheap anyway. Ideas matter more.
As for a limited moral ethic, would you ask a heart surgeon, “Why is your job so limited in scope?” Would you ask those involved with raising money to fight cancer, “Why is your scope so limited? Don’t you care about AIDS and malaria?” Everyone has their areas of special interest, and they can’t be masters of all issues. To be effective, we have to limit our scope. I have a special interest in some matters more than others, and I know more about some matters than others. People who have experienced certain unjustices or been exposed to certain evils are more likely to be drawn to those causes than others. While we all tend to think that the issues we fight for are among the most important, and want everyone to think and feel as we do, that’s just not realistic.
There are many other moral problems that exist in our time that I do not address including child slavery, the sex-trade industry, and surely one can add to the list various governmental injustices. I just don’t have the time to become an expert or advocate in all of them. That doesn’t mean I don’t think they are important. Surely they are, but there are more people in this world than me, and someone else who has a special interest in them (such as yourself) can take up that mantle. Surely I can grow from what others have to say to these issues without having to add it to my list of advocacy issues.
Jason
LikeLike