Okay most of this can be found in my last comment on my last post, but there are some things I want to reiterate. First of all, I believe there is a Prophet of God living on the Earth today. I believe he receives direct revelation from our Father in Heaven. I have prayed about what I am about to post and have pondered it in my own heart and mind and found these things to be true:
The Family: A Proclamation to the World
 |
The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.
In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshiped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize his or her divine destiny as an heir of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.
The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.
Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.
The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities.[Not sure if it has any meaning, but I find it very interesting that love is not the first principle by which marriages are successful.] By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.
We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.
We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.
So of course this is an ideal situation. This is what we are striving for. This is what I want for me and my posterity. In every situation it does not work like this. There are tragedies in this world. For reasons we may not understand God lets things happen to some families where they are in situations with only one parent in the home. These things may or may not be part of His plan. God has given us our free agency and let us choose our actions. Hopefully we use our agency wisely, but God cannot control the actions of anyone. We may not understand why at first, but hopefully, usually down the road we may come to understand why certain things happened. However, choosing to divorce because you have fallen out of love, or living together and bringing children into the world before marriage contradict this plan. My feelings on homosexuality is very controversial today. Years ago I would have been in the majority. But I honestly believe we are all given challenges in this life. If someone’s challenge is same-gender attraction I believe it is something they need to control and overcome. I know that may sound appalling to some of you, but what about people who are born with a natural attraction to children? We would never condone the behavior of letting someone give in to these temptations and molest little children. I am not putting child molesters in the same category as gay people, but I think the principle is the same.
And a quote from an outside source:
According to Jeffrey Satinover, M. D., a psychiatrist and member of the Department of Politics at Princeton University, there is no more important reason to prohibit same-sex marriage than the effects it would have on children. And he doesn’t say this for sentimental reasons. He says it because it’s sound science.
“In every area of life, cognitive, emotional, social, developmental … at every phase of the life cycle … social evidence shows that there are measurable effects when children lack either a mother or a father. … The evidence is overwhelming. Mountains of evidence, collected over decades, show that children need both mothers and fathers.” (read the whole article here: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0090.html )
Always on the Right Side of the Issues 
[Wow, ok. Lauren, you know I love you. No one else I’d rather have a good ol’ fashion hallway chair race with, play Chili’s phrases with or be a block in the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade with. Let me just state that before I continue. Please also know I am not arguing, denouncing your beliefs, etc. Just expressing another view point that is different from yours.]
To be quite honest, I didn’t even fully read everything you quoted for one reason: Religious doctrine should play NO PART in government laws and regulations. Not everyone is your religion, my religion or ANY religion. This country was established to escape religious prosecution, and imposing your religious beliefs on others is ludicrous. What if 2012 candidates tell you that your religion or your beliefs or who you ARE as a person is wrong? You got to choose your life and how you want to live it. Who are you to take that right away from others? Is God, no matter what religion you are, all-loving? Accepting? Did Jesus not love ALL of his followers? (Don’t think I am singling you out either Laur, because I have this same discussion with my aunts who are very conservative, very anti-gay marriage, and they even have a brother who is gay. Go figure.)
Secondly, that professor’s quote may be based in science. May be 100 percent fact for all I know. BUT, banning gay marriages doesn’t STOP children from being raised in households with no male role model or no female role model. There is no such THING as a perfect family, and if you think there is, you are severely disillusioned. Question — out of pure curiosity — do you think it is best for a child to grow up with a mother and a father, even if the father is a closeted gay man, pretending to be something he isn’t? Is that healthier than a single, gay parent raising a child? Is it better to have a single mother, who has a different boyfriend every week, raise a child, than 2 men, or 2 women, who are good, strong, (and most importantly) loving role models? Is love not love, no matter what sex it is coming from? Please, answer that question.
Also, please note your source of that quote…CatholicEducation.org. Hardly impartial.
…That said, you are entitled to believe this. You are ENTITLED to your own beliefs. That is what sets this country apart from hundreds of others. Your own right to believe in, practice and DO what you believe is your right to do — within reason. Without hurting or infringing upon the rights others. [Side bar, your comparison of child molesters to gays is preposterous. Two gay people in a relationship = two CONSENTING ADULTS in a relationship. Not a child forced into molestation. It is really very scary that you can put them in the same sentence, let alone begin to compare the two.] But in that same vein, so is everyone else, and by banning gay marriage, you are taking the very rights and freedoms you are exercising in this blog, away from others who are not like you.
Comment by LG — September 22, 2008 @ 5:25 pm
That is absolutely NOT the same principle. Child molesters are HURTING children. Homosexuals are LOVING other people…living life, being themselves, contributing to society, making music, making laws, writing books, teaching our children….
Child molesters are criminals, homosexuals are just people. I am especially thinking of one of my very best friends when writing this and she has impacted more children’s lives than most people I know. She is a teacher, and a fabulous one. She relates to and cares for children better then any other teacher I have worked with or met…for you to put her in the same “principle” as a child molester disgusts me.
I asked not for why you don’t believe in gay marriage (I already understand that as a Catholic), but rather why you don’t think gays LEGALLY deserve the rights of marriage, regardless of if you agree with it or not….and the only answer you had was through your faith. There is no logic involved….I would like to see someone explain it to me without involving their faith. I am religious and understand that your faith is a part of you as it is a part of me. But I have great faith and I don’t believe it, so I don’t understand.
I find it refreshing that you have great faith and like LG, think you are entitled to your beliefs. Think the way you want and live your life the way you want and surround yourself with people who live their life the way you do if you think that is what will be best for you and your family…but you have no right to say that every American should follow this belief of yours. No right to ban gay marriage. No right to infringe on anyone’s rights. Live and better your life and let others live and better theirs.
Comment by Ashlei — September 22, 2008 @ 8:27 pm
Perhaps the author of this blog could have used a better example than the child molester one. However, she is right in the point she was trying to make.
Having an attraction to others of the same sex is just like any other sin, perversion, weakness, and temptation that besets us. If I allow my attraction to women (I am a man) to run free and without restraint, and commit sin in this unrestraint, I would be in sin. The same applies to people with attraction to others of the same sex. We are human beings. We are not animals who have no control over our impulses and innate desires. We have brains, and have the capacity to think, reason, and choose.
“Is love not love, no matter what sex it is coming from?” No, it is not. The love that is found in a heterosexual marriage is exclusively unique to a male-female relationship.
The only reason LDS members are taking a stand on Prop 8 is because we feel legal recognition of same-sex unions as marriage, equal to heterosexual marriage, will negatively affect and influence others, particularly children. We have no desire to regulate how someone wants to live their life, be it hetero- or homosexual. However, because of the negative affects this will bring about, we are taking a stance against it.
Comment by Jesse — September 22, 2008 @ 9:21 pm
To Jesse —
Not all homosexuals are running “free and without restraint” and committing “sin in this unrestraint.” Who are you to say that children knowing someone homosexual has negative effects on them? Negative to you since you are anti-homosexual. The whole world does not believe the bible or the book of mormon is the ultimate law…so how can you expect them to uphold it? Again, you can expect your children to uphold it, but not the rest of the world.
To be honest, I feel that if there was statistical analysis conducted, there are probably more children negatively affected by religion than homosexuals. And I am a religios person! You are having a negative effect on your children by teaching them to disrespect, not accept, and look down upon others. I’m sure there are homosexuals in the world who are having that same effect on their children, but it isn’t BECAUSE they are homosexual. Their sexual preference only has a bearing on the gender of the person they love and make love to.
I agree that two men or two women cannot physically produce a child…but neither can barren women, those who suffer cancer, men with low sperm counts, or spouses who have no partner left due to tragedy…would you like to start considering them sub-human also? Because that’s how you are treating gays when you talk the way you do.
It is already well known that I am ready and able to be a surrogate mother for any of my homosexual friends if they would like a biological child. And I am willing to do this not because they are homosexual, but because they are unable to produce children on their own. Which is why I would also do it for my two girlfriends who are in loving and lasting marriages who both happen to have PCOS or for anyone else in a similar situation. Because I believe in love and family in the purest form…one that does not judge or hate, but rather has merely the desire to bring new life to the world in order to teach it good.
Comment by Ashlei — September 23, 2008 @ 12:21 am
“I agree that two men or two women cannot physically produce a child…but neither can barren women, those who suffer cancer, men with low sperm counts, or spouses who have no partner left due to tragedy…would you like to start considering them sub-human also? Because that’s how you are treating gays when you talk the way you do.”
My reasoning as to why same-sex marriage should not be allowed is not because they do not produce children. I’m not sure I understand what point you’re attacking of mine here?
You said you are a religious person. What religion do you subscribe to? It must not be scripturally-based Christianity, which would make your beliefs contradicting to even the most foundational belief of the creation by God and the purpose of man and woman.
Anyway, I hope I do not come across at all as aiming my blunt remarks towards you personally; they’re actually aimed at the points you brought up.
God bless.
“Who are you to say that children knowing someone homosexual has negative effects on them? Negative to you since you are anti-homosexual. The whole world does not believe the bible or the book of mormon is the ultimate law…so how can you expect them to uphold it?”
Nor does the whole world believe what you believe, so how can you expect the rest of us to allow every perversion and sin to run rampant in the world just because it’s your ‘right?’
“You are having a negative effect on your children by teaching them to disrespect, not accept, and look down upon others.” I have never taught anyone every to disrespect others, nor look down upon others. I do, however, teach to hate sin and look down upon sin.
Comment by Jesse — September 23, 2008 @ 1:09 am
Oops, I kind of jumbled up my response there 🙂
Comment by Jesse — September 23, 2008 @ 1:12 am
Jesse– Ashlei can expect the rest of the world, religious or otherwise, to allow every so-called “perversion” because it is not affecting anyone else’s rights to live.
Answer me this: How is a gay marriage hurting your marriage (if you are married) or the institution of marriage? Strictly legally speaking. Please try to answer that question without turning to God, scriptures or anything religious in nature. All homosexuals want is a marriage recognzied by LAW, not by a church, not by God. So now, with that said, how is a legal marriage hurting anyone else? Like I said originally, does it make YOUR marriage any less of a marriage? No one has yet to address that remark.
Do not say it is hurting the children that are a product of, because not all gay couples choose to “have” children.
So, just the idea of the marriage. Just the legal right for them to be considered spouses. HOW is that hurting ANYONE? — Where as denying them this right is hurting an entire population of HUMAN BEINGS.
Comment by LG — September 23, 2008 @ 1:24 am
But I honestly believe we are all given challenges in this life. If someone’s challenge is same-gender attraction I believe it is something they need to control and overcome.
While I think your statement shows how far LDS members are coming (they now admit that many are born gay and don’t have a choice), I think characterizing it as something to overcome is an understatement. The Church is basically asking gay people to remain sexually inactive for their entire lives. I can’t believe this is of God because it condemns the person to a life of loneliness, that I seriously doubt the author of this blog or any other heterosexual person would commit to. It is in essence asking gays to do something that no one else is asked to or willing to do just because they were born gay (something they had no control over).
I know that may sound appalling to some of you, but what about people who are born with a natural attraction to children?
I have yet to hear of someone that was born with pedophilia. Regardless, having sex with a minor is against our laws being gay is not. Even though you say, “I am not putting child molesters in the same category as gay people, but I think the principle is the same.” the fact that you mention them together I dare say would be very offensive to many gays.
“In every area of life, cognitive, emotional, social, developmental … at every phase of the life cycle … social evidence shows that there are measurable effects when children lack either a mother or a father. … The evidence is overwhelming. Mountains of evidence, collected over decades, show that children need both mothers and fathers.”
This also applies to single parents. The fact of the matter is many kids don’t have loving parents. Where gay couples have adopted their children grow up to be normal heterosexuals. Sure, I agree a man and woman marriage is better (diversity in a family is always best) but gays in stable relationships are perfectly capable of raising well adjusted children. It may take more work just as it does for a single parent, but it is possible and it is done all the time.
Comment by Jay — September 23, 2008 @ 1:38 am
Okay a couple of things… First of all religion always comes up when talking about marriage because marriage is a religious institution. It always has been. No government of any country ever came up with the idea of marriage (that I know of). It has always been a religious ceromony, with religious significance. That is why people always bring up their faith and religion on this topic.
Also, I don’t think I should have said what I said about homosexuals. I know it’s different than pedofilia, and should not be mentioned together, really I was hoping for a reaction 🙂 But my point is the same as Jesse’s. I do believe that those feelings should not be acted upon. However, that’s beside the point of gay marriage . That’s just my personal feeling on the matter.
But I do think that gay people (sorry I’m not sure what the PC term is anymore) should have the same constitutional rights as anyone else. Let them file joint taxes, whatever. It’s the institution of marriage, which is a religious ceromony, that should be kept sacred.
Also, I do not hate gay people at all. In fact there are a few that are very close to me, that I love dearly. And I will teach my children that we love everyone, just like Jesus did. It is not up to us to judge anyone. God will take care of that when that Day comes.
And one more note to Jay: I really hate the single parent argument. There are of course exceptions. And these children in single parent homes will probably suffer from not having a mother and father. However, that’s not usually by anyone’s choice. What I’m talking about is people chosing this lifestyle. But honestly, really all I’m saying is protect the institution of marriage. Legal unions, whatever, that’s fine. But the religious institution of marriage is a sacred ordinance.
Comment by choosetheright — September 23, 2008 @ 3:39 am
To address Jesse— “Nor does the whole world believe what you believe, so how can you expect the rest of us to allow every perversion and sin to run rampant in the world just because it’s your ‘right?’”
Because your belief in not allowing gay people to be married is taking away a right of theirs…them being allowed to marry would not take away any right of yours. If the argument were equally balanced in that one half has to come out on top, with the other losing something…then I would understand the battle. But the fact that only one half has something to lose and the other half has nothing to lose, I think the half with nothing to lose should shut their mouth and leave it alone.
I am a heterosexual, female, practicing Catholic — I go to church every week and before moving to AZ, I taught religious education to fifth graders as well as was the cantor at my mass. I worked in a Jewish Community Center and studied the root of my faith and I also have read the Book of Mormon. I am no where near perfect…but I try to live a life with as little sin as possible and more importantly, I do whatever I can and know to enhance my own life and the lives of others for the better. However, I would like to make it clear that just because my religion holds the bible sacred, I can be a good Catholic and not believe every word is true as printed. I believe the reason the law was put in place is more important than the law itself. And goodness and kindness to others is always a first priority. ANd I know there are many great and moral and wonderful people in the world from many different religions and those who don’t practice at all.
Lauren — I think you are an amazing person and I feel for your last comment. And I agree with you in that your church, or any church that feels the need to, should not be forced to acknowledge and perform the sacred act of marriage for two people of the same sex. I believe this because religion is a choice and an institution that can make its own rules and gay people do not need to choose to be a part of it. It is their personal choice if they want to battle for religious acceptance…and that is not my battle or my point. What they (and I) am fighting for is the legal right to marriage…in a courthouse or by a judge or private party. Because just as religion is a choice… their government, life, and liberty is not…and so their government has the obligation to protect them and their rights and allow them to marry in at least a non religious way. And if they are married in a courthouse, there is no sanctity of marriage involved and therefor, should not take away from your religious, sacred, right of marriage in your church.
Comment by Ashlei — September 23, 2008 @ 5:36 am
“First of all religion always comes up when talking about marriage because marriage is a religious institution. It always has been.”
Then why are atheists, agnostics, and other non-religious people allowed to marry?
The idea that marriage began as a religious ceremony is debatable. The act of people settling down together and having their union acknowledged by their community goes back so far into history that I doubt we’ll ever know for sure when, how, and why it began. At the very least, marriage has been drastically different depending on what time and culture you look at. Whether or not a government “…came up with the idea of marriage…” they DID come up with the idea of attaching legal benefits to the union.
In the US, there is a difference between a religious marriage and a legal marriage, and, sadly, many people confuse the two. You don’t have to have one to have the other. I could have a full wedding ceremony in a church complete with a priest, prayers, and a white dress, but if I don’t file a marriage license with the state, I won’t receive the legal benefits. Or I can go downtown and apply for a marriage license without any religious ceremony whatsoever.
Your assertion that “…marriage is a religious institution” is false. Marriage CAN be religious, but it doesn’t HAVE to be. I have plenty of friends who have gotten married without any religious involvement whatsoever. In fact, my sister’s best friend got married just last month. She and her husband are both atheists, so they simply went down to the courthouse and did everything there. No priest. No ceremony. No religion.
Same-sex couples already have religious marriages. There are plenty of churches, synagogues, and whatnot that will perform ceremonies on a same-sex couple. It’s up to the religious institution as to whether or not they will allow said ceremony, and they are free to refuse to marry couples if it against their beliefs. Even if a union is legally permissible, they don’t have to allow it if it is against their religious beliefs. For example, getting married, divorced, and remarried is legal in this country. However, the Catholic church will not marry a couple if one or both members has been previously married, and the government cannot force them to do so. (Which I agree with; the government has NO right to tell churches who they can and cannot marry.) Many places will not marry an inter-religious couple. There are numerous reasons why they might turn someone away.
What same-sex couples lack is the legal aspect of marriages. You said that you were fine with people filing jointly on their taxes. Well, to do so, they need access to legal marriages. Ditto for hospital visitation, the right to make medical decisions for their partner, the ability to inherit their partner’s assets tax-free without a will, etc.
If your religion forbids same-sex marriage and/or believes homosexuality to be a sin, then I’m fine with that. By all means, don’t marry a person of the same sex if you think it is wrong. But I’m not a member of your religion, and I don’t believe it to be wrong, so I don’t understand why MY legal rights should be restricted by YOUR religious beliefs.
I don’t believe in eating meat, but I would never try to pass a law that would make it illegal. I’d appreciate it if you gave me the same courtesy and allowed me to live my life according to my beliefs with equal protection under the law.
Comment by Pia — September 23, 2008 @ 7:33 am
I agree with Ashlei, and parts of Lauren’s last comment as well.
But the problem is — if you are not against “legally speaking” gay marriages, why are you supporting a candidate that is? Marriage is a word. It is the religion behind it that makes it sacred. So let them have their unions, their marriages, their WHATEVER they wish to call it. I have still yet to hear someone answer my question of “Does it make YOUR marriage less sacred? Less important? Less special?” I mean honestly, does it REALLY bother you that two gay men living their lives together and being recognized by the law is called a marriage?? Is it that verbiage that bothers you? Because that is all they are asking for, and I think that is what they are entitled to.
My main argument with this entire topic though is that it sickens me that people who blatantly disregard the sacredness of marriage, via divorce, extramarital affairs, etc., are entitled this right (over and over and over again), and those that would do anything to have it, are denied. Still doesn’t seem right to me.
I only hope that the people who are so adamantly against these things, who are so against giving other people the same rights they take for granted every day, I hope no one ever tries to deny you any of your rights. I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy.
Comment by LG — September 23, 2008 @ 11:51 am
First of all… I know that neither of any of us on this board are going to change anyone’s minds. And I’m glad that we have been able to discuss this really controverstial topic without really offending each other (I hope!). I know I wasn’t offended, really interested in some points that sound pretty pleasing to the ear. I have done some research on the history of marriage, and in fact some of the oldest recorded marriages in the Bible were not really religious ceromonies but were set up by families in order to take care of each other, nothing to do with love or any of that stuff. When marriage became about choosing your own partner it became a relgious ceromony. Anyway… been a great discussion… but about supporting a canidate… I know I will not agree with any candidate on all the issues, but the ones that are most important to me I hope we will agreee. But how does Obama feel about gay marriage? From ontheissues.org it says that Obama Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality. (Oct 2006)
Marriage not a human right; non-discrimination is. (Oct 2004)
Include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws. (Jul 1998)
hmmm
Comment by choosetheright — September 23, 2008 @ 4:25 pm
From the Associated Press:
“Obama: Opposes constitutional amendment to ban it. Supports civil unions, says states should decide about marriage.”
(http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gF1ulxhgHBB7Fr0LKa4pA0zVeXCQD93CG4HO0)
Comment by LG — September 23, 2008 @ 4:42 pm
Better yet, if you really want to know Obama’s stance on the issues, we should all stop reading the crap the media is spinning and go to his Web site: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
Comment by LG — September 23, 2008 @ 4:45 pm
First of all religion always comes up when talking about marriage because marriage is a religious institution. It always has been. No government of any country ever came up with the idea of marriage (that I know of). It has always been a religious ceromony, with religious significance.
I think you would be hard pressed to prove it has always been a religious institution. What is more likely the truth is that you have been taught it has always been a religious institution and so that is what you believe. I am also LDS, so I know you have been taught this.
And one more note to Jay: …And these children in single parent homes will probably suffer from not having a mother and father. However, that’s not usually by anyone’s choice. What I’m talking about is people chosing this lifestyle.
I beg to differ. Most single parents are there because of a choice. The vast majority chose to get divorced for whatever reason or chose to have a child out of wedlock.
Also, I would say that many homosexuals are born gay and do not “choose” to live as homosexuals. It is how God made them.
Pia said: In the US, there is a difference between a religious marriage and a legal marriage, and, sadly, many people confuse the two.
I agree. That is why if temple married LDS members want to divorce they have to get a civil divorce and then temple divorce. The two are completely separate. If gay marriage became law the LDS, Catholic and any other church that wanted to could still ban it in their doctrine, it has no affect on them and what they believe. That’s because there is separation between church and state!
LG said: I have still yet to hear someone answer my question of “Does it make YOUR marriage less sacred? Less important? Less special?” I mean honestly, does it REALLY bother you that two gay men living their lives together and being recognized by the law is called a marriage?
I was asked the same questions when I believed as the author of this post did and I couldn’t answer them either. When I looked to my religious leaders, even they couldn’t provide satisfactory answers. It was only then I realized the reasons given were not convincing and simply don’t make much sense when you really think about the issue. Gay marriage does not threaten heterosexual marriage. It does not make religious marriages any less sacred.
Gay marriage is inevitable because it is the right thing to do. Californians may uphold the marriage ban for now, but eventually the law will change. There is simply no reason why two consenting adults of the same sex should not be allowed to marry if they so choose, none. The only justification against gay marriage is drawn from religious teachings, which should have no bearing on civil law. Try to get someone to explain why gay marriage is wrong without referring to their own religious dogma and they will fall flat every time. There is just no justification for prohibiting gay marriage. If I’m wrong someone please correct me.
Comment by Jay — September 23, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
Not entirely related, but Lauren (& others), how do you feel about the fact that John Mccain was A, divorced, and B, sued by his first wife for infidelity? How’s that for “protecting the family”?
Just would like to hear your thoughts on it.
Comment by LG — September 23, 2008 @ 6:35 pm
Honestly, what I heard about McCain’s relationship with his first wife really repulsed me. I heard things about him getting rid of her because of some sickness that left her not as beautiful… I’m really not sure how true any of this is, not sure where I heard it, but I remember thinking he was horrible for that. And I by no means put McCain up on a pedestal and praise him and think he’s so wonderful. However, I agree with him enough that I’d be much more comfortable with him as president than Obama. People who abuse marriage and don’t honor their vows upset me just as much.
Comment by choosetheright — September 23, 2008 @ 8:22 pm