Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Same-sex marriage archive 1

2012-05-12T02:47:17Z

TalosRising: /* Economic Effects */ new section

[[talk:same-sex marriage|< talk:same-sex marriage]]
{{Talk:Same-sex marriage/pov }}

=="The rationale goes like this" is completly wrong==
"The rationale goes like this:

Marriage is good.
No one can criticize what is good.
A same-sex union, defined as marriage, is good.
Therefore, no one can criticize same-sex unions."

That is ''not'' the Liberal rationale for legalizing gay marriage, if that is going to remain there there should be at least a few sources as to which Leberal said that.

The ''actual'' liberal rational:

* Marriage, like '''all''' institutions of the law, should not be defined by ''one'' or ''any'' specefic religion, or religion all together.

* The fact that the legallity of Gay marriage is the debate proves its a matter of law, automatically disqualifing any given religions say on it. ''See also: [[separation of church and state]]''

* Atheists can and do get married, further proof it isn't a religious establishment.

* A homosexuals person's life has nothing to do with ''yours'', and because homosexuallity does not violate any human rights, ''you'' should not have the right to tell them they cannot get married.

I realize this is conservapedia and you guys would rather have untruthful things that make you sound right, but reality is better than ''sounding'' right if you ask me.

==Bias==
I do not feel the article is from a neutral point of view. This article seems to be obviously against gay marriage. I also propose that the statistics for spousal abuse in heterosexual relationships are put up beside the homosexual statistics for a comparison. I personally believe not allowing homosexual marriage is not allowing equal freedoms for all people. Also I do not think the reason for not allowing gay marriage should be the bible, as not only should there be a complete separation between church and state, but Athiests and Agnostics are not stopped from getting married, neither should homosexuals.[[User:Strata|Strata]] 23:40, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree completely that there is bias here. It's one thing to be against same-sex marriage, but it's ridiculous to insinuate that same-sex marriage as an attack on heterosexual marriage. [[User:Forthewin827|Forthewin827]] 15:22, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. Are opinions like that really necessary? --[[User:TomRobinson|TomRobinson]] 19:07, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

==Is page protected?==
B/c I wanted to edit it, but I can't.
[[User:Won4tide1|Won4tide1]] 17:41, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, it is. Please post your suggested changes here first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:43, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

== Addition to Rationale ==

<big>There is another rationale used by proponents of same sex marriage.</big>

Essentially it is as follows: 

Marriage exists as both a religiously and legally defined entity in the United States. 

Marriage confers certain legal benefits upon those married. Additionaly marriage has social value in that it is used as a signifier of individuals' commitment to one another 

There is a legal tradition in this country which holds that sexual orientation is not a valid status upon which one may deny legal rights or protections. 

The refusal to recognize same sex marriage constitutes such a denial of legal rights and protections. Since those in a same sex marriage are, by definition, homosexual- this constitutes a denial of legal rights and protections based upon sexual orientation. 

Refusing to recognize same sex marriages essentially violates long standing legal traditions. 

The most logical remedy to this situation is to allow the recognition of same sex marriages. 

<big>There is also a philosophical justification that same sex marriage does not destroy the institution of marriage in society.</big>

In most religious traditions, marriage exclusively recognizes the sacred bond of love between a man and woman. 

However society has a more general definition of marriage as an institution that recognizes the profound (and one could still say sacred) bond of love existing between two individuals- traditionally a man and woman. 

Recognizing same sex marriage recognizes the legitimacy of the bond of love between same sex partners. 

However the religious definition of marriage is still unique in that it specifically focuses upon the devine blessing of the union between a man and a woman. Thus this traditional sense of marriage retains its unique character. 

I think that it is important to add these rationales because these are the ones that you are most likely to encounter in the discourse on gay marriage. Those looking for information on the subject would be best served by being able to read the most commonly used rationales.

== Adding mores links ==

The article seems fine at this point, but it could use some more links to other Conservapedia articles after the introduction. I thought it was a little odd that editing was disabled in this article, or else I would have added the links myself. --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 16:52, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

== What? ==

Why is this marriage in inverted commas (quotes)? And why does it say that the purpose of same-sex marriage is to "destroy the sanctity of marriage"? In what doctrine supporting same sex marriage is that said?
:I think they are saying that that is liberals' true purpose (intention), even if the people supporting same-sex marriage don't actually say it and openly admit it. --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 16:50, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

==Supporting Gay Marriage==

By and large proponents of Gay Marriage only support removing the states role in prohibiting marriage; they still cannot force religious institutions to marry homosexuals. In other words, even if the Government deemed gay marriage to be ok, the religious institutions would still have all the power. After all, marriage is a union between a man and a woman under God - Why should the State have its neck involved in that? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 15:49, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*I agree with you here, Graham. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:27, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*From what I know the proponents of gay Marriage do ''not'' seek to force religion to do ''anything'', and while religious practices may change in the long run just as society changes... In my mind an alternative to gay marriage, a ''better'' alternative (Also since the United States separates church from state and marriage is religious)

Would be civil unions for ANY arrangement, i.e. MM,FF,MF, and make marriage a religious ceremony. Thus any two people could have the legal benefits of marriage, but under legal (state) terminology while if two people want to get married. The local Pastor, Rabbi, or Imam can do that and discriminate in who they partner up.

All these people want is to be happy, part of that is mutual trust and security, and that comes from Civil Unions, Marriage, whatever you want to call it. But seriously, this would work to keep marriage 'sacred' while Homosexuals could unionize with their partner. [[User:Nateland|Nateland]] 19:05, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

The Unitarian church, among others, performs same sex weddings.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:05, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

:I don't get it. People can be friends, with mutual trust and all that. I can even give my unmarried fried a [[power of attorney]] to handle things like me being in a coma and needing decisions about medical care. What does marriage have to do with "legal privileges for adults"? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

== This sentence is gramatically wrong... ==

"It is also referred to as "[[homosexuality|gay]] marriage" or "[[homosexuality|homosexual]] marriage", is the official certification in jurisdictions that allow a union between two people of the same sex."

and since I just got yelled at, maybe someone else can fix it. [[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 00:25, 28 November 2007 (EST)

==Tremendous pressure... needs revision==
<blockquote>Combined with hate speech rules and hate crime laws, a government certification of "same-sex marriage" will place tremendous pressure on people who criticize homosexuality, oppose the gay agenda, or believe in the sanctity of marriage.[Citation Needed] "How do you know we're not married?" would be the simplest of rejoinders. Or, "How dare you criticize my spouse!" (see fighting words).</blockquote>

Same-sex marriage is already legal in Massachusetts and in several other countries, so if this assertion of "tremendous pressure" is true, it should be easy to find cite-able examples of it. I've had no luck thus far, so perhaps someone else should try... if not, we'll have to remove this section, because the article is seriously weakened by assertions we can't justify. Also, we need a working definition of the sanctity of marriage -- I'm sure that many people, churches, groups, etc. consider same-sex marriage perfectly sanctified, so we need to be more specific. I'm removing the language for now, and please, if you put it back in, clarify what is meant by 'sanctity.' Also, the 'fighting words' link appears to be dead, so I'm removing it.

Cheers!
[[User:Mermaid|Gabe]] 14:58, 13 January 2008 (EST)

==Sauce for you.==
For the homosexual violence statement in the box beneath the spiffy graphic on the upper-right corner of the page: [http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=5a6dc0ec-3807-4f5c-a5ad-c50855986682&k=55181&p=2] [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:04, 16 January 2008 (EST)

That article also says that common law relationships (IE live-in but not formally married) are 5 times more likely to experience violence and is the only category seeing growth in violence. Thus, allowing gay marriage would, statistically speaking, reduce domestic violence among homosexual couples. This article actually supports gay marriage from a statistical standpoint....[[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 19:28 16, January 2008 (EST)

:Yeah... But let's ignore the facts. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::What facts? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:::What the study shows. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:45, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:Non sequitur. It isn't saying that abusive people who get married will suddenly stop being abusive, which seems to be your argument. A more logical conclusion is that abusive people are less likely to get married in the first place. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)

==Move?==
Seriously, that would be a good idea. It's called same sex marriage throughout the article, why isn't it titled correctly? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:13, 31 January 2008 (EST)
:Yes, no? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:52, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== A counterfeit counterfeit ==

The following is unintentionally amusing:

Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family refers to the phrase same-sex 'marriage,' with quotation
marks around the word marriage, to call attention to his belief that marriage—civil as
well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that he therefore
believes that same-sex unions are "counterfeits."

Why did the author put quotation marks around the word counterfeits? Is it to call attention to his belief that "Dr." Dobson's views on counterfeits are themselves counterfeit? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:23, 31 January 2008 (EST)
:I see what you're saying, but I think that's just there to show that it's his words, not Conservapedia's. That's something you do with all quotes, agqain, just to show that it's his word(s). --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 13:34, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Graphic ==

Even if the claim beneath the graphic is true: 1) violence is not a defining characteristic of homosexual marriage--therefore the graphic shouldn't be so prominently displayed here; and 2) the purported cycle of violence is not specific to homosexual relationships--therefore it is inappropriate in an article specifically dedicated to homosexual marriage. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 16:09, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:I was unaware that "homosexual marriage" had '''any''' defining characteristics. It's only a counterfeit, a sham aimed at destroying real marriage. This article is not "dedicated" to homosexual marriage; rather, it exposed the counterfeiting of marriage which [[gay rights]] activists are using to destroy marriage.

:We have no obligation here to respect sin - don't even try that line of argument. Homosexuality is sinful - and it makes people miserable. Why should we respect it? Do your "respect" the "choice" of adults to have sex with children? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:13, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:: If homosexual marriage is legal somewhere, does it not therefore exist? I fail to see how the argument of respect (which somewhat disingenuously equates homosexuality and pedophilia) has anything to do with whether it exists or not. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 15:36, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Laws permitting this sham are on the books in various places. But giving one thing the same name as another thing doesn't validate it. Once again, the article is not about homosexuals "marrying" - or should not be.

:::It should be about the laws and their purpose. It should illuminate the goals of the [[gay rights movement]] and compare their reasoning with the reality of their purpose, as well as the effect those laws are having.

:::The pathetic attempt to gain love from a sexual partner of the some gender is at the root of this. As [[Richard Cohen]] pointed out - drawing of course on the work of better-educated scientists like Socarides - it's a [[same-sex attachment disorder]]. And by the way, voting [[homosexuality]] out of the manual of psychiatric disorders doesn't change the fact that it's a disorder and a perversion.

:::Legalizing sin and craziness doesn't make it good, any more than calling spoiled food wholesome. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:11, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

It's really sad to see people like Ed be so bigoted. I take comfort in the fact that by the end of my lifetime, gays will have equal rights.

== move page ==

Can this page be moved to [[Homosexual marriage]], which is a better term for this -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 22:53, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
:Same-sex marriage seems more precise. Bisexual people can marry a person of the same gender, so "Homosexual marriage" is a bit of a misnomer. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 14:21, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

== Out of Date. ==

This article is out of date. Norway allows gay "people" to have equal marriage rights as well. -- Dollfuss.

== I have a question ==

I'm only 16, and maybe there is some sort of generational gap on this issue, but I'm curious to know why people care so much about the homosexual marriage issue? I just haven't ever found the arguments for or against it compelling or relevant. Any thoughts? Questions, maybe? {{Unsigned|Hedgy}} -- 21:23, 13 May 2009

*Welcome, Hedgy. [[Marriage]] isn't a generational issue, nor one between Conservative's and Liberals. Conservapedia's own article on [[Marriage]] states it plainly:

<blockquote>
The unity between a man and a woman in marriage is an expression of the relationship that [[God]] desires to have with his creation. The first marriage occurred nearly 6,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden, in the area of the world that we now know as the Middle East. The first couple was Adam and Eve.
</blockquote>

:[[Barack Obama]], [[Hillary Clinton]], [[John McCain]], [[Ronald Reagan]] and [[Dinesh D'Souza]] all agree on the matter, that Marriage should be exclusively defined as a union between a man and a woman. Check out the link I have made here to "Marriage" to read more about this. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:43, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
But why do people care so much? Why don't people live and let live on this issue? Why don't we create a separate institution specifically for gay people who want to be married. I don't know what we could call it, I'll think of that later. I've never understood why people care so much on this issue. Personally, I couldn't care less if gay people are allowed to be married, I just hate it when gay people try to flaunt their sexuality and act all offended when you get angry at them. It's a private thing.

Well to respond to your earlier statement, to create a separate institution specifically for gay unions and nothing else would violate the strikedown of "separate but equal" established in Brown V. Board in the 1960s. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:50, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: Same-sex marriage is just a way to confuse and mislead [[public school]] students as young as kindergarteners and first graders about marriage. In Massachusetts, the public schools immediately began teaching propaganda to young students once same-sex marriage was adopted there, and courts rejected a legal challenge to it. Same-sex marriage is also a way to censor the Bible and call it "hate speech."

: Smoking reduces lifespan by several years. The [[homosexual]] lifestyle reduces average lifespan by even more than smoking does, yet this information is withheld from students.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:49, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: But doesn't denying the rights of homosexuals just undermine the choice we have as humans? I mean, if we don't have moral choice, then we aren't people, are we?--[[User:Hedgy|Hedgy]] 22:45, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

==Outing==
''One type of emotional abuse--threatening to "out" a partner to family, friends, or employers--is unique to homosexual and bi-sexual relationships. Legalization of so-called "gay marriage" still would not end this type of abuse. Although communication between married partners would be classified as privileged and any given partner would be legally obligated to refuse to disclose information without the consent of his/his mate [16], anonymous leaking to the media has been known to happen and the prospect of suffering a "Haggardesque" [17] fate is sufficient to allow manipulative tactics such as blackmail.'' 
Maybe it's just because I've had a long day, but I'm not seeing what outing has to do with same-sex marriage. Civil marriage is a matter of public record, isn't it? So anyone entering into a gay marriage would do so with the understanding that it might lead to others being aware that the members of the couple are gay, right? So how does outing fit in? And blackmail seems very much a stretch - who would pay to prevent someone talking about a matter of public record? Why would anyone wanting to keep a homosexual relationship a secret decide to get married? Is there something I'm missing? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:48, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

*Tired or not, your point is well taken. I removed that part. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:54, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

Thanks [[User:TK|'''₮K''']]! One more statement jumped out at me: ''Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners. (2004 General Social Survey, Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005)'' How would getting married make someone seek more partners? Isn't it just the opposite, at least ideally? (It certainly is for my marriage!) I was hoping the reference would enlighten me, but it didn't include a link. I searched and came up with [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/051124/dq051124b-eng.htm two] [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/050714/dq050714a-eng.htm sites], neither of which said anything at all about gay marriage. After more looking, I found [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-570-x/85-570-x2006001-eng.pdf this], which noted that "spousal violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples: 15% and 7% respectively. It was not possible to calculate
rates of spousal violence for male and female couples separately due to low sample sizes." That's something to be concerned about, but it doesn't relate to the statement that ''Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners.'' (As an aside, Canada legalized gay marriage in 2005, and the reference was to a 2004 study, so the couples in question were not married couples.) --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:11, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

==Issues==
I've got a lot of concerns about the information in this paragraph. Most of these claims either have no relevance to same-sex marriage, are heavily biased or poorly documented. I'd like to give some examples:

1. The Dobson/Kurtz quote constitutes a baseless accusation against proponents of same-sex marriage. According to the author, their motive is not to seek equal rights, but to destroy the institution of marriage per se. Where is there any evidence of this? If homosexual couples didn't really want to marry, why did they turn out in huge numbers to do so in every state that gave them the opportunity to do so? In my opinion, this is nothing more than an unfounded conspiracy theory.

2. How does the fact that adopted children are being raised by homosexual couples constitute an "issue"? Care to elaborate?

3. Even if it were a fact that incidences of partner abuse are more common among homosexual couples, how would allowing them to marry have any effect on this? And according to the posting in the "outing" section, the claim about "allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners" is both undocumented and counterintuitive.

I hope you won't mind addressing these concerns. In my opinion, this whole paragraph lacks any merit and should be deleted and rewritten from scratch. -- Hubertus

: Yes, the Dobson/Kurtz quote is an opinion, but it is a commonly held belief on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate. It is clearly labeled as opinion. Even if it is a conspiracy view, it is a relevant view. Adoption is relevant because adoption by homosexual couples is frequent cited by both sides of the same-sex marriage debate. Some say that marriage provides stability for those adopted kids. Others say that the homosexual couple should not be adopting kids anyway. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:29, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

OK then, would anybody mind if I edit the article to flag this quote as a completely unfounded conspiracy view, which seems to be something that we agree on? And while I'm at it, I would amend the paragraph about adoptions to allow listing of pro- and contra-opinions. Finally, I'd remove the line about "allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners", because apparently, nobody has been able to back it up with any evidence since Hsmom inquired about it almost a month ago. -- Hubertus

*You have a lot of nerve, coming here as a troll to try and cast doubt/throw dirt on our conservative POV, "Hubertus". You have made no other edits to this encyclopedia, and only posted to this one topic, to dispute a narrow item. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:51, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

:: I do not agree that the quote is a "completely unfounded conspiracy view". Much of it is clearly true. I do agree with removing the statement: "Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners." There is a source for it, but it seems unlikely to me and requires explanation at the least. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:26, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

== I just want to know. ==

I really do not understand this.

The reasons that conservatives object to same-sex marriages don't make sense. Over the years I've heard:

*It is a sin against God according to the Bible.
**Same-sex marriage is currently a governmental issue. According to the separation of church and state, biblical texts have no weight in legal matters.

*It hurts the institution of marriage.
**If your marriage were to feel less meaningful to you if gays were to marry, then that is an problem with the confidence of you and your partner's relationship, not the institution of marriage.

*It is unhealthy.
**There are the same health risks as with heterosexual marriage. STDs can be passed between heterosexual couple too.

I am not angry, I just want to know why conservatives feel the way they do. (unsigned by Dacheatbot)

::Point 1, same-sex marriage is an attempt to discredit the Bible. The homosexual lifestyle is anti-marriage. The attempt by the homosexual movement to co-opt marriage is an attempt to marginalize the Bible, which flatly prohibits and warns against endorsement of the lifestyle. Also, there is "separation of church and state," which is an example of liberal [[deceit]].

::Point 2, same-sex marriage hurts the institution just as polygamy would. Are you saying you'd support polygamy too? Both devalue marriage in culture.

::Point 3, the homosexual lifestyle is less healthy, much less healthy, than the heterosexual lifestyle. The homosexual lifestyle shortens lifespan significantly. Why should society encourage that? It shouldn't.

::Open your mind and look at this objectively. The logic is hard to dispute.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:10, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:::1. How is homosexual marriage "anti-marriage"? It IS marriage. Marriage is not all about having kids. It is the union of two people who love each other. If you think differently, then you don't understand marriage well enough to block people from engaging in the institution.
:::2. I made absolutely no comments on polygamy. I do however have no qualms with polygamy as long as:
::::1. All members of the marriage are of sound mind and agree whole-heartedly
::::2. All members of the marriage do feel love for each other and that is the sole reason for marriage.
:::Those statements are why people get married.
:::3. How does homosexuality shorten lifespan? True, gays are more likely to contract STDs if they go without protection, but so are heterosexuals.
:::--[[User:Dacheatbot|Dacheatbot]] 19:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:::Thanks for asking, Dacheatbot. On the first point, because it's a sin against God, we want to discourage people from sinning in this manner. What's more, with the current anti-discrimination laws, Christians will be prevented from treating homosexual couples differently from opposite-sex married couples. (Example: Catholic Charities was forced to stop its adoption services in Massachusetts after they refused to place children with homosexual "married" couples.)
:::I agree with Andy: homosexual "marriage" hurts traditional marriage just like calling any other non-marriage "marriage" would. When you've heard a name three thousand times to describe something not that good, it seems less worthwhile to you. Example: After Scandinavia legalized homosexual "marriage", all marriage rates plummeted.
:::Again, though I don't have any good sources at the moment, Andy's described the health risks exactly right.
:::If you have any more questions, please don't hesitate to ask politely like you've done.--[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 19:23, 15 December 2009 (EST)
::::Evan, as I said before, biblical texts do not have any basis for law. Strictly following the rules of one religion makes a government that does not separate itself from the church, as a government needs to be in order to be fair. I'm not against the freedom of religion, as everyone has the right to believe what he or she chooses. However, imposing your religious values upon others violates their religious freedom.
DaCheatBot, besides ignoring our naming conventions, you've also made a number of illogical points here. First, you're assuming what you are attempting to prove: that homosexual "marriage" is marriage. You can't use that claim to support your argument, because that's what you want to prove, not a fact accepted by all sides. Gay "marriage" isn't marriage anymore than a pet rock is a real pet. Second, you endorse polygamy, which frankly leaves me astounded. Why not allow people to marry animals? Why not allow people to kill and steal? Are you against the entire Bible, or just most of it? Which brings me to your third point - that the Bible has no place in law. Believe what you want, but the Bible is the origin of all law. I suggest you read it sometime. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 15 December 2009 (EST)
I apologize for the name, I was not aware that it was a violation.

The idea that gay marriage is marriage is not an illogical idea. It is the union of people who love each other. That is what marriage is. And just to respond to your analogy, a pet rock is not the same as a real pet because it does not fit the qualifications. Gay marriage does because it fits the idea that I said before on that it is based on love. A person marrying an animal is not love (Not romantic love anyway) because the animal is not able to give consent of sound mind. Killing and stealing also cause great harm to others, unlike gay marriage, which does absolutely nothing to others. Lastly, the bible may have been the foundation of law, but we have made many, many changes. While certain may have been right all along, such as murder and stealing, others are not because they follow a culture that is thousands of years old. The same way that the original American Constitution is not used in a court of law, but the amended version, the one that defines men and women as equals as well as whites and blacks as equals.(unsigned by Dacheatbot)

:Dacheatbot, please sign your comments by clicking the signature bar (10th one in from the left) at the end, or simply write your name, so we can see who said what.

:Polygamy is based on love also. Marrying a family member could be also. And, yes, people love animals too. The homosexual movement is essentially anti-marriage, and it is only in the past 15 years that it made "marriage" a priority. Why? Because it enables them to legitimize a lifestyle that is essentially anti-marriage. It is also an anti-Bible movement, part of a desire to marginalize and demonize the Bible. If you support same-sex marriage, then I bet you don't read the Bible anymore. The concept is effective at alienating people from the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:35, 15 December 2009 (EST)

::The rhetoric above, critiquing traditional marriage and promoting same-sex unions, are rich fields of ideas. Let's mine them for their actual content.

::The [[Gay rights movement]] is well-financed and eminently clever. I suggest we analyze, digest and describe their arguments. Here's an example.

::#If people love each other, it's okay for them to marry.
::#Therefore, a parent and his child may marry. Or a brother and sister may marry.

::However, this violates the [[incest]] rule which has traditionally forbade sexual relations between persons who are too closely related to be married.

::[[Gay rights]] advocates want the old rules to be discarded, but they are too clever to come right and say, "We don't care what the Bible says; we're simply going to fornicate, right or wrong." Rather their strategy has been to convince Christians that the Bible "doesn't really forbid" homosexual relations. It is our job here to expose and critique this campaign. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:33, 17 December 2009 (EST)

==[[Homosexual denial]]==

Here's an example of propaganda:

* Proponents of same-sex marriage do not have any one single view of their efforts that would unify them as a "movement."

It is common for homosexuality advocates to deny the existence of the [[gay rights movement]] and/or to pretend that they are not part of it. Let's confront this denial by exposing it and telling the truth.

Better to say that there are various views on same-sex marriage amongst its proponents. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:24, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:And can you indisputably prove, in general, what you just stated? --[[User:TomRobinson|TomRobinson]] 19:13, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

The Gay Rights movement is a sinful and disgusting movement, as described by the Bible. Separation of Church and State is a myth. God Bless. --[[User:Teapartyman}

== "One man, one woman" God-given? ==

Our own article on polygamy states that while the Bible forbids polyandry (several men marrying the same woman), polygyny (several women marrying the same man) is explicitly allowed and was practiced throughout much of Biblical history. I don't think that we can draw the conclusion that the "one woman" part is God-given. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 10:34, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:Sorry, I was generalizing from [[Unificationism|my own religion]] to Christianity as a whole. Let's research what various Christians and/or churches say about "one man, one woman".

:The Old Testament has a number of cases where a man of God - seen as an outstanding example of goodness and a role model (of sorts) - has multiple wives or concubines.
:*Abraham, when childless, used [[Hagar]] to pass on the lineage
:*Jacob had two wives; the second gave birth to [[Joseph]]

:When did the idea that marriage should be only two people (one male, one female) come about? Who says it's of God, and who says otherwise? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:07, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::I think if you check your Bible, you'll find that each man should have his own '''wife''', and each woman her own husband. That's 1 Corinth. 7:2. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 17:29, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:::That's not a commandment (1 Corinth. 7:6), and Paul would actually prefer people not to marry at all (that's where the Roman Catholics get priesthood celibacy from). On the other hand, bishops are explicitly required to be married to just one wife in both 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6, indicating that non-bishops may have had several wives. In fact the source our polygamy article cites for the biblical prohibition of polyandry strongly argues that polygyny is not forbidden by God. I'd assume the change in sentiment was probably due to greco-roman ideas of family and marriage. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 19:02, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Adam and Eve pretty much set the standard, wouldn't you say? There have been only very rare exceptions in the Bible since that beginning. A very rare exception does not change the rule.

::::Same-sex marriage as a political movement, by the way, is anti-Bible in its agenda, because same-sex marriage has been used (e.g., in Massaschusetts) to teach an anti-biblical lifestyle to children.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:39, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::I think it's also important to note the context of the exceptions. Jacob had two wives because Laban engaged in [[deception,]] substituting his older daughter for the younger. The multiple marriages were the result of two factors: Rachel's desire not to shame and disgrace her older sister, and Jacob's unfaltering love for Rachel.
:::::Furthermore, the multiple marriages were always focused on fulfilling the commandment "be fruitful and multiply." Time and time again, the reason was the same: the continued birth of children in order to ensure that the family would remain strong. This is not something same-sex marriage can achieve. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:00, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::::Ben, you're a genius. Thanks for your insights here!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:19, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::::Ditto. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:08, 18 December 2009 (EST)
:::: Just gonna point out that Adam and Eve didn't really set a standard with regards to marriage because they were the only ones there at the time, and everyone else was their descendents. They couldn't have engaged in polygamy because everyone else was related. If you can't do something, it isn't setting a standard not to. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 16:24, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

=="Interesting" law against Polygamy==

I would like to point out that defining marriage as being between two people and two people only is not "an interesting consequence" that outlaws polygamy, as the introduction states. Marriage was defined that way specifically to outlaw polygamy, which has been practiced by several religious sects in the United States. I would like to delete this sentence, as it makes it sound like outlawing polygamy was just a happy coincidence due to the framing of the law, which is a completely erroneous conclusion. [[User:JEMBenton|JEMBenton]] 11:58, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:You may be thinking of another law, but the article explicitly mentions the [[Defense of Marriage Act]], which was enacted in 1996. At that point, polygamy already was illegal throughout the United States (for about a hundred and fifty years, I believe), so outlawing it probably wasn't the DOMA's purpose. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 14:36, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::This is exactly my point. That the DOMA is worded to exclude polygamy is not an "interesting coincidence", it is a reflection of the established law of the land since before Utah joined the Union. (Specifically, *because* Utah wanted to join the Union.) [[User:JEMBenton|JEMBenton]] 15:26, 17 December 2009 (EST)

==It's all about separation of church and state!==
(or, why supporting gay marriage is a conservative position)

'''"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."'''

This is pretty plain and simple, it is unconstitutional to legislate from the basis of scripture or religious dogma. The fact of the matter is that marriage, as a legal construct, is a contract that grants certain special privileges and legal entitlements to the parties involved. Married couples in the United States, with or without children, enjoy benefits such as shared healthcare coverage, joint income tax filing, shared parental rights of natural or adopted children, next-of-kin status in the event of medical emergencies, and many other rights. These things are provided because it assumed that, once married, a couple becomes a family unit.

Denying these rights to two people who love each other, and are in a committed relationship, simply on the basis of whether the relationship is heterosexual or homosexual creates an unnecessary legal distinction between two classes of people (more laws = bigger government). If two gay men spend their lives together, effectively as a family unit, it is ethically reprehensible that they cannot apply for the same legal protections as a straight couple with a similar arrangement.

Marriage is not specifically intended for couples intent on raising children. People who are sterile can still get married. Arguing that marriage is an institution for raising children then calls into question the validity of all of every marriage that has failed to produce children. The only argument against allowing two people of the same sex, who are committed to each other, to legally marry is derived from religious tradition. While this religious tradition should be respected, it is not legal (per the first amendment to the US constitution) to legislate using religious tradition as a precedent.

Is that to say that churches opposed to gay marriages should be forced to perform them? No, because that is also unconstitutional. The church (or temple, or synagogue, or mosque), is free to decide it's own religious definition of marriage. However, the state definition of marriage must, by constitutional imperative, be defined in secular terms. To define that the parties involved be "one man and one woman", without secular justification or precedent, is to unnecessarily extend governmental regulation into citizens' private lives.

Opposing the unmitigated expansion of government regulation is one of the core values that defines the conservative movement; so is the protection of the constitution. Supporting gay marriage both promulgates minimal legislation and observes the letter of the first amendment to the constitution. Therefore, support of gay marriage should, in fact, be a conservative position. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 18:56, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:Is it abberational lust or love?
:Another study involving male homosexuality examined the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexual men and was published in the Journal of Sex Research in 1997.[79] This study of male homosexuality found that 2.7 percent of these men claimed to have had sex with one partner only. [80]

:The David P. McWhirter, M.D., and Andrew M. Mattison, M.S.W., Ph.D. study reported in their 1984 work The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop stated that in regards to relationships involving male homosexuality that "all couples with a relationship lasting more than 5 years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships."[81] Please see: [[Homosexuality]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:03, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

::Fine, but that's completely irrelevant to what he's saying, which is that conservatives should support gay marriage because the Constitution requires it. He's correct, but then conservatives should also OPPOSE gay marriage because the Bible forbids homosexuality, and the Bible is obviously correct too. The issue seems to be what is more important: the Constitution or the Bible. It's a tricky one. --[[User:FindlayT|FindlayT]] 19:10, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Were the founding fathers of America pro-homosexuality? In various states, were there anti-sodomy laws during the post independence colonial period and did any of the founding fathers of America object to them? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:15, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Again, that's irrelevant. He's talking about the Constitution, specifically the Establishment Clause. --[[User:FindlayT|FindlayT]] 19:18, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
If liberals interpretation of the Constitution is correct, then why was there a U.S Senate chaplain shortly after the U.S. Constitution?[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:21, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Are you incapable of sticking to the subject? The Establishment Clause forbids ESTABLISHMENT of a religion, and appointing a Chaplain to the Senate for those who want his services isn't establishing a religion. --[[User:FindlayT|FindlayT]] 19:23, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
Does American law borrow from English common law and cite precedence from English common law? How did common law treat sodomy? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:25, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

:What's your problem? I'm not TALKING about common law, I'm talking about the CONSTITUTION. RudrickBoucher has brought up a challenging point about what conservatives should think, so can you either stick to the subject or go somewhere else? --[[User:FindlayT|FindlayT]] 19:28, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Have U.S Senate chaplains been paid for exclusively by believers or do all taxpayers have to contribute to their salaries? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:28, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
Even the liberals at Wikipedia disagree with you: "For example, following the American Revolution in 1776, one of the first legislative acts undertaken by each of the newly independent states was to adopt a "reception statute" that gave legal effect to the existing body of English common law to the extent that American legislation or the Constitution had not explicitly rejected English law.[43]"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law] '''Again, ''' in various states, were there anti-sodomy laws during the post independence colonial period and did any of the founding fathers of America object to them? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:36, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

:Still irrelevant. This is a discussion about the Establishment Clause, not common law, promiscuity or what the idiots at Sickipedia say. --[[User:FindlayT|FindlayT]] 19:38, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
::Again, what does British common law say about sodomy? Again, did post independence colonial America heavily borrow from English common law? Again, did post independent colonial America states have ant-sodomy laws and did the founding fathers object to them? '''Why won't you answer a few simple questions? Is your case that weak? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:43, 21 September 2011 (EDT)'''
::::::British common law does have valid legal precedence. However, you seem to be arguing that observation of British common law should precede observance of the constitution. The British anti-sodomy statutes were both grounded in church doctrine (rendering them unconstitutional here) and all repealed in Britain during the 20th century. Furthermore, American laws take precedence over British common law, and American anti-sodomy statutes were all nullified (found unconstitutional) by the supreme court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas. Finally, British common law only defines marriage as being between "two people".--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 19:48, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

::When determining the validity of a law in the United States, the constitution > federal law > state law > local law > British common law. It's that simple.--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 19:53, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Richard, first sox, then shoes. Address my question and information rebutting your claim. Is it aberrational lust or love? (and please do address my two citations.) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:56, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::It is love. Plain and simple. If you doubt that, I suggest you do my job. Tell a stranger that his life partner has died, that you witnessed it, and that he couldn't simply because their relationship is homosexual instead of heterosexual. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 01:34, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Economic Effects ==

I removed the "Economic Effects" section as I saw no supporting information or any causal effect in the legalization of gay marriage with the economic downturn. If someone can find some supporting information, by all means replace it and add the information. [[User:TalosRising|TalosRising]] 22:47, 11 May 2012 (EDT)

Same-sex marriage

2012-05-12T02:45:44Z

TalosRising: /* Economic effects */

'''Same-sex "marriage"''' is a proposed redefinition or variation on the traditional concept of [[marriage]], granting [[same-sex union]]s the same legal status as heterosexual marriage. Another similar system is [[civil unions]]. Like [[polygamy]], it replaces the pattern of "one man, one woman" which is considered a divine mandate by most modern religious people. The proposal is outrageously unacceptable to most adherents of [[Christianity]], [[Judaism]] and [[Islam]] because it uses the force of secular law to justify what the scripture of ''most modern religions'' has clearly labelled a sin: i.e., [[homosexual]] relations. [[Hate speech]] rules and laws are already in place which restrict criticism of same-sex unions (see also [[hate crime]]).

In May 2012, voters in [[North Carolina]] banned both same-sex marriage and gay unions. North Carolina thereby became the 29th state to pass an [[amendment]] against gay marriage, by a huge 61-39% margin.<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/north-carolina-voters-ban-gay-marriage-civil-unions/story?id=16307081#.T6nLvOjlvKY</ref> [[Barack Obama]] -- heavily dependent on gay donations for his reelection -- rushed to prop up the [[homosexual agenda]] by endorsing same-sex marriage after its stunning defeat in this [[swing state]].

Campaigns advocating same-sex marriage are at the forefront of the [[gay rights movement]]'s attempt to elevate [[homosexuality]] to the same moral plane as [[heterosexuality]], overturning centuries of established tradition whereby homosexuals were would keep their (according to many Christians) sinful acts hidden. Some opponents of marriage claim its purpose is to destroy the [[family]] as an institution, merely to secure a legal basis for [[sexual freedom]]. According to some opponents of marriage, the primary purpose of marriage is to bring joy to society as much as to safeguard the development of happy families, and it is not for individual glory. They believe that unrelated people living together make each other miserable and harm society. Among the many reasons homosexuals might advocate same-sex marriage are the ability to make emergent healthcare decisions for a loved one in the absence of a durable power of attorney or living will, the alteration of the laws of intestate succession to include gay partners, and equal tax treatment as heterosexual married couples.

Current [[United States]] [[law]] defines "marriage" as "one man, one woman" for purposes of the federal [[Defense of Marriage Act]], which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if permitted under state law, and permits a state to disregard a same-sex marriage entered into in another state. An interesting consequence of the federal definition of "marriage" is that it specifically rules out [[polygamy]]. 

__TOC__
==Morality==
Social [[conservatives]] regard same-sex marriage as immoral, and argue that use of the word "[[marriage]]" is a misnomer, because the [[Form of Solemnization of Matrimony|marriage services]] of Christian denominations define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Some social liberals try to use this debate as a excuse to take the socially-conservative view of marriage out of the law. In some Christian marriage ceremonies, the wedding will begin with a statement along the lines of: "Dearly beloved: We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony,"<ref>''The Book of Common Prayer,'' Episcopal Church, The Church Hymnal Corporation and the Seabury Press, 1979: "The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage," p. 423</ref> a definition which was also written into United States federal law in 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode01/usc_sec_01_00000007----000-.html US Code - Title 1, section 7]</ref>

Dr. [[James Dobson]]'s [[Focus on the Family]] organization prefers the phrase ''same-sex "marriage,"'' with quotation marks around the word "marriage," to call attention to his belief that marriage—civil as well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that that same-sex unions are "counterfeits."<ref>[http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000464.cfm Same-Sex 'Marriage' and Civil Unions], ''Focus on the Family's'' website</ref>

Use of the term "same-sex marriage" was unheard of a few decades ago; however, these unions are now among a number of issues advocated by [[liberal]] activists. They argue that heterosexual people are allowed to marry and so the homosexual population should be given that right too.

Some advocates of same-sex marriage view marriage as a purely civil matter, which in the history of the United States is a position taken particularly strongly by Puritan colonists, who viewed the interjection of religion into the franchise of marriage as scandalous to Christ's Church.

== Background ==
In the United States, marriage is primarily governed by each individual state and marriage laws differ from state to state. Several states allow [[civil union]]s between two people of the same sex, and eight, [[Massachusetts]], [[Connecticut]], [[Vermont]], [[New Hampshire]], [[New York]], [[Maryland]], [[Washington]], and [[Iowa]], plus the [[Washington, D.C.|District of Columbia]], currently issue same-sex marriage licenses. These marriage licenses are not recognized by the Federal government.

In 1996 Congress recognized the likelihood that [[liberal]] activists would soon seek changes to the laws in some states that pertain to homosexuals. It considered the possibility of test cases reaching the Supreme Court, and of the court conceivably ruling that a state—even though it prohibits same-sex marriage itself—must honor same-sex marriages performed in another state pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. The Defense of Marriage act, which was passed and signed by President Clinton, prevents this possibility, and also prevents the Federal Government from recognizing marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman. Its Constitutionality has not yet been tested under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Equal Protection Clause of the 5th Amendment, or the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment.

In 1999 a Vermont court ruled that under its constitution, it was not required to allow same-sex marriage but was required to make provisions to grant same-sex couples legal rights identical to those provided by marriage. Vermont responded by creating "civil unions," which are legally distinct from marriages but convey the same rights. In 2009, the Vermont legislature overrode the governor's veto to pass a bill allowing same-sex marriage.

In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that under Massachusetts' constitution, same-sex couples could not be denied Massachusetts marriage licenses, making Massachusetts the first state to issue same-sex marriage licenses. As of April 2009, same-sex marriage was legal in four states, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa. <ref>''Vermont Legislature Makes Same-Sex Marriage Legal'' [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/us/08vermont.html?_r=1&hp]</ref><ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_re_us/connecticut_same_sex_marriage Conn. high court rules gay couples can marry]</ref>

Beginning in 2008, the states of [[Washington]], and [[Oregon]] also provide for same-sex unions. [[Hawaii]] provides certain benefits to same sex couples. <ref>[http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--civilunions-optio0531may31,0,341613.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut Newsday]</ref> The State of New Hampshire issued civil unions until the summer of 2009, when it passed a bill approving same-sex marriage <ref>"New Hampshire Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage" [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/04marriage.html]</ref> The state will begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses in January, 2010.

In the fall of 2009, a same-sex marriage bill was introduced to the [[Washington, D.C.]] city council by At-Large Council Member David Catania (who is openly gay.) After two days of testimony involving nearly 250 witnesses <ref>''D.C. Council hears from both sides in gay marriage debate'' [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/D_C_-Council-hears-from-both-sides-in-gay-marriage-debate-8442433-66188647.html]</ref>, the council voted to approve the bill, 11-2. Once signed by the Mayor, the bill went to Congress for a mandatory [[DC Home Rule|30-day review period]]. While opponents of the bill vowed to fight it in Congress<ref>"DC Council Approves Same-Sex Marriage" [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/15/AR2009121500945.html]</ref> it passed and became law in 2010.

The New York legislature voted for same-sex marriage on June 24, 2011.<ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-gay-marriage-passes-in-new-york</ref>

Same-sex marriages were legal for a brief period in the state of [[California]], but the people of that state voted to repeal the law in the fall of 2008<ref>"California Votes for Prop 8"[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122586056759900673.html]</ref>, through a ballot initiative known as [[Proposition 8]]. The legislature of [[Maine]] approved a same-sex marriage bill in May of 2009 <ref>"Lawmakers approve same-sex marriage in N.H., Maine" [http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/06/maine.same.sex.marriage/index.html]</ref> but opponents lobbied to have the bill put up to a popular vote, and it was defeated by the voters in the fall of 2009.<ref>"Maine rejects same-sex marriage law" [http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/04/maine.same.sex/index.html]</ref>

Same-sex marriage is legal in seven countries: [[South Africa]], [[Spain]], [[Canada]], the [[Netherlands]], [[Belgium]], [[Norway]] and [[Sweden]]. Other countries, such as [[France]], [[Germany]], and the [[United Kingdom]], recognize [[civil unions]] and [[domestic partnership]]s.<ref>[http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-03/05/content_311998.htm Countries worldwide address gay marriage]</ref>

In Israel, all marriages must be performed by a religious organization - there is no "civil" marriage. Specific religions may determine the definition of marriages that they perform, and none currently recognize same-sex couples. However, a Supreme Court decision determined that Israel must recognize all marriages performed outside the country, same-sex or opposite-sex. In September of 2011, an Orthodox Jewish rabbi in Israel attempted to marry homosexual males to homosexual females so they could start a conventional family. However, the plan drew criticism both from liberals, who said the plan was meant to discourage homosexuality, and from conservatives, who claimed the plan promoted loveless relationships. <ref>"Israeli rabbi pairs gays to lesbians" http://news.yahoo.com/israeli-rabbi-pairs-gays-lesbians-061904417.html</ref>

Some opponents of same-sex marriage believe that the religious ceremony of marriage is governed by each denomination and is unaffected by laws passed by civil authority. Same-sex marriage is forbidden in Orthodox Judaism, Catholicism, and most mainstream Protestant denominations. In Massachusetts, however, about 6% of all marriages are same-sex marriages, so this does not appear to be a problem. <ref>[http://www.massequality.org/news/news_story.php?id=273]</ref><ref>http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fnchs%2Fdata%2Fnvss%2Fmarriage90_04.pdf&images=yes</ref>

Public attitude toward same-sex marriage parallels attitude toward homosexuality. In general, it is opposed by social conservatives and outside of this group, support is split down the middle leaning to opposition.<ref>[http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html Same Sex Marriage Poll from ABC News]</ref>

== Motivation for advocating it==
[[Image:Cycle.gif|thumbnail|200px|right|A recent study by the [[Canada|Canadian]] government states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with [[heterosexual]] couples".<ref>http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/85-570-XIE/2006001/findings/risk.htm Aforementioned Canadian Study.</ref>]]
[[James Dobson]] cites Stanley Kurtz to argue that the motivation of those advocating same-sex marriage is not to secure the benefits of marriage for gay couples, but to destroy the institution of marriage itself:
:...most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to destroy marriage altogether. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, etc.,) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would "couples" be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed.<ref>Stanley Kurtz, "Beyond Marriage," The Weekly Standard, August 4/August 11, 2003. - cited in [http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000771.cfm Marriage on the Ropes], Dr. James Dobson, retrieved from ''Focus on the Family'', 15 May 2007. </ref>

Homosexuals are beginning to admit they want what Mollenkott proposes, namely the destruction of the concept of [[monogamy]] and [[traditional marriage]] altogether. What they really are after is a society that recognizes every sexual arrangement as normal - even [[group sex]]ual liaisons and [[polygamy]].<ref name=pjones>
Peter Jones, ''The God of Sex: How Spirituality Defines Your Sexuality'', page 22</ref>

==Child-rearing and adoption==

According to a March, 2007 report, there are 65,000 adopted children in the U.S. being raised by same-sex couples. The same report says 14,100 foster children were being raised by one or more gay or lesbian foster parents.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/25/gay.adoption/index.html Gay adoption: A new take on the American family]</ref>

In Great Britain, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has expressed its full support to the stand taken by the Catholic Church opposing regulations on gay adoption. The Catholic Church sought to be exempt from the new law. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams of the Church of England, supports the Catholic Church's efforts declaring that the rights of conscience cannot be subject to laws. Catholic leaders have already said that its teachings prevent its agencies placing children with homosexuals and they will have to close if bound by the rules. The MCB, the UK's leading Muslim umbrella group embracing over 400 affiliated organizations, said that while it supported anti-discrimination laws, homosexuality is forbidden in Islam. <ref>[http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/menu-234/0701266670200554.htm UK Muslim group backs Christian opposition to gay adoption rules London], Islamic republic News Agency, Jan 26, 2007.</ref>

==Homosexual promiscuity==

Studies indicate that homosexual couples have higher rates of promiscuity than heterosexual couples.<ref>[http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02 Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples]</ref> Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners.<ref>2004 General Social Survey, Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005</ref>

==Homosexual violence and abuse==

In addition, studies report that [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|homosexual couples have significantly higher incidences of violent behavior]].{{fact}} These studies are not surprising given what pathologists have stated regarding the commonness and brutality of homosexual murders{{fact}} (see [[Homosexuality and Murders]]). The prevalence of violence and emotional abuse in gay domestic partnerships. One survey found 53% of gays felt if the high incidence of violence against partners in homosexual relationships was known and understood by the heterosexual population, it would hinder the drive for gay rights.

Domestic abuse is divided into two categories, emotional abuse and physical abuse. While gay domestic abuse has not been studied to the extent that heterosexual relationships have, [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|preliminary studies indicate a much higher level of abuse]].

==Family breakdown ==

Bishop Harry Jackson has shown how same-sex "marriage" is causally linked to the breakdown of the family in recent decades, particularly the black family.<ref>[http://townhall.com/columnists/harryrjacksonjr/2008/10/13/the_naacp_abandons_the_black_family The NAACP Abandons the Black Family]</ref> As noted in the 1965 [[Daniel Patrick Moynihan|Moynihan]] Report,<ref>[http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/webid-meynihan.htm The Negro Family: The Case for National Action]</ref> the breakdown of the African-American family is a national concern. He has attributed support for same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia and Maryland to a demonic force called the [[Queen of Heaven]].<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GMnaW-0rQ-U Harry Jackson, Cindy Jacobs Rally Against Same-Sex Marriage]</ref>

Subsequent to same-sex marriage becoming law in [[Massachusetts]], property values declined and many left the State, in contrast to those states that do not recognize it.

One study, however, claims that the children of same-sex couples or gay parents have equal or higher scores in psychological evaluations as well as cognitive. Researchers Nanette Gartrell, a professor of psychiatry at the University of California at San Francisco, and Henry Bos, a behavioral scientist at the University of Amsterdam, led a study focused on planned lesbian families in which a lesbian couple had chosen to adopt children or undergo artificial insemination to start a family. These children were shown to have higher self esteems and confidence which in turn enabled them to have higher test results academically than their straight-parent counterparts. <ref>[http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html],Study: Children of Lesbians May Do Better Than Their Peers</ref>

==Social dysfunction==

Legalization of same-sex "marriage" is correlated with social dysfunctions<ref>[http://www.allaboutlove.org/same-sex-marriage-countries.htm Same Sex Marriage Countries]</ref> that states and countries banning it have avoided. States and countries legalizing same-sex "marriage" have markedly different levels of quality of life from those that have banned it.

==Collapse of civilizations==

Some ancient civilizations that recognized same-sex "marriage" collapsed as a result, while some that refused to recognize it escaped that fate.<ref>[http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Slippery-Slope-Of-Same-Sex-Marriage&id=824855 The Slippery Slope of Same Sex Marriage]</ref> However, [[Correlation is not causation]], and there is not even a large enough data set to get a correlation.

==Legal disadvantages for heterosexuals==

Legalization of same-sex "marriage" would confer [[special rights]] on homosexuals, thereby placing heterosexuals at a legal disadvantage.<ref>[http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2009/December/New-Jersey-Lawmakers-Drop-Same-Sex-Marriage-Bill/ New Jersey Lawmakers Drop Same-Sex Marriage Bill], from [[CBN]]</ref>

The fact that the strongest predictor of support for same-sex "marriage" is level of education<ref>[http://www.gainesville.com/article/20090902/ARTICLES/909021016?p=1&tc=pg UF study: Education best predicted support for gay marriage ban]</ref> shows that [[brainwashing]] into [[professor values]] has a corrosive effect on morality.

Since rights are a [[zero-sum game]],<ref>[http://bbprof.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/the-new-three-rs/ The New Three R's], by Bill Borst</ref> granting same-sex couples the right to "marry" will necessarily come at the expense of the rights of others.

==See also==
*[[Anti-Defamation League]]
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]
*[[Gay bowel syndrome]]
*[[Homosexuality and the Bible]]
*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.nogaymarriage.com/tenarguments.asp Gay Marriage: Why Would It Affect Me? Ten Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage], NoGayMarriage.com
*[http://www.robgagnon.net/homoPresbyTodayArticle.htm Why “Gay Marriage” Is Wrong, by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.]
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]

Talk:Chivalry

2012-05-11T21:50:48Z

TalosRising: /* Revert page */

==Revision?==
The first bullet, couldn't that go for any woman entering a room? 
When a girl walks down the stairs in her prom dress, he date should stand up. There's no table involved in this case. o.O [[User:NathanG|Nate]][[User_talk:NathanG|because people listen to what I say?]] 22:30, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
:Nate, I fixed the first thing you mentioned. As far as the latter, my prom date lived in her parents trailer (single story), and I was probably already standing around nervously ;) But you're right, I think it actually applies more broadly, to, say, a woman entering (or leaving?) a room. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:53, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Point 4 ("supporting and treating women, and adopting a work ethic to make that possible") seems to require clarification, but I am uncertain as to the intent. Should there be something further after "treating women?" Or was it intended to refer to "treating women" to dinner and so forth?--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:00, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm confused... shouldn't this article be focused on the code of chivalry from the middle ages...? What in the world does homeschooling have to do with chivalry. The link between the two is unsourced and tenuous at best. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 10:43, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:I've put the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag next to that statement, as it isn't backed up with any citation, and because chivalry as a "reason for homeschooling" isn't mentioned at all in the [[homeschooling]] article. I agree there should be more content about medieval chivalry, especially as it is a well defined concept attested to by historical sources, whereas "moderan chivalry" is a vaguer idea & much more open to personal interpretation. If you have any good information or quotes about medieval chivalry, it would be nice to see that section expand. :-) [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 10:57, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Added more info to the end of the page. The homeschooling bit seemed just strangely out of place so I removed it, there was no good way to leave it in there without it sounding like a rant.
[[User:TalosRising|TalosRising]] 23:46, 10 May 2012 (EDT)

== Revert page ==

I'm a little confused as to the revert for the chivalry page. The homeschooling bit doesnt flow with the information already there and it contains incorrect information, why keep it?
[[User:TalosRising|TalosRising]] 00:06, 11 May 2012 (EDT)

:Chivalry is doing well in [[homeschooling]]. Homeschooling holds regular events such as Civil War balls.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:23, 11 May 2012 (EDT)

::Ok...I'm just not really sure what that has to do with the historical concept of chivalry. Also, that paragraph ignores the fact that it was an ideal of behavior and most knights were not expected to follow it to the letter. It was something to aspire to, similar to Bushido of Feudal Japan [[User:TalosRising|TalosRising]] 00:28, 11 May 2012 (EDT)

:::Chivalry continues in many important segments of society, and that is relevant to the entry. Whether it is followed "to the letter" depends on the person and situation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 11 May 2012 (EDT)

::::That it does, but I'm not sure how that ties into homeschooling in the way the article is written. The way the paragraph is written, it sounds like a rant. And I'm talking about historically speaking, it wasnt expected that it be followed to the letter. [[User:TalosRising|TalosRising]] 17:50, 11 May 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Scientific Classification

2012-05-11T21:49:11Z

TalosRising:

Considering this is information developed by and used for EVOLUTIONARY biology, should we be including this on ALL of our pages about animals?
[[User:TalosRising|TalosRising]] 00:26, 11 May 2012 (EDT)
:Binomial nomenclature (the system of taxonomic classification that is the basis for the modern system of classification in biology) originates with [[Carl Linneaus]] (1707-1778), who is a predecessor to Darwin (1809-1882). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:52, 11 May 2012 (EDT)
::Be that as it may, it's still a cornerstone of modern evolutionary biology and us using it seems to say "we dont support evolution but we'll use the tools it's supporters use."[[User:TalosRising|TalosRising]] 17:49, 11 May 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Chivalry

2012-05-11T04:28:25Z

TalosRising: /* Revert page */

Talk:Scientific Classification

2012-05-11T04:26:00Z

TalosRising: Created page with "Considering this is information developed by and used for EVOLUTIONARY biology, should we be including this on ALL of our pages about animals? ~~~~"

Shamanism

2012-05-11T03:59:34Z

TalosRising:

'''Shamanism''' is the practice of identifying special individuals ('''shamans''') who will interact with spirits for the benefit of the community. Shamanic religions can be found in virtually all early civilizations. Shamanistic and animistic practicies and beliefs preceed poly and monotheistic beliefs and were probably the first belief systems that we would recognize as a religion.

== Sources ==

The Earth and Its Peoples A Global History, Bulliet et al, 2005.

[[Category: Paganism]]

Druidry

2012-05-11T03:55:32Z

TalosRising:

'''Druidry''', or '''Druidism''', is the religion of the Druids, a [[pagan]] [[Celtic]] priesthood that existed in [[France]], [[Britain]] and [[Ireland]] before the coming of [[Christianity]] to those lands. Its international headquarters was on the island of Mona, now called Anglesey, off the north-west coast of [[Wales]], but was destroyed by the [[Roman]]s in 61 AD during the revolt of [[Boudica]].

Druid beliefs, as recorded by [[Julius Caesar]], revolved around observations of the motions of the heavenly bodies and their influences on the earth, as in [[astrology]], and they were also firm believers in [[reincarnation]], so much that it was possible to defer the payment of debts until the next life. Caesar recounted stories of the Druids sacrificing criminals and enemy soldiers captured in battle in huge wicker men by burning them to death. These stories should be taken with a grain of salt as Caesar was known for embellishing stories of his time in Gaul.

<blockquote>
The two privileged classes are the Druids and the knights. The Druids officiate at the worship of the gods, regulate public and private sacrifices, and give rulings on all religious questions. Large numbers of young men flock to them for instruction, and they are held in great honour by the people. They act as judges in practically all disputes, whether between tribes or between individuals; when any crime is committed, or a murder takes place, or a dispute arises about an inheritance or a boundary, it is they who adjudicate the matter and appoint the compensation to be paid and received by the parties concerned. Any individual or tribe failing to accept their award is banned from taking part in sacrifice - the heaviest punishment that can be inflicted upon a Gaul. Those who are laid under such a ban are regarded as impious criminals. Everyone shuns them and avoids going near or speaking to them, for fear of taking some harm by contact with what is unclean; if they appear as plaintiffs, justice is denied them, and they are excluded from a share in any honour. All the Druids are under one head, whom they hold in the highest respect. On his death, if any one of the rest is of outstanding merit, he succeeds to the vacant place; if several have equal claims, the Druids usually decide the election by voting, though sometimes they actually fight it out. On a fixed date in each year they hold a session in a consecrated spot in the country of the Carnutes, which is supposed to be the centre of Gaul. Those who are involved in disputes assemble here from all parts, and accept the Druids' judgements and awards. The Druidic doctrine is believed to have been found existing in Britain and thence imported into Gaul; even today those who want to make a profound study of it generally go to Britain for the purpose. ''Julius Caesar’s The Conquest of Gaul, book VI.''
</blockquote>

Druidic training was very hard, and involved spending 20 years learning by heart thousands of lines of poetry and song, which included being placed under a rock in a river in order to recite them. If the postulant survived this ordeal he or she became a 'bard', the lowest grade of Druid. The next grade was 'ovate' (meaning seer), and then came Druid proper.

The Romans attempted to suppress Druidism but it survived into Christian times when a certain amount of assimilation took place. Many Christian churches in the British Isles were built on the site of Druidic temples, especially those dedicated to the dragon-slaying saints Michael and George. It is also believed that the wizard [[Merlin]], companion to [[King Arthur]], was a Druid.

Druidism survived in remote areas of Wales until the 18th century, when it was revived in a new popular form by [[John Toland]] and others, who founded the first of the modern Druid orders in 1717. Modern Druids have dispensed with many of their ancient beliefs and practices and in many ways resemble [[Freemasonry]]. They congregate at [[Stonehenge]] on the [[summer solstice]] to enact their ceremonies.

==External links==

*[http://www.cobdo.org Council of British Druid Orders]
*[http://www.cobdo.org.uk Council of British Druid Orders]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Paganism]]
[[Category:Wales]]

Talk:Chivalry

2012-05-11T03:47:16Z

TalosRising:

Talk:Chivalry

2012-05-11T03:46:50Z

TalosRising:

Talk:Chivalry

2012-05-11T03:44:35Z

TalosRising: /* Revision? */

Talk:Chivalry

2012-05-11T03:44:09Z

TalosRising:

Chivalry

2012-05-11T03:43:07Z

TalosRising: /* Chivalry and Education */

'''Chivalry''' was the medieval code of behavior for [[knight]]s. It mandated loyalty to one's [[lord]] and to [[God]], and women were to be honored as the equivalent of the [[Virgin Mary]]. The Code of chivalry was not only intended to create good warriors, but also to endow knights with strong morals and [[faith]]s. The word itself comes from the French word for "knight", ''chevalier''.

Knights would usually take an [[oath]] of chivalry before partaking in the [[Crusade]]s, leading and protecting the pilgrims on their journey to [[Jerusalem]].

Chivalric romances, books which recounted the deeds of heroic knights such as King Arthur and Amadís de Gaula, were a popular genre of fiction in 16th century [[Europe]]. They were satirised (and immortalised) in [[Don Quixote]], where an aging aristrocrat attempts to apply anachronistic chivalric values to his own time, with disastrous results.

== Modern Chivalry ==

In modern terms, '''chivalry''' consists of the following behavior:

* treating women with flattering respect, such as holding a door or standing when a woman gets up from a table or visits it
* realizing that every young woman could be someone's future wife
* refraining from degrading or profane speech in the presence of women
* recognizing that certain tasks should be done by men, such as taking out the garbage or carrying heavy boxes
* supporting, and treating, women graciously, and adopting a work ethic to make that possible
* honesty and [[fidelity]] in business dealings
* avoiding of [[gossip]]
* courtesy and humility in everyday life
* protecting of the weaker elements of society
* in religious terms, it can be the devotion and defense of one's belief
* prohibition of competition between genders, and recognizing innate differences that prevent such fair competition
* maintaining a posture and demeanor that is respectful to others and to yourself

== Chivalry and Education ==
The concept of '''chivalry''' originated from various codes of behavior that were impressed upon knights. This took the form of a codified Code of Chivalry in or about the 12th century, largely spurred on by writings of Medieval courtly literature. Medieval courtly literature glorifies the valor, tactics and ideals of ancient Romans. For example the ancient hand-book of warfare written by Vegetius called ''De Re Militari'' was translated into French in the 13th century as ''L'art de chevalerie'' by Jean de Meun. Later writers also drew from Vegetius such as Honore Bonet who wrote the 14th century ''L'arbes des batailles'', which discussed the morals and laws of war. In the 15th century Christine de Pizan combined themes from Vegetius, Bonet and Frontinus in ''Livre des faits d'armes et de chevalerie''.

Chivalric ideals were impressed upon men who were sworn as knights however it was generally understood that chivalry was an ideal of behavior that most could never adhere to fully. There are numerous documented examples of sworn knights comitting unchivalrous behavior. Today chivlarous behavior is often seen as anachronistic but appreciated when observed, many people lamenting that "chivalry is dead." It is behavior often sought in men that mirrors somewhat the historical code of chivalry that includes treating women with respect, maintaining a polite demeanor in public, and not acting out in anger or rash emotion. The idea of chivalry is not taught in any official capacity in the modern era.

== Sources ==

* http://www.chivalrynow.net/articles/chivalry.htm

[[category:Feudalism]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Chivalry

2012-05-11T03:42:51Z

TalosRising: /* Chivalry and Education */

'''Chivalry''' was the medieval code of behavior for [[knight]]s. It mandated loyalty to one's [[lord]] and to [[God]], and women were to be honored as the equivalent of the [[Virgin Mary]]. The Code of chivalry was not only intended to create good warriors, but also to endow knights with strong morals and [[faith]]s. The word itself comes from the French word for "knight", ''chevalier''.

Knights would usually take an [[oath]] of chivalry before partaking in the [[Crusade]]s, leading and protecting the pilgrims on their journey to [[Jerusalem]].

Chivalric romances, books which recounted the deeds of heroic knights such as King Arthur and Amadís de Gaula, were a popular genre of fiction in 16th century [[Europe]]. They were satirised (and immortalised) in [[Don Quixote]], where an aging aristrocrat attempts to apply anachronistic chivalric values to his own time, with disastrous results.

== Modern Chivalry ==

In modern terms, '''chivalry''' consists of the following behavior:

* treating women with flattering respect, such as holding a door or standing when a woman gets up from a table or visits it
* realizing that every young woman could be someone's future wife
* refraining from degrading or profane speech in the presence of women
* recognizing that certain tasks should be done by men, such as taking out the garbage or carrying heavy boxes
* supporting, and treating, women graciously, and adopting a work ethic to make that possible
* honesty and [[fidelity]] in business dealings
* avoiding of [[gossip]]
* courtesy and humility in everyday life
* protecting of the weaker elements of society
* in religious terms, it can be the devotion and defense of one's belief
* prohibition of competition between genders, and recognizing innate differences that prevent such fair competition
* maintaining a posture and demeanor that is respectful to others and to yourself

== Chivalry and Education ==
The concept of'''chivalry''' originated from various codes of behavior that were impressed upon knights. This took the form of a codified Code of Chivalry in or about the 12th century, largely spurred on by writings of Medieval courtly literature. Medieval courtly literature glorifies the valor, tactics and ideals of ancient Romans. For example the ancient hand-book of warfare written by Vegetius called ''De Re Militari'' was translated into French in the 13th century as ''L'art de chevalerie'' by Jean de Meun. Later writers also drew from Vegetius such as Honore Bonet who wrote the 14th century ''L'arbes des batailles'', which discussed the morals and laws of war. In the 15th century Christine de Pizan combined themes from Vegetius, Bonet and Frontinus in ''Livre des faits d'armes et de chevalerie''.

Chivalric ideals were impressed upon men who were sworn as knights however it was generally understood that chivalry was an ideal of behavior that most could never adhere to fully. There are numerous documented examples of sworn knights comitting unchivalrous behavior. Today chivlarous behavior is often seen as anachronistic but appreciated when observed, many people lamenting that "chivalry is dead." It is behavior often sought in men that mirrors somewhat the historical code of chivalry that includes treating women with respect, maintaining a polite demeanor in public, and not acting out in anger or rash emotion. The idea of chivalry is not taught in any official capacity in the modern era.

== Sources ==

* http://www.chivalrynow.net/articles/chivalry.htm

[[category:Feudalism]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]