Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Scientology

2015-03-16T22:48:54Z

VladJ92:

[[File:Supernatural-Scientology-Cross.jpg|thumb|Supernatural-Scientology-Cross.]]
'''Scientology''' is a new religion<ref>[http://www.ucalgary.ca/~nurelweb/papers/irving/scient.html Irving Hexham, Professor of Religious Studies, University of Calgary]</ref> established in the [[United States]] by science fiction author [[L. Ron Hubbard]] in 1954. His 1950 book ''Dianetics'' told readers they could rid themselves of negative past experiences, called "engrams", to live happier lives. Later Hubbard added idea involving the human soul, or "thetan" (each person's spiritual self or soul that passes through countless [[reincarnation]]s across trillions of years), and the origins of life and the universe. The organization has often been the subject of extreme controversy. <ref>[http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Scientology/index.aspx Scientology Basics]</ref>It has been described by judiciary in various countries as a dangerous and mind controlling cult <ref>See eg. ''Re: B & G'' (Minors) (Custody) (High Court of England), which can be found [http://www.xenu.net/archive/audit/latey.html here] or Church of Scientology California v Gerry Armstrong, which can be found [http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/archives/283 here]</ref>.

Unlike [[Christianity]], [[Islam]], or [[Judaism]], there is no single definitive text having authority. Instead, there are multiple books, read by adherents to increase their understanding of Scientology principles.
''Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health'', his seminal work on the subject, came out in 1950 and became a multi-million bestseller.<ref>Dianetics has sold over 21 million copies and is the best selling self-help book of all time. [http://www.religioustolerance.org/scientol1.htm ]</ref>
''The Way to Happiness'' is a 1980 booklet that lists 21 moral precepts.
:"Piece by piece, his teachings are revealed to church members through a progression of sometimes secret courses that take years to complete and cost tens of thousands of dollars." <ref> [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-scientologysidea062490,0,7631220,full.story Defining the Theology.] </ref>

<blockquote>
''The goal of the Scientology [[religion]] is to achieve complete certainty of one's spiritual existence, one's relationship to the Supreme Being, and his role in eternity;'' <ref> [http://www.bonafidescientology.org/ Scientology.] </ref> but [[Heaven]], Hubbard said, ''is a "false dream" and a "very painful lie" intended to direct thetans toward a non-existent goal and convince them they have only one life.'' <ref> [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-scientologysidea062490,0,7631220,full.story Defining the Theology.] </ref>
</blockquote>

Although Scientology argues its beliefs are not incompatible with Christian [[faith]], this is not so. Scientology is inconsistent with the beliefs of Christian faith; however ''we may observe that Scientology does entertain a fine goal in attempting to improve the world and man's lot within it, whether materially or spiritually. Many practitioners are dedicated and selfless in seeking such ends.'' Scientology is also known for its [[conservative]] stance on social issues (supporting [[Proposition 8]] in California, for example), which is commendable. Scientology's founder L. Ron Hubbard also recognized that [[homosexuality]] is immoral and a behavioral disorder, rather than a "healthy alternative lifestyle" as liberals shamelessly insist.<ref> [http://www.abundantgraceministries.org/new_page_5.htm From Science Fiction to Space-age Religion.] </ref>The official Scientology position on homosexuality is that someone who is a homosexual is "trapped within a past life when they were of the opposite sex."<ref>see eg.'' A history of Man'', Hubbard, 1952</ref> On the issue of [[abortion]], however, the Church of Scientology is not so conservative, with multiple testimonies of past Sea Org members being pressured to have an abortion in the event of a pregnancy.<ref>http://archiv.ub.uni-marburg.de/mjr/kent.html</ref><ref>http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Leaving-the-Fold-Third-generation-Scientologist-2953233.php</ref>

== What Scientologists believe ==

* Belief in Deity: The nature of the Supreme Being is revealed personally.
* Incarnations: There are no particular human incarnations of [[God]].
* Origin of Universe and Life: All is manifestation of the universal spirit.
* After Death: Rebirths continue until the spirit become one with God.
* Why Evil?: Untrue ideas can result in wrongdoing.
* The Occult: Black magic is the inner core of Scientology.
* Salvation: Salvation and enlightenment is achieved through the practices and techniques of Scientology.
* Undeserved Suffering: Suffering occurs as part of the spirit's entrapment here in the physical universe.
* Death: It is sometimes a blessing, or irrelevant.
* Contemporary Issues: Scientology favors the use of their methodology for spiritual/mental healing and social betterment.

<blockquote>
The Creed of the Church of Scientology was written by L. Ron Hubbard shortly after the Church was formed in Los Angeles on February 18, 1954. <ref> [http://www.bonafidescientology.org/Creed/index.htm The Creed of the Church of Scientology.] </ref>
</blockquote>

== In the news ==
October 26, 2009.

<blockquote>

Paul Haggis, an Oscar-winning [[Canadian]] filmmaker has quit the Church of Scientology after 35 years over the organization's tolerance of "gay-bashing," its lying over the use of "disconnection," and its decision to release the intimate confessions of some of its former members who turned into critics. <ref> [http://www.canada.com/entertainment/movie-guide/Canadian+filmmaker+quits+Church+Scientology/2147889/story.html Canadian filmmaker quits Church of Scientology] </ref> (disconnection which means that a recruit is told to cut off from parents.)
</blockquote>

Tue Oct 27, 2009.
<blockquote>

A [[Paris]] court convicted the Church of Scientology of fraud and fined it more than euro 600,000 ($900,000) on Tuesday, but stopped short of banning the group's activities.

The group's French branch said it would appeal the verdict.

The court convicted the Church of Scientology's French office, its library and six of its leaders of organized fraud. Investigators said the group pressured members into paying large sums of money for questionable financial gain and used "commercial harassment" against recruits. <ref> [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091027/ap_on_re_eu/eu_france_scientology Church of Scientology convicted of fraud in France] </ref>

</blockquote>

==Controversy and criticism==

Both the status of Scientology as a religion<ref>http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/scirelg.htm</ref> and its beliefs as well as its practices and manner of operation have been a subject of condemnation by both religious and secular sources.<ref>http://www.watchman.org/profile/sientpro.htm]</ref><ref>http://www.watchman.org/sci/historyofterror.htm</ref><ref>http://www.believersweb.org/view.cfm?ID=607</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticsindex.org/cpoint7</ref>
<ref>http://www.clambake.org</ref> Scientology is classified as a cult by the governments of France and Germany.

Christian apologist Craig Branch of Watchman Fellowship begins a documented examination of Scientology by stating,
<blockquote> Controversy continues to rage around Scientology, due mostly to the totalitarian and abusive nature of its practices. The evolution and history of Scientology raises serious and fundamental questions about freedoms and protections of religion and even what or who defines a religion. Scientology is an anomaly on even a diverse religious landscape. It does, in fact, involve religious belief (in what most outsiders would regard as science fiction). But that belief appears to have been built chiefly as a cover for exploitive commercial operations...Scientology's history of terror and abuse appears to be the result of its founder's delusion and paranoia. <ref>http://www.watchman.org/Sci/scientologymafia.htm</ref></blockquote>

Such charges are due in part to the tendency of Scientology to engage in intimidation and unethical or unlawful practices against those who have criticized or publicly opposed it, from former members, to national publications, to the [[United States]] government. This has resulted in Scientology being termed a "religious mafia", and "a commercial enterprise that masquerades as a religion."<ref>http://www.apologeticsindex.org/s04.html</ref><ref>cf. Scientology: the Sickness Spreads," Reader's Digest, September, l981, reprint, p.2</ref> In response to journalist Paulette Cooper's 1972 book, ''The Scandal of Scientology'',<ref>http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/tsos/sos.html</ref> Scientology launched filed 19 lawsuits against her,<ref>http://www.paulettecooper.com/scandal.htm</ref> contrived a false bomb threat made in her name, and planned and implemented various other attempts over the course of almost 15 years. A strategy called ''Operation Freakout'' sought "To get P.C incarcerated in a mental institution or jail, or at least to hit her so hard that she drops her attacks."<ref>http://www.shipbrook.com/jeff/CoS/docs/pcof1.html</ref><ref>http://www.holysmoke.org/pc/freako.htm</ref>

This plan was prevented from full implementation when a 1977 FBI raid on Scientology headquarters revealed the Scientology plot, among 48,000 documents detailing strategies against critics of the church. Comprehensive evidence revealed the theft of government documents by Scientology, spies planted in the Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service, and the planting of listening devices, as part of ''Operation Snow White''.

The raid finally resulted in the conviction of Mary Sue Hubbard, wife of the Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, and 10 more Scientologists. All received prison terms, though all are now free.<ref>Robert W. Welkos and Joel Sappell, 'Burglaries and Lies Paved a Path to Prison'' The Los Angeles Times, June 24, 1990</ref><ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-scientologysidec062490,0,111873,print.story</ref><ref>The Watchman Expositor (Vol. 14, No. 5)</ref>

The original objective of Operation Snow White was to expose and expunge "all false and secret files of the nations of operating areas", and included plans to use blackmail, and to infiltrate and steal potentially damaging classified files on Scientology activities in various countries, from [[Algeria]] to the United States.<ref>http://xenu.net/archive/go/ops/go732/go732.htm</ref> These ranged from ''Operation Project DIG (AUDITION)'' in Australia, which called for giving compromising information on Conservative politicians to the Australian Labor Party so that the latter "could give the Federal Labor something to smear Victorian Conservatives with", to ''Project GRUMPY'' in Germany, which upheld obtaining files "by any means" from police, Interpol and immigration authorities.<ref>http://xenu.net/archive/go/ops/go732/go732p.htm</ref>

In 1991 [[Time magazine]] wrote a major exposé of Scientology, describing it as ''The Cult of Greed'', being <blockquote>
a hugely profitable, global racket that survives by intimidating members and critics in a Mafia-like manner. Scientology is quite likely the most ruthless, the most classically terroristic, the most litigious, and the most lucrative cult the country has ever seen.
<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,972865,00.html Time, ''The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power'' pp. 32-33]</ref></blockquote>

Scientology unsuccessfully sued Time magazine over the revelatory story.<ref>http://www.watchman.org/sci/historyofterror.htm</ref>

Numerous other [[author]]s and publication have been additional targets of Scientology retaliation.<ref>http://www.lermanet.com/scientologynews/index.html</ref> In 1995, ''The American Jurist'' Magazine published, ''Dangerous Science: The Church of Scientology's Holy War against Critics'', which notes, <blockquote>
It is typical of the Church of Scientology to use lawsuits -- very many of which are dismissed as frivolous -- to intimidate, harass and quell its critics and defectors into silence. This scheme is even written into the church's doctrine.<ref>[http://www.lermanet.com/scientologynews/amjurist1195.html The American Jurist, November 1995]</ref> </blockquote>

Many other authorities have voiced concurring opinions,<ref>http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/crtquot.htm</ref> and or provided documented examples.<ref>http://www.lermanet.com/scientologyscandals/criminal.htm</ref><ref>[http://www.solitarytrees.net/pickets/sp944.htm ''Church of Scientology probes Herald reporter - Investigation follows pattern of harassment''. The Boston Herald, March 19, 1998</ref><ref>http://www.scientology-lies.com</ref>

In 1996, the popular ''Cult Awareness Network'', abbreviated as ''CAN'', a primary Scientology critic, was forced into bankruptcy by Scientology. An undercover Scientologist had infiltrated CAN, then 50 Scientologists filed suit against it, many containing almost identical language, after having sought to join the organization almost simultaneously and being denied. CAN's link to cult deprogramming enabled Scientology to file a lawsuit which resulted in a massive fine which added to CAN's legal debt, forcing bankruptcy. Legal maneuvering resulted in Scientology having control of the name and equipment, etc. and files of the old CAN, through Scientology associates. The files were then turned over to the ''Foundation for Religious Freedom'',<ref>http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c19.html</ref> one of many which serve as a "front" group for Scientology, or which are inordinately favorable to them.<ref>http://www.apologeticsindex.org/f00.html#ffrf</ref><ref>http://www.xenu.net/archive/IRS/#VIII</ref><ref>http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/cult-front-groups-latest.htm</ref>

An addition source of controversy has been the death of 36 year old Lisa McPherson at Scientology's Clearwater headquarters, which she was undergoing "care".<ref>http://www.watchman.org/sci/mcpherson.htm</ref>

Doctrinally Scientology is non-Christian (Hubbard even denied there was a Christ<ref>http://www.lermanet2.com/cos/nochrist.html</ref>), and is seen to be manifesting a form of [[New Age]] belief.<ref>http://www.watchman.org/sci/hubrel03.htm</ref> One researcher concludes that it is "an oversimplified form of regular psychotherapy mixed with hypnosis."<ref>Russell Miller,''Bare Faced Messiah'', Chapter 9</ref>

It is also pointed out that Satanist Aleister Crowley, was Hubbard's mentor and he lived with Crowley protege John Parsons, engaging in sex magic at their black magic mansion hospice (Los Angeles Times, 24 June 1990, p. A1).<ref>http://www.watchman.org/profile/sientpro.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/tsos/sos.html</ref>

Liberal religious cult apologist<ref>http://www.rickross.com/apologist.html</ref> J. Gordon Melton dismisses the charge that Scientology is a cult, as he does in regard to certain other dangerous groups.<ref>http://www.apologeticsindex.org/m06.html</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c31.html</ref>

===Negative quotes===
Quotes from Scientology and other material<ref>http://www.xenu.net/archive/judge_quotes.html</ref> <ref>http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/shortquotes.htm</ref><ref>http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/sciequot.htm</ref> are often published in support of the critical position.

<blockquote>
If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace." - L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 15 August 1960, Dept. of Govt. Affairs
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly. - L. Ron Hubbard, A Manual on the dissemination of material.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
So we listen. We add up associations of people with people. When a push against Scientology starts somewhere, we go over the people involved and weed them out. Push vanishes." - L. Ron Hubbard, Manual of justice, 1959
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
A truly Suppressive Person or group has no rights of any kind and actions taken against them are not punishable.- L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 1 March 1965, HCO (Division 1) Ethics, Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists</blockquote>
<blockquote>
[The court record is] replete with evidence [that Scientology] is nothing in reality but a vast enterprise to extract the maximum amount of money from its adepts by pseudo scientific theories… and to exercise a kind of blackmail against persons who do not wish to continue with their sect…. The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder, L.Ron Hubbard.” – Judge Breckenridge, Los Angeles Superior Court
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Scientology is evil; its techniques are evil; its practice is a serious threat to the community, medically, morally, and socially; and its adherents are sadly deluded and often mentally ill… (Scientology is) the world’s largest organization of unqualified persons engaged in the practice of dangerous techniques which masquerade as mental therapy.” – Justice Anderson, Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Scientology is quite likely the most ruthless, the most classically terroristic, the most litigious and the most lucrative cult the country has ever seen. No cult extracts more money from its members."
- Cynthia Kisser, the network's Chicago-based executive director, as quoted in Time, 5/6/91
</blockquote>

==Independent Scientologists==

Since the early 1980's there has been a schism within Scientology. Various members have left the church citing oppressive ethics policies, excessive fundraising, widespread altering of the Hubbard scriptures and dissatisfaction with church practices such as Disconnection and Fair Game. Many of these groups call themselves ''Independent Scientologists'' and some prefer the name ''Free Zoners''. Because the individual practices of these groups vary, it is difficult to characterise them accurately. Some, such as [http://freezoneearth.org/clearbird/clearbird2004/index.htm Clearbird] aim to restore the Tech exactly as Hubbard intended <ref>[http://freezoneearth.org/clearbird/clearbird2004/sub2/appendix/00ktw.htm ClearBirds Keeping Tech Working]</ref>, whereas others prefer to use only those parts of the tech they consider valuable and ignore those parts that are harmful or oppressive, such as [http://www.ronsorg.com/ Ron's Orgs]. A prominent former high ranking member of the Church, Marty Rathbun, offers auditing and other spiritual counselling independent of the Church. He appears to embrace a somewhat liberal approach to Hubbard's writings, publicly stating that some of the teachings of Hubbard are not intended to be believed as ''literally true'' <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JguNbFJo3c Interview with Peter Boyles on KHOW radio in Denver]</ref>.

The official Church of Scientology has a policy of harassing these independent groups. In one classic case, they sent a film crew out to Marty Rathbun's house and harassed him for 6 months under the guise of filming a documentary <ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/scientologys-heretic-how-marty-rathbun-became-the-archenemy-of-l-ron-hubbard-devotees-7618944.html Scientology's 'heretic': How Marty Rathbun became the arch-enemy of L Ron Hubbard devotees, ''The Independent'' 07 April 2012]</ref> They attempted to have Marty Rathbun arrested for assault after he eventually lashed out against one of the film crew. However the police refused to press charges saying: <blockquote>
no jury, they said, would possibly convict Rathbun after learning of the circumstances he had endured during the previous five months. All charges were dropped. "We took a totality of the circumstances," said a spokesman. "We examined the level of provocation and the extent of the injury, which was literally a scratch <ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/scientologys-heretic-how-marty-rathbun-became-the-archenemy-of-l-ron-hubbard-devotees-7618944.html ''The Independednt'', ibid]</ref>.
</blockquote>

It should be noted that the Church of Scientology officially denies their involvement in this harassment, however this is not credible and contradicts other official statements from the Church <ref>[http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/04/scientology_karin_pouw_lori_hodgson.php#more Scientology Admits Connection to Slimy Anonymous Attack Websites, ''Village Voice'' April 13 2012]</ref>

==Further reading==
*[http://www.watchman.org/sci/index.htm Various Christian doctrinal and historical articles on Scientology]
*[http://www.believersweb.org/view.cfm?ID=607 An exhaustive information source on Scientology]
*[http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/scirelg.htm Scientology as a "Religion"]
*[http://www.clambake.org Extensive information critical of Scientology from secular source]
*[http://www.waltermartin.com/scient.html Christian apologist Walter Martin on Scientology, audio and text]
*[http://www.xenutv.com Video source, including report by ABC’s Nightline]

== See also ==
*[[Scientific fraud]]
*[[Forgery]]

==External links ==
* [http://www.scientology.org/home.html Welcome to Scientology.]
* [http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2001/06/What-Scientologists-Believe.aspx Beliefnet: What Scientologists Believe]
* [http://www.scientology.org/#/videos/ Official Church of Scientology]
* [http://www.bonafidescientology.org/ A REFERENCE WORK PRESENTED BY THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL]
* [http://www.abundantgraceministries.org/new_page_5.htm From Science Fiction to Space-age Religion.]
* [http://www.xenu.net/index.html Operation Clambake]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

{{liberalism}}

[[Category: Religion]]
[[Category:Pseudoscience]]
[[Category:Scientology]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Bestiality

2015-03-16T21:17:46Z

VladJ92: /* The first "bestiality rights" organization was founded in secular Europe */

[[File:Loc of Germany.PNG|thumbnail|200px|right|On July 1, 2013 the ''Daily Mail'' reported that bestiality brothels were spreading quickly through [[Germany]]. In addition, there "are even 'erotic zoos' which people can visit to abuse animals ranging from llamas to goats."<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2352779/Bestiality-brothels-spreading-Germany-campaigner-claims-abusers-sex-animals-lifestyle-choice.html]</ref> See: [[Bestiality and Germany]] ]]
'''Bestiality''' is the unbiblical act of a [[human being]] engaging in sexual relations with an [[animal]].
This is a perversion and, under [[Pentateuch|Jewish Law]], punishable by death (see [[Old Testament]] verses such as Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 27:21). In addition to being repulsive and being a sexual [[taboo]] in societies, bestiality can cause harm to both animals and humans.<ref>
*[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/14/denmark-s-bestiality-problem-it-s-legal.html Denmark’s Bestiality Problem: It’s Legal] by Barbie Latza Nadeau, ''The Daily Beast'', 10/14/2014
*[http://aldf.org/resources/laws-cases/the-crime-of-bestialityzoophilia-sexual-assault-of-an-animal/ The Crime of Bestiality/Zoophilia: Sexual Assault of an Animal]
*[https://stopbestiality.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/does-having-sex-with-animals-harm-anyone/ Does having sex with animals harm anyone?]
*[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02512.x/abstract Sex with Animals (SWA): Behavioral Characteristics and Possible Association with Penile Cancer. A Multicenter Study]
*[https://stopbestiality.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/study-links-bestiality-and-penile-cancer/ Study Links Bestiality and Penile Cancer; Women’s Health Risk Too?]
*[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002711400_danny30.html Horse sex story was online hit by Danny Westneat, Seattle Times - December 30, 2005]
*''The International Handbook of Animal Abuse and Cruelty: Theory, Research'', edited by Frank Ascione, pages 217-218</ref>

In 36 of America's states, bestiality is illegal. Alaska is considering a ban.<ref name=ban /> "Florida Sen. Nan Rich, a Democrat, ... says research has shown that people who molest animals are likely to rape or [[molest]] people."<ref name=ban> [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090321/ap_on_re_us/bestiality_law Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality] Anne Sutton - Associated Press - March 21, 2009</ref>

A study found that "Psychiatric patients were found to have a statistically significant higher prevalence rate (55%) of bestiality than the control groups (10% and 15% respectively)."<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1778686 A prevalence study of bestiality (zoophilia) in psychiatric in-patients, medical in-patients, and psychiatric staff - Int J Psychosom. 1991;38(1-4):45-7.]</ref>

== Geographic areas where bestiality is a notable problem ==

''See also:'' [[Geographic areas where bestiality is posing a notable problem]]

In areas of the [[Western World]] where there is a significant amount of [[atheism|atheists]] and [[evolution]]ary belief, there have been notable problems related to bestiality (see: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]).

Below is a list of areas where bestiality is posing notable problems and has been reported in news outlets:

*[[Bestiality and Germany]]
*[[Bestiality and Sweden]]
*[[Denmark and bestiality]]
*[[Netherlands and bestiality]]
*[[Bestiality and Britain]]
*[[Washington state and bestiality]]

=== The first "bestiality rights" organization was founded in secular Europe ===
[[File:Europe pol 2004.jpg|thumbnail|right|160px|The first so called "bestiality/zoophile rights" group, called Equality for All, has its roots in secular Europe and formed in the '90s.<ref>Aug 20 2009 article at Browardbeach.com entitled ''Those Who Practice Bestiality Say They're Part of the Next Sexual Rights Movement''</ref>]]

''See also:'' [[Atheism and bestiality]]

The first so called "bestiality/zoophile rights" group, called Equality for All (EFA), has its roots in secular Europe and formed in the '90s.<ref>Aug 20 2009 article at Browardbeach.com entitled ''Those Who Practice Bestiality Say They're Part of the Next Sexual Rights Movement''</ref> It is located in the Czech Republic and features prominently in ''Coming Soon'', a pro-bestiality film released in 2006 produced in the Czech language and later voiced-over into English. The original Czech version of ''Coming Soon'' premiered at the Festival Finále Plzeň in Plzeň, Czech Republic on April 7, 2006 and the English voice-over premiered in Prague on October 31, 2006. The first public screening of the film outside of the Czech Republic took place in Berlin, where the English verion was screened on March 21, 2008. The English voice-over was first publicly screened in the United States on December 12, 2009 at The Living Theatre in New York City and the event was attended by Peter Singer, who had wrote in favour of the acceptance of bestiality in his 2001 essay "Heavy Petting," published in the online magazine ''Nerve''[http://nerve.com], and praised the film ''Coming Soon'' in 2007.<ref>http://www.comingsoon.cz/php/en_promitani.php</ref><ref>http://www.equalityforall.net/en/news/peter-singer-attends-us-premiere-of-coming-soon</ref><ref>http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001----.htm</ref><ref>http://www.comingsoon.cz/php/en_novinkyahistorie.php?ID=24</ref> In 2012, a zoophile rights group began in Germany, supposedly inspired by EFA. This new group is called "ZETA."<ref>http://www.equalityforall.net/en/news/efa-inspires-new-zoophile-rights-group-in-germany-zeta</ref> According to a 2010 Eurobarometer poll, 16% of Czech citizens responded that "they believe there is a God" which the lowest rate among the countries of the European Union.<ref>[http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_341_en.pdf Eurobarometer Poll in 2010]</ref>

In 2005, the Pew Forum reported:
{{cquote|According to a 2002 Pew Global Attitudes survey, there are striking differences in public opinion between the U.S. and [[Europe|European]] countries on issues such as the importance people attach to religion in their lives and the linkage they perceive between belief in God and morality. The survey shows that a large majority of Americans consider religion important in their personal lives and closely associate religion and morality. Furthermore, Pew Forum surveys over several years show that Americans are generally more comfortable with religion playing a major role in public life. In contrast, Europeans generally place much less importance on religion in their lives, and general indicators show that major churches in Europe are declining in terms of membership, recruitment of clergy, financial contributions and overall public influence. The Pew Forum convened distinguished experts Peter Berger, John Judis and Walter Russell Mead to analyze these differences between the U.S and Europe and to assess their impact on transatlantic relations.<ref>[http://pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Secular-Europe-and-Religious-America-Implications-for-Transatlantic-Relations.aspx Secular Europe and Religious America: Implications for Transatlantic Relations]</ref>}}

== See also ==

*[[Social effects of the theory of evolution]]
*[[Liberalism and bestiality]]
*[[Homosexuality and bestiality]]
*[[Joseph Stalin's ape-men experiments]]

'''Declarations of evolutionist and atheists on bestiality:'''

*[[PZ Myers on bestiality]]
*[[Christopher Hitchens on bestiality]]
*[[Skeptic Skatje Myers' comments on bestiality]] (Daughter of atheist [[PZ Myers]])
*[[Wikipedia on bestiality]]

== External links ==

*[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02512.x/abstract Sex with Animals (SWA): Behavioral Characteristics and Possible Association with Penile Cancer. A Multicenter Study]
*[http://equalityforall.net Equality for All website]
*[http://comingsoon.cz Website of the film ''Coming Soon'']

==Notes==
{{reflist}}
{{Nb bestiality}}
{{Ten Commandments}}

[[Category: Bestiality]]
[[Category: Sin]]
[[Category: Sexuality]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]

Peter Tatchell

2015-03-16T07:03:22Z

VladJ92:

'''Peter Tatchell''' is a prominent British [[gay rights]] and paedophile rights activist, best known for his campaigns to [[outing|out]] prominent [[United Kingdom|British]] establishment figures in the 1980s and 1990s and his opposition to [[Zimbabwe|Zimbabwean]] president [[Robert Mugabe]]'s persecution of [[homosexuality|homosexuals]]. He is also known for his defence of the practise of paedophilia and his affiliation with the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE). He has proclaimed that "not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful."<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1311193/PETER-HITCHENS-Question-Who-said-Not-sex-involving-children-unwanted-abusive-Answer-The-Popes-biggest-British-critic.html#ixzz3UWs4e5tk</ref><ref>http://www.bnp.org.uk/sites/default/files/news/peter-tatchell-with-unison-in-the-background-labour25.jpg</ref>

Born in [[Melbourne]] in 1952, Tatchell was the only child of working-class, [[evangelical]] [[Christian]] parents, whose passionate belief gave him his first taste for missionary work. However, he declares himself to be an [[atheist]]<ref><http://www.secularism.org.uk/comingoutasatheistpetertatchellg.html</ref>.
==References==
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Tatchell, Peter}}
[[category:Activists]]
[[category:Atheists]]
[[Category:British People]]
[[Category:English people]]
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]
[[Category:Sexual Revolutionaries]]

Peter Tatchell

2015-03-16T06:58:54Z

VladJ92:

'''Peter Tatchell''' is a prominent British [[gay rights]] and paedophile rights activist, best known for his campaigns to [[outing|out]] prominent [[United Kingdom|British]] establishment figures in the 1980s and 1990s and his opposition to [[Zimbabwe|Zimbabwean]] president [[Robert Mugabe]]'s persecution of [[homosexuality|homosexuals]]. He is also known for his defence of the practise of paedophilia and his affiliation with the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE). He has proclaimed that "not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful."<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1311193/PETER-HITCHENS-Question-Who-said-Not-sex-involving-children-unwanted-abusive-Answer-The-Popes-biggest-British-critic.html#ixzz3UWs4e5tk</ref><ref>http://www.bnp.org.uk/sites/default/files/news/peter-tatchell-with-unison-in-the-background-labour25.jpg</ref>

Born in [[Melbourne]] in 1952, Tatchell was the only child of working-class, [[evangelical]] [[Christian]] parents, whose passionate belief gave him his first taste for missionary work. However, he declares himself to be an [[atheist]]<ref><http://www.secularism.org.uk/comingoutasatheistpetertatchellg.html</ref>.
==References==
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Tatchell, Peter}}
[[Category:British People]]
[[Category:English people]]
[[category:Activists]]
[[category:Atheists]]
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]

Jim Crow

2015-03-16T06:47:07Z

VladJ92: /* Social mobility for blacks */

[[Image:JimCrow.gif|thumb|Minstrel character "Jim Crow"]]
'''Jim Crow''' was the system of racial segregation in the Southern U.S. from the 1880s to 1964 in which [[African American]]s were segregated (separated) in [[public school]]s and public places, so that they could not mingle in public with whites on equal terms. In addition to segregation, Jim Crow also assured that blacks had little or no political power. It was a low point in [[Black history]] after the euphoria of [[Reconstruction]].

==Supreme Court approves==
The [[Supreme Court]] of the United States held in the ''Civil Rights Cases'' (1883) that the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] did not give the federal government the power to outlaw private discrimination. In an even more important decision, the Court held in ''[[Plessy v. Ferguson]]'' (1896) that Jim Crow laws were constitutional as long as they allowed for "separate but equal" facilities. Everyone knew that the "equal" in "separate but equal" was a technicality, and that gross inequality was tolerated in practice.

==Courts reverse==
After 1945, the [[Civil Rights]] movement gained momentum and used federal courts to attack Jim Crow. The Supreme Court declared legal, or ''de jure'', public school segregation unconstitutional in 1954 in [[Brown vs. Board of Education]]. The federal courts then systematically ended Jim Crow in practice by the 1970s.<ref> Michael J. Klarman, ''From Jim Crow to Civil Rights: The Supreme Court and the Struggle for Racial Equality'' (2006) </ref>

President [[Lyndon B. Johnson]], building a coalition of [[liberal]] [[Democrat]]s and [[conservative]] [[Republicans]] from the north, pushed [[Congress]] to pass the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]], which immediately ended Jim Crow laws that segregated restaurants, hotels and theatres; these facilities (with rare exceptions) immediately dropped racial segregation. In 1965 the federal [[Voting Rights Act]] ended discrimination in voting for all federal, state and local elections.

Conservatives and liberals alike denounce the policy of Jim Crow as an unacceptable violation of the principle of equal rights for all. [[File:Strangecareer.jpg|thumb|200px|the standard history]]

==De Facto Segregation==
"De facto" segregation refers to the practice of segregation, especially in Northern cities, that was in effect by custom and not by law. The court ruling did not stop ''de facto'' or informal segregation. The federal courts tried to end it in school districts by ordering the busing of students to achieve racial balance in the schools. Busing was enormously unpopular (and was never ordered by Congress), and the courts generally ended the practice by the 1990s.

==De Jure segregation==
"De jure" or legal segregation took place when state laws required it, in the South and some border states. These laws mandated the physical separation of the races in order to create a social distance and minimize violence. The facilities purchased by taxpayers for black use was almost always inferior to those provided to whites. The most important laws required that public schools, public places and public transportation, like trains and buses, have separate facilities for whites and blacks. (These Jim Crow Laws were separate from the 1800-66 "Black Codes", which had defined an inferior legal status for free blacks.) State-sponsored school segregation was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1954 in the seminal case of ''[[Brown v. Board of Education]]''. All of the remaining Jim Crow laws were overruled by the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]] and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

During the [[Reconstruction]] period of 1863-77, federal law provided civil rights protection in the South for freedmen—the African-Americans who had formerly been slaves. Reconstruction ended at different dates (the latest 1877), and was followed in each southern state by [[Redeemers|Redeemer]] governments that passed the Jim Crow laws to separate the races. In the [[Progressive Era]], the restrictions were formalized, and segregation was extended to the federal government when the Democrats held the White House, 1913-21.

==Origins==
In the first stage of "Presidential Reconstruction," from 1865-66, the all-white southern legislatures abolished laws regarding slavery but passed the black codes, which gave new rights to the freedmen but fewer than whites possessed. The codes were not actually enforced but they caused a sharp reaction in the North. The [[Radical Republicans]] passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which gave freedmen legal rights (but not the right to vote). The country passed the 14th and 15th Amendments to the [[United States Constitution]] by 1870, guaranteeing civil rights and the right to vote. The southern states came under Republican control— a party comprising the Freedmen, white Southerners ("[[Scalawags]]") and migrants from the North ([Carpetbaggers]]. The [[Ku Klux Klan]] and related groups reacted violently, but they were suppressed by President [[Ulysses S. Grant]] using the federal courts and troops. By 1877, the conservatives and Democrats, forming a Redeemer coalition, ousted all the Republican governments. From 1877 until the 1970s, the Southern Democrats largely controlled every southern state.

===Redeemers===
After 1877, the [[Redeemers]] reversed many of the civil rights gains that African Americans had made during Reconstruction, passing laws that mandated discrimination by both local governments and by private citizens. Since "Jim Crow law" is a blanket term for any of this type of legislation, the date of inception for the laws varies by state. The most important laws came in the 1890s with the adoption of legislation segregating railroad cars in [[New Orleans]] as the first genuine Jim Crow law. By 1915, every southern state had effectively destroyed the gains in civil rights and liberties that blacks had enjoyed from the Reconstructionist efforts.

Many of the discriminatory Jim Crow laws were enacted to support [[racial segregation]] in everyday life. They required black and white people to use separate water fountains, public schools, public bath houses, restaurants, public libraries, buses and rail cars—even without legal segregation.

In the south, before the resort to widespread legal segregation around 1890, ''de facto'' segregation had replaced exclusion in southern race relations. The integration stage was largely bypassed. Radical measures helped to institutionalize this shift to segregation. Both white Republicans and Redeemers came to embrace the new segregation policies, though often for different reasons. Even the attitudes of blacks helped to assure the shift. Lack of white support, black self-respect, economic pressures, tactical emphasis on securing better "separate but equal" facilities, and the development of group identity all shaped blacks' attitudes.<ref> Howard N. Rabinowitz, "From Exclusion To Segregation: Southern Race Relations, 1865-1890." ''Journal of American History 1976'' 63(2): 325-350. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1899640 in JSTOR]</ref>

Virginia Governor [[James L. Kemper]] (1874-77) and like-minded conservatives sought interracial peace and implemented racial policies which were less anti-Negro and which gave fuller recognition than historians have conceded. The Virginia Redeemers attempted to shape race relations to conform to what C. Vann Woodward has defined as the conservative philosophy. Kemper and the Virginia Redeemers deserve to rank in history alongside the Wade Hamptons and other proponents of the conservative philosophy.<ref> Robert R. Jones, "James L. Kemper and the Virginia Redeemers Face the Race Question: A Reconsideration." ''Journal of Southern History'' 1972 38(3): 393-414. 0022-4642 </ref>

The Redeemer system of Jim Crow meant that for the first time black teachers and principals controlled black education. Rabinowitz (1974) studies the transformation from white to black teachers in southern schools in the post-Civil War years, using the experiences of five southern cities to provide a cross-section: Atlanta, Georgia; Raleigh, North Carolina; Nashville, Tennessee; Montgomery, Alabama; and Richmond, Virginia. Among the problems the Redeemers confronted were such matters as the removal of northern missionary ties and teachers in order to reassert southern control of the school system, the black demand for black teachers which was often accepted since it meant cheaper teachers, and the resultant black demand for equal salary for equal work, a demand usually denied. African Americans tried to obtain better quality instruction for their children, more administrative positions, and positions on the school board, but were usually unsuccessful. Ironically, since some schools became entirely black, insistence upon black instructors made it easier for the whites to discriminate.<ref> Howard N. Rabinowitz, "Half a Loaf: The Shift from White to Black Teachers in the Negro Schools of the Urban South, 1865-1890." ''Journal of Southern History'' 1974 40(4):565-594. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2206355 in JSTOR] </ref>

===Voting disfranchisement===
Between 1890 and 1920, many state governments prevented most blacks from voting by various techniques, such as poll taxes (a person had to pay a voluntary tax to vote) and fake literacy tests (that whites always passed but blacks always failed).<ref>Whites who would be limited by the voting laws were protected by "grandfather clauses"--they could vote if their grandfather could vote. These clauses were found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1915.</ref> Of 181,000 African-American males of voting age in [[Alabama]] in 1900, only 3,000 were registered to vote. Typically, the ministers and ten to fifty prominent blacks in every county were allowed to vote.

==Segregation approved by the courts==
Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875, legislation introduced by [[Charles Sumner]] and [[Benjamin F. Butler]]. It seemed to guarantee that everyone, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, was entitled to the same treatment in "public accommodations" (inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement).

In 1883, the Supreme Court restricted the Civil Rights Act of 1875 to actions by state and local government. It ruled Congress could not control private persons or corporations. After Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875, it did not pass another civil rights law until 1957.

In 1890, Louisiana passed a law requiring separate accommodations for colored and white passengers on railroads. Louisiana law distinguished between "white," "black" and "colored" (that is, people of mixed white and black ancestry). The law already had provided that blacks could not ride with white people, but colored people could ride with whites prior to 1890. A group of concerned black, colored and white citizens in New Orleans formed an association dedicated to the repeal of the law. They had Homer Plessy purchase a first-class railroad ticket. Plessy was directed to leave that car and sit instead in the "coloreds only" car. He refused and was immediately arrested. The Citizens Committee of New Orleans fought the case all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. They lost in 1896, and ''[[Plessy v. Ferguson]]'' validated the segregation laws as constitutional.

Jim Crow was supported politically by nearly all white politicians. To do otherwise was political death. The southern states formed a "Solid South" -- that is the region voted for (almost) all Democratic candidates at the state level, and was a powerful bloc in presidential elections.<ref> Republicans [[Herbert Hoover]] in 1928 and [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] in 1952 and 1956 were the only Republicans to win notable support in the white South between 1876 and 1960.</ref> The Democrats dominated all aspects of local, state, and federal political life in the post-Civil War South, into the 1970s and 1980s. In 1956, nearly all Southern Congressmen and Senators signed the "Southern Manifesto," condemning the Supreme Court's ruling in ''Brown v. Board of Education.''

===Black opposition===
[[Booker T. Washington]] publicly accepted Jim Crow, but secretly financed numerous cases in federal court that chipped away at the system. In general, the black community in the South quietly accepted the system and did not cause trouble. In the North the black political leadership routinely denounced Jim Crow in the South (where it was part of state law) and ignored informal Jim Crow in the North.

When black soldiers returning from World War II recoiled at the second class Jim Crow citizenship in the South, the movement for [[Civil Rights]] was renewed. The NAACP Legal Defense Committee (a group independent of the NAACP)—and its lawyer [[Thurgood Marshall]]—brought the landmark case ''[[Brown v. Board of Education|Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka]]'', before the Supreme Court.<ref>The main NAACP is often assumed to be involved in the case. Not true; the totally separate NAACP Legal Defense Committee handled it all. </ref> In 1954, the court under [[Earl Warren]] unanimously overturned the 1896 Plessy decision in its ruling; Thurgood Marshall later became the first black Supreme Court Justice.

===Social mobility for blacks===
Jim Crow limited black upward mobility and opportunity. Therefore millions moved to northern cities in the [[Great Migration]] (1917-1960).

African-American entertainers, musicians, and literary figures had separate, small niches in the world of art and culture in the North. The most successful writers formed the "[[Harlem Renaissance]]" of the 1920s in New York City, Jazz musicians developed their new music in Jim Crow Memphis and New Orleans, and took it north to Chicago and New York to largely black audiences (whites could hear jazz in the North, but were not allowed in all-black venues in the South).{{citation needed}}

African-American athletes found Jim Crow stood against them nationally. By 1900, white opposition to African-American boxers, baseball players, track athletes, and basketball players kept them segregated and limited in what they could do. But their prowess and abilities in all-African-American teams and sporting events could not be denied, and the barriers to African-American participation in all the major sports began to crumble in the 1950s and 1960s, especially in the wake of the spectacular breakthrough of [[Jackie Robinson]] into baseball in 1947 in Brooklyn.

==Twentieth century==
In the 20th century, the Supreme Court began to overturn a few Jim Crow laws on constitutional grounds. In ''[[Buchanan v. Warley]]'' 245 US 60 (1917), the court held that Kentucky could not require residential segregation. The Supreme Court in 1946, in ''Irene Morgan v. Virginia'' ruled segregation in interstate transportation to be unconstitutional, though its reasoning stemmed from the [[commerce clause]] of the Constitution rather than any moral objection to the practice. The impact of these Court decisions was small, but they set the legal basis for the major breakthrough in 1954.

In 1954 in ''Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka'' 347 US 483 that the Court under the firm guidance of Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] unanimously held that separate facilities were inherently unequal in the area of public schools. It effectively overturning ''Plessy v. Ferguson'', and outlawing Jim Crow in other areas of society as well. A series of followup decisions slowly dismantled the state-sponsored school segregation laws, but left standing most segregation in practice.
[[File:Jimcrow1.jpg|thumb|375px|Cafe in Durham, North Carolina, 1940. with separate doors and seating for "White" and for "Colored." Most restaurants and theaters in theSouth had separate seating sections. Jack Delano, [[FSA]] photographer]]
Besides state laws that compelled segregation of the races, private organizations were almost wholly segregated in the South.

===Informal segregation===
Most clubs and labior unions in the North excluded blacks--not on the basis of state law but on the basis of their own rules and traditions. Blacks could not buy houses in certain neighborhoods, nor join labor unions that controlled access to many skilled trades.

The Supreme Court undercut private discrimination in ''Shelley v. Kraemer'' 334 US 1 (1948), in which it held that "restrictive covenants" that barred sale of homes to blacks or Jews or Asians could not be enforced in courts. The restrictive covenants, however, remained in place until 1964.

The Supreme Court was unwilling, however, to attack other forms of de facto private discrimination; it reasoned that private parties did not violate the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution when they discriminated, because they were not "state actors" covered by that clause.

After World War II, as attitudes in the Federal courts turned against segregation, the segregationist white governments of many of the states of the Southeast countered with even more numerous and strict segregation laws on the local level until the start of the 1960s. The modern Civil Rights movement has been dated to the action of Birmingham leaders who sent [[Rosa Parks]] to refuse to give up her seat on a bus to a white man after being ordered to do so by the bus driver. This act of civil disobedience, and the demonstrations that it spawned, led to a series of legislation and court decisions in which Jim Crow laws were repealed.

The Montgomery Bus Boycott led by Reverend [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]] which followed Rosa Parks' action, was not an isolated case. Numerous boycotts and demonstrations against segregation had occurred throughout the 1930s and 1940s. These early demonstrations achieved positive results and helped spark political activism. For instance, K. Leroy Irvis of Pittsburgh's Urban League led a demonstration against employment discrimination by Pittsburgh's department stores in 1947, and he became the first 20th century African-American to serve as a state Speaker of the House.

In 1964, the U.S. Congress attacked the parallel system of private Jim Crow practices. It invoked the commerce clause to pass the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]], which outlawed discrimination in public accommodations (privately owned restaurants, hotels, and stores, and in private schools and workplaces). This use of the commerce clause was upheld in ''Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States'' 379 US 241 (1964).

In 1971, the Supreme Court, in [[Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education]], upheld busing of students to achieve integration.

===End of ''de jure'' segregation===
In January, 1964, President [[Lyndon Johnson]] met with civil rights leaders. Johnson had long disliked Jim Crow, and now had the votes in Congress to end it. In his first State of the Union address in January 1964, Johnson asked Congress to "let this session of Congress be known as the session which did more for civil rights than the last hundred sessions combined." Johnson mobilized support from northern members of Congress of both parties, with strong grass roots support from Protestant churches, liberal labor unions, and civil rights activists. Support was increased by a flow of negative publicity from the South, such as the murder of three civil rights workers in Neshoba County, Mississippi. On July 2, President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

==Origins of imagery==
The "father of American minstrelsy" was Thomas Dartmouth "Daddy" Rice, who, between 1828 and 1831, developed a song-and-dance routine in which he impersonated an old, crippled black slave, dubbed Jim Crow. <ref>http://www.pitt.edu/~amerimus/minstrel.htm</ref>

On the eve of the Civil War, the universal image of the silly Jim Crow minstrel character provided one of many stereotypical images of black inferiority that were a fundamental component of white popular culture. By the 1890s, the term had come to mean the separation of blacks from whites and the general customs and laws that subordinated blacks as an inferior people. <ref>http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/scripts/jimcrow/glossary.cgi</ref>

==Basic further reading==
* Bond, Horace Mann. “The Extent and Character of Separate Schools in the United States.” ''Journal of Negro Education'' 4(July 1935):321–27. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2984(193507)4%3A3%3C321%3ATEACOS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W in JSTOR], by a leading black scholar
* Woodward, C. Vann. ''The Strange Career of Jim Crow'' (1955) Highly influential classic history by Pulitzer prize winner. [http://www.amazon.com/Strange-Career-Jim-Crow/dp/0195146905/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200610418&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]; [http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=acls;cc=acls;view=toc;idno=heb02029.0001.001 complete text online at ACLS e-books], by a leading white scholar; a highly influential book
==Bibliography==
* Ayers, Edward L. ''The Promise of the New South'' (1992), a general history of the South in the late 19th century [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=90462753 online edition]
* Barnes, Catherine A. ''Journey from Jim Crow: The Desegregation of Southern Transit'' , 1983.
* Bartley, Numan V. ''The Rise of Massive Resistance: Race and Politics in the South during the 1950s'' (1969).
* Bond, Horace Mann. “The Extent and Character of Separate Schools in the United States.” ''Journal of Negro Education'' 4(July 1935):321–27. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2984(193507)4%3A3%3C321%3ATEACOS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W in JSTOR]
* Chafe, William Henry, Raymond Gavins, and Robert Korstad, eds. ''Remembering Jim Crow: African Americans Tell About Life in the Segregated South'' (2003) [http://www.amazon.com/Remembering-Jim-Crow-Americans-Segregated/dp/1565847784/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200610418&sr=8-9 excerpt and text search]
* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=283998&high=%20Gabriel%20CHin Gabriel Chin & Hrishi Karthikeyan, Preserving Racial Identity: Population Patterns and the Application of Anti-Miscegenation Statutes to Asians, 1910 to 1950, 9 Asian L.J. (2002)]
* Dailey, Jane, Glenda Elizabeth Gilmore, and Bryant Simon, eds. ''Jumpin' Jim Crow: Southern Politics from Civil War to Civil Rights'' (2000), essays by scholars on impact of Jim Crow on black communities [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5002470890 online edition]
* Egerton, John. ''Speak Now Against the Day: The Generation Before the Civil Rights Movement in the South.'' (1994).
* Fairclough, Adam. "'Being in the Field of Education and Also Being a Negro…Seems…Tragic': Black Teachers in the Jim Crow South." ''Journal of American History'' 87 (June 2000): 65–91. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8723(200006)87%3A1%3C65%3A%22ITFOE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G in JSTOR]
* Feldman, Glenn. ''Politics, Society, and the Klan in Alabama, 1915–1949''. (1999). [http://www.questia.com/library/book/politics-society-and-the-klan-in-alabama-1915-1949-by-glenn-feldman.jsp online edition]
* Fireside, Harvey. ''Separate and Unequal: Homer Plessy and the Supreme Court Decision That Legalized Racism'', (2004).
* Foner, Eric. ''Reconstruction, America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877'' (1988), ISBN 0-06-015851-4, standard history of Reconstruction from [[neoabolitionist]] school
* Gaines, Kevin. ''Uplifting the Race: Black Leadership, Politics, and Culture in the Twentieth Century'' (1996). [http://www.questia.com/library/book/uplifting-the-race-black-leadership-politics-and-culture-in-the-twentieth-century-by-kevin-k-gaines.jsp online edition]
* Gilmore, Glenda Elizabeth. ''Gender and Jim Crow Women and the Politics of White Supremacy in North Carolina, 1896-1920'' (1996) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=94820628 online edition]; also [http://www.amazon.com/Gender-Jim-Crow-Supremacy-1896-1920/dp/0807845965/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200610418&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search]
* Griffin, John Howard. ''Black Like Me'' (1996) A Southern white reporter darkens his skin to experience segregation in the Deep South in 1959.
* Haws, Robert, ed. ''The Age of Segregation: Race Relations in the South, 1890– 1945'', 1978.
* Hackney, Sheldon. ''Populism to Progressivism in Alabama'' (1969)
* Kantrowitz, Stephen. ''Ben Tillman & the Reconstruction of White Supremacy'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Tillman-Reconstruction-Supremacy-Morrison-Southern/dp/0807848395/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200613294&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Kantrowitz, Stephen. "Ben Tillman and Hendrix McLane, Agrarian Rebels: White Manhood, 'The Farmers,' and the Limits of Southern Populism," ''The Journal of Southern History,'' Vol. 66, No. 3 (Aug., 2000), pp. 497-524 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-4642(200008)66%3A3%3C497%3ABTAHMA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K in JSTOR]
* Kennedy, Randall. ''Martin Luther King's Constitution: a Legal History of the Montgomery Bus Boycott,'' 98 Yale Law Journal 999-1067 (April, 1989) pp 999-1067 [http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/civilrights03.htm online edition without footnotes]; [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0044-0094(198904)98%3A6%3C999%3AMLKCAL%3E2.0.CO;2-E complete edition from JSTOR]
* Klarman, Michael J. ''From Jim Crow to Civil Rights: The Supreme Court and the Struggle for Racial Equality'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Jim-Crow-Civil-Rights-Struggle/dp/0195310187/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200610418&sr=8-14 excerpt and text search]
* Lipsitz, George. "'Swing Low, Sweet Cadillac': White Supremacy, Antiblack Racism, and the New Historicism," ''American Literary History,'' Vol. 7, No. 4 (Winter, 1995), pp. 700-725 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0896-7148(199524)7%3A4%3C700%3A%22LSCWS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8 in JSTOR]
* Litwack, Leon F. ''Trouble in Mind: Black Southerners in the Age of Jim Crow'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Mind-Black-Southerners-Crow/dp/039452778X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200613319&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* McMillen, Neil R. ''Dark Journey: Black Mississippians in the Age of Jim Crow. '' (1989). [http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Journey-Black-Mississippians-Crow/dp/025206156X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200610311&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Myrdal, Gunnar. ''An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy'' (1944). Highly influential and detailed analysis of the Jim Crow system in operation. [http://www.amazon.com/American-Dilemma-Problem-Democracy-African-American/dp/1560008571/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200610342&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search]
* Newby, I. A. ''Jim Crow's Defense: Anti-Negro Thought in America, 1900-1930'' (1965)
* Percy, William Alexander. ''Lanterns on the Levee: Recollections of a Planter's Son.'' (1941). by conservative white planter [http://www.amazon.com/Lanterns-Levee-Recollections-Planters-Son/dp/1406728357/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200610379&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]
* Rabinowitz, Howard N. ''Race Relations in the Urban South, 1856–1890'' (1978)
* Ritterhouse, Jennifer. ''Growing Up Jim Crow: The Racial Socialization of Black and White Southern Children, 1890-1940.'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Growing-Jim-Crow-Socialization-1890-1940/dp/0807856843/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200610418&sr=8-11 excerpt and text search]
* Smith, John David, ed. ''When Did Southern Segregation Begin?'' (2001), 194pp [http://www.amazon.com/Southern-Segregation-Begin-Historians-Palgrave/dp/0312237057/ref=pd_bbs_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200616609&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]
* Smith, J. Douglas. ''Managing White Supremacy: Race, Politics, and Citizenship in Jim Crow Virginia'', (2002) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=101423964 online edition]
* Smith, J. Douglas. "The Campaign for Racial Purity and the Erosion of Paternalism in Virginia, 1922–1930: 'Nominally White, Biologically Mixed, and Legally Negro.'" ''Journal of Southern History'' 68 (February 2002): 65–106. [http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5002455235 online edition]
* Sterner, Richard. ''The Negro's share: a study of income, consumption, housing, and public assistance'' (1943), statistical analysis of 1930s [http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.02857 ACLS E-book]
* Williams, Juan, and Julian Bond. ''Eyes on the Prize: America's Civil Rights Years, 1954-1965'' (1988) [http://www.amazon.com/Eyes-Prize-Americas-1954-1965-American/dp/0140096531/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200610805&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Woodward, C. Vann. ''The Strange Career of Jim Crow'' (1955) Highly influential classic history by Pulitzer prize winner. [http://www.amazon.com/Strange-Career-Jim-Crow/dp/0195146905/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200610418&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]; [http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=acls;cc=acls;view=toc;idno=heb02029.0001.001 complete text online at ACLS e-books]
* Woodward, C. Vann. ''The Origins of the New South: 1877-1913'' (1951). [http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=acls;cc=acls;view=toc;idno=heb00007.0001.001 complete text online at ACLS e-books]

==See also==
*[[Black History]]
*[[Civil Rights]]
*[[Civil Rights Movement]]
*[[Reconstruction]]
*[[Racism]]
*[[Earl Warren]]

==External links==
*[http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/series/program1.htm History of Jim Crow] - [[PBS]] series
*[http://www.pitt.edu/~amerimus/minstrel.htm Minstrelsy] - Center for American Music
*[http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/scripts/jimcrow/glossary.cgi Encyclopedia of Jim Crow]
====Notes====
<references/>
[[category:United States History]]
[[category:Civil Rights]]
[[category:Reconstruction]]
[[Category:Black History]]
[[Category:The South]]
[[Category:1960s]]

Peter Singer

2015-03-16T06:35:17Z

VladJ92:

[[File:Peter-Singer.jpg|right|thumbnail|250px|The [[atheist]] philosopher Peter Singer defends the practice of [[bestiality]] (as well as [[abortion]] and [[euthanasia]]). Despite holding these immoral views the [[liberal]] and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]].<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview]*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> See: [[Atheism and bestiality]] ]]
'''Peter Singer''' is an Australian philosopher who has concentrated on such topics as [[abortion]], [[animal rights]], [[euthanasia]] and ending world [[poverty]]. He is an atheist, and this in some ways influences his ideas. According to [[Creation Ministries International]], Peter Singer defends the practice of [[abortion]] and [[euthanasia]]). He has stated that [[bestiality]] is not immoral, on the grounds that he believes humans are also animals, but nevertheless has said that it is neither natural nor normal (but at the same time questions what the words "natural" and "normal" mean).<ref>http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001----.htm</ref> When interviewed on The Colbert Report in December 2006 Singer stated that he was "not in favour" of humans having sex with animals. Despite holding these immoral views the [[liberal]] and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]].<ref>[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview]</ref><ref>[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]</ref> Peter Singer was installed as the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University in 1999 and in 2006 it was reported that he still worked part-time in that capacity.<ref>[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview]</ref>

Singer wrote the book ''Animal Liberation'', which puts [[animals and people]] on the same moral level.<ref>''[[Newsweek]]'' wrote, "The modern [[animal rights]] movement may be dated to the 1975 publication of ''Animal Liberation'' by Australian philosopher Peter Singer."http://www.amazon.com/Animal-Liberation-Peter-Singer/dp/0060011572</ref>
Singer is best known for advocating the killing of severely disabled newborn infants at the discretion of their parents. Some have alleged that the conditions that he considers sufficiently acceptable for active infanticide include [[Down syndrome]], [[spina bifida]], and [[hemophilia]].<ref>http://www.social-ecology.org/article.php?story=20031202122825648</ref> However, Singer has directly denied this, claiming that his statements were distorted and taken out of context.<ref>''Writings on an Ethical Life'' pp. 325</ref>

He is currently Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at [[Princeton University]] and Laureate Professor at the [[University of Melbourne]]'s Center for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics.<ref>http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/</ref>

In his latest book, ''The Life You Can Save'', he advocates donating to Third-World countries, even at the expense of local church groups and other local charities well in need of money. Singer argues that it is morally wrong for wealthier individuals to spend their money on luxuries when others are deprived. He claims to donate 25% of his own income to charities and feels that this is still inadequate and should be increased.<ref>http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/faq.html</ref>

== See Also ==

* [[Atheism and bestiality]]
* [[Utilitarianism]]
* [[Abortion]]
* [[Euthanasia]]
* [[Environmentalism]]

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
[http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/ Peter Singer's Home page]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Singer, Peter}}
[[category:philosophers]]
[[category:authors]]

Bestiality

2015-03-16T06:09:19Z

VladJ92:

[[File:Loc of Germany.PNG|thumbnail|200px|right|On July 1, 2013 the ''Daily Mail'' reported that bestiality brothels were spreading quickly through [[Germany]]. In addition, there "are even 'erotic zoos' which people can visit to abuse animals ranging from llamas to goats."<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2352779/Bestiality-brothels-spreading-Germany-campaigner-claims-abusers-sex-animals-lifestyle-choice.html]</ref> See: [[Bestiality and Germany]] ]]
'''Bestiality''' is the unbiblical act of a [[human being]] engaging in sexual relations with an [[animal]].
This is a perversion and, under [[Pentateuch|Jewish Law]], punishable by death (see [[Old Testament]] verses such as Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 27:21). In addition to being repulsive and being a sexual [[taboo]] in societies, bestiality can cause harm to both animals and humans.<ref>
*[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/14/denmark-s-bestiality-problem-it-s-legal.html Denmark’s Bestiality Problem: It’s Legal] by Barbie Latza Nadeau, ''The Daily Beast'', 10/14/2014
*[http://aldf.org/resources/laws-cases/the-crime-of-bestialityzoophilia-sexual-assault-of-an-animal/ The Crime of Bestiality/Zoophilia: Sexual Assault of an Animal]
*[https://stopbestiality.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/does-having-sex-with-animals-harm-anyone/ Does having sex with animals harm anyone?]
*[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02512.x/abstract Sex with Animals (SWA): Behavioral Characteristics and Possible Association with Penile Cancer. A Multicenter Study]
*[https://stopbestiality.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/study-links-bestiality-and-penile-cancer/ Study Links Bestiality and Penile Cancer; Women’s Health Risk Too?]
*[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002711400_danny30.html Horse sex story was online hit by Danny Westneat, Seattle Times - December 30, 2005]
*''The International Handbook of Animal Abuse and Cruelty: Theory, Research'', edited by Frank Ascione, pages 217-218</ref>

In 36 of America's states, bestiality is illegal. Alaska is considering a ban.<ref name=ban /> "Florida Sen. Nan Rich, a Democrat, ... says research has shown that people who molest animals are likely to rape or [[molest]] people."<ref name=ban> [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090321/ap_on_re_us/bestiality_law Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality] Anne Sutton - Associated Press - March 21, 2009</ref>

A study found that "Psychiatric patients were found to have a statistically significant higher prevalence rate (55%) of bestiality than the control groups (10% and 15% respectively)."<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1778686 A prevalence study of bestiality (zoophilia) in psychiatric in-patients, medical in-patients, and psychiatric staff - Int J Psychosom. 1991;38(1-4):45-7.]</ref>

== Geographic areas where bestiality is a notable problem ==

''See also:'' [[Geographic areas where bestiality is posing a notable problem]]

In areas of the [[Western World]] where there is a significant amount of [[atheism|atheists]] and [[evolution]]ary belief, there have been notable problems related to bestiality (see: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]).

Below is a list of areas where bestiality is posing notable problems and has been reported in news outlets:

*[[Bestiality and Germany]]
*[[Bestiality and Sweden]]
*[[Denmark and bestiality]]
*[[Netherlands and bestiality]]
*[[Bestiality and Britain]]
*[[Washington state and bestiality]]

=== The first "bestiality rights" organization was founded in secular Europe ===
[[File:Europe pol 2004.jpg|thumbnail|right|160px|The first so called "bestiality/zoophile rights" group, called Equality for All, has its roots in secular Europe and formed in the '90s.<ref>Aug 20 2009 article at Browardbeach.com entitled ''Those Who Practice Bestiality Say They're Part of the Next Sexual Rights Movement''</ref>]]

''See also:'' [[Atheism and bestiality]]

The first so called "bestiality/zoophile rights" group, called Equality for All (EFA), has its roots in secular Europe and formed in the '90s.<ref>Aug 20 2009 article at Browardbeach.com entitled ''Those Who Practice Bestiality Say They're Part of the Next Sexual Rights Movement''</ref> It is located in the Czech Republic and features prominently in ''Coming Soon'', a pro-bestiality film released in 2006 produced in the Czech language and later voiced-over into English. The original Czech version of ''Coming Soon'' premiered at the Festival Finále Plzeň in Plzeň, Czech Republic and the English voice-over premiered in the United States on December 12, 2009 at The Living Theatre in New York City and was attended by Peter Singer, who had wrote in favour of the acceptance of bestiality in his 2001 essay "Heavy Petting," published in the online magazine ''Nerve''[http://nerve.com], and praised the film ''Coming Soon'' in 2007.<ref>http://www.comingsoon.cz/php/en_promitani.php</ref><ref>http://www.equalityforall.net/en/news/peter-singer-attends-us-premiere-of-coming-soon</ref><ref>http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001----.htm</ref><ref>http://www.comingsoon.cz/php/en_novinkyahistorie.php?ID=24</ref> In 2012, a zoophile rights group began in Germany, supposedly inspired by EFA. This new group is called "ZETA."<ref>http://www.equalityforall.net/en/news/efa-inspires-new-zoophile-rights-group-in-germany-zeta</ref> According to a 2010 Eurobarometer poll, 16% of Czech citizens responded that "they believe there is a God" which the lowest rate among the countries of the European Union.<ref>[http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_341_en.pdf Eurobarometer Poll in 2010]</ref>

In 2005, the Pew Forum reported:
{{cquote|According to a 2002 Pew Global Attitudes survey, there are striking differences in public opinion between the U.S. and [[Europe|European]] countries on issues such as the importance people attach to religion in their lives and the linkage they perceive between belief in God and morality. The survey shows that a large majority of Americans consider religion important in their personal lives and closely associate religion and morality. Furthermore, Pew Forum surveys over several years show that Americans are generally more comfortable with religion playing a major role in public life. In contrast, Europeans generally place much less importance on religion in their lives, and general indicators show that major churches in Europe are declining in terms of membership, recruitment of clergy, financial contributions and overall public influence. The Pew Forum convened distinguished experts Peter Berger, John Judis and Walter Russell Mead to analyze these differences between the U.S and Europe and to assess their impact on transatlantic relations.<ref>[http://pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Secular-Europe-and-Religious-America-Implications-for-Transatlantic-Relations.aspx Secular Europe and Religious America: Implications for Transatlantic Relations]</ref>}}

== See also ==

*[[Social effects of the theory of evolution]]
*[[Liberalism and bestiality]]
*[[Homosexuality and bestiality]]
*[[Joseph Stalin's ape-men experiments]]

'''Declarations of evolutionist and atheists on bestiality:'''

*[[PZ Myers on bestiality]]
*[[Christopher Hitchens on bestiality]]
*[[Skeptic Skatje Myers' comments on bestiality]] (Daughter of atheist [[PZ Myers]])
*[[Wikipedia on bestiality]]

== External links ==

*[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02512.x/abstract Sex with Animals (SWA): Behavioral Characteristics and Possible Association with Penile Cancer. A Multicenter Study]
*[http://equalityforall.net Equality for All website]
*[http://comingsoon.cz Website of the film ''Coming Soon'']

==Notes==
{{reflist}}
{{Nb bestiality}}
{{Ten Commandments}}

[[Category: Bestiality]]
[[Category: Sin]]
[[Category: Sexuality]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]

Armand Hammer

2015-03-15T06:40:58Z

VladJ92:

'''Armand Hammer''' (b. 1898, d. 1991) was an [[United States of America|American]] financier and philanthropist. His parents, Julius and Rose Hammer were Russian emigres who had made and lost a fortune in shipbuilding. His name is a pun on the "Arm and Hammer" brand of bicarbonate of soda which his family used when they arrived in their new home. Using his Russian origins and business contacts Armand Hammer managed to become an intermediary between five [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] general-secretaries and US presidents from [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] to [[Richard Nixon]].

Hammer made his fortune through a range of entrepreneurial activities including selling pharmaceuticals and wheat to Russia then importing caviar and furs to the U.S.A. in return. Hammer moved to Russia to oversee a [[pencil]]-making factory and export business but following [[Stalin]]'s accession to power, Hammer left Russia taking with him many Russian paintings which he used to found the Hammer Galleries in [[New York]].

Retiring to [[Los Angeles]] in 1961 Hammer used his fortune to buy [[Occidental Petroleum]], a company that was nearly bankrupt at the time. However, by 1965 Occidental had become a major force in the oil industry. Hammer was convicted of making illegal contributions to Richard Nixon's re-election campaign, and was fined $3,000 and put on a year's probation. In 1989, President [[George H.W. Bush|Bush]] pardoned him.

==References & Notes==
*Chambers Dictionary of World History
*[http://www.oxy.com/About%20Oxy/who_we_are/history.htm Occidental Petroleum: History]

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Commerce]]

Abortion in Ireland

2015-03-14T23:33:42Z

VladJ92:

[[Image:Flag of Ireland.png|right|200px|thumb|]]
'''Abortion in Ireland''' consists of no reported cases. [[Abortion]] has long been illegal in [[Ireland]], partially due to the influence of the Roman Catholic Church. One of the reasons Irish people voted against the Lisbon Treaty was that Ireland would be forced to accept the [[European Union]]'s pro-abortion laws. After the Irish rejected the referendum, the EU agreed to allow Ireland to preserve their pro-life stance before putting the vote to the people again.

But several thousand residents of Ireland travel each year to other countries, particularly [[Britain]] in order to have abortions performed.<ref>http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-ireland.html</ref>
{{Abortion}}
== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:abortion]]
[[Category: Ireland]]
[[Category: European Union]]

Same-sex marriage

2015-03-11T07:09:33Z

VladJ92: /* Background */

'''Same-sex "marriage"''' (also called '''homosexual "marriage"''' or '''"gay 'marriage'"''') is a [[liberal]] attempt to advance the [[homosexual agenda]] and force the public to pay benefits for relationships that are not procreative and typically are not even monogamous. This is contrary to thousands of years of success based on a one-man/one-woman marriage system and in direct violation of the [[Bible]]<ref>It's a direct challenge to and nullification of Genesis 2:24, ''Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife''; of coarse, not every child has a mother and father anyway, so God must be unfair as well, the atheist theorizes. </ref> and most other religious teachings.<ref>"Same-sex marriage uses force of secular law to justify what the scripture of ''most modern religions'' has clearly labeled a sin: i.e., [[homosexual]] relations. At least one nation that has adopted same-sex marriage now requires the largest Christian church there to perform them also{{Citation needed}}, despite its clear contradiction with the [[Bible]].</ref>

In [[Norway]] and [[Sweden]], the adoption of same-sex marriage has led to a loss in respect for the marriage institution itself even for traditional couples.{{Citation needed}} In [[Massachusetts]], the legalization of same-sex marriage led to a decline in property values.{{Citation needed}} Also in response to the introduction of same-sex marriage the State Department of Public Health changed marriage certificates to read "Party A" and "Party B" instead of husband and wife.{{Citation needed}}

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 donations from gay persons for his reelection -- rushed to prop up the [[homosexual agenda]] by endorsing same-sex marriage after its stunning defeat in this [[swing state]].

Some studies and polls about same-sex marriage conducted in a few countries generally indicate support for same-sex marriage increases with higher levels of education,<ref>This of course means only stupid people would oppose gay marriage. Rational arguments using this type of "evidence" in public policy debates can also be known as "[[bully|bullying]]".</ref> and that younger people are more likely to support the legalization of it than older generations.<ref>{{cite web|title=Survey - Generations at Odds: The Millennial Generation and the Future of Gay and Lesbian Rights|url=http://publicreligion.org/research/2011/08/generations-at-odds/|publisher=[[Public Religion Research Institute]]|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Pew Forum: Part 2: Gay Marriage|url=http://www.pewforum.org/PublicationPage.aspx?id=647|publisher=[[Pew Research Center]]|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Poirier|first=Justine|title=Same-Sex Marriage: Let's Make a Change|url=http://www.montrealites.ca/justice/same-sex-marriage-lets-make-a-change.html|publisher=Montréalités Justice|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Data Points: Support for Legal Same-Sex Marriage|url=http://chronicle.com/article/Chart-Support-for-Legal/64683/|accessdate=25 September 2012|newspaper=The Chronicle of Higher Education|date=16 March 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Support for Same‐Sex Marriage in Latin America|url=http://www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/insights/I0844.enrevised.pdf|publisher=[[Vanderbilt University]]|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref> Polls show the most right-wing religious people are more likely to oppose it.<ref>{{cite news|last=Waldman|first=Steven|title=A Common Missed Conception|url=http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2003/11/a_common_missed_conception.html|accessdate=25 September 2012|newspaper=[[Slate (magazine)]]|date=19 November 2003}}</ref> Prior to 2012, in each U.S. state to hold a voter referendum on the issue, the public rejected same-sex marriage laws by a small majority.<ref>{{cite news|title=Maine voters reject gay-marriage law|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8789627|accessdate=20 September 2012|newspaper=Associated Press via [[The Guardian]]|date=4 November 2009}}</ref> However, In 2012, [[Maine]]. [[Washington]] and [[Maryland]] voted in favor of same-sex marriage. In April 2013, [[Rhode Island]] became the tenth state to begin recognizing same-sex marriage.<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ri-track-10th-state-gay-marriage-19038311</ref> Additionally, recent polls indicate that more than half of Americans support same-sex marriage, approximately 53%.<ref name=Gallup2011>{{cite web|last=Newport|first=Frank|title=For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage|url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First-Time-Majority-Americans-Favor-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx|publisher=[[The Gallup Organization|Gallup]]|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref><ref name=ABC2012>{{cite web|url=http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1137a2GayMarriage.pdf |title=ABC News/Washington Post poll: Strong Support for Gay Marriage Now Exceeds Strong Opposition – 23 May 2012 |format=PDF |accessdate=16 September 2012}}</ref><ref name=CNN2012>{{cite web|url=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/06/06/rel5e.pdf |title=CNN Opinion Research – May 29-31, 2012 |format=PDF |accessdate=16 September 2012}}</ref><ref>These conclusions indicate young people are less ignorant than their elders.</ref>

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. However, due to the liberal [[Supreme Court]] overturning section 3 of DOMA as "unconstitutional", the federal goverment currently recognizes homosexual "marriages" as equal to the traditional, correct marriage. 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 37, [[Massachusetts]], [[Connecticut]], [[Vermont]], [[New Hampshire]], [[New York]], [[Maryland]], [[Maine]], [[Washington]], [[Rhode Island]], [[Iowa]], [[California]], [[Delaware]], [[Minnesota]], [[New Jersey]], [[Hawaii]], [[Illinois]], [[Oregon]], [[Idaho]], [[Nevada]], [[Utah]], [[Wyoming]], [[Montana]], [[Colorado]], [[Arizona]], [[Kansas]], [[Oklahoma]], [[Florida]], [[North Carolina]], [[South Carolina]], [[Virginia]], [[West Virginia]], [[Alaska]] and [[New Mexico]], plus the [[Washington, D.C.|District of Columbia]], currently issue same-sex "marriage" licenses, although most of these states were forced to do so by federal courts. Only in [[Maine]], [[Maryland]], and [[Washington]] has same-sex "marriage" been approved by popular vote. [[Minnesota]] was the first state, in 2012, in which voters voted against a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Same-sex "marriages" were legal in [[Alabama]] for one month in 2015 following a federal court decision, but were halted by the Alabama Supreme Court pending the ruling of the United State Supreme Court on the matter. Same-sex "marriages" are recognized by the federal government since the overturning of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, however, recognition varies between departments of the federal government, with some departments referring to the legality or non-legality of the "marriage" in which the "couple" resides, and others referring to the legality or non-legality of the "marriage" according to where the "marriage" took place.

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 14th 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. Washington later legalized same-sex marriage. [[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.

Five years after Hernandez v. Robles, a New York Court of Appeals case in which the court declined to legalize same-sex "marriage" in New York via judicial fiat, 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" eventually became legal again in California in 2013 after the United States Supreme Court declined to rule on the case after deciding that those defending it did not have standing to do so, after the gubernatorial administration of California and the attorney general of California had refused to defend the law.

Same-sex marriage is legal in eleven countries: the [[Netherlands]], [[Belgium]], [[Brazil]], [[Spain]], [[Canada]], [[South Africa]], [[Norway]], [[Sweden]], [[Portugal]], [[Iceland]], [[Argentina]], [[Denmark]], [[Uruguay]] and [[New Zealand]]<ref>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10878200</ref>, [[France]], and the [[United Kingdom]] (excluding Northern Ireland) Additionally, in [[Mexico]], same-sex marriage is legal in the state of [[Quintana Roo]] and in [[Mexico City]], a federal district similar to Washington, D.C. Other countries, such as [[Germany]] and [[Chile]], 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><ref>[http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-05/tasmania-to-back-gay-marriage-intensifying-pressure-on-gillard]</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 argued the plan promoted loveless relationships. <ref>"Israeli rabbi pairs gays to lesbians" http://news.yahoo.com/israeli-rabbi-pairs-gays-lesbians-061904417.html</ref>

In the Netherlands overseas territories of [[Aruba]], [[Curacao]], and [[Sint Maarten]], same-sex "marriages" are not performed, but all marriages performed in the mainland portion of the country (including same-sex) are recognized. In [[Brazil]], same-sex civil unions can be converted to marriages by state judges on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, the state of [[Rhode Island]] recognizes, but does not perform, same-sex "marriages." Furthermore, [[California]] recognizes all same-sex "marriages" performed in or out of state before the passage of [[Proposition 8]].

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> In Conservative Judaism (no relation to the political philosophy known as "conservatism"), synagogues and rabbis are allowed, but not required, to recognize and perform same-sex marriages. Reform Judaism also allows rabbis to use "good faith" on this issue, but as the least-religious branch of Judaism, they take this stance on most issues. Additionally, homosexuality (and by extension same-sex "marriage") is forbidden in [[Islam]].

Many [[libertarian]]s argue [[marriage privatization|eliminating any legal definition of "marriage"]] and simply granting legal benefits to all couples under a neutral name would solve this problem and satisfy both sides. This is called "marriage privatization". Many religious conservatives still feel this is unacceptable - see that article for more details.

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>

Several states, including [[New York]], allow any two adults living together to adopt a child regardless of marital status or sex. This law provided a method for same-sex couples to adopt children even before New York legalized same-sex marriage.

==Homosexual promiscuity==

''See also:'' [[Homosexuality and 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]]. 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.{{citation needed}}

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>

Same sex union stability has been studied in Norway and Sweden using registered partnerships.
Although in these countries patterns in divorce risks are rather similar in same-sex and opposite-sex marriages, marriages and that unions of lesbians are considerably less stable, or more dynamic, than unions of gay men. Divorce risk for female partnerships is practically double that for male partnerships. The authors argued a higher propensity for divorce in same-sex couples is perhaps not surprising given this group’s lower exposure to normative pressure to maintain lifelong unions.
<ref>[http://link.springer.com/article/10.1353/dem.2006.0001],Andersson, Gunnar, et al. "The demographics of same-sex marriages in Norway and Sweden." Demography 43.1 (2006): 79-98.</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. For example, 8 of the 10 states with the highest median income have legalized same-sex marriage (Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Delaware, and California).

==Collapse of civilizations==

Some ancient civilizations that recognized same-sex "marriage" collapsed, 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.

According to Bill Borst, a regular substitute radio host for conservative [[Phyllis Schlafly]] on WSIV, 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>. If this is true, granting same-sex couples the right to "marry" will necessarily come at the expense of the rights of others.

==See also==
*[[Anti-Defamation League]]
*[[Gay bowel syndrome]]
*[[Homosexuality and the Bible]]
*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]
*[[Same-sex marriage bans]]

==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]]
[[Category : Hollywood Values]]

Same-sex marriage

2015-03-11T07:04:33Z

VladJ92:

'''Same-sex "marriage"''' (also called '''homosexual "marriage"''' or '''"gay 'marriage'"''') is a [[liberal]] attempt to advance the [[homosexual agenda]] and force the public to pay benefits for relationships that are not procreative and typically are not even monogamous. This is contrary to thousands of years of success based on a one-man/one-woman marriage system and in direct violation of the [[Bible]]<ref>It's a direct challenge to and nullification of Genesis 2:24, ''Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife''; of coarse, not every child has a mother and father anyway, so God must be unfair as well, the atheist theorizes. </ref> and most other religious teachings.<ref>"Same-sex marriage uses force of secular law to justify what the scripture of ''most modern religions'' has clearly labeled a sin: i.e., [[homosexual]] relations. At least one nation that has adopted same-sex marriage now requires the largest Christian church there to perform them also{{Citation needed}}, despite its clear contradiction with the [[Bible]].</ref>

In [[Norway]] and [[Sweden]], the adoption of same-sex marriage has led to a loss in respect for the marriage institution itself even for traditional couples.{{Citation needed}} In [[Massachusetts]], the legalization of same-sex marriage led to a decline in property values.{{Citation needed}} Also in response to the introduction of same-sex marriage the State Department of Public Health changed marriage certificates to read "Party A" and "Party B" instead of husband and wife.{{Citation needed}}

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 donations from gay persons for his reelection -- rushed to prop up the [[homosexual agenda]] by endorsing same-sex marriage after its stunning defeat in this [[swing state]].

Some studies and polls about same-sex marriage conducted in a few countries generally indicate support for same-sex marriage increases with higher levels of education,<ref>This of course means only stupid people would oppose gay marriage. Rational arguments using this type of "evidence" in public policy debates can also be known as "[[bully|bullying]]".</ref> and that younger people are more likely to support the legalization of it than older generations.<ref>{{cite web|title=Survey - Generations at Odds: The Millennial Generation and the Future of Gay and Lesbian Rights|url=http://publicreligion.org/research/2011/08/generations-at-odds/|publisher=[[Public Religion Research Institute]]|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Pew Forum: Part 2: Gay Marriage|url=http://www.pewforum.org/PublicationPage.aspx?id=647|publisher=[[Pew Research Center]]|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Poirier|first=Justine|title=Same-Sex Marriage: Let's Make a Change|url=http://www.montrealites.ca/justice/same-sex-marriage-lets-make-a-change.html|publisher=Montréalités Justice|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Data Points: Support for Legal Same-Sex Marriage|url=http://chronicle.com/article/Chart-Support-for-Legal/64683/|accessdate=25 September 2012|newspaper=The Chronicle of Higher Education|date=16 March 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Support for Same‐Sex Marriage in Latin America|url=http://www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/insights/I0844.enrevised.pdf|publisher=[[Vanderbilt University]]|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref> Polls show the most right-wing religious people are more likely to oppose it.<ref>{{cite news|last=Waldman|first=Steven|title=A Common Missed Conception|url=http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2003/11/a_common_missed_conception.html|accessdate=25 September 2012|newspaper=[[Slate (magazine)]]|date=19 November 2003}}</ref> Prior to 2012, in each U.S. state to hold a voter referendum on the issue, the public rejected same-sex marriage laws by a small majority.<ref>{{cite news|title=Maine voters reject gay-marriage law|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8789627|accessdate=20 September 2012|newspaper=Associated Press via [[The Guardian]]|date=4 November 2009}}</ref> However, In 2012, [[Maine]]. [[Washington]] and [[Maryland]] voted in favor of same-sex marriage. In April 2013, [[Rhode Island]] became the tenth state to begin recognizing same-sex marriage.<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ri-track-10th-state-gay-marriage-19038311</ref> Additionally, recent polls indicate that more than half of Americans support same-sex marriage, approximately 53%.<ref name=Gallup2011>{{cite web|last=Newport|first=Frank|title=For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage|url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First-Time-Majority-Americans-Favor-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx|publisher=[[The Gallup Organization|Gallup]]|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref><ref name=ABC2012>{{cite web|url=http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1137a2GayMarriage.pdf |title=ABC News/Washington Post poll: Strong Support for Gay Marriage Now Exceeds Strong Opposition – 23 May 2012 |format=PDF |accessdate=16 September 2012}}</ref><ref name=CNN2012>{{cite web|url=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/06/06/rel5e.pdf |title=CNN Opinion Research – May 29-31, 2012 |format=PDF |accessdate=16 September 2012}}</ref><ref>These conclusions indicate young people are less ignorant than their elders.</ref>

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. However, due to the liberal [[Supreme Court]] overturning section 3 of DOMA as "unconstitutional", the federal goverment currently recognizes homosexual "marriages" as equal to the traditional, correct marriage. 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 37, [[Massachusetts]], [[Connecticut]], [[Vermont]], [[New Hampshire]], [[New York]], [[Maryland]], [[Maine]], [[Washington]], [[Rhode Island]], [[Iowa]], [[California]], [[Delaware]], [[Minnesota]], [[New Jersey]], [[Hawaii]], [[Illinois]], [[Oregon]], [[Idaho]], [[Nevada]], [[Utah]], [[Wyoming]], [[Montana]], [[Colorado]], [[Arizona]], [[Kansas]], [[Oklahoma]], [[Florida]], [[North Carolina]], [[South Carolina]], [[Virginia]], [[West Virginia]], [[Alaska]] and [[New Mexico]], plus the [[Washington, D.C.|District of Columbia]], currently issue same-sex "marriage" licenses, although most of these states were forced to do so by federal courts. Only in [[Maine]], [[Maryland]], and [[Washington]] has same-sex "marriage" been approved by popular vote. [[Minnesota]] was the first state, in 2012, in which voters voted against a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Same-sex "marriages" were legal in [[Alabama]] for one month in 2015 following a federal court decision, but were halted by the Alabama Supreme Court pending the ruling of the United State Supreme Court on the matter. Same-sex "marriages" are recognized by the federal government since the overturning of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, however, recognition varies between departments of the federal government, with some departments referring to the legality or non-legality of the "marriage" in which the "couple" resides, and others referring to the legality or non-legality of the "marriage" according to where the "marriage" took place.

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 14th 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. Washington later legalized same-sex marriage. [[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.

Five years after Hernandez v. Robles, a New York Court of Appeals case in which the court declined to legalize same-sex "marriage" in New York via judicial fiat, 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" eventually became legal again in California in 2013 after the United States Supreme Court declined to rule on the case after deciding that those defending it did not have standing to do so, after the gubernatorial administration of California and the attorney general of California had refused to defend the law.

Same-sex marriage is legal in eleven countries: the [[Netherlands]], [[Belgium]], [[Brazil]], [[Spain]], [[Canada]], [[South Africa]], [[Norway]], [[Sweden]], [[Portugal]], [[Iceland]], [[Argentina]], [[Denmark]], and [[New Zealand]]<ref>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10878200</ref>, [[France]], and the [[United Kingdom]] (excluding Northern Ireland) Additionally, in [[Mexico]], same-sex marriage is legal in the state of [[Quintana Roo]] and in [[Mexico City]], a federal district similar to Washington, D.C. Other countries, such as [[Germany]] and [[Chile]], 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><ref>[http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-05/tasmania-to-back-gay-marriage-intensifying-pressure-on-gillard]</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 argued the plan promoted loveless relationships. <ref>"Israeli rabbi pairs gays to lesbians" http://news.yahoo.com/israeli-rabbi-pairs-gays-lesbians-061904417.html</ref>

In the Netherlands overseas territories of [[Aruba]], [[Curacao]], and [[Sint Maarten]], same-sex "marriages" are not performed, but all marriages performed in the mainland portion of the country (including same-sex) are recognized. In [[Brazil]], same-sex civil unions can be converted to marriages by state judges on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, the state of [[Rhode Island]] recognizes, but does not perform, same-sex "marriages." Furthermore, [[California]] recognizes all same-sex "marriages" performed in or out of state before the passage of [[Proposition 8]].

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> In Conservative Judaism (no relation to the political philosophy known as "conservatism"), synagogues and rabbis are allowed, but not required, to recognize and perform same-sex marriages. Reform Judaism also allows rabbis to use "good faith" on this issue, but as the least-religious branch of Judaism, they take this stance on most issues. Additionally, homosexuality (and by extension same-sex "marriage") is forbidden in [[Islam]].

Many [[libertarian]]s argue [[marriage privatization|eliminating any legal definition of "marriage"]] and simply granting legal benefits to all couples under a neutral name would solve this problem and satisfy both sides. This is called "marriage privatization". Many religious conservatives still feel this is unacceptable - see that article for more details.

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>

Several states, including [[New York]], allow any two adults living together to adopt a child regardless of marital status or sex. This law provided a method for same-sex couples to adopt children even before New York legalized same-sex marriage.

==Homosexual promiscuity==

''See also:'' [[Homosexuality and 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]]. 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.{{citation needed}}

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>

Same sex union stability has been studied in Norway and Sweden using registered partnerships.
Although in these countries patterns in divorce risks are rather similar in same-sex and opposite-sex marriages, marriages and that unions of lesbians are considerably less stable, or more dynamic, than unions of gay men. Divorce risk for female partnerships is practically double that for male partnerships. The authors argued a higher propensity for divorce in same-sex couples is perhaps not surprising given this group’s lower exposure to normative pressure to maintain lifelong unions.
<ref>[http://link.springer.com/article/10.1353/dem.2006.0001],Andersson, Gunnar, et al. "The demographics of same-sex marriages in Norway and Sweden." Demography 43.1 (2006): 79-98.</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. For example, 8 of the 10 states with the highest median income have legalized same-sex marriage (Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Delaware, and California).

==Collapse of civilizations==

Some ancient civilizations that recognized same-sex "marriage" collapsed, 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.

According to Bill Borst, a regular substitute radio host for conservative [[Phyllis Schlafly]] on WSIV, 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>. If this is true, granting same-sex couples the right to "marry" will necessarily come at the expense of the rights of others.

==See also==
*[[Anti-Defamation League]]
*[[Gay bowel syndrome]]
*[[Homosexuality and the Bible]]
*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]
*[[Same-sex marriage bans]]

==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]]
[[Category : Hollywood Values]]

Same-sex marriage

2015-03-11T06:59:42Z

VladJ92: /* Background */

'''Same-sex "marriage"''' (also called '''homosexual "marriage"''' or '''"gay 'marriage'"''') is a [[liberal]] attempt to advance the [[homosexual agenda]] and force the public to pay benefits for relationships that are not procreative and typically are not even monogamous. This is contrary to thousands of years of success based on a one-man/one-woman marriage system and in direct violation of the [[Bible]]<ref>It's a direct challenge to and nullification of Genesis 2:24, ''Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife''; of coarse, not every child has a mother and father anyway, so God must be unfair as well, the atheist theorizes. </ref> and most other religious teachings.<ref>"Same-sex marriage uses force of secular law to justify what the scripture of ''most modern religions'' has clearly labeled a sin: i.e., [[homosexual]] relations. At least one nation that has adopted same-sex marriage now requires the largest Christian church there to perform them also{{Citation needed}}, despite its clear contradiction with the [[Bible]].</ref>

In [[Norway]] and [[Sweden]], the adoption of same-sex marriage has led to a loss in respect for the marriage institution itself even for traditional couples.{{Citation needed}} In [[Massachusetts]], the legalization of same-sex marriage led to a decline in property values.{{Citation needed}} Also in response to the introduction of same-sex marriage the State Department of Public Health changed marriage certificates to read "Party A" and "Party B" instead of husband and wife.{{Citation needed}}

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 donations from gay persons for his reelection -- rushed to prop up the [[homosexual agenda]] by endorsing same-sex marriage after its stunning defeat in this [[swing state]].

Some studies and polls about same-sex marriage conducted in a few countries generally indicate support for same-sex marriage increases with higher levels of education,<ref>This of course means only stupid people would oppose gay marriage. Rational arguments using this type of "evidence" in public policy debates can also be known as "[[bully|bullying]]".</ref> and that younger people are more likely to support the legalization of it than older generations.<ref>{{cite web|title=Survey - Generations at Odds: The Millennial Generation and the Future of Gay and Lesbian Rights|url=http://publicreligion.org/research/2011/08/generations-at-odds/|publisher=[[Public Religion Research Institute]]|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Pew Forum: Part 2: Gay Marriage|url=http://www.pewforum.org/PublicationPage.aspx?id=647|publisher=[[Pew Research Center]]|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Poirier|first=Justine|title=Same-Sex Marriage: Let's Make a Change|url=http://www.montrealites.ca/justice/same-sex-marriage-lets-make-a-change.html|publisher=Montréalités Justice|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Data Points: Support for Legal Same-Sex Marriage|url=http://chronicle.com/article/Chart-Support-for-Legal/64683/|accessdate=25 September 2012|newspaper=The Chronicle of Higher Education|date=16 March 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Support for Same‐Sex Marriage in Latin America|url=http://www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/insights/I0844.enrevised.pdf|publisher=[[Vanderbilt University]]|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref> Polls show the most right-wing religious people are more likely to oppose it.<ref>{{cite news|last=Waldman|first=Steven|title=A Common Missed Conception|url=http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2003/11/a_common_missed_conception.html|accessdate=25 September 2012|newspaper=[[Slate (magazine)]]|date=19 November 2003}}</ref> Prior to 2012, in each U.S. state to hold a voter referendum on the issue, the public rejected same-sex marriage laws by a small majority.<ref>{{cite news|title=Maine voters reject gay-marriage law|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8789627|accessdate=20 September 2012|newspaper=Associated Press via [[The Guardian]]|date=4 November 2009}}</ref> However, In 2012, [[Maine]]. [[Washington]] and [[Maryland]] voted in favor of same-sex marriage. In April 2013, [[Rhode Island]] became the tenth state to begin recognizing same-sex marriage.<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ri-track-10th-state-gay-marriage-19038311</ref> Additionally, recent polls indicate that more than half of Americans support same-sex marriage, approximately 53%.<ref name=Gallup2011>{{cite web|last=Newport|first=Frank|title=For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage|url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First-Time-Majority-Americans-Favor-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx|publisher=[[The Gallup Organization|Gallup]]|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref><ref name=ABC2012>{{cite web|url=http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1137a2GayMarriage.pdf |title=ABC News/Washington Post poll: Strong Support for Gay Marriage Now Exceeds Strong Opposition – 23 May 2012 |format=PDF |accessdate=16 September 2012}}</ref><ref name=CNN2012>{{cite web|url=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/06/06/rel5e.pdf |title=CNN Opinion Research – May 29-31, 2012 |format=PDF |accessdate=16 September 2012}}</ref><ref>These conclusions indicate young people are less ignorant than their elders.</ref>

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. However, due to the liberal [[Supreme Court]] overturning section 3 of DOMA as "unconstitutional", the federal goverment currently recognizes homosexual "marriages" as equal to the traditional, correct marriage. 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 37, [[Massachusetts]], [[Connecticut]], [[Vermont]], [[New Hampshire]], [[New York]], [[Maryland]], [[Maine]], [[Washington]], [[Rhode Island]], [[Iowa]], [[California]], [[Delaware]], [[Minnesota]], [[New Jersey]], [[Hawaii]], [[Illinois]], [[Oregon]], [[Idaho]], [[Nevada]], [[Utah]], [[Wyoming]], [[Montana]], [[Colorado]], [[Arizona]], [[Kansas]], [[Oklahoma]], [[Florida]], [[North Carolina]], [[South Carolina]], [[Virginia]], [[Alaska]] and [[New Mexico]], plus the [[Washington, D.C.|District of Columbia]], currently issue same-sex "marriage" licenses, although most of these states were forced to do so by federal courts. Only in [[Maine]], [[Maryland]], and [[Washington]] has same-sex "marriage" been approved by popular vote. [[Minnesota]] was the first state, in 2012, in which voters voted against a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Same-sex "marriages" were legal in [[Alabama]] for one month in 2015 following a federal court decision, but were halted by the Alabama Supreme Court pending the ruling of the United State Supreme Court on the matter. Same-sex "marriages" are recognized by the federal government since the overturning of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, however, recognition varies between departments of the federal government, with some departments referring to the legality or non-legality of the "marriage" in which the "couple" resides, and others referring to the legality or non-legality of the "marriage" according to where the "marriage" took place.

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 14th 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. Washington later legalized same-sex marriage. [[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.

Five years after Hernandez v. Robles, a New York Court of Appeals case in which the court declined to legalize same-sex "marriage" in New York via judicial fiat, 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" eventually became legal again in California in 2013 after the United States Supreme Court declined to rule on the case after deciding that those defending it did not have standing to do so, after the gubernatorial administration of California and the attorney general of California had refused to defend the law.

Same-sex marriage is legal in eleven countries: the [[Netherlands]], [[Belgium]], [[Brazil]], [[Spain]], [[Canada]], [[South Africa]], [[Norway]], [[Sweden]], [[Portugal]], [[Iceland]], [[Argentina]], [[Denmark]], and [[New Zealand]]<ref>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10878200</ref>, [[France]], and the [[United Kingdom]] (excluding Northern Ireland) Additionally, in [[Mexico]], same-sex marriage is legal in the state of [[Quintana Roo]] and in [[Mexico City]], a federal district similar to Washington, D.C. Other countries, such as [[Germany]] and [[Chile]], 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><ref>[http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-05/tasmania-to-back-gay-marriage-intensifying-pressure-on-gillard]</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 argued the plan promoted loveless relationships. <ref>"Israeli rabbi pairs gays to lesbians" http://news.yahoo.com/israeli-rabbi-pairs-gays-lesbians-061904417.html</ref>

In the Netherlands overseas territories of [[Aruba]], [[Curacao]], and [[Sint Maarten]], same-sex "marriages" are not performed, but all marriages performed in the mainland portion of the country (including same-sex) are recognized. In [[Brazil]], same-sex civil unions can be converted to marriages by state judges on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, the state of [[Rhode Island]] recognizes, but does not perform, same-sex "marriages." Furthermore, [[California]] recognizes all same-sex "marriages" performed in or out of state before the passage of [[Proposition 8]].

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> In Conservative Judaism (no relation to the political philosophy known as "conservatism"), synagogues and rabbis are allowed, but not required, to recognize and perform same-sex marriages. Reform Judaism also allows rabbis to use "good faith" on this issue, but as the least-religious branch of Judaism, they take this stance on most issues. Additionally, homosexuality (and by extension same-sex "marriage") is forbidden in [[Islam]].

Many [[libertarian]]s argue [[marriage privatization|eliminating any legal definition of "marriage"]] and simply granting legal benefits to all couples under a neutral name would solve this problem and satisfy both sides. This is called "marriage privatization". Many religious conservatives still feel this is unacceptable - see that article for more details.

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>

Several states, including [[New York]], allow any two adults living together to adopt a child regardless of marital status or sex. This law provided a method for same-sex couples to adopt children even before New York legalized same-sex marriage.

==Homosexual promiscuity==

''See also:'' [[Homosexuality and 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]]. 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.{{citation needed}}

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>

Same sex union stability has been studied in Norway and Sweden using registered partnerships.
Although in these countries patterns in divorce risks are rather similar in same-sex and opposite-sex marriages, marriages and that unions of lesbians are considerably less stable, or more dynamic, than unions of gay men. Divorce risk for female partnerships is practically double that for male partnerships. The authors argued a higher propensity for divorce in same-sex couples is perhaps not surprising given this group’s lower exposure to normative pressure to maintain lifelong unions.
<ref>[http://link.springer.com/article/10.1353/dem.2006.0001],Andersson, Gunnar, et al. "The demographics of same-sex marriages in Norway and Sweden." Demography 43.1 (2006): 79-98.</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. For example, 8 of the 10 states with the highest median income have legalized same-sex marriage (Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Delaware, and California).

==Collapse of civilizations==

Some ancient civilizations that recognized same-sex "marriage" collapsed, 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.

According to Bill Borst, a regular substitute radio host for conservative [[Phyllis Schlafly]] on WSIV, 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>. If this is true, granting same-sex couples the right to "marry" will necessarily come at the expense of the rights of others.

==See also==
*[[Anti-Defamation League]]
*[[Gay bowel syndrome]]
*[[Homosexuality and the Bible]]
*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]
*[[Same-sex marriage bans]]

==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]]
[[Category : Hollywood Values]]

Same-sex marriage

2015-03-11T06:28:11Z

VladJ92:

'''Same-sex "marriage"''' (also called '''homosexual "marriage"''' or '''"gay 'marriage'"''') is a [[liberal]] attempt to advance the [[homosexual agenda]] and force the public to pay benefits for relationships that are not procreative and typically are not even monogamous. This is contrary to thousands of years of success based on a one-man/one-woman marriage system and in direct violation of the [[Bible]]<ref>It's a direct challenge to and nullification of Genesis 2:24, ''Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife''; of coarse, not every child has a mother and father anyway, so God must be unfair as well, the atheist theorizes. </ref> and most other religious teachings.<ref>"Same-sex marriage uses force of secular law to justify what the scripture of ''most modern religions'' has clearly labeled a sin: i.e., [[homosexual]] relations. At least one nation that has adopted same-sex marriage now requires the largest Christian church there to perform them also{{Citation needed}}, despite its clear contradiction with the [[Bible]].</ref>

In [[Norway]] and [[Sweden]], the adoption of same-sex marriage has led to a loss in respect for the marriage institution itself even for traditional couples.{{Citation needed}} In [[Massachusetts]], the legalization of same-sex marriage led to a decline in property values.{{Citation needed}} Also in response to the introduction of same-sex marriage the State Department of Public Health changed marriage certificates to read "Party A" and "Party B" instead of husband and wife.{{Citation needed}}

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 donations from gay persons for his reelection -- rushed to prop up the [[homosexual agenda]] by endorsing same-sex marriage after its stunning defeat in this [[swing state]].

Some studies and polls about same-sex marriage conducted in a few countries generally indicate support for same-sex marriage increases with higher levels of education,<ref>This of course means only stupid people would oppose gay marriage. Rational arguments using this type of "evidence" in public policy debates can also be known as "[[bully|bullying]]".</ref> and that younger people are more likely to support the legalization of it than older generations.<ref>{{cite web|title=Survey - Generations at Odds: The Millennial Generation and the Future of Gay and Lesbian Rights|url=http://publicreligion.org/research/2011/08/generations-at-odds/|publisher=[[Public Religion Research Institute]]|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Pew Forum: Part 2: Gay Marriage|url=http://www.pewforum.org/PublicationPage.aspx?id=647|publisher=[[Pew Research Center]]|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Poirier|first=Justine|title=Same-Sex Marriage: Let's Make a Change|url=http://www.montrealites.ca/justice/same-sex-marriage-lets-make-a-change.html|publisher=Montréalités Justice|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Data Points: Support for Legal Same-Sex Marriage|url=http://chronicle.com/article/Chart-Support-for-Legal/64683/|accessdate=25 September 2012|newspaper=The Chronicle of Higher Education|date=16 March 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Support for Same‐Sex Marriage in Latin America|url=http://www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/insights/I0844.enrevised.pdf|publisher=[[Vanderbilt University]]|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref> Polls show the most right-wing religious people are more likely to oppose it.<ref>{{cite news|last=Waldman|first=Steven|title=A Common Missed Conception|url=http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2003/11/a_common_missed_conception.html|accessdate=25 September 2012|newspaper=[[Slate (magazine)]]|date=19 November 2003}}</ref> Prior to 2012, in each U.S. state to hold a voter referendum on the issue, the public rejected same-sex marriage laws by a small majority.<ref>{{cite news|title=Maine voters reject gay-marriage law|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8789627|accessdate=20 September 2012|newspaper=Associated Press via [[The Guardian]]|date=4 November 2009}}</ref> However, In 2012, [[Maine]]. [[Washington]] and [[Maryland]] voted in favor of same-sex marriage. In April 2013, [[Rhode Island]] became the tenth state to begin recognizing same-sex marriage.<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ri-track-10th-state-gay-marriage-19038311</ref> Additionally, recent polls indicate that more than half of Americans support same-sex marriage, approximately 53%.<ref name=Gallup2011>{{cite web|last=Newport|first=Frank|title=For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage|url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First-Time-Majority-Americans-Favor-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx|publisher=[[The Gallup Organization|Gallup]]|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref><ref name=ABC2012>{{cite web|url=http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1137a2GayMarriage.pdf |title=ABC News/Washington Post poll: Strong Support for Gay Marriage Now Exceeds Strong Opposition – 23 May 2012 |format=PDF |accessdate=16 September 2012}}</ref><ref name=CNN2012>{{cite web|url=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/06/06/rel5e.pdf |title=CNN Opinion Research – May 29-31, 2012 |format=PDF |accessdate=16 September 2012}}</ref><ref>These conclusions indicate young people are less ignorant than their elders.</ref>

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. However, due to the liberal [[Supreme Court]] overturning section 3 of DOMA as "unconstitutional", the federal goverment currently recognizes homosexual "marriages" as equal to the traditional, correct marriage. 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 seventeen, [[Massachusetts]], [[Connecticut]], [[Vermont]], [[New Hampshire]], [[New York]], [[Maryland]], [[Maine]], [[Washington]], [[Rhode Island]], [[Iowa]], [[California]], [[Delaware]], [[Minnesota]], [[New Jersey]], [[Hawaii]], [[Illinois]], and [[New Mexico]], plus the [[Washington, D.C.|District of Columbia]], currently issue same-sex marriage licenses. These marriages are recognized by the federal government since the overturning of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act.

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 14th 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. Washington later legalized same-sex marriage. [[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 eleven countries: the [[Netherlands]], [[Belgium]], [[Spain]], [[Canada]], [[South Africa]], [[Norway]], [[Sweden]], [[Portugal]], [[Iceland]], [[Argentina]], and [[Denmark]]. (The House of Representatives of [[New Zealand]] passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage on April 17, 2013 that will go into effect on August 19, 2013.)<ref>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10878200</ref> Additionally, in [[Mexico]], same-sex marriage is legal in the state of [[Quintana Roo]] and in [[Mexico City]], a federal district similar to Washington, D.C. 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><ref>[http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-05/tasmania-to-back-gay-marriage-intensifying-pressure-on-gillard]</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 argued the plan promoted loveless relationships. <ref>"Israeli rabbi pairs gays to lesbians" http://news.yahoo.com/israeli-rabbi-pairs-gays-lesbians-061904417.html</ref>

In the Netherlands overseas territories of [[Aruba]], [[Curacao]], and [[Sint Maarten]], same-sex marriages are not performed, but all marriages performed in the mainland portion of the country (including same-sex) are recognized. In [[Brazil]], same-sex civil unions can be converted to marriages by state judges on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, the state of [[Rhode Island]] recognizes, but does not perform, same-sex marriages. Furthermore, [[California]] recognizes all same-sex marriages performed in or out of state before the passage of [[Proposition 8]].

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> In Conservative Judaism (no relation to the political philosophy known as "conservatism"), synagogues and rabbis are allowed, but not required, to recognize and perform same-sex marriages. Reform Judaism also allows rabbis to use "good faith" on this issue, but as the least-religious branch of Judaism, they take this stance on most issues. Additionally, homosexuality (and by extension same-sex marriage) is forbidden in [[Islam]].

Many [[libertarian]]s argue [[marriage privatization|eliminating any legal definition of "marriage"]] and simply granting legal benefits to all couples under a neutral name would solve this problem and satisfy both sides. This is called "marriage privatization". Many religious conservatives still feel this is unacceptable - see that article for more details.

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>

Several states, including [[New York]], allow any two adults living together to adopt a child regardless of marital status or sex. This law provided a method for same-sex couples to adopt children even before New York legalized same-sex marriage.

==Homosexual promiscuity==

''See also:'' [[Homosexuality and 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]]. 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.{{citation needed}}

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>

Same sex union stability has been studied in Norway and Sweden using registered partnerships.
Although in these countries patterns in divorce risks are rather similar in same-sex and opposite-sex marriages, marriages and that unions of lesbians are considerably less stable, or more dynamic, than unions of gay men. Divorce risk for female partnerships is practically double that for male partnerships. The authors argued a higher propensity for divorce in same-sex couples is perhaps not surprising given this group’s lower exposure to normative pressure to maintain lifelong unions.
<ref>[http://link.springer.com/article/10.1353/dem.2006.0001],Andersson, Gunnar, et al. "The demographics of same-sex marriages in Norway and Sweden." Demography 43.1 (2006): 79-98.</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. For example, 8 of the 10 states with the highest median income have legalized same-sex marriage (Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Delaware, and California).

==Collapse of civilizations==

Some ancient civilizations that recognized same-sex "marriage" collapsed, 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.

According to Bill Borst, a regular substitute radio host for conservative [[Phyllis Schlafly]] on WSIV, 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>. If this is true, granting same-sex couples the right to "marry" will necessarily come at the expense of the rights of others.

==See also==
*[[Anti-Defamation League]]
*[[Gay bowel syndrome]]
*[[Homosexuality and the Bible]]
*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]
*[[Same-sex marriage bans]]

==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]]
[[Category : Hollywood Values]]