Focus on the Family Will Keep your Kid from Being Gay

So the fact he is politically active means he is imposing his views on others, eh? But somehow I don't think you would characterize those that are politically active but in agreement with you as imposing their views on others, would you?I am fully aware that he is politically active, as is our right and maybe duty as Americans to be.What's wrong with that?Absolutely nothing.

Yep. Everyone that is not currently married are free to get married.

Same-sex couples can get married?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

For the most part, I don't have to. Holmes posts irrelevancies, he heads off on tangents, he refutes positions that no one involved in the thread has advocated, and he takes three paragraphs to say what could be said in one.Holmes mostly posts filler, garbage. The meat of his posts is often few and far between. And I'm certainly not the only person here who has commented on the length and lack of clarity of Holmes postings. Take me seriously, or don't. I know for a fact that Holmes isn't reading all of my posts, but apparently he's not willing to admit it.

Actually, this isn't true. This is generally termed the "myth of homosexual affluence."

Marriage is defined as a heterosexual union exclusively. End of story.You want that changed.What compelling State interest is there for changing the definition of marriage?Please answer the question.

Sorry, most of what you've posted has nothing to do with the question.Can a same-sex couple get married? If they can't they are being oppressed.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Homosexual parents raising their children. As well, the equal protection granted by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Thanks for trying, which is more than Jar is willing to do.Homosexual unions don't biologically produce children. There are, of course, homosexual parents raising kids, that is more of a statistical exception that the rule, and State interest is usually based on majority situations.It could be argued that there is less State interest to recognize heterosexual unions as marriage as well since women can now gain employment and fathers can be IDed via DNA testing, but the tradition arose before all that and is codified into law.There is also the religious perspective of marriage predating the State, which has merit, but let's not go off in that direction just yet.As far as equal protection, singles shacking up don't qualify under equal protection, do they? Your argument is specious because anyone can marry. Marriage is by definition heterosexual so there is equal protection.

Letting the discussion be drawn off to that tack simply works in the Christian Rights favor. It has nothing to do with the issue and is just another red herring they like to throw in.If same-sex couples cannot get married they are being oppressed.If the Christian Right can show no affect that a same-sex marriage can have on a bisexual marriage, there is no reason to continue the oppression.Unless they can show some just cause for continuing the oppression, the Christian duty is to support same-sex marriage rights.This message has been edited by jar, 08-20-2005 10:55 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Guess it all depends on what the definition of primarily is.From your initial response, one would think he is just tending his flock. When I point out that he is doing much more than that, rather than amend your characterization, you suggest I am hypocritical.The point is that he is politically active for the purpose of imposing his religious views on others. There is a great deal wrong with that.True, those who agree with me are politically active for the purpose of preventing Dobson and his ilk from imposing their religious views on others. No one who is in agreement with me seeks to prevent others from the free practice of their beliefs, nor to force on them actions that violate their beliefs. The only thing Dobson could ever claim I would attempt to impose on him is the tolerance to which we all have a natural right.Certainly, Dobson has a Constitutional right to advocate (almost) anything he pleases, using whatever appeals to bigotry and hatefulness that resonate with his supporters.I have a Constitutional right to decry what he is doing. You first say he is not doing what I said he is doing, and then accuse me of a double-standard for insisting that he is. That is not honest speech.I am not trying to shut him up, I am trying to insure he is clearly heard.

the oppression continues.....yawn.next up the polygamists start complaining about "the oppression" too.....

Irrelevant, since that's never been a requirement for marriage. Sometimes they do, in fact. Many states recognize common-law marriage. No, they can't. For instance one single person cannot marry. You have to have two people to get married.Marriage is a right that we extend to couples, not individuals. The laws as formulated discriminate against certain couples for no relevant reason.

That's just BS for the most part. Really now? So when a student that chooses to sing a Christmas carol when asked to choose a song is told she cannot do that because it's religious, that's not your crowd, eh?When Christmas displays are banned from public property, that's not the folks in "agreement with" you, eh?Gimme a break, dude. Whatever you're smoking, it's working.But hey, let's look at the JW thread, were you not one of those telling Scott he was wrong to insist on not receiving blood transfusions? Maybe you were not, but it sure seems like many that agree with you would favor forcing that group to conform at risk of their children being taken from them.Btw, I think the JWs are totally wrong, but it's a free country.Also, aren't the same people that agree with you the ones that tried throwing homeschooling parents in jail, or threatening them with that in CA and other states?How about the Boy Scouts? Isn't your crowd the ones insisting on trying to coerce them into accepting gay scoutmasters even when that conflicts with their beliefs?Sorry, but what you claim does not add up.

Leaving aside the fact that we're way, way off-topic at this point, I don't think it's inappropriate to examine the state's interest in performing marriages and blessing them with special privledges.The state is interested in marriage because it helps parents raise their children. Well, gay couples are often parents raising children. Thus the state has a legitimate interest, and incentive, to bless gay marriages. In addition it has a duty to do so under the Fourteenth Amendment.