joeyknuccione wrote:
Arguing about promiscuity is nothing more than projecting one's morality onto others.
Something we all do.
From that site's banner:
NARTH wrote:
NARTH upholds the rights of individuals with unwanted homosexual attraction to receive effective psychological care, and the right of professionals to offer that care.
Now, let's see what the American Psychological Association has to allow:
APA - Homosexuality as a disorder wrote:
Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem?
No. Psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, a mental disorder, or an emotional problem. More than 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself, is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information.
So, I'd be weary of a site that ostensibly promotes the treatment of a 'disease' that is non-existent. The motive of NARTH in presenting data on an issue that is clearly morality based is questionable.
If individuals with same-sex feelings want treatment to change that, why is that a problem? As for the APA, they long ago have bought into the gay agenda. Scientist are no less likely to be ideologically driven than non-scientists.
It is my position it doesn't matter regarding the rights and freedoms of individuals to live their lives according to their consciences.
It was brought up to see if we can at least get agreement on the promiscuity of homosexuals, something that far from being a 'smear', is ackowledged by gays themselves.
Too often it is. As I pointed out in a previous post which East of Eden never addressed, there are more than a few families with female and male "role models" that are anything but.
Which proves what?
Who makes the determination as to what is optimal?
Doesn't "loving, doting parent" create an "optimal"?
All I see in the 'male and female parent is best' argument is a relatively sexist one.
For which sex?
Interesting article on a liberal Democrat who also believes gay marriage undermines the family. Note he is not coming from a religious perspective:
Blankenhorn: A family guy with a cause
By Sharon Jayson, USA TODAY
March 14, 2007
David Blankenhorn may be best known as an advocate for the importance of fathers, but the 51-year-old think-tank founder and author is about to step onto the firing line with a much more controversial issue: gay marriage.
Media Appearances The Harvard-educated Mississippi native is a former VISTA volunteer and community organizer who has made a career of thinking about big issues and telling others what he believes. He's written scores of op-ed pieces and essays, co-edited eight books and written two: the 1995 Fatherless America, which attributes many of society's ills to the lack of involvement of fathers in children's lives, and now, THE FUTURE OF MARRIAGE. In it, he argues kids need both a mother and a father, and because same-sex marriage can't provide that, it's bad for society and kids.
"We're either going to go in the direction of viewing marriage as a purely private relationship between two people that's defined by those people, or we're going to try to strengthen and maintain marriage as our society's most pro-child institution," he says.
He may sound like a conservative Christian, but Blankenhorn says he's a liberal Democrat.
"I'm not condemning homosexuality. I'm not condemning committed gay relationships," he says. But "the best institutional friend that children have is marriage, and if grownups make a mess of it, the children are going to suffer."
Blankenhorn's attempts to raise consciousness about the importance of fathers led him to help inspire the creation of the National Fatherhood Initiative, a non-partisan group promoting responsible fatherhood. For 20 years, he has focused attention on the fallout of what he sees as a breakdown in the family.
He bristles when people call his think tank conservative; he wants to look deeply at America's core values, and he sees the Manhattan-based Institute for American Values, founded in 1987, as a catalyst for analysis and debate among those with differing views.
The institute's budget of some $1.5 million largely comes from foundations, corporations and individual donations, which support studies, conferences, books and other publications.
"People who say we're a conservative organization are just trying to call us names because they think it'll stigmatize us," he says, clearly rankled that his motives are so often misunderstood.
But as much as his passion for families impresses those who know his work, his blunt outspokenness can be off-putting to people on both sides of the political spectrum. He even criticizes the marriage movement, of which he is considered one of the founders, saying it has "stagnated."
"It's one of the reasons I wrote the book," he says. "I want to stir the pot as much as I can."
Colleagues praise him
"My impression of this guy is he's really devoted his life to family issues and would probably do that if no one paid him at all," says Jonathan Rauch, a senior writer at National Journal magazine and a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution who has been on opposite sides of the podium with Blankenhorn.
"David has a lot of respect for ideas," says Maggie Gallagher, a former affiliate scholar with the institute and a strong opponent of same-sex marriage. He "created a new niche. He pulled together top scholars from a variety of disciplines concerned about family fragmentation who were not part of the Religious Right, and he gave them a home."
Sociology professor Judith Stacey of New York University says some in the family field view Blankenhorn as a "right-wing political advocate." But "I see him as more complicated than that."
So does William Galston, a domestic policy adviser in the Clinton administration and a senior fellow at Brookings.
"My impression is on matters of civil rights and economics and social justice, he's the same warm-hearted Southern liberal he was when he started," Galston says. "It might be more accurate to say a strand of thinking about the family and the culture that in contemporary circumstances is regarded as conservative is something that's become a stronger part of his thinking."
Some academics, including Stacey, suggest the institute lacks objectivity because its work is not subject to scholarly peer review.
Blankenhorn rebuffs such claims.
"Almost all our work is done in teams of people. We review each other's work constantly," he says. "So it is utter hogwash for somebody to say something like that."
Says Stacey: "I'm one of his favorite targets. We have opposing views on the relationship between social science research about families and public policy about families. Not only do we disagree about the policies, but we disagree about what the research says."
Theodora Ooms, a consultant on family policy who has known Blankenhorn since the mid-1980s, calls him "relentless. … He says he is open-minded, but I find him rather rigid and close-minded."
Blankenhorn admits he has a "pushy" side. "I've had fallings-out over differing opinions about what was best to do about what we were working on at the time — not too many of them, though," he says.
"If he really disagrees with something, you'll know it," says Galston. "I've never had a problem with it, but I suspect others may."
Blankenhorn wasn't always such a polarizing figure.
His sixth-grade teacher chastised him for talking out of turn and told him he was a "leader child."
"She said, 'If you do things, the others will follow you,' " he recalls. "That was such a dramatic moment for me. … I've wanted to play that role and have tried my best to play that role since I was a kid."
He originally planned a think tank for community organizers, but he became increasingly frustrated in bringing about social change and decided civil society and the family were areas where he could have an impact. Now, two decades later, the institute has broadened its scope to include projects on Islam's relationships with the West and an examination of thrift as an American core value.
Growing up in the South
Blankenhorn says he avoided the gay marriage issue for years and didn't get into civil unions in his book because it's not directly linked to his concern over marriage as "society's most pro-child institution." He has been clear about other family issues: Marriage is good for kids. Voluntary single-motherhood isn't. Neither is divorce.
He says he couldn't skirt same-sex marriage any longer because allowing gays to marry and form families conflicts with children's right to know and be raised by their two biological parents.
His book also cites a new analysis he did on 35 nations from the 2002 International Social Survey Programme, which shows marriage is weakest in nations where support for gay marriage is strongest.
"I'm not saying one causes the other. I'm just saying they go together," he says. "If you do support marriage and want it to be this robust social institution, then you ought to think twice about saying you're for gay marriage."
Blankenhorn's childhood in Jackson, Miss., where his parents still live, emphasized family and church. His father worked in insurance, and Blankenhorn says he was a role model; his mother ran the church Sunday school. Both were Presbyterian deacons and elders. Blankenhorn played sports, was president of his freshman class and of his church youth group.
The family's church was the first in his area to allow black worshipers. Racial prejudice and public school desegregation had a profound impact on him, causing him at age 15 to try to bridge racial rifts. He founded the Mississippi Community Service Corps, which recruited black and white high school students to join together to tutor elementary school kids.
When his father's job transferred him to Salem, Va., in Blankenhorn's junior year of high school, he re-created the service corps by contacting all the church youth groups in the Roanoke/Salem area.
Blankenhorn hadn't planned to go out of state for college, but he ran into a former student from his old high school who urged him to apply to Harvard. That student, Carey Ramos, now a New York attorney who has represented the recording industry in online copyright cases, says Blankenhorn impressed him.
"He was clearly very bright and articulate," Ramos says. "What struck me was how determined he was and how he had the qualities of a leader. I thought he would wind up doing interesting things."
Go ahead, but place a ban on producing offspring because such close bloodlines can be shown to significantly increase chances of disabilities in offspring.
So you are making a non-religious argument against this form of marriage?
That'n was legal not too long ago. In our more 'enlightened' age we understand such young children seldom have the capacity of informed consent, thus bans in this regard.
Another non-religious objection to a form of marriage.
Such is still somewhat futile in debate, where we "seriously" seek to understand one another's positions. "In your opinion" does little to negate or confirm what one has presented, opinion or not.
It is a way of pointing out that many statements on this forum are opinion, not fact, including me.
Unless that person's a/religious position is they should be able to marry the person they love.
You've already pointed out examples above where people shouldn't be able to marry the person they love.
Nice dodge, and a very familiar Christian tactic on this site. Notice the question asks whether one religion should restrict another, not whether a religion considers gay marriage. Granted, the OP is about gay marriage, but the issue the referenced quote refers to is the broad question of where one religion's position should prevail over all other religious positions.
It is clear to me the referenced quote is getting directly at the heart of how so many Christians perceive their position - in a dogmatic, uncompromising, oppressive fashion, in total disregard to the respect of the rights and freedoms of others.
And I will say again, all laws are an imposition of someone's morality on others who disagree.
The very issue here is the violation of the Constitution, where the government offers freedoms and privileges to one group, and disallows them to another on the basis of them having sex with another consenting adult.
Such alleged Constitutional violation has yet to be determined, and anyway I thought you believed that to be just an ancient document that shouldn't constrict us?
We've made societal determination that girls of such a young age can't give informed consent.
And in CA and many other states we have made a societal determination that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Credibility is stretched when one rightfully declares they should vote their conscience, and that conscience is religious, but they don't use religion to inform their vote.
So what if it is? That is truly an extremist position. I don't believe in the separation of church and mind.
Regardless of whether religiously based or not, the law is unfair, and unconstitutionally so on the grounds it preserves for some what it denies others.
Unconstitutional in your opinion.
What does promiscuity have to do with folks seeking to marry one another anyway? If the parties involved agree to an open marriage I see no insurmountable problems.
From a practical standpoint it doesn't produce stable marriages, which kids need.
Those who prevent their attempting to enjoy the "married to the one they love lifestyle".
Again, you've shown two examples above where you prevent people from enjoying being "married to the one they love ".
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE
