Gay Marriage Issue Solved?

[micatala]

I know this has probably been suggested before, but a recent column in the St. Paul Pioneer Press by Joe Soucheray brought this to my mind again.

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincitie ... 154831.htm

Joe's suggestion is simple.


Invent a new word for the union of two same-sex couples, and let marriage apply only two man and woman unions.



If we would invent a new word for these unions, while allowing same-sex couples the same legal rights as married couples (tax deductions, etc.), would this solve the problem?


To break it down:

What specific objections would proponents of legalized gay marriage have?


What specific objections would opponents of gay marriage havae?

[1John2_26]

But, the fact that MA was not willing to grant this exemption does not mean this is a criminalization of Christianity. IT does not meet the definition. They are still free to practice their religion, promote their beliefs, express their opinions.

Simply because a person or group refuses to comply with a law because of their religious beliefs does not mean the law constitutes a criminalization of the belief system, unless the law was enacted specifically against the belief system or only applies to people of that belief system.

The words "sexual orientation" accomplished the criminalization of Christianity and we see it used to outlaw Christian beliefs. Now the word "homophobia" has been invented and is used for the exact same purpose.

It is too bad that incessant droning of the Christian oppressors negate every proof I offer as the threads that include the examples go away. Obviously wearing down the defense and defenders of morality is a key tool in the capture of a populace without a shot being fired. It reminds me of a pedophilia and pedophiles that is presented as "not really harming" anyone, because there is no real visible evidence of any harm. But the shattered lives that are soon forgotten when out of side are very real.

Gays could have another label for their life-partnership unions or whatever, but the are insisting to kidnap the word "marriage," and force a new definition into what should be an immutable institution. Not even divorce changed the meaning of marriage.

[micatala]

Gays could have another label for their life-partnership unions or whatever, but the are insisting to kidnap the word "marriage," and force a new definition into what should be an immutable institution. Not even divorce changed the meaning of marriage.

This would be fine with me as well. I am OK leaving the word 'marriage' for the man-woman partnership and calling the same-sex unions something else.

The words "sexual orientation" accomplished the criminalization of Christianity and we see it used to outlaw Christian beliefs.

Sorry, this is just false.

It is too bad that incessant droning of the Christian oppressors negate every proof I offer as the threads that include the examples go away.

You are confusing people who disagree with your particular viewpoint with 'Christian Oppressors.' There is no negation of proof happening because you haven't presented proof that Christians are actually being oppressed. You refuse to see that your 'examples' do not show what you claim.

I wish I could preach to people about fathers taking care of their own children. That would be a hate crime to the Gay community.

Can you provide any evidence that gay people have accused fathers of hate crimes simply for taking care of their kids, or is this yet another baseless charge.

Would it be better for a child to have no parents than a gay parent?

That is an oxymoron of incredible proportions. "Gay parent" is biologically impossible.

So adoptive parents are not really parents because their children are not biologically their own? I'm sure many of them would find your suggestion highly insulting.

Can you actually prove with any valid statistical data, and not simply opinion asserted as fact, that children in the care of same-sex couples are worse off than single parents or parents of heterosexual couples?

Human nature is male-female parents. It is a "fact of nature." I believe that qualifies as not just an opinion as I know many medical doctors and scientists that would agree with my use of facts.

I'll take that as a no, then. It seems that you consider your own opinions as more valid than actual objective evidence. You didn't answer the question and changed the subject as well.

The question was do you have any actual evidence that children of same-sex couples are worse off than children of single parents or children of heterosexual couples. Biology is irrelevent to this question. You need to show by objective data that allowing same-sex adoption would have deleterious effects compared to other types of adoption.

[Cephus]

I wish I could preach to people about fathers taking care of their own children. That would be a hate crime to the Gay community.

Says who? Exactly how can telling fathers to take care of their own children be a "hate crime" to people who HAVE NO CHILDREN of their own?

That is an oxymoron of incredible proportions. "Gay parent" is biologically impossible.

Biologically, sure. But gay people can adopt and they're just as much parents as anyone else.

Human nature is male-female parents. It is a "fact of nature." I believe that qualifies as not just an opinion as I know many medical doctors and scientists that would agree with my use of facts.

Apparently not, since there are many, many observed instances of homosexuality in nature. It is perfectly natural and normal for a certain percentage of the population to demonstrate homosexual traits, that's something you're going to have to wake up and deal with.

[1John2_26]

1John wrote:
Gays could have another label for their life-partnership unions or whatever, but the are insisting to kidnap the word "marriage," and force a new definition into what should be an immutable institution. Not even divorce changed the meaning of marriage.


This would be fine with me as well. I am OK leaving the word 'marriage' for the man-woman partnership and calling the same-sex unions something else.

Clap, clap, clap, cheer, cheer. Anything else. But they consider our position as a hate crime known as homophobia.

Quote:
The words "sexual orientation" accomplished the criminalization of Christianity and we see it used to outlaw Christian beliefs.

Sorry, this is just false.

Try opposing "sexual oreintation" now as a civil rights guarantee. You will be charged with a hate crime. Christianity silenced. Sorry that is just every school and workplace. Churches are being monitered. Tax exemption and all. Sorry that is true too.

Quote:
It is too bad that incessant droning of the Christian oppressors negate every proof I offer as the threads that include the examples go away.

You are confusing people who disagree with your particular viewpoint with 'Christian Oppressors.' There is no negation of proof happening because you haven't presented proof that Christians are actually being oppressed. You refuse to see that your 'examples' do not show what you claim.

Gays now have what Christians no longer have. Freedom to live their lives and "raise their children" without the threat of lawsuit. Christians are now "homophobes" for teaching their children biological and physiological and Biblical truth about the wrong of homosexuality. Legislation silencing Christans is not a myth. Call California.

Quote:
I wish I could preach to people about fathers taking care of their own children. That would be a hate crime to the Gay community.

Can you provide any evidence that gay people have accused fathers of hate crimes simply for taking care of their kids, or is this yet another baseless charge.

The pro-family and pro-children consistency of Christianity for two-thousand years is see as a hate crime now. Go to this gay website and see:

http://rainbowallianceopenfaith.homeste ... index.html

micatala wrote:

Would it be better for a child to have no parents than a gay parent?

1John wrote:
That is an oxymoron of incredible proportions. "Gay parent" is biologically impossible.

So adoptive parents are not really parents because their children are not biologically their own? I'm sure many of them would find your suggestion highly insulting.

Homosexuality cannot produce either offspring or "parents." I didn't invent biological facts. I just agree with them.

1John wrote:
micatala wrote:

Can you actually prove with any valid statistical data, and not simply opinion asserted as fact, that children in the care of same-sex couples are worse off than single parents or parents of heterosexual couples?

Human nature is male-female parents. It is a "fact of nature." I believe that qualifies as not just an opinion as I know many medical doctors and scientists that would agree with my use of facts.

I'll take that as a no, then. It seems that you consider your own opinions as more valid than actual objective evidence. You didn't answer the question and changed the subject as well.

The data would be suspect anyway. Thee people doing the research are politically motivated to support the Gay Agenda. BUT, the statistics of children raised NOT by their biological fathers, is staggering in the negative. Children without their fathers raising them literally fill our criminal system and mental health fileds. Any call to a juvenile hall, prison, or psychiatrist would bear out that fact.

The question was do you have any actual evidence that children of same-sex couples are worse off than children of single parents or children of heterosexual couples.

Children just want to be loved and cared for, but every single one would want their biological parents to be those that raise them. Selfishness and sins keep that overpowering wish from being reality.

In all fiarness to your question, the time has not gone by long enough for the data to come in. I'll just go with "human nature." Of children that is.

Biology is irrelevent to this question. You need to show by objective data that allowing same-sex adoption would have deleterious effects compared to other types of adoption.

The mental health of children takes a long time to compile.

As we can see from other places where mankind has upset the natural order, there is not a good picture to paint here either.

[1John2_26]

Cephus,

Apparently not, since there are many, many observed instances of homosexuality in nature. It is perfectly natural and normal for a certain percentage of the population to demonstrate homosexual traits, that's something you're going to have to wake up and deal with.

No where "on this planet" can homosexual mating or pairing produce offspring. Therefore, this "sexual orientation" would not be a place to "place" other individuals' offspring.

That would be perfectly natural.

Certainly not bigotry of an irrational fear. Just plain natural (observable) actions.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

No where "on this planet" can homosexual mating or pairing produce offspring. Therefore, this "sexual orientation" would not be a place to "place" other individuals' offspring.

An infertile husband and wife are physically incapable of producing offspring as well. That doesen't mean we bar them from adopting children.

We sure would have some overcrowded orphanages if we limited adoption to yielding couples.

By the way, your evidence is in:

http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31

"Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a parent's sexual orientation does not indicate their children's."

[micatala]

Try opposing "sexual oreintation" now as a civil rights guarantee. You will be charged with a hate crime. Christianity silenced. Sorry that is just every school and workplace. Churches are being monitered. Tax exemption and all. Sorry that is true too.

Evidence? Have you been charged with a hate crime? Anyone you know been arrested simply for opposing gay rights?

Are you silenced?

Who is monitoring churces and why?

What does tax exemption have to do with this?

[Cephus]

Evidence? Have you been charged with a hate crime? Anyone you know been arrested simply for opposing gay rights?

Are you silenced?

Who is monitoring churces and why?

What does tax exemption have to do with this?

I asked him that a while back, he ignored it, just like he'll ignore you. His entire argument is absolutely, utterly ridiculous.

[1John2_26]

1John wrote:
Try opposing "sexual oreintation" now as a civil rights guarantee. You will be charged with a hate crime. Christianity silenced. Sorry that is just every school and workplace. Churches are being monitered. Tax exemption and all. Sorry that is true too.

Evidence? Have you been charged with a hate crime? Anyone you know been arrested simply for opposing gay rights?

Are you silenced?

Who is monitoring churces and why?

What does tax exemption have to do with this?

I asked him that a while back, he ignored it, just like he'll ignore you. His entire argument is absolutely, utterly ridiculous.

OK. I do believe any honest person would see that Christianity, Christians and Churches are being silenced, monitered and being threatened with tax problems.

And yes, in my workplace I was silenced by my boss.

But before we start, why don't they just call same-sex marriage . . .

"Garriage?" "I got garried!" Not me of course, but wouldn't it be exclusive to their community and culture?

Americans United Welcomes IRS Crackdown On Unlawful Church Electioneering
Friday, February 24, 2006

Federal Tax Agency Investigated Partisan Politicking By Nonprofits In 2004 And Plans To Do So Again This Year, Says New Report

Americans United for Separation of Church and State today welcomed a new report by the Internal Revenue Service detailing its enforcement of the federal tax law barring partisan political activity by churches and other charities.

The report notes that the IRS examined activities by 132 non-profits from 2004 as part of its initiative. It reports that “fewer than half” were churches. The IRS concluded that in many of the cases, significant violations of the law had occurred. The tax agency also announced plans to vigorously enforce the law during this election year.

“This report proves that the IRS intends to fully enforce the law barring houses of worship from intervening in political campaigns,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “Pastors tempted to follow the Religious Right’s siren song into partisan activity need to sit up and take notice.”

Continued Lynn, “Churches have no business becoming cogs in a candidate’s political machine. It damages the integrity of the church, and it violates federal tax law. This report indicates that the IRS takes allegations of violations seriously.”

In 1996, Americans United launched “Project Fair Play,” an effort to educate religious leaders about IRS regulations governing politicking. As part of that effort, AU reports egregious violations of the law to the IRS. The organization reported 11 houses of worship and other religious non-profits in 2004.

The IRS report notes that of 132 cases examined, 82 are closed. In three cases, revocation of tax-exempt status was proposed. In 55 cases, the non-profits were issued written warnings. In one case, the IRS applied an excise tax.

Activities examined included the distribution of fliers promoting certain candidates, candidate endorsements from pulpits, churches displaying candidate signs and churches improperly permitting candidates to seek votes during church appearances.

“This report should lay to rest Religious Right claims that houses of worship have a right to engage in partisan politicking,” said Lynn. “They don’t, and any that ignore the law and do so anyway could face severe sanctions.”

Teen Girls Sue Christian School Over Expulsion For Improper Behavior
The right of religious schools to set moral standards is under attack by two girls who were expelled from a Lutheran school in 2005 over alleged homosexual attractions.

April 3, 2006 -- A Riverside Superior Court Judge has granted two girls the right to sue the California Lutheran High School Association for allegedly discriminating against them because of their sexual attractions to each other.

Superior Court Judge Gloria Connor Trask has agreed to let this case go to trial instead of dismissing it as a frivolous lawsuit directly attacking the right of Christian schools to enforce a Code of Conduct upon the students who voluntarily attend. A hearing on this case is scheduled for July 9, 2006.

This case is a serious one and deserves to be watched closely. Homosexual activists are determined to impose their agenda in private religious schools and institutions regardless of First Amendment guarantees of freedom of religion.

The lawsuit was filed against the high school association and Mr. Bork. It alleges that Bork’s expulsion of the girls violates California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which forbids businesses operating in the state to engage in discrimination against any person’s sexual orientation.

Homophobia in the Church

The Lesbian and Gay Christian Fellowship has recently published a research report entitled Christian Homophobia. It defines homophobia as an irrational hatred, disapproval, or fear of homosexuality, gay and lesbian people, and their culture and details a number of case studies which illustrate the following key findings:.

That the majority of homophobic abuse suffered by gay men and lesbians in the UK is supported by the words and actions of the Christian churches..

That such homophobia has a serious daily effect on the health and well-being of the gay and lesbian population of this country, sometimes leading to absence from work, depression, physical harm and even suicide..

That the Christian churches in the UK have had a disproportionate influence on legislation affecting gays and lesbians and have, at every turn, tried to frustrate the will of parliament, defy the international consensus on human rights, and to gain exemption for themselves from the fair and equal treatment of lesbians and gay men.

That in the methods and organisation, conservative Christian groups in this country now amount to a "Christian Right" similar to that which has been active in the US for some years.


That sermons and Christian resource material supporting gay men and lesbians have been censored or destroyed, and that young people in church youth groups and other Christian settings are being indoctrinated into homophobia.

That there are sigificant numbers of counsellors, psychologists and other health professionals whose "Christian" beliefs lead them to attempt the "changing", "curing", or "exorcising" of gay men and lesbians against all the advice of reputable professional associations.

The full report is availablefrom LGCM, Oxford House, Derbyshire St., London E2 6HG

A Christian Homphobia Hotline has also been established which invites calls in confidence from any gay man or lesbian who feels they have been discriminated against by Christians:

More details are also available on their website www.lgcm.org.uk

[micatala]

OK. I do believe any honest person would see that Christianity, Christians and Churches are being silenced, monitered and being threatened with tax problems.

Well, I would disagree at least with the 'silenced' claim, but I see you have provided some examples that I think are relevant and worthy of discussion.

Here is the IRS statement as provided by AU.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all IRC section 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches and religious organizations, are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax. Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including the presentation of public forums and the publication of voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not constitute prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner. On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that: (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

Individual Activity by Religious Leaders
The political campaign activity prohibition is not intended to restrict free expression on political matters by leaders of churches or religious organizations speaking for themselves, as individuals. Nor are leaders prohibited from speaking about important issues of public policy. However, for their organizations to remain tax exempt under IRC section 501(c)(3), religious leaders cannot make partisan comments in official organization publications or at official church functions.

The bolded part indicates that the IRS is in no way trying to 'silence' anyone. Clearly, anyone, including pastor's have the right to make whatever political statements they wish.

The only way to run afoul of the tax exemption status is to make partisan political statements on behalf of the organization.

For example:

Example 1: Minister A is the minister of Church J and is well known in the community. With their permission, Candidate T publishes a full-page ad in the local newspaper listing five prominent ministers who have personally endorsed Candidate T, including Minister A. Minister A is identified in the ad as the minister of Church J. The ad states, “Titles and affiliations of each individual are provided for identification purposes only.” The ad is paid for by Candidate T’s campaign committee. Since the ad was not paid for by Church J, the ad is not otherwise in an official publication of Church J, and the endorsement is made by Minister A in a personal capacity, the ad does not constitute campaign intervention by Church J.

This belies the contention that the IRS is silencing Christians or any other religious adherents.

In addition, note that pastors may absolutely make policy statements.

As already noted above:

Nor are leaders prohibited from speaking about important issues of public policy.

Now, one could criticize the AU for in effect trying to 'sick the IRS' on right wing churches. We could ask whether their activities in this regard are illegal, or only in poor taste, or if they are quite legitimate.

However, I don't think you can make a case that their is any silencing or unwarranted monitoring or persecution of churches unless you can show that the IRS shows favoritism in how it applies the law. If they investigate all allegations that come forward, apply the law fairly and equally, and apply any sanctions fairly and equally, than I can't see that you have grounds for complaint.




With respect to the two girls, this is a different sort of issue. We have a conflict between what I think is a legitimate desire to avoid discrimination and what could be characterized as a religious freedom issue. Both sides have a legitimate case to make, I think.

My opinion is that if the girls do not act out within school, so that you could not discern the relationship merely by observing their actions, than they should not be expelled. The main question to me would be were they engaging in behavior that would indicate to an observer there is a relationship, and would a pair of opposite gender students who engage in similar behavior be expelled. Clearly, if the girls behavior would result in expulsion even if they were not of the same gender, they have no case.

If their behavior results in expulsion whereas in the non same-sex situation it wouldnt', that is a different question. I personally would allow the school to make this distinction, if it were spelled out in the rules and the parents and students were aware of these rules going in. I don't think this is an ideal solution, but I think it is a reasonable compromise.

Let me reiterate, however, that I do think the state has a legitimate issue here, and even though there is a conflict with a religious freedom issue, I don't think it is fair to characterize this as discrimination against the school or against Christianity. The law is certainly not intended to infringe upon religious freedom, it is intended to address a history and presence of discrimination. It is unfortunate that it has an effect on religious freedom.

The last example I have already commented on as being not worthy of consideration elsewhere.[/url]