Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited

 

The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?

 

READ ABOUT IT...

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Homosexual Action Fund Energized to Push Homosexuality at State Level

In the 2006 effort to pass Amendment C, South Dakota's constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, 29% of the funding to oppose the defense of marriage came from the Gill Action Fund.

The Gill Action Fund is an advocacy group started by wealthy Coloradan Tim Gill to promote the legitimization of homosexuality around the country.

This year a pro-homosexual South Dakota group called Equality South Dakota for the first time endorsed and contributed campaign funds to pro-homosexual legislative candidates in the June South Dakota primary. While the few Republicans they endorsed were mostly a flop (1 of 4 were elected in the primary), they did better on the Democrat side (6 of 7).

Equality South Dakota has also announced a list of legislative candidates they will be supporting in the general election this year. Those include some Rapid City area candidates such as Democrat Eric Abrahamson, House Dist. 32, Democrat Bethany Wojahn, House Dist. 32, Democrat Dennis Finch, Senate Dist. 33, Democrat Jeff Nelson, House Dist. 33, Republican Craig Tieszen, Senate Dist. 34, Democrat Fern Johnson, House Dist. 35, and Democrat Curtis Marquardt, House Dist. 35.

It is unclear at this time whether there is a connection between Equality South Dakota and the Gill Action Fund.

But the Catholic News Agency is reporting on a speech by Tim Gill at the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered (LGBT) Delegates Caucus at the Democratic National Convention on Monday.

According to the report, the strategy to force legitimization of homosexual behavior on the American people is one that begins at the state level.

“Every single advance for gay rights has come at the state level,” Gill said, saying the most important thing the Democratic LGBT delegates could do is “go back and support those pro-gay state legislators, and eliminate the anti-gay state legislators.”

He encouraged the delegates to donate to state candidates out of state, especially in rural areas.

The billionaire homosexual activist also counseled the audience not to donate to unwinnable races, but rather to focus their donations where they will most likely change the outcome of elections.

“Just a little bit of money goes a long way,” he said.

If all the LGBT delegates donated fifty dollars to specially targeted races, which he numbered at no more than ten or twenty per election year, Gill said “we can get rid of them.”

Gill makes it pretty clear what you're voting for when you support one party or another:
By successfully changing Republican legislatures to Democratic ones, Gill claimed, “the net result is always good for gays.”

The campaign to force the legitimization of homosexuality on society, and subsequently undermine marriage and family, is well organized and well funded.

Meanwhile, it is unclear whether grassroots pro-family supporters are sufficiently alerted and energized to the threat.

So far, most states have Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMA) if not constitutional amendments protecting marriage. However, as the recent judicial activism in California illustrates, a DOMA will not protect the sanctity of marriage from radical judges bent on forcing their will on the people.

Constitutional amendments are the only hope the states have to protect the most foundational institution of our civilization. And we also need a Federal Marriage Amendment to protect this social engineering from being forced on the states from a federal level.

Those who would turn our civilization upside down and into sexual and social anarchy are not passive and they are not slowing down.

Pro-family supporters would do well to learn from them and energize to protect the current and future generation from the dissolution of all we hold dear.


24 comments:

Anonymous said...

YEAH!!! CONGRATULATIONS EQUALITY SOUTH DAKOTA!!!

I hope they succeed in getting as many pro-homosexual legislative candidates as possible, and equally I hope they win!

And I would love if they did all this just to spite anti-gay bigots like Bob Ellis!

p.s. I also hope Proposition 8 in California is defeated so it will be the beginning of the end for homophobic religious extremists like Bob Ellis!

GO TOLERANCE AND COMPASSION!!!

Anonymous said...

Bob I'm glad you have something else to think about today besides abortion but this post is pathetic. And what part of treating gays like humans are you uncomfortable with? Please.

Cheers to tolerance and respect for all!

Bob Ellis said...

Anonymous 8:32, in what way did I advocate not treating homosexuals like humans? I'd really like to know.

Anonymous said...

Bob Ellis, you'll never understand the scope of your misguidedness. People like you and Fred Phelps will fade away, but the following person will be remembered and honored for her achievements.

You are so busy painting such a negative viewpoint of homosexuals that you've blinded yourself to seeing them as a loving caring group of good people.


GREAT LESBIAN PIONEER DIES...
San Francisco, CA (Aug 27,2008)

It is with sincere sadness to announce Del Martin, aged 87, has died today.

She and her lesbian partner, Phyllis Lyon, 84, were at the forefront of the battle for homosexual rights and same sex marriage in California.

They met on Valentine's Day in 1953 and remained in a committed loving relationship for 55 years.

After fighting for the rights of all homosexuals, including the right to marry, they themselves married in 2004, which was overturned. Then in 2008 when same sex marriage was legalized, they wed again on June 16, 2008.

Lyon said: "Ever since I met Del 55 years ago, I could never imagine a day would come when she wouldn't be by my side. I am so lucky to have known her, loved her and been her partner in all things. I also never imagined there would be a day that we would actually be able to get married."

"I am devastated, but I take some solace in knowing we were able to enjoy the ultimate rite of love and commitment before she passed."

Del's efforts to promote equal rights and dignity for homosexuals will remain in the memory and hearts of all people of tolerance, whether homosexual or heterosexual.

May she rest in peace! Our condolences go out to her longtime partner.

Bob Ellis said...

I've never said homosexuals aren't capable of love or caring. Feelings are irrelevant to the question of the morality of the behavior, and to having what is required to constitute a marriage.

Love and caring alone do not constitute either (a) a legitimate relationship, and certainly not (b) a marriage.

If I love and have sex with my neighbor's wife, that love and caring may be genuine...but it is an illegitimate relationship.

I had a friend when I was stationed overseas, and we were closer than brothers. We went through some rough, trying times together, and some great fun times, too. I loved the guy enough to readily take a bullet for him, and he for me. And though we've only shared a few phone calls and emails in the last 18 years, I still love him. But we did not have a romantic or sexual relationship. It was a friendly love, which is legitimate for two men or two women to have. It was not a sexual/romantic love, which is not legitimate for two men or two women to have for each other.

Facts and morality do not change according to feeling or emotion.

Anonymous said...

It's such a shame that the most religious people of this nation, waste so much time, effort and money on this issue. I'm grateful for every productive citizen that is able to live a life that is free to fulfill their American dream.

Harassing your neighbors just limits their ability to spend more of their time coming up with solutions for making South Dakota or any state great. How comfortably would you live if you had to constantly watch your back, were afraid of losing your job, have your children bullied or had to go through legal obstacles that most everyone else acquired automatically.

Please Bob, it's time for everyone to mind their own business and admit that wonderful gay citizens are everywhere and that poisoning the conversation with myths and stereotypes is getting a little old. Not many people are being fooled any longer into drinking the kool-aid; fair treatment for everyone is what will put smiles on the faces of millions allowing them to build, cultivate, teach, heal and love one another.

For every step back in time to the dark ages there are two and sometimes three steps forward toward enlightenment, honesty and justice. The sooner we end the sticks and stones and naughty words hurled at my gay friends and neighbors, the sooner we can solve, hand-in-hand, real problems that need addressing.

Thanks for taking my comment.

Bob Ellis said...

Anonymous, I'd love to concentrate on other things. You're right; there are lots of other problems out there.

But as long as homosexual activists insist on forcing everyone to accept their immoral, unnatural and unhealthy sexual behavior as legitimate, as long as homosexual activists try to hijack marriage, and as long as homosexual activists attempt to undermine our children and our society, I and others like me will have to remain here to fight for what is right.

The facts are abundantly clear that homosexuality is immoral. The facts are legion that homosexuality is unhealthy. No myth. No stereotype. Just facts.

And God's people will be here to oppose this decadence of our society as long as it takes.

As soon as homosexual activists realize that and give up, we can all get on to other things.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Ellis,

You make it sound like such a chore to demonize homosexuals and stereotype them as amoral sex-fiends. C'mon, doesn't some part of you enjoy it? Nobody likes to go to work grudgingly.

"The facts are legion that homosexuality is unhealthy. No myth. No stereotype. Just facts."

Alright then, what facts can you offer us that prove Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon's partnership was unhealthy (immorality aside)? Did either of them have AIDS, STDs, hepatitis, substance abuse problems, depression, suicidal tendencies, or incidents of domestic abuse? The facts tell us that they were a committed couple for over half a century, but can you prove any acts of infidelity during that time? Can you prove that they tried to adopt children for the purposes of intentionally depriving them of a father and "indoctrinating" them into homosexuality?

Or would you call their relationship unhealthy only because your sources indicate that the "average" homosexual relationship is unhealthy, without bothering to actually look at these two individuals to see whether or not they fit that "average"? Unless you can prove with facts that Del and Phyllis demonstrated the same health risks you always cite on your blog, then it's safe to say you're stereotyping them. What's more, you probably have no desire to examine their relationship, which means that you are INTENTIONALLY stereotyping them.

If you really don't want to treat homosexuals with prejudice and unfairness, wouldn't it behoove you to investigate all homosexual relationships to see whether your statistics are true on an individual level? I guess that would take far too much time (and we all know how much you HATE thinking about homosexuality), so wouldn't it be easier to just admit that you're promoting stereotypes?

Bob Ellis said...

Not every drunk who gets behind the wheel will kill someone. Not every drunk who gets behind the wheel will even have an accident.

But the incidence and increased risk is high enough that society has deemed it proper to discriminate against every drunk driver and make it illegal for them to drive.

Also, not everyone who takes certain prescription drugs that are determined to have a high risk associated will actually develop the maladies associated with the drug. But the high rate of incidence is enough to take the drug off the market for everyone.

Similarly, the risks and hazards of homosexual behavior are so high that any reasonable person who is aware of those risks should consider it rational to avoid that behavior--and those risks.

And not encourage people to continue taking those risks.

Anonymous said...

As usual, you've dodged a direct question with dubious analogies to drunken driving and drug abuse, which in this case is completely irrelevant because Del and Phyllis put no one's life in danger.

We'll try this again: was Del and Phyllis's homosexual relationship unhealthy? Did they run into any specific risks or hazards associated with homosexual behavior that would have put their or others' lives in danger? If so, please provide factual evidence. If not, you're prejudiced.

Anonymous said...

"As soon as homosexual activists realize that and give up, we can all get on to other things."

You are probably the most mind-numbingly naive person I have ever encountered. What makes you think gay activists will all of a sudden shrug their shoulders and say, "Well, we gave it our best shot"?! Take my advice: don't hold your breath. On second thought, yeah, hold your breath. If anything, it'll shut you up for a while.

Bob Ellis said...

I've already answered your question, Anonymous 8:00. And if you can't see that, your selfish insistence on legitimizing an immoral and unnatural practice must have damaged your perception and intelligence beyond any quick remedy.

And Anonymous 10:42, I don't really expect them to...but if you expect me and other pro-family folks to quit and go away, that's what you'll have to see first.

Anonymous said...

Bob,

No need for the snappy insults to my intelligence. If you can't prove that Del and Phyllis's relationship was unhealthy, just say so. We both know you can't, so there's no need to embarrass yourself and project onto others your insecurities about being wrong.

I don't believe you can sit there and call their relationship unhealthy, classifying it among the "average" gay relationship of infidelity, sickness, abuse, and instability. Straight married couples can only hope to sustain the same level of commitment and love as these two women had done for over fifty years. I bet it makes you uneasy that such a strong gay couple is so prominent in the media and in the gay community. They represent MANY other gay couples who defy the "average."

Anonymous said...

The Catholic church has been very critical of the action of the state Supreme Court in its decision on homosexual civil marriage in the state of California.

The court took the issue of marriage (civil) and made its decision based on the right of equality to all citizens of California of legal age, and we should make the important distinction: civil marriage and not church marriage, because each has its own sanctions and criteria.

Each religious body has the independent right to its own interpretation thereof. The court did not infringe on those rights and respect of religion, all religions. The separation of church and state is very clear in our federal constitution and must be respected by every state Supreme Court.

The courts must protect civil rights of all its citizens, as it did with blacks (civil rights), Asians (right to own property), women (right to vote) and yes, now homosexuals (the right to civil marriage).

This is indeed the court's function to administer justice to all state citizens. It is also the duty of the court to protect the independent right of all religious bodies to administer their own doctrine and interpretations thereof, whether they or we agree with its dogma or not. It is the church's obligation to its followers to maintain order within its church boundaries.

The state Supreme Court recognizes the obligation of all its citizens to function within the boundaries of civil law and respect that law. Within this civil structure we must have proper instruments in every area of this society. Legal documents are absolute necessity and certainly in regard to real estate and personal property. We are all aware of community property rights within partnership of civil marriage, but two homosexuals who share a lifetime of committed partnership, fidelity to that partnership and to God do not have the same legal rights as the heterosexual.

Without that certificate of civil marriage, do the public realize the dilemma of the homosexual with investments of real property, financial investments, Social Security, insurance, hospital rights, etc.? Without that document of civil marriage, there is a disparity the homosexual is placed in by an uninformed society. These are the rights the heterosexual enjoys and pays for and the homosexual pays for equally and does not receive.

Some of these people have lived together for over 50 years and still have not received the civil right heterosexuals rightfully and legally enjoy. They are told by the hospital they cannot have necessary papers and instructions for pre-op surgery and dates for lab tests, because you are not a relative and by law, without the document of marriage, you are not entitled to them. Where is the humanity, or should I say, sanity and common sense? Many say their opinion is based on God's law in the Bible. But Christ, "God himself, in the second person of the Trinity" walked this earth for over 31 years and there is not any record or one word spoken by Christ about homosexuality in that sacred book.

We should all be grateful that when we stand before our Lord on that day, we will be judged and answer only for our lives and not the lives of others.

Bob Ellis said...

Anonymous 2:07, you're like the cat who acts like he wants to eat, yet when you try to shove his meowing face in the bowl, he fights you like a maniac.

Okay, here's one more pointed shove to see if you can find the goodies:


...Not every drunk who gets behind the wheel will kill someone. Not every drunk who gets behind the wheel will even have an accident.

But the incidence and increased risk is high enough that society has deemed it proper to discriminate against every drunk driver and make it illegal for them to drive.

Also, not everyone who takes certain prescription drugs that are determined to have a high risk associated will actually develop the maladies associated with the drug. But the high rate of incidence is enough to take the drug off the market for everyone.

Similarly, the risks and hazards of homosexual behavior are so high that any reasonable person who is aware of those risks should consider it rational to avoid that behavior--and those risks.

And not encourage people to continue taking those risks...


If you remain committed to not seeing the answer after this, I'm done wasting my time with someone who is so fanatically committed to defending an immoral and unhealthy practice that they can't even grasp elemental truths, or admit them.

Bob Ellis said...

Anonymous 4:56, there is no "separation of church and state" in our Constitution. If you can find those words, I'll give you a million dollars. It isn't in there. What the Constitution does say with regard to religion in the First Amendment is this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This means congress cannot establish a state church or state religion...and it cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. Nothing more.

It might interest you to know that the Constitution recognizes the Christian holy day of Sunday. And that the Founders saw the influence of religion and morality absolutely vital to the health of freedom and our republic. I would encourage you to research their writings and statements; you can find many of them on this website.

Homosexuals have the same legal rights that everyone else has. They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like a heterosexual does. If they want to marry, they must marry someone of the opposite sex, just like heterosexuals do.

What homosexuals want is something special, something extra, that they haven't earned. Only heterosexual couples can create children, and thus only heterosexual couples can produce the next generation to carry on society. For that reason alone, the state has an interest in protecting marriage. Heterosexual couples also provide the balanced sex role models that all children need, and they also provide the stability and healthy home children need. Homosexuals have very high rates of AIDS, STDs, depression, substance abuse, suicide and domestic violence. They also have high rates of promiscuity, even among "committed" couples. This is no place for children to be raised.

If homosexuals want to pass on property or set up visitiation rights for hospitals, etc. then they can do that through the legal system. But they have done and can do nothing to deserve the automatic benefits provided to married heterosexual couples.

Finally, you are in error when you say "God himself, in the second person of the Trinity" walked this earth for over 31 years and there is not any record or one word spoken by Christ about homosexuality in that sacred book."

Christ himself reaffirmed God's design for human sexuality, which was originally outlined at creation in Genesis 2, in Matthew 19. It includes ONLY one man and one woman in marriage for life. Nothing else. What's more, Christ, being a member of that "Trinity" you mentioned, was also present throughout all of human history and is also responsible for everything in God's word. Which means that all the Old Testament condemnations of homosexuality...Jesus was behind those. And all those New Testament condemnations of homosexuality (Romans chapter 1, 1 Corinthians chapter 6, and in 1 Timothy chapter 1, among others)...Jesus was behind those, too.

God (including Jesus) has made it abundantly clear that homosexuality violates his design for the expression of human sexuality.

There is simply no reason--moral, societal, practical, health--to condone, accept, legitimize, or approve of homosexuality, and certainly not a perversion of God's first institution in all of creation: marriage.

Anonymous said...

Bob,

Please let me explain why I feel your analogy does not make sense. You said:

"Not every drunk who gets behind the wheel will kill someone. Not every drunk who gets behind the wheel will even have an accident. But the incidence and increased risk is high enough that society has deemed it proper to discriminate against every drunk driver and make it illegal for them to drive."

To use such reasoning as a basis to discriminate against every homosexual couple from being legally recognized is irrelevant and inappropriate. Here's why:

Unlike the consumption of alcohol, homosexual behavior does not inherently affect one's motor skills or mental faculties (which is the reason why drunken driving is illegal). If you drink, you CANNOT avoid the effect it has on your body. If you engage in homosexual behavior, however, you can. If you have drink after drink after drink, you WILL necessarily become drunk. If you continually have homosexual sex with the same partner year after year, you will NOT necessarily get AIDS or STDs.

Furthermore, if I go down to the DMV to renew my license and inform the clerk that I have a drink from time to time, I am still allowed to drive. It only becomes a problem when I sit behind the wheel after drinking.

Applying this to the example of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, I simply do not see the connection. Here were two elderly women in a homosexual relationship. To our knowledge, they had no intention of adopting children, did not have AIDS, and in short, put no one's life in danger whatsoever, not even their own. And after going through fifty-five years of avoiding such risks and defying the "average" homosexual relationship, I think it's safe to assume that this was NOT a high-risk behavior to anyone -- especially because children were not involved in any capacity, and to put it bluntly, these were just two old ladies trying to mind their own business. They weren't out to wreck anyone's marriage or take anything away from anyone. The fact that they their relationship was legally recognized in California for a few months prior to Del's death had no impact on your marriage or your family, and you know it. Now, if these women were engaging in homosexual behavior WHILE driving, then maybe I'd consider the logic behind your analogy, because that WOULD have endangered the lives of others. If their sex life had gotten in the way of their ability to raise children or be productive members of society, as excessive alcohol consumption often does, then I'd consider your analogy. But it didn't.

To put it simply, I understand (although do not agree with) your conclusion. I just think you use poor analogies to get there. If you had instead compared a homosexual relationship to maybe an incestuous or abusive one for example, I think you'd have a better case -- still wrong, in my opinion, but better. An incestuous/abusive relationship is continuous, more long-term than an incident of drunken driving, and DOES pose a conceivable risk to children and other people. I think that would be a more logical analogy.

But comparing homosexual behavior to the excessive consumption of alcohol, something that you put in your body and has an UNAVOIDABLE physical and psychological effect on your ability to operate a vehicle, and attempting to put the two on the same plane, is inappropriate and irrelevant.

Bob Ellis said...

Anonymous, 9:26, thanks for your thought-out response. It is very refreshing, especially in the dearth of such comments here.

However, I don't think you understand alcohol and its influence very well. Just as the analogy I provided that not every drunk driver will get into an accident, not every drunk will be affected by alcohol at the same level--which is why some don't get into accidents.

While the law has established either .08 or .1 as the legal level of intoxication, because most people will have serious impairment of judgment and coordination at that level. But not all. Some people have a higher natural tolerance to alcohol, and some have a tolerance which builds with use. And some simply make a more concerted effort to be alert, watch for other vehicles, drive slowly, and not make any mistakes. As a former law enforcement officials, I've seen people blow .2 or more and seem pretty normal. And I've seen some come in at around .08 and they're fried.

I say all that to point out, again, that while not every person who is legally intoxicated will cause an accident, the risk factor is so high that society has deemed it proper to say that if you're legally intoxicated, you shouldn't be driving, and if you do, you've broken the law. Doesn't matter whether the individual can pass the field sobriety test (walking a line, finger to nose, etc.) with flying colors--if you're over .08, the risk is too high.

Similarly, not every homosexual or homosexual couple will be promiscuous, nor will they all experience debilitating depression, drug abuse, suicide or domestic violence.

But the increased risk has been clinically documented and, as with the drunk, placing a child in an environment with that increased risk (which is one of the key dangers associated with the legitimization of homosexual behavior) is insane. You might as well advocate putting a child in the passenger seat with a drunk driver. They might make it to their destination without incident...but would any sane, loving person put a child at that kind of risk?

I think the answer is obvious.

Thanks again for your thoughtful comment. I don't think you had all the facts or took them into full consideration, but you took the time to put together a reasoned and rational argument. I REALLY appreciate that!

Anonymous said...

Bob,

Thanks for hearing out my argument. However, my point is that the lesbian couple mentioned in this thread did NOT involve children at all, therefore children should not even be mentioned in this discussion, as long as we're talking about the couple in question. At no point did I say that Martin and Lyon should have adopted a child or otherwise involved a child in their lives, so I don't understand how the "it's wrong to place a child in that risky environment" point even applies to their relationship.

I get the sense that you cannot hear the word "marriage" without automatically thinking "children." The two words are not interchangeable. Many, many gay couples do not have the slightest interest in adopting kids or being artificially inseminated. I would like you to give a good explanation for why gay couples who have no interest in raising children should STILL not be allowed marriage equality.

Case in point: you said, "But the increased risk has been clinically documented and, as with the drunk, placing a child in an environment with that increased risk (which is one of the key dangers associated with the legitimization of homosexual behavior) is insane."

I think you meant to say that this is one of the key dangers associated with the risk of homosexual ADOPTION. Here you go with the slippery slope fallacy again: gay couples who want marriage equality DO NOT NECESSARILY want equal rights in terms of adoption opportunities.

"...but would any sane, loving person put a child at that kind of risk?"

And yet again, with this comment you imply that gay parents and advocates for same-sex adoption are insane and unloving. You may be able to substantiate your other claims with statistics, but the above comment is NOT one of them. It is entirely a matter of opinion, and a prejudiced, insulting one at that.

Bob Ellis said...

You misunderstand, Anonymous 2:02. The concept of homosexual "marriage" is priority #1 with homosexual activists, and any time you involve marriage, children are an automatic potential linkage. Homosexuals are already adopting children even without the benefit of "marriage;" if their unions are recognized on the same plane as real marriage, it will be a foregone conclusion that there will be zero obstacles to adoption.

In fact, as evidenced by a case in England about a year ago, a couple of homosexual men took several boys into their home in a foster relationship...and subsequently molested about four of them. I'm not saying every couple would do so, but what is perhaps most interesting about this case is that, despite multiple credible reports to child services that the children were being abused, social services did nothing because they were afraid of being labeled as discriminatory. In essence, political correctness subjected four boys to prolonged abuse.

I do not contend that homosexuals cannot or do not love children. But love is more than just an emotion. Real love puts welfare of the object of that love ahead of everything, and seeks the best for that person.

What's more, just because someone is capable of loving a child doesn't mean that person should raise that child--that goes, regardless of homosexual or heterosexual. It's a matter of fitness and a matter of risk--and given that a homosexual couple would inherently deprive the child of either a mother or a father, and considering the additional high risk factors, neither the fitness or risk thresh hold are met here.

Insanity can be defined as a loss of connection to reality. The reality is that children need a mother and a father, and a stable home environment, and one that is as free as possible from the kind of risks common to the homosexual community. In the sense that advocates of homosexual marriage and subsequent increased adoption access are not in touch with this reality, it is insane.

alexh2007 said...

"The concept of homosexual "marriage" is priority #1 with homosexual activists, and any time you involve marriage, children are an automatic potential linkage."

Ah, but that's "marriage" as YOU view it. If you don't consider a legally recognized same-sex relationship to BE a marriage in the first place, I can't see how this line of reasoning makes any sense. As far as you're concerned, homosexuals cannot and will never be able to marry each other, regardless of what the law says in California and Massachusetts, because you believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman, period. So for gay couples, who cannot "marry," this "automatic potential linkage" of children is irrelevant. Such potential exists only in traditional, heterosexual, biblical marriage -- the only kind you deem valid. And even then, you're still assuming that the married couple is not infertile and not unfit to adopt.

"Homosexuals are already adopting children even without the benefit of "marriage;" if their unions are recognized on the same plane as real marriage, it will be a foregone conclusion that there will be zero obstacles to adoption."

The slippery slope strikes again. Why not allow same-sex marriage equality but rescind the right to adopt? I can't believe it's just because of gay activists' tenacity in getting what they want. Every day, we deny many heterosexual married couples the right to adopt kids -- be it for psychological issues, financial instability, domestic circumstances, and so on. The difference, however, is that their marriages are still valid. Why? Why are they allowed to bring a NEW life into the world, but are not permitted to care for one that already exists and may otherwise go without a home?

Personally, my partner and I have no interest whatsoever in raising kids. And since we obviously cannot produce our own, this so-called "automatic potential linkage" of children in our relationship is nonexistent. The same applies to the lesbian couple mentioned in this thread; two women cannot produce a child, and the ones in question were well into their eighties when California granted them the right to marry -- and I hardly think they intended to adopt children at their age. Therefore, I think we can safely assume that in no capacity whatsoever were children involved in Martin and Lyon's marriage (or, if you prefer, "marriage"). Frankly, their relationship didn't concern anyone but themselves.

Speaking personally again, I am probably one of the few gay people you will talk to who does not support same-sex marriage. Based on my own experience, a gay relationship and a straight relationship are fundamentally different, so it's illogical to use the same word to describe both of them. Also, I believe the word "marriage" belongs to religion, and the adherents of those religions should not have others come along and redefine a word that is sacred to them. I'm sure this sentiment is aided somewhat by the fact that I am not religious myself, and all I care about is having certain rights and privileges entitled to my relationship under the law -- health insurance coverage for my partner, life insurance benefits, bereavement leave, hospital visitation rights, next-of-kin status in the even of death, the right to make medical decisions for my partner and vice versa, etc. In short, my goal is not to achieve equal status to heterosexual marriage, because -- and this is something that all gay activists need to learn, and fast -- IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. Legislation will not change public opinion; bigots will be bigots no matter what the law says, and legal acceptance does not imply social acceptance. All I can hope for is that I will have at least SOME legal protections for my relationship; something is better than nothing. I think gay activists are asking for way too much, way too soon. There are FAR more important issues facing the gay community than having a marriage license reading "partner A" and "partner B." The issue of gay rights is extremely emotional regardless of which side you stand on, so we must set realistic, pragmatic goals that we ALL can live with.

That said, as I mentioned earlier, I don't understand why so many people refuse to compromise by, for example, permitting same-sex domestic partner benefits/civil union status while prohibiting same-sex adoption. The government regulates heterosexual relationships in many ways and for many reasons. Why not make this apply to gay relationships as well, if only for the time being? In terms of same-sex relationship rights, the gay activists cry "Everything!" and the anti-gay activists yell "Nothing!" I think we'll all have to meet in the middle eventually.

This is getting a little long, so I'll close with this: I would be more careful with your use of the word "insane." You define it as something that has lost connection with reality. As respectfully as I can say this, I think you'd be wise to consider many of the things you believe as a Christian before pointing the finger at other people's beliefs on love and family and calling them insane. Christ's miracles, for example, are intentionally out of touch with reality (that's WHY they're miracles), but I doubt you would use the word "insane" to describe them. Nor would you imply that it's insane for someone to believe that a woman can get pregnant without having sex, or that mere mortals killed a deity, who then came back to life, rose into the sky, and now listens to you when you pray. "Insane" brings a negative, condescending, and insulting tone into your articles that I sincerely hope is unintentional. If I were a Christian, I would be offended if I went to a website for agnostics and read about how "insane" I was for thinking that Adam was literally created out of dust, and how "unloving" I was for wanting my kids to believe the same thing.

If you really want to change minds and inspire thoughtful conversation, using language that can be easily misconstrued as questioning the mental faculties and intelligence of your readers will not deliver the results you want. You are obviously passionate and well-read on this issue and make statements of opinion accordingly; it may be helpful to make those statements a little less extreme, if only to make your audience less defensive and more receptive.

Thanks for your time, Bob!

Gabarus said...

I find it a shame that Bob never replied to this one. I'm for once, actually curious as to his thoughts.

alexh2007 said...

I am too, Gabarus. I've been waiting for Bob to respond.

alexh2007 said...

Bob, I'm shocked. You're supposed to have the answer for everything!

 
Clicky Web Analytics