Norway has become the latest country to recognize homosexual "marriage," according to LifeSiteNews.
The article says Norway is the sixth country to do so, and the new law includes the explicit right for homosexuals to adopt children and lesbians to be artificially inseminated.
Norway began allowing same-sex civil unions in the 1990s and since then its heterosexual-marriage rates have plummeted and its out-of-wedlock birthrate skyrocketed to 80 percent for firstborn children; but the provision allowing homosexuals to adopt children is of gravest concern.Homosexual "marriages" are a minefield of problems, for the couple and for any children who may be involved:
O'Leary explained that "a same-sex couple has, by definition, two persons at high risk for psychological disorders. The studies published in the Archives of General Psychiatry found that persons self-identified as homosexual in comparison to the general public had almost double the rate of suicidal ideation or attempts, substance abuse problems and psychological disorders. One of the studies found that 78.6% of the gay, lesbian or bisexual group suffered from multiple disorders."
"And there are other problems: Domestic violence is more common among same-sex couples. Men with same-sex attractions are more likely to become infected with a STD, including HIV, hepatitis or HPV, which can lead to cancer. Thus, several studies suggest that 50% of men who have sex with men will become HIV positive before age 50."
Only the insane would allow a child to enter such a high-risk environment when it could be prevented.
But then, it seems the whole world has gone mad.
32 comments:
So any gay couple that wants to adopt a child is insane. That's essentially what you've said. Nice.
I guess in your opinion, it's better for a child to rot in an orphanage than to be loved and cared for by gay parents?
Yes it is insane, for the reasons I cited.
Heterosexual couples are lined up to adopt children. Better to put them in a home that the odds are will be more stable, and they'll also have role models from both sexes to help them learn how men and women are supposed to relate to one another.
Even if there weren't heterosexual couples waiting to adopt, it would be better for the children to wait than to put them into a home where they would definitely lack one of the sexes and would likely face the chaotic conditions described here.
I'd love to hear you say this to an orphaned child:
"Hello, little girl, here are two nice men who want nothing more than to take you home and raise you and give you everything you could need or want. In fact, they've spent their life savings to pay for the expensive adoption process because, unlike a man and a woman, they don't have the option of having a baby on a whim so you know they had to put a lot of time and care into their decision.
"The bad news is that even though these two particular men have been psychologically screened and were found to be loving, healthy, stable, responsible, well-adjusted, and monogamous, statistics tell us that gay men are generally the opposite. That's why you have to stay at the orphanage until a husband and wife take an interest in you, even though these two men already have a room at their house prepared just for you. If they didn't both have the same anatomy, this would be perfect! Sorry."
Better to have no parents than gay parents, huh? Tell that to an orphan. If there's a God, he would be ashamed of you.
God said family was supposed to be headed by a man and a woman, not two men or two women. He also said homosexuality was wrong; it violates his design for human sexuality.
I doubt there would be homosexual couples available to adopt children when no heterosexual couples are available, but even if they were, the child would clearly be better off from a moral and health perspective to wait for a heterosexual couple than to go to a homosexual couple.
And I think that's the way God sees it, based on what He's said in His Bible.
Again, try explaining that to a child.
You mentioned insanity earlier. What's insane to me is that millions of people feel the way you do, and it's all based on a fairy tale. What happened to our world that loyalty to a myth takes precedence over common sense and compassion?
That "myth" as you call it is responsible for the formation of Western civilization, which created the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity the world has ever known. So it's pretty powerful and pretty beneficial for a "myth." In fact, more than 80% of people still say they believe that "myth."
But even if you remove the moral component from the equation, the science is still as damning.
Research shows that monogamy is the exception rather than the rule in homosexual relationships, even those where "marriages" or civil unions exist--less than 10%. That's no fit place to raise a child.
And homosexual relationships seldom make it past five years, and only a handful make it past 10 years. As sad as the heterosexual divorce rate is, it's still much better than that.
And then there are the mental health issues which are much greater in homosexuals: anxiety, depression, suicide risk, substance abuse. A child doesn't need to be subjected to parents who are a mess, mentally.
And then there is the increased risk of domestic violence. Some studies have found that homosexual couples are more than 5 times as likely to involve domestic violence as heterosexual couples, and 83% of homosexual couples have reported emotional abuse. Children don't need to be exposed to any of that.
And then there are the health risks, including injuries that often come with male-male sex, anal cancer, Chlamydia, bacteriological infections, syphilis, herpes, HPV, gonorrhea, and the killer AIDS (according to the CDC, 72% of AIDS cases in the United States are attributed to male homosexual activity).
We also don't need to rob children of role models from both sexes in the home. Children need to see men and women interacting, working together and relating to one another in order to know how to do that as they grow into adults.
So both moral and secular scientific evidence indicates homosexual homes are simply not the proper place for children.
It's true that the Christian myth is responsible for Western civilization. But that doesn't mean that it's anything more than a story.
I wonder how your gay friends feel reading all of this. I can hear you now -- "You're my friend, but your sex life is an abomination and you're not fit to raise a child."
I feel sorry for you, Bob.
I feel sorry for anyone caught up in this lifestyle.
Sex is a fantastic gift from God when it's practiced within marriage as He designed it. It leaves a lot to be desired when practiced otherwise, especially when it's practiced in direct contradiction to God's design. That's probably why there are so many problems that spring from homosexuality, and so many mental health issues.
God didn't intend for people to live this way and He'd love to see people turn to Him and live the abundant life He intended for us.
Maybe if society encouraged gay people to have healthy monogamous relationships, we wouldn't see these problems. As things are now, gay people have no legal or cultural incentive to form lasting relationships; they know that they and their partners will not be protected under the law, and they know that not even Christians, who are in theory the most loving and compassionate people around, will validate or respect their unions, or treat them as a legitimate population of individuals.
Maybe that's why we see so many gay people having one-night stands and affairs, which lead to physical and psychological/emotional harm. Maybe that's why there is such resentment and hostility in the gay community toward those who deny them legal protection.
I have a hard time believing that you have gay friends, Bob. A friend doesn't pity someone else simply because of the kind of sex he or she has. A friend doesn't treat other people like second-class citizens.
Either you don't understand the meaning of friendship, or the gay people who associate with you are masochists.
Even in countries where homosexual unions have been officially recognized for many years, there are still problems with monogamy, promiscuity, disease, etc. I think it's simply a natural consequence of doing that which is unnatural. Whether you belive the Bible or not, the very design and function of our bodies illustrate that the sex organs were not to be used in a homosexual fashion.
I pity promiscuous heterosexuals, because they, too, are operating outside of God's design for human sexuality. They usually pay a physical and emotional price, too.
I understand the meaning of friendship. Friends and people who care don't applaud and encourage others in self-destructive behavior. Thus the popular statement we see often in commercials: friends don't let friends drive drunk.
Here is your Christian morality at work, Bob.
http://www.drummajorinstitute.org/library/article.php?ID=5518
A fitting addendum:
And the King shall answer and say unto them, "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."
Matthew 25:40
Homosexuals have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that heterosexuals have. It takes three elements to comprise a marriage: a man, a woman, and a formal commitment; in the absence of any of the three elements (just like a vehicle with a chassis but no engine, or an engine with no chassis), you don't have the elements necessary to make up a marriage. Like heterosexuals, homosexuals do not have the right to call an illegitimate relationship by the title of a legitimate one. That is misleading and undermines the value of the institution of marriage.
Anonymous 2:40, I'm sure I'd not want to be accused of trying to do to the Lord what homosexuals do to each other.
Rather, God clearly wants us to warn one another about destructive behavior (Ezekiel 3:18).
Bob, you're amazing. Even when (if?) you read an article about how beliefs like yours affect real gay people, like Juan and Ryan, you still drone out the same rhetoric, as if the survivor's emotional and financial devastation didn't make a bit of difference.
"Homosexuals have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that heterosexuals have."
So I guess in your opinion, a gay man marrying a lesbian would make for a stable relationship? Is there mere fact that one is a man and one is a woman enough to make it "right"?
What you seem to miss, anonymous, is that there are greater considerations than the ones mentioned in the article you cited. To turn your statement back around, even when you read the considerations I've cited--which are more important than the self-centered ones in that article--you still seem to consider "I want, I want" more important than doing what is moral, doing what is right for children, and doing what is right for society.
A homosexual man marrying a homosexual woman would be less than ideal, unless they were willing to work on renouncing their same-sex attractions, but they would at least be in a moral and natural relationship.
Bob,
First of all, I'll take your evasive response to mean that no, you don't care that the gay couple was treated unfairly.
Second, denying gay couples the right to marry, adopt, and be recognized as a part of society is what you want. So actually, you are being just as self-centered. There is an unwillingness to compromise on both ends of the issue.
Third, you seem to believe that the criterion for a moral and natural relationship is that one spouse be a man and the other a woman. I wish the world were that simple. I guess you believe that drunken Vegas weddings are moral too, because there's a man and a woman. According to you, that's sufficient.
Talking to you is like giving my brain an abortion.
Anonymous, I was not being evasive. I answered your question before. Homosexuals are not being discriminated against. They have the same rights that homosexuals do. They do not need nor deserve the right to do things that are unnatural and unhealthy, both to themselves and do society. The same rights as everyone else should be sufficient.
Denying the "right" for homosexuals do do what they cannot by definition do (i.e. get married) is not self-centered. It takes a man and a woman and a commitment to form a marriage; homosexual couples are missing at least one of those elements. Calling such a union by the name of something it isn't devalues the important institution of marriage.
The Vegas weddings you mentioned also make a mockery of marriage. They are, at least, comprised of a man and a woman--which is what it takes to be married.
If you have two hammer heads or two hammer handles, you don't have a "hammer" until you put a hammer head with a hammer handle. Two men or two women cannot comprise a "marriage."
You don't have to like it, but that's just the way it is. You might as well argue about the hammers, or that the sky should be green with yellow polka dots; it's always going to be what it is.
Bob,
Your statement that "two men or two women cannot comprise a marriage" is simply not true -- not anymore, at least. Go to Massachusetts, Norway, Spain, South Africa, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, or California, and you will find yourself mistaken. Gay people will never stop fighting for marriage equality. You don't have to like it, but that's just the way it is.
I agree that many kinds of heterosexual marriages, like the one I mentioned, are a mockery of God's design for marriage according to the Bible. Curiously, they are also perfectly legal. However, since all sins are equal in the eyes of God, they should be just as illegitimate as same-sex marriage. Therefore, what efforts will you take to make sure marriages like these are illegal?
Better yet, will you lobby for the federal outlawing of divorce? People shouldn't have the right to destroy God's holy unions by divorcing each other, wouldn't you agree?
You can say that 2+2=5, and you can even make than an official pronouncement...but it doesn't make it so.
No matter how many times you put two apples with two apples, nature is still going to remind you that you DON'T really have 5 apples, only 4. In other words, we can try to fool ourselves and others, but in the end we'll only have wasted a lot of time and sown a lot of hurtful confusion.
Christians and other sensible people who understand what marriage and family are will never stop working to protect it from being hijacked and counterfeited--so you should get used to that, too.
All sins cause spiritual death and separate us from God's approval, but I don't think it's Scriptural to say that all sins are exactly equal in His sight. Some sins God says are especially repugnant to him. Incidentally, homosexuality is one of them. Perhaps because it turns his design for human sexuality upside down and subverts his institution of marriage and family. I don't know; He just says it's wrong, and He makes it plain that He feels very strongly about it. Since He's the Creator, He gets to set the rules and He defines right and wrong.
As for divorce, I think it SHOULD be outlawed except for reasons of adultery and perhaps abusive situations that can't be fixed. For some time, I've advocated the end of the no-fault divorce culture we've endured since the 1960s; it's devastating to our culture and to families and children.
But one thing is certain: we shouldn't throw more gasoline on the fire and further undermine marriage and family by allowing homosexual unions to masquerade as the genuine article.
Again, Bob, "hijacked"? Gay people aren't trying to take marriage away from anyone.
And actually, it is scriptural to say that all sins are equal to God. I was raised in the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest denomination in the country after Catholicism, and this is their official position. If I'm wrong about this, then millions of Bible-thumping Americans are wrong with me.
"I don't know; He just says it's wrong."
That's all it takes for you to believe something? What a dangerous, dangerous logic.
And you shouldn't waste your time advocating for the end of no-fault divorce. It will never happen. People don't like to be told how to live.
Marriage rightly belongs to a man and a woman in a sacred, official commitment. If the institution is used by those who don't have a right to it, then yes, it's been hijacked, just as airplanes are when people who don't have a right to direct them take control of them.
You are are incorrect in saying that all sins are equal to God. All sins will equally separate you spiritually for God and are deserving of Hell, but if you read the Bible, you'll find that there are some God specifically says are even more repugnant to him than others--and one that He even says is so bad that it's unpardonable (it isn't homosexuality that's unpardonable, however).
Yes, when God says something is wrong, that's all I need. Sure, I'd like to understand the why, and most them of I do understand why--and I'm pretty sure that my theory voiced in a previous comment is correct on why God considers homosexuality to be especially unpleasant. But God has saved me, He's shown me the right way to live, He's the creator of the universe, and I've never seen him wrong about anything; given all that, I think he's earned my trust.
I admit ending no-fault divorce is unlikely because you're right: people don't like being told how to live, even when it's obvious they're destroying their own lives and their innocent children.
But there is hope. We ended slavery. We ended segregation based on skin color. We (except for a few pockets) ended prostitution. Why, we even force people to wear seatbelts, and the population puts up with THAT! Evidence of divorce's destructive consequences is growing; there was a report a month or two ago that showed broken families costs society something like $12 billion a year. Sooner or later, the preponderance of evidence may mount to the point that we deal with the mess that no-fault divorce has created.
I hope we're smart enough to avoid the mountain of hurt that legitimization of homosexual behavior would cost our society.
Again, Bob, gay people haven't taken anything away from you or any other heterosexual. I'm almost afraid to ask, but would you consider giving gay couples equal protection under the law as long as their relationship isn't called a marriage? Lots of Christians used the old "separate but equal" approach to help them learn that *gasp* blacks and whites deserve to use the same public services. So maybe calling a same-sex union something other than "marriage" would make you feel less icky about it.
By your own admission, you say that you follow the Bible without even understanding everything in it. You're a sheep, Bob, and nothing more. It's tragic.
It's true that we ended slavery, segregation, and other terrible social institutions. But only after Christians established them.
So it's clear you don't want to see the legitimization of homosexual behavior. You also know that gay people will never go away and will never stop having the kind of sex that makes your skin crawl, no matter what legal/social restrictions you subject them to. So until the good lord returns, you'll continue to exclude them from society and treat them like the enemy, rather than work with them to try and understand one another.
Yeah, that's a sure way to avoid a mountain of hurt.
Homosexuals already have equal protection under the law. If they're assaulted, are the perpetrators not brought to justice? If they are murdered, are the perpetrators not brought to justice?
There has never been a reason, Biblical or otherwise, to deny services and protections to black people. And homosexuals aren't being denied services and protections now.
But homosexuals do not have the right to call their unions a "marriage" or by any other name which mimics or approximates it in order to provide benefits which only married couples should be entitled to.
Marriage is the foundation of the family, and family is the foundation of society. Homosexuals are biologically incapable of producing a family.
Numerous statistics also show that with a few exceptions, most homosexuals don't remain in committed relationships for very long. Most of the few that do don't remain monogamous. Homosexual couples also experience much greater instances of domestic abuse, and greater risk of depression, suicide and substance abuse. All these factors add up to a much greater risk for chaos in the home, so even if homosexuals were allowed to adopt, we would likely be placing the children into an unhealthy and potentially dangerous situation.
Homosexuals aren't excluded from society. They work in pretty much every vocation, eat in the same restaurants, go to the same movie theaters, and enjoy pretty much every other aspect of American society as anyone else.
There is no legitimate complaint of exclusion or lack of protection under the law.
What homosexuals are not entitled to is to have their unions legitimized and receive the same benefits and status as marriage.
I understand homosexuals just fine, but I'm not going to compromise the truth and what is right in order to just "get along." I'll work with a homosexual in the workplace, and I'll even work with homosexuals to promote things that are good for society that many can agree on: lower taxes, national security, promoting the free market, etc.
But I can't compromise on right and wrong. I can't call something "right" that I know is not only morally wrong, but unhealthy for the people involved, and detrimental to society as a whole.
Bob,
If you had read what I actually wrote, you'll notice that I said that it's gay COUPLES, not individuals, who are denied equal protection under the law. But you obviously saw what you wanted to see.
It's actually not just couples, however. Many gay individuals are fired from their jobs and cannot find housing simply because their boss or potential landlord finds out they're gay. That is not equal protection under the law.
And once again, contrary to what you insist, in some parts of the world gay people DO have the right to call their unions a marriage. Visit California or Massachusetts with your wife (assuming you have one), and your marriage will be legally the same as two men's or two women's. I can't fathom the hours of sleep you must lose over that horrible thought!!
The more you say, the more you come across as a hateful bigot. It's people like YOU who should not be allowed to raise children.
Homosexual couples don't make up a relationship that deserves special status or special protection of that status, as I've explained before. Only married men and women meet that criteria, for the reasons I've already mentioned.
As for the firings and housing situations you mentioned, I doubt they would have had problems with either if they had kept their homosexual behavior private. But, as you've made clear, that isn't good enough--you require that everyone approve and accept it. But they don't, and that's their right as employers and property owners.
You don't seem to understand that homosexuality isn't the same thing as an ethnicity or skin color or sex. Ethnicity, skin color and sex are inherent human characteristics that are neither right or wrong. Homosexuality is a behavior, and it's both morally wrong and unhealthy.
I understand that there are places where the government allows homosexuals to call their unions "marriage." That doesn't make it so, however. 2+2 can be called "5" till the cows come home, but it's never going to equal 5; a counterfeit $20 bill made in someone's basement can be called a real $20 bill till the cows come home, but it's never going to be a real one with the backing of the Treasury Department; two men or two women is never going to be a real marriage, no matter what some activist or activist government calls it.
If defending the true and proper definition is bigotry, if defending marriage and family from being counterfeited and hijacked is bigotry, if stating the Biblical and natural truth is bigotry, then I suppose I'm a bigot.
I guess if you can redefine marriage to include two men or two women, you can redefine bigotry to include someone who uncompromisingly speaks out for the truth.
My children will at least know what the truth is, regardless of whatever disconnected-from-reality insanity pop culture embraces.
So if a gay person loses his job or home, it's HIS fault? He should have lied about his sexuality? What wonderful family values you believe, Bob.
I thought you said you understood gay people. If you did, you'd know that they're still gay even when they're not having sex. It is NOT just a behavior.
I'm no longer a praying man, but I may have to take it up again, just to ask God to make one of your kids turn out gay. Maybe that would make you see the cruelty behind your words of "love."
If I openly commit incest, I shouldn't expect an employer to have me around at the expense of his sense of morality. Nor should I expect a landlord to allow me to practice what he finds immoral on his own property. You seem to forget that the business and the real estate belong to someone else; it's their property, and they're entitled to do with it what they want, and you have no right to force them to compromise their moral sense.
God holds us accountable for what we do, for our actions, not for our temptations. An alcoholic may be tempted to get drunk, but God will only hold him accountable if he acts on it. A person may feel a same-sex attraction, but God will only hold him accountable if he acts on it. The sin is not in the temptation, but in acting on the temptation.
You'd really ask God to make one of my children get caught up in a sinful lifestyle that would alienate them from God's favor, and place not only their health but their eternal soul in jeopardy? Not that God would honor such a despicable prayer, but you must be a truly bitter and angry person to wish such a thing on any person, much less an innocent child.
Incest, I understand. How you think it's an appropriate example in this conversation, that's a stretch.
There was a national news story a few months ago of a military serviceman who was discharged after his superiors discovered an email conversation between him and his boyfriend. He lost his job not because he was caught having gay sex or flirting with a fellow soldier. In other words, he hadn't acted on his "temptation," but was fired anyway.
And no, I wouldn't waste my time praying for something like that. You'll just have to wait and see how your child turns out ;-)
Incest is a misuse of human sexuality, and it's one that most people find repugnant--that's how it's an appropriate example in this conversation.
I was in the military for 10 years. Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. In the military you often serve in close, intimate quarters. People have more important things to be worrying about (national security, their own lives and the lives of others) than whether someone with whom they're living, showering, etc. is going to make a sexual advance. We don't quarter men and women together for that same reason.
And if you expect me to believe this guy was having an email conversation with a "boyfriend" but he had not acted on his same-sex attraction, either you or I must be incredibly naive.
You're right, Bob. Of course the guy was having homosexual sex. Why would he abstain or control himself? He is gay, after all!
I can understand when people from latin or middle eastern countries express against same sex marriage. BUT in USA and Europe are far away from morality. I'm pro same sex marriage. First everyone has the right to build up their life in anyway they want, as long is in decent ways.
Straight people has been spitting and mocking on the foundation of marriage since the reformation in 1500's, 1600's and before. There's nothing more shamefull than see homosexuals fighting for their right to marry, while those against it are getting divorced. Getting divorced because infidelity, men leave wives because they don't find them appealing to them (disgusting), indifferences, wife or husband get olds, want their spouse look like a prubescent teen, etc, etc. Getting divorced not once, twice, but many times. Yes those with a record of more than 4 marriages, 5, 6, 7, and so on.
And if people will use religion as a back up, they should give the example first. Most of people in USA against same sex marriage aren't pure, chaste when they marry. Most men and women has sleep with a bunch of people before getting married, like testing meat before eat (pathetic). Sometimes getting married in the churches with white dresses. This is more shamefull than homosexuals getting married.
Before telling people they can't marry because same sex marriage is this and that, give the damn example first; don't be a slut or pimp (how i call men that sleep around), be pure, chaste. And if you don't agree with this, you're just an hipocrite in the big leagues. I'm not a christian but i can tell you you're not fooling the God you serve you're fooling yourself. I know the bible better than many christians. And use the excuse that Jesus forgive to commit inmorality. You know what? Jesus will forgive same sex marriages the same way they forgive slutties/whores and pimps getting married in churches. Sorry pals, the bible is clearly about sexuality.
Start fighting for morality. I assume that people againts same sex marriage are christians. If you aren't married and aren't pure or you married after being used then don't tell other they can't married either. Read your bible clearly, fornication between men and women are more condemmed than homosexuality. And saying that you're not against homosexuals but are againts same sex marriages is very hipocrite. If i tell you you can't worship God, or your religion and then i say i'm not against christians, would you believe it? Of course not, since i'm against your rights. duh People against same sex marriages are christians, as a matter of fact their point of view are based on christian teachings, the bible' nothing more.
If you're not going to give the example then let others live. Homosexuals aren't asking for a bad thing. Its their rights. Don't want same sex marriages? Then keep literally chaste, date according to church's teaching, marry and never divorce (unless your spouse is a wolf in sheeps clothes). Live and let die!
Fight againts """straight""" marriages that indulge in swinging, orgies, pornography (profesional/amateur), crimes against kids, etc.
I think that a kid adopted by homosexuals will be happier knowing and feeling love than in a stright marriage where they are abused, mentally, physically, sexually. I know this veeeery well like im an activist of kids rights.
Second all problems attributed to homosexuals are far higher in heterosexuals. Yes its true that over 70% cases of HIV are from homosexuals, yes the CDC is right i that statistic. BUT you should know that that 72% are really saying that homosexuals are responsible. Every time a person with a infectious disease is treated their doctor/clinic has obligatory report the case to CDC. I worked with HIV/aids infected people. you know what? the vast mayority of STd's hiv came from straight people and most of them doesn't even know they are infected until late. one of every teen and one of every five adults are infected with one or more std' including hiv and the source of the infection is straight sex. Many straight people go to private mds where for a couple of bucks extra apart the CASH they aren't reported.
Post a Comment