Your Opinions
This is an open forum to allow the community to express their thoughts on the ceremony. To promote constructive dialog, we encourage all points of view.
Note: posts will not be immediately displayed to ensure that profanity and vulgar language is not contained within posts (keep it clean for the children please!).
April 4th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
I got an invitation in the mail all the way down here in VA. I was saddened I was unable to attend but just so proud in the folks at Penn State,the couples, Mayor Welch, You are all to be commended. Thank you for setting an example for what should already be acceptable by all. I’m proud to have made my donation to PSU specifically to the LGBTA Resource Center on behalf of everyone involved.
March 30th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
As half of one of the couples who was “committed” yesterday, I just want to thank all of the wonderfully supportive people who made the day so incredibly special.
It started with our yummy BBQ rehearsal dinner on Friday, where we learned that we had each received a free membership to a registry for same-sex couples for their important documents such as powers of attorney and living wills.
On Saturday, our hairdresser made us feel comfortable from the beginning by promising not to give us “big bride hair” and then our brunch at Chumley’s was so comforting and fun.
The folks from the LGBT center were so hospitable and helpful and thought of everything we might need as we got ready for the ceremony to start. From the moment we walked out of our dressing areas, we could see the rainbow umbrellas from the silent witnesses. Their warm wishes and cheers made us feel safe, welcome, and proud. As we waited for our entrance, we were moved by the sight of approximately 700 people who had come to help us celebrate and make a statement to the community. Seeing our friends and family for the first time as we entered was absolutely incredible.
Having a ceremony like this with other couples seemed, weeks ago, like it had the potential to be impersonal; but we found it to be just the opposite. Our organizer, Tom, made sure from the beginning to include us in decisions and he also made sure that there were plenty of personal touches to make the day our own. As the incredibly supportive and gracious Mayor Welch took each of us through our vows, I felt bonded with each couple, but also felt recognized as a couple and as an individual. Steve Glassman’s words meant so much to us. He is an inspiration.
Throughout the process, we found the members of the press to be extremely respectful, inquisitive, and objective. The flowers were beautiful. The music was wonderful. The clothes were perfect. We can’t wait to see our photographs. We are so glad that the people who provided all these things were able to be at the ceremony with us.
We had friends from near and far who were able to celebrate with us, both in Alumni Hall and at our home, and it was so wonderful to be able to share this most special day with all of them.
I’m sure I’m forgetting a few people, as the support from the community and our friends and family was so great that it was difficult to take it all in.
One of the most moving things for us was greeting people immediately following the ceremony. We met so many couples, gay and straight, who had been together for many years and who were relieved and proud to see this event come to State College.
Throughout the day, everyone made us feel *special* but not *different.* And that’s exactly how any couple should feel on their wedding day.
So, to everyone mentioned and not mentioned, and to my newly “committed” partner Donna, I say, as did our recessional song, “I want to thank you for giving me the best day of my life!”
March 30th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Yesterday was AMAZING! Kudos to Tom and everyone involved in the planning and execution of the event! And THANK YOU to the four couples for allowing me and everyone else in attendance to share in your special day! I was moved to tears by the love and respect in Alumni Hall - it was palpable. Best wishes to the couples and, again, GREAT JOB TOM!!!
March 29th, 2008 at 12:34 am
I’m glad to see Penn State and State College pulling together and supporting the couples and in a sense, it shows that we’re growing as a community.
I’m incredibly pleased that Bill Welch is attending and that even with the “Family Values” protest going on, there is such strong support.
I’m going to be there in thought and spirit and on the front lawn of Old Main.
The Rifiuto Manifesto will be holding a rally in support of gay rights and the ceremony. More so it is to show that the people of Penn State and State College are supporting of all communities.
I want to make it very clear that this is a support rally for the gay community and not a protest against the Christian rally. We are not there to be rude, disruptive, or to condemn their actions.
As Voltaire said: I do not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.
We invite everyone who believes in equality for all to come. We are there to show support not just for those at the ceremony, but for everyone who is gay, bisexual, or lesbian.
We would like people to come with a sign.
Now in the name of human courtesy, we ask that no signs have vulgar or anti-Christian statements. As we show support for those in the gay community, we must respect the rights of those at the Christian rally too.
Please bring a sign with a statement of acceptance, love, or anything that portrays support of ALL people.
This is a rally of support. Not a protest of anger.
March 28th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans if they choose. For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue:) www.OUTTAKEonline.com
March 28th, 2008 at 7:01 am
Congratulations!! Best wishes to the newlyweds!!
And as for the protesters, boo-hoo! Go away! Weddings are happy events!
-A Pittsburgher, and at one time, almost a Penn Stater.
March 26th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Gabriel,
>>> “I noticed some time back that the media, which loved reporting about the gay priests who molested boys, didn’t ever refer to these priests as gay nor did they mention the gender of the abused children.”
The media does not usually report details about abused children. I think there is a law against it, or how much information they can report.
In contrast; when was the last time you read about “straight child molesters”? Even when Lou Beres, the longtime chairman of the Oregon Christian Coalition (and anti-gay crusader), admitted to molesting two young girls he was not classified as a “heterosexual child molester.”
>>> “But if you did a little research, you discovered that a large percentage of the abused kids were boys.”
Most likely, since Altar Boys are the children I’d imagine are most accessible to RCC Priests. But child molestation within the Christian Faith does not begin or end with the recent spotlight on the RCC. Look at the decades-long troubles with the Anglican Church of Canada and their scandals involving molested aboriginal children in “residential schools.” The majority of them were female.
>>> “If these priests were abusing little girls, the media wouldn’t hide the gender.”
Many did molest girls. The reports are widely available. W-5 (something like “60 Minutes”) devoted an hour long exposé to this very topic. It followed several priests who molested young girls and were shuffled around and hidden by the RCC for decades. Terribly disturbing and heartbreaking.
>>> “I can understand why the Psychiatric community doesn’t want to classify pedophiles, because a large percentage of them are gay. That would have to sting.”
Reversed quips? You cad!
In the Child Molestation Prevention Study, which comprised of authors analyzing the reports from a study sample of 16,109 child molesters, the following was noted in Paragraph 11:
“More than 70 percent of the men who molest boys rate themselves as heterosexual in their adult sexual preferences. In addition, 9 percent report that they are equally heterosexual and homosexual. Only 8 percent describe their adult sexual preferences as exclusively homosexual.”
Additionally, it was also found that 77% of the child molesters were (or had been) married and 93% described themselves as religious. Out of 3,952 child molesters 68% admitted to molesting a child within their own family, with one-third of those being their own child.
The vast majority of child molesters are self-described heterosexuals, even among those who molest boys. I emphasize the term “self-described” because it again highlights my previous point; the actions of a pedophile are not relevant to their sexual orientation, and thus they are not classified with a sexual orientation based on the gender of their victims.
Part of what encompasses a sexual orientation is the ability to form relationships of a mutual and equal nature, in power, control and respect. When an adult abuses a child, none of these conditions exist.
Source: http://www.yellodyno.com/pdf/Child_Molestation_Prevention_Study.pdf
Source: http://www.yellodyno.com/pdf/LifeTips_Child_Molester_Stats.pdf
>>> “If you start re-defining marriage, you will start re-defining adultery,”
I’m not attempting to ‘re-define’ heterosexual marriage; nobody is suggesting it be changed in any way from its current form.
I view this as a flaw in the argument; you suggest that by expanding the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples that all other forms of ‘morality’ will become subverted and open to reevaluation.
It is simply not so. Our society has undergone social changes over the past century that were far more ‘threatening’ in their time than the question of same sex marriage is today. Imagine the ‘threat’ of women being able to Vote and enter the professional workforce in a society that had never before known these concepts. It was widely feared that civilization as a whole would come crashing down. But in time this fear was proven unfounded.
This said; marriage /is/ a concept that has existed in various forms throughout the world, predating many cultures and faiths. Our society already has a working modern foundation of Marriage; it only lacks expansion of the gender of the couples eligible for inclusion, without modifying any other aspect.
>>> “You know, if you have no secure basis upon which to build morality, anything goes, and that is the agenda of the gay movement, whether you support it or not.”
Causing harm to another person for ones own gratification or person gain is not moral, ethical, or legal. Child pornography requires a /victim./ Adultery by one person deceiving the other creates a victim of that unwitting person, and potentially puts them at health-risks. (Yet even so adultery is not illegal.)
To devalue same-sex marriage you present comparisons that involve harming a second party on a personal level. I cannot reconcile these comparisons with the concept of same-sex marriage.
>>> “How can you say deceit is wrong? Isn’t that being judgmental? On what basis is deceit wrong? Isn’t that imposing your view of morality on others when you call their trysts wrong?”
Deceit creates a victim out of the one deceived and, in my opinion, implies a level of harm.
>>> “And who is to say that no victim is involved in threesomes? Just because a person agrees to adulterous behavior doesn’t mean they all aren’t victims. Aren’t they self-inflicted victims?”
I don’t feel comfortable playing “morality police” by passing judgment on the informed and mutually consensual actions of adults in the privacy of their own homes. When you start doing that, where do you draw the line?
As a former PM of Canada once said, “The Government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.”
I was not attempting to defend or redefine adultery. In this /specific/ scenario I simply feel that the issue is a shade of gray, while I acknowledge that you may only see black.
>>> “What aspects of heterosexuality do your heterosexual friends not like? BEING heterosexual? How many of them wish they were homosexual? I think men can have wonderful relationships without being sexual, while being straight.”
I’ve had a couple heterosexual male friends tell me that they wish they were gay because then they’d not need to keep looking for the ‘right one.’ I was quite flattered, and I’m sure one of them was being very serious at the time. He even told me that he had tried to think of me in a more-than-platonic sense over the previous months, but that the feelings just weren’t there. It was a very sobering moment for the both of us. I tried to be as supportive as I could while reassuring him that nobody can ‘choose’ a sexual orientation. I told him that one day he’d meet the ‘right one,’ and eventually he did. She is quite lovely.
I agree that men can have wonderful relationship without being sexual. I’m blessed to have several such relationships among my gay and straight friends. However, gay couples who want to get married are not just ‘buddies that screw around with each other’ – they are IN love, in that rare and beautiful way that is a true blessing between two hearts beating as one.
>>> “Well, don’t the average sitcoms today (which I don’t watch since I don’t have TV) portray about one gay character to every three straights?”
Without having a TV how could you arrive at that average?
No, that is not the case. In fact, visible homosexuals on TV have been in a steep decline.
For a brief time in the 90s and early 00s there was a boom of visibility. How desired this rush of visibility truly was is open for debate even within the GLBT community. In the majority of TV shows that featured a ‘token gay’ the actor was almost exclusively heterosexual playing a feminine Queen-of-a-homo comedic-relief character. The only exception I can think of is ‘Will & Grace’ where they got a real gay man to play… a Queen-of-a-homo comedic-relief character.
Do you really think this was progress on our part?
Prior to this the closest thing to a visible homosexual on TV was Jack on ‘Threes Company’! (Who was not gay at all.)
>>> “It is not an agenda for someone to portray a man and women kissing. That is what 98% of society does.”
I agree, but that wasn’t my point. My point in mentioning this was to emphasize a probable reason why so many GLBT people form identity issues about their sexual orientation.
>>> “And I utterly reject the notion that gays try to repress their orientation because of the cultural bombardment. I think there is something “wired” into every human being that questions the validity of homosexuality,”
Place a black child in an exclusively white society where the existence of African-Americans is never mentioned and I grantee that child will grow up wondering why they are ‘different;’ wondering if there is something ‘wrong’ with them. Gay kids largely grow up in this same type of bubble. I did. I lived it. I’m not posing possible theories here, I’m telling you what I personally lived through. To ‘utterly reject’ what I’m telling you is on par with calling me a liar, and suggesting that you have a better understanding of the life I’ve lived than I do.
>>> “Should society depict everything 50-50 to accommodate the 1-2 % of the population who is gay? Should society re-define marriage to include two lesbians, or three bisexuals?”
No, and that board form of recognition is not what I am suggesting. However, to abolish any depiction of us whatsoever is silly. GLBT people do exist, and I believe it is in greater numbers than you imply. Just about everybody knows at least one gay person, even if not personally.
How many men did you say you’ve counseled with “same sex attraction” in your Church alone?
>>> “I’m sure it stung Jesus when Judas betrayed him and Peter denied him and the rest of the disciples forsook him and when my own sins caused his torturous death. That didn’t invalidate Jesus.”
Peter and Judas didn’t hang around afterwards to publish anti-Jesus Scripture and to devote their lives to disproving his divinity. I think the conviction these ex-ex-gays show to their cause is a little more profound. Even the former president of Exodus International Europe, who held his chair for over 10 years in good standing, left the organization and went on to devote himself to debunking their claims and methods.
>>> “If Romans 1 is simply man’s word, then it is a lying word. The Biblical writers claimed they dictated under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If they were simply stating their opinion, then they lied about their resources.”
Whether they intentionally lied is neither here nor there; my point was that the world has nothing to base their testimony upon other than their word. You chose to believe it as Divinely Inspired and I think that’s fine. However, so do the people of various religions across the planet when considering their own sacred texts, right?
>>> “And I would welcome you to show where the Bible is wrong concerning human history, and please use unbiased resources.”
- We are not descended from one small family of humans, as would be indicated by the story of Noah and the Great Flood. It is genetically impossible. (Unless you believe God made it not impossible.)
- China has a recorded history that outdates the purported beginning of Genesis. (Unless you believe that the Devil fabricated various histories to trick people into doubting God.)
- Dinosaurs. (Unless you believe that Adam & Eve co-existed with dinosaurs, which were peaceful and vegetarian, until Eve ate the apple and brought sin into the world at which point some dinosaurs turned carnivorous.)
The above bracket-statements are not meant to be sarcastic; I know there are Christians who literally believe what I wrote. I responded to your question in this way to highlight the /difficulties/ in trying to ‘disprove’ a person’s Faith, and why I take no serious interest in doing so.
I don’t hate Christians or Christianity. One of my best friends is finishing his PhD in Theology at a Christian University. I’ve maintained all along that you are free to believe whatever you wish, just as I am, but I don’t believe that our faiths should be used to form the rule of [mans] law.
>>> “How many authors have started out studying the Bible to debunk it only to end up believing and embracing it?”
The same is true in reverse of Christians, even among the Clergy, who’ve attempted to debase other religions. While you’d accuse them of falling from grace, you applaud those who accept your Faith as fact.
>>> “You can’t call it same-sex marriage. Call it anything else, but don’t call it marriage.”
No religion or society on earth holds a copyright on the term Marriage. Is it really just the word that bothers you so much?
>>> “But marriage has been between men and women since man began. How a person comes to marriage doesn’t define which gender marries.”
There is an existing history of same-sex marriages in human history among various nations and cultures; but we are talking about homosexuals in modern society. Please don’t confine GLBT people to a heterosexual definition of marriage.
>>> “Canada puts the squeeze on ministries that believe the Bible concerning marriage. Jesus speaking, “But from the beginning, God created them male and female.” That doctrine is considered dangerous in Canada.”
I’ve heard the wildest accusations of this nature online. I’ve read that Priests are being rounded-up and jailed for speaking against same-sex couples; I’ve read that Canada’s FBI (we don’t have an FBI!) is monitoring Church Services; I’ve read that Bibles are being ‘censored’ and ‘outlawed.’ Its bananas.
>>> “The Canadian government has ordered a Christian ministry that teaches doctrine and the differences between Christians and cults shut down recently because its reference materials were “critical” of the beliefs of those who are not Christian.”
Please, define “critical.” I’ve not heard about this, so I must ask; what /exactly/ was this ministry preaching and to whom? The only (self-proclaimed) Christian group I know of that has actually banned from entering Canada is the Fred Phelps clan.
>>> “Do you think gay groups that smear Christians will be shut down?”
You have a very ‘Us vs. Them” perception about this topic that I do not share. I’ve repeatedly said that I think you should be free to believe and practice your interpretation of Scripture and Doctrine in your place of worship without interference.
>>> “I know you don’t like Dr. Dobson, but his broadcasts in Canada have to be curtailed on the marriage issue. Simply because he believes the Bible and suggests that homosexuality is changeable.”
I’ve never met Dr. Dobson so I can’t tell you if I like him as a person or not.
Instead of listing the various false claims and violent statements Mr. Dobson has said about the GLBT community, I’ll kindly refer you to the publication, “A False Focus On My Family”: http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/false_focus.pdf
>>> “That is raw censorship and you should be the first to expose and fight it regardless on how you feel about Dobson.”
The Canadian Government also places sanctions on the Al Jazeera television broadcasts to exclude inflammatory rhetoric, such as the “inferior” nature of Jews.
Freedom of Speech is a wonderful thing, and I support it. That is why anti-gay rallies and protests have not been banned in Canada. That is why ministers and pastors are free to express their views within their respective places of worship. However, when it comes to taking out advertisements in newspapers and billboards that defame fellow citizens and incite hatred and violence, this is counterproductive to the multicultural and diverse nature of our society. On a fundamental level it must not be supported.
Just 10 minutes from my home there is an Islamic Mosque, a Baptist Church, a Catholic Church and a Buddhist Temple literally steps away from each other on the same street. There has never been an issue. Their children play together. This is the type of equality that a society of tolerance and peace can foster.
>>> “You attacked the marriage amendments that 26 states passed as a mockery of democracy. Called it a popularity contest.”
To consider a civil right being voted on by people who are raised from the cradle to revile the community whose rights they are voting on strikes me as redundant as it does terrifying.
>>> “Would you oppose referendums on funding for embryonic stem cell research?”
Science is rapidly moving beyond embryonic stem cell research so the debate is largely moot at this point.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/stemcell/
>>> “Are Presidential elections popularity contests? Which is more important to society, definitions of marriage or who is President?”
Who the next president is affects everybody; the gender of a loving and committed adult couple who enter into marriage does not.
>>> “You say the rule of law was created to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. We also believe that it’s majority rule, right?”
Not quite. America is foremost a Republic founded on a democratic voting system, which is distinct from ‘majority rule.’ Canada also uses a democratic voting system for electing our government representatives, but the public can not vote on individual laws. We rightfully leave that job to our elected officials who are brought to office to represent ALL their constituents, not just a select few with whom they share a religion, race or gender. This ensures that special-interest groups, such as religious communities, cannot en-mass vote their own religiously-based laws into effect over the whole community/nation.
Thank God.
>>> “Do you believe a few judges over-riding the will of the people on issues like marriage is a mockery of democracy?”
Judges interpret laws and create new rulings all the time, which become presidents for future Judges to follow. That’s their job. Judges interpret the rule of law as it applies to all citizens without consideration for the will of a majority, because mob-rule isn’t – and can never be – the determining factor in deciding a question of legality. If it were, then no minority would ever be granted a measure of true equality.
>>> “What would he [Jefferson] say today? By the way, do you know what Jefferson thought about homosexuals? Might be an interesting study.”
What would he say today? Probably something along the lines of, “How did all these Negros escape their chains?!”
Thomas Jefferson owned 187 slaves.
Silliness aside; what would TJ think of homosexuals attaining legal recognition under the law and inclusion in civil marriage rights? He’d probably frown on it. Fortunately, our society has come a long way in the past 200 years and we need not define ourselves by the archaic beliefs of people who could not comprehend or foresee the legal, ethical and moral issues we face today. I can think of few women who’d like to wind-back the clock and assume a socially submissive standard from 200 years ago, let alone 2000. Can you?
>>> “Why then are homosexual advocates trying to sway public opinion?”
You misunderstand. When I speak openly about the nature of homosexuality I do not do it for your sake. I do not do it with the primary intention of shifting ‘public’ opinion. I do it for the sake of the GLBT people whose own voices are drowned out by people shouting condemnation at them.
>>> “You then tried to answer my question about what humans rights should be based on… Who sets the standard as to what ensures equality, dignity and respect because Bible Christians and gay activists have different definitions of what is dignified?”
I am willing to bet that you and I would agree on what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ insofar as harm and consequence is concerned.
I respect your right to have your religious beliefs and to practice your faith within your religious community. I do not feel that you extend that equal respect to me, even on a secular level.
>>> “If gay-marriage activists determine what a human right is, define what marriage is, a Bible-believing society is left out. You can’t mix light with darkness.”
Bible-believing society is not left out at all, because nobody is suggesting that your faith should be forced to change its beliefs or its interpretation of scripture or its right to define marriage (or divorce) within your community.
In this way, Separation of Church & State works for you, too! (As does Freedom of Religion.)
>>> “We should keep in mind that these laws are the same for all members of society. Because of certain deprivations, homosexuals feel as though “equal” rights have been taken away (i.e., marriage, tax breaks, etc.).”
I think the issue is with those rights never having existed and the hardships and burdens it forces on committed, monogamous same-sex couples as a result.
>>> “Jesus said God created us male and female, he created marriage, and that truth must define all human behavior and laws.”
Examine the Hebrew word Elohim; it is the actual word used before some nameless translator changed it to a singular-masculine ‘God’ when rewriting the OT (Genesis 1) in English. Elohim encompasses a plural male/female concept of divinity, more like a pantheon. The singular-masculine YHWH did not appear until later, and did not create “all” people on earth – he only created the first Jews, Adam & Eve, in his private garden.
When Cain was banished from Eden he wandered East until he left the Land of YHWH (suggesting that YHWH was a local deity) and entered the Land of Nod. There he came upon a village (but I thought Adam & Eve were the first people?!) and he took his first wife of many.
The point; my ancestors are not Jewish. Even your own Bible repeats the theme that the children of YHWH are not to follow the Gods and ways of other people. Those ‘other people’ were MY ancestors, with cultures and beliefs of their own.
>>> “Sociologist Steven Nock of the University of Virginia, who is agnostic on the issue of same-sex civil marriage, offered this review…”
I am aware of Mr. Nock’s work. I am also aware that he had zero first-hand experience with same-sex parent families. His statements were based on religious opinion and hypothesis. When sociologists from government-sponsored (not privately run) institutions with hands-on experience took the stand, they contradicted him.
Sadly Mr. Nock died Jan. 20 2008.
>>> “Same-sex “marriage” would further diminish the expectation of paternal commitment.”
The majority of these arguments would seem to be aimed at heterosexual failings as effective partners, with the transparent twist of shucking any further responsibility on homosexuals.
Because some straight people can’t keep their own marriages together, you suggest that it is right and just to prevent monogamous, committed same-sex couples from marrying so that some straight men “might” have one less excuse to pull out of their hat when they contemplate leaving their wives and families?
>>> “It is plausible to suspect that legal recognition of homosexual civil marriage would have similar consequences for the institution of marriage; that is, it would further destabilize the norm that adults should sacrifice to get and stay married for the sake of their children.”
That’s some great theory work. I really have to hand it to those guys; they managed to blame the dissolving of heterosexual marriages on gays while neatly glossing over the fact that the marriage rate is dropping world-wide, while the divorce rate is climbing even in nations where same-sex marriage is illegal.
80 years ago they would have substituted “women in the workforce” for “same sex marriage”. After all, was that not supposed to destroy the foundations of civilization as we knew it, too, with women running off and forming tribes of Amazons and whatnot?
Gabriel, I’m not denying that there are a lot of theories at work here on both sides of the fence. I think it is important for these debates to be waged because the thought-provoking conversations they develop further illustrate the concerns we both have. With peaceful talk and civil mediation, I believe it is possible for both of our concerns to be addressed for the better.
Have you been to Canada in the past few years? You are clearly passionate about same-sex marriage issues, so why not visit a nation that so closely mirrors your own. Speak to the religious communities in person. Ask questions. Meet the people. Maybe even view a same-sex marriage in City Hall. (Bring rice, not stones. LOL) I’m speaking from personal first-hand experience, you are speaking largely from theory. Come see for yourself.
Light and laughter to you and yours.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:25 am
As a Penn State student, a member of the LGBTQA community on campus, AND a student of Kat’s, I feel that this commitment ceremony (yes.. can we talk about commitment ceremonies for once instead of gay marriage? THERE IS A DIFFERENCE) is needed. LGBTQA students and the community need to know that: 1.) Same-sex couples are willing to face harsh adversity in order to foster not acceptance but respect. and 2.) Even though it has its adversaries, same-sex love is worth fighting for.
Personally I find it very offensive that this is even an issue. It is NOT legal, it is NOT religious, and it is NOT being paid for by the University.
What I don’t get is why Penn State can host actual weddings on campus. How’s that for irony? Same-sex couples cannot declare their love for one another on campus without causing a ruckus, but heterosexual couples are allowed to legally get married on campus???
Anyways, I am glad to hear that so many people are supporting the ceremony that will be taking place on Saturday. It makes me and a lot of young LGBTQA individuals feel like maybe, slowly, we might be accepted and treated like equal human beings.
March 25th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
I just want to chime in here and say I have been following the Ted/Gabriel debate with great interest. I am so glad our community has a great intellect (and debater!) like Ted K. to shine the light of reason on this “issue.” Thank you Ted!
It really is too bad that this is an issue. I hope I live long enough to see a time when same-sex marriage in this country will no longer be an issue.
I believe this ceremony is necessary because society needs to see our point that same-sex couples deserve the same marriage rights (and responsibilities) as opposite-sex couples. If two people, regardless of their sex, want to commit their lives to each other, there is no logical reason why the state should deny them a marriage license.
My partner and I send our love, best wishes, and hearty congratulations to the four brave couples taking part in Saturday’s ceremony!
March 24th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Ted,
I noticed some time back that the media, which loved reporting about the gay priests who molested boys, didn’t ever refer to these priests as gay nor did they mention the gender of the abused children. But if you did a little research, you discovered that a large percentage of the abused kids were boys. There is an obvious effort to cover up the orientation of these abusers, just as I noticed the media tried to conceal the political orientation of Gov. Eliot Spitzer in their reporting . Ssssshhhhhh! But he was a Democrat. They can’t reveal the party enough when a Republican falls. If these priests were abusing little girls, the media wouldn’t hide the gender. I can understand why the Psychiatric community doesn’t want to classify pedophiles, because a large percentage of them are gay. That would have to sting.
I think to defend threesomes as non-adulterous is again trying to re-define adultery. If you start re-defining marriage, you will start re-defining adultery, and I’m glad to see that you are alarmed about the Supreme Court allowing virtual kiddie porn. I bring that up again to remind you that pedophilia is on the back burner, despite your emphatic statements that it will never be legal. You know, if you have no secure basis upon which to build morality, anything goes, and that is the agenda of the gay movement, whether you support it or not.
How can you say deceit is wrong? Isn’t that being judgmental? On what basis is deceit wrong? Isn’t that imposing your view of morality on others when you call their trysts wrong? And who is to say that no victim is involved in threesomes? Just because a person agrees to adulterous behavior doesn’t mean they all aren’t victims. Aren’t they self-inflicted victims?
What aspects of heterosexuality do your heterosexual friends not like? BEING heterosexual? How many of them wish they were homosexual? I think men can have wonderful relationships without being sexual, while being straight.
You call seeing Sleeping Beauty, etc. being “bombarded” with images that don’t fit your orientation. Interesting choice of words. Well, don’t the average sitcoms today (which I don’t watch since I don’t have TV) portray about one gay character to every three straights? You call that a fair depiction of life in general? No, that’s an agenda-driven depiction. It is not an agenda for someone to portray a man and women kissing. That is what 98% of society does. And I utterly reject the notion that gays try to repress their orientation because of the cultural bombardment. I think there is something “wired” into every human being that questions the validity of homosexuality, just as I believe every human is born with a conscience of some sort. Should society depict everything 50-50 to accommodate the 1-2 % of the population who is gay? Should society re-define marriage to include two lesbians, or three bisexuals?
You refer to the ex-gay leader who married his gay lover. You said that would have to sting. That doesn’t prove the ex-gay movement defunct at all. I’m sure it stung Jesus when Judas betrayed him and Peter denied him and the rest of the disciples forsook him and when my own sins caused his torturous death. That didn’t invalidate Jesus. PRAISE THE LORD!
If Romans 1 is simply man’s word, then it is a lying word. The Biblical writers claimed they dictated under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If they were simply stating their opinion, then they lied about their resources. You said, “The Bible may be many things, but an unbiased and wholly accurate accounting of human history it is not.” Nobody claims the Bible is unbiased or supposed to appreciate the period and culture of the time. Did you really want the Bible to defend the Roman Empire? I mean it seems to have a problem with people who steal, kill, covet, hate, etc. Things like that. And I would welcome you to show where the Bible is wrong concerning human history, and please use unbiased resources. How many authors have started out studying the Bible to debunk it only to end up believing and embracing it? The Bible is no ordinary book. That’s why it remains the world’s best seller and why people want it read at their deathbed and not Voltaire or Nietzsche.
You mentioned Prohibition. My brother runs an orphanage in Mongolia. Recently, there was serious alcohol poisoning across the nation, and all sale of alcohol was banned for a while. My brother said that crime took a noticeable, remarkable plunge. That info was for free.
You can’t call it same-sex marriage. Call it anything else, but don’t call it marriage. Counterfeit money isn’t money. It is paper that looks like money. And don’t tell me marriage (as in the union of a man and woman) has undergone many changes through the millennia. You are smarter than that. Sure, forms of courtships, ideas on how marriage should operate, etc have varied. But marriage has been between men and women since man began. How a person comes to marriage doesn’t define which gender marries.
You don’t think places of worship won’t be forced to adjust their views of marriage? The pressure is already on in places like Norway and Canada. Canada puts the squeeze on ministries that believe the Bible concerning marriage. Jesus speaking, “But from the beginning, God created them male and female.” That doctrine is considered dangerous in Canada. The Canadian government has ordered a Christian ministry that teaches doctrine and the differences between Christians and cults shut down recently because its reference materials were “critical” of the beliefs of those who are not Christian. Do you think gay groups that smear Christians will be shut down? I know you don’t like Dr. Dobson, but his broadcasts in Canada have to be curtailed on the marriage issue. Simply because he believes the Bible and suggests that homosexuality is changeable. That is raw censorship and you should be the first to expose and fight it regardless on how you feel about Dobson.
You attacked the marriage amendments that 26 states passed as a mockery of democracy. Called it a popularity contest. Are Presidential elections popularity contests? Which is more important to society, definitions of marriage or who is President? Would you oppose referendums on funding for embryonic stem cell research? You say the rule of law was created to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. We also believe that it’s majority rule, right? The ACLU purports to defend majority rule, but they resent majority rule. Hmmmm! Did the rule of law prevent half of the Americans from voting for a losing candidate in the last presidential election? People make laws and pass rigorous amendment requirements, and our Constitution allows it. Do you believe a few judges over-riding the will of the people on issues like marriage is a mockery of democracy? On September 28, 1820, Thomas Jefferson wrote to William Jarvis, “You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under teh despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so…and their power is the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and NOT RESPONSIBLE, AS OTHER FUNCTIONARIES ARE, TO THE ELECTIVE CONTROL. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.” What would he say today? By the way, do you know what Jefferson thought about homosexuals? Might be an interesting study.
When it is said that same-sex marriage is a human right, one must ask what human rights are based on. You said before that human rights should never be determined by public opinion. Why then are homosexual advocates trying to sway public opinion? I guess that leaves the APA out of the bargaining if they aren’t to determine human rights.
You then tried to answer my question about what humans rights should be based on. Your answer? “I believe that a Human Right is that which ensures equality, dignity, and respect to all people in a given society.” C’mon! You are more intelligent than that. You described your idea of what a human right is, which, of course, is made invalid by your idea that human rights shouldn’t be determined by public opinion. You didn’t say what human rights should be based on. What you have described is moral equivalency, nor morality. Who sets the standard as to what ensures equality, dignity and respect because Bible Christians and gay activists have different definitions of what is dignified? If gay-marriage activists determine what a human right is, define what marriage is, a Bible-believing society is left out. You can’t mix light with darkness.
The argument goes like this: “Just as a person cannot help being black, female, or Asian, I cannot help being homosexual. We were all born this way, and as such we should be treated equally.” However, this argument fails to comprehend the true “civil rights” movements. The law already protects the civil rights of everyone—black, white, male, female, homosexual, or heterosexual. Homosexuals enjoy the same civil rights everyone else does. The contention arises when specific laws deprive all citizens of certain behaviors (e.g., gay marriage, etc.). We should keep in mind that these laws are the same for all members of society. Because of certain deprivations, homosexuals feel as though “equal” rights have been taken away (i.e., marriage, tax breaks, etc.).
I believe the only sure way of determining human rights is to base them upon truth. Since there are so many contradicting attempts at defining truth, we have to look for an absolute standard and that is Jesus. (If Jesus is not the truth, nothing is true and nothing is wrong or right, including the ideas of the gay marriage activists.) Jesus said God created us male and female, he created marriage, and that truth must define all human behavior and laws. Our Constitution was formed with Biblical principles in mind, though done imperfectly. Many founders tried to outlaw slavery in the initial Constitutional Convention but were over-ridden. If you ignore a Biblical foundation, then nothing is sure and laws are meaningless.
A number of leading professional associations have asserted that there are “no differences” between children raised by homosexuals and those raised by heterosexuals. But the research in this area is quite preliminary; most of the studies are done by advocates and most suffer from serious methodological problems. Sociologist Steven Nock of the University of Virginia, who is agnostic on the issue of same-sex civil marriage, offered this review of the literature on gay parenting as an expert witness for a Canadian court considering legalization of same-sex civil marriage:
“Through this analysis I draw my conclusions that 1) all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution; and 2) not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research.”
This is not exactly the kind of social scientific evidence you would want to launch a major family experiment. Steven Nock, affidavit to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice regarding Hedy Halpern et al. University of Virginia Sociology Department (2001).
Same-sex “marriage” would further diminish the expectation of paternal commitment. The divorce and sexual revolutions of the last four decades have seriously undercut the norm that couples should get and stay married if they intend to have children, are expecting a child, or already have children. Political scientist James Q. Wilson reports that the introduction of no-fault divorce further destabilized marriage by weakening the legal and cultural meaning of the marriage contract. George Akerlof, a Nobel laureate and an economist, found that the widespread availability of contraception and abortion in the 1960s and 1970s, and the sexual revolution they enabled, made it easier for men to abandon women they got pregnant, since they could always blame their girlfriends for not using contraception or procuring an abortion.
It is plausible to suspect that legal recognition of homosexual civil marriage would have similar consequences for the institution of marriage; that is, it would further destabilize the norm that adults should sacrifice to get and stay married for the sake of their children. Why? Same-sex civil marriage would institutionalize the idea that children do not need both their mother and their father. This would be particularly important for men, who are more likely to abandon their children. Homosexual civil marriage would make it even easier than it already is for men to rationalize their abandonment of their children. After all, they could tell themselves, our society, which affirms lesbian couples raising children, believes that children do not need a father. So, they might tell themselves, I do not need to marry or stay married to the mother of my children.
Info from James Q. Wilson, The Marriage Problem. (Perennial, 2003) 175-177. George A. Akerlof, Janet L. Yellen, and Michael L. Katz, “An Analysis of Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing in the United States.” Quarterly Journal of Economics CXI: 277-317.