Chloe's Chronicles

 
 
FEMINISM
Good Intentions
Feminism in terms of getting women the right to vote, own property, access to education, and equal pay for equal work is obviously a noble cause.  And those wrongs have largely been righted in this country.  (However, women are still treated like property/second-class citizens in countries run by Radical Islamic Fundamentalists.)  

Negative Effect
Some women have turned Feminism into a philosophy that looks down on women who choose to stay at home and raise families (Home-Makers).  They praise women who pursue careers as being more intelligent and accomplished, and ignore the price they often pay for sacrificing family time for their jobs.  The “family years” are precious years when a child grows up, but they fly by so fast.  Both moms and dads should consider this fact, and find the right balance between advancing their careers/making money and spending quality time with their family.  Career women are to be admired, but "stay at home moms" should be admired also for all the work they do raising and nurturing their children.

ABORTION
Good Intentions
Some people truly believe it is physically "unfair" that women can get pregnant from having sex, but men can't.  And that Abortion corrects that biological inequality.  They don't see how the ability to have children is an amazing gift entrusted to women (from God some would argue), and something that should be cherished, not viewed as some kind of negative "condition".  They think Abortion empowers a woman by giving her the "choice" to kill her unborn baby if she decides it's "not the right time" because she doesn't make enough money or isn't emotionally mature enough etc.  They ignore the right to LIFE of the unborn human baby.  I can tell you my parents were completely unprepared financially and emotionally when I was conceived.  But that didn't change my right to live.  Everybody has the right to be born and a chance to live no matter how screwed up their parents are.

Negative Effect
Abortion has eroded our society’s respect for human life.  Respect for human life is the foundation upon which Family and Society is built.  Abortion advocates have indoctrinated people to see the little unborn baby as a “thing” to “get rid of” like a pimple or a tumor instead of the precious and miraculous Human Life that it is.  And instead of welcoming the responsibility and joy of becoming a parent, or putting the baby up for adoption, they destroy that little life.  

WELFARE
Good Intentions
Welfare is the most insidious of Liberal "Good Intentions" because on the surface, it looks like a noble cause.  “To lend a hand to those who are struggling financially until they can stand up on their own two feet again”.  Except that isn't what happens at all.  Those who are on Welfare remain on Welfare because there is little incentive to get off Welfare when everything is being taken care of for them ad infinitum.  We need more Welfare Reform to stop the hand-outs and create incentives for people to get OFF Welfare, so it becomes a Last Resort, not a Way of Life.

Negative Effect
Welfare has also contributed to the destruction of the American Family, especially in the African American population.  I see this happening a lot here in Chicago.  Before Welfare, if a young girl got pregnant, it was a big deal because raising and caring for a Human Life takes a lot of  time and money.  Even with the help of the father, grandparents or other relatives, it's still a lot of work.  But Welfare eliminated the need for the father or extended family because now the Government would pay for everything (food, shelter, clothes, day care).  In fact, becoming a single mother is now lucrative for low-income girls (I've seen it first hand- some even act like they've won the lottery when they find out they are pregnant)- because they automatically have all their immediate needs taken care of by taxpayer money.  This has completely destroyed the Family.  There is no more need for a Husband and Father (because Uncle Sam pays for everything), and these babies grow up without a Dad, and without a father-figure many of them end up in jail.

GAY MARRIAGE
Good Intentions
Some Gay Marriage Advocates believe they are fighting for a cause like the Civil Rights Movement.  They equate gay people not being allowed to get married to the African American struggle against segregation (not being allowed to eat at "white-only" lunch counters, being forced to sit at the back of the bus) and racism (lynchings by the Klan).  This is absolutely absurd, and the comparison is an offense to the black struggle.  America is very "gay-friendly", and in many places they are even celebrated (San Francisco, Miami).  In places like Iran, gays are executed for their homosexuality http://bit.ly/OAHmE.  In America, they get their own parades.  

Some Gay Marriage Advocates argue that by not allowing Gays to get married, we are denying them the right to "Pursue Happiness", and by not allowing them to get Married, we are saying their relationships have less value.  I don't think their relationships have less value, I just recognize the fact that their relationships are different.  Gay Marriage Advocates ignore the fact that heterosexual relationships are NOT the same as homosexual relationships (homosexuals relationships do not produce biological children).  Heterosexual couples who are infertile and want children go to great lengths to try and conceive.  When they cannot, they can adopt a baby.  It is not the same as having their own baby, but that child is a lot better off with a nonbiological mom and dad than with no mom and dad at all, and the adoptive parents are able to experience the joys of parenthood even though the child is not biologically theirs.  I do not deny a child is probably better off with a gay couple raising them than in a foster home.  But I believe that in general, a child is better off with a Mom and Dad raising them than a gay couple (assuming both homes provide a stable and loving environment) because that is what nature intended (for a child to have a Mom and Dad).

Gay people who want children will always find a way to get them, either through artificial insemination or adoption.  It is their right to do so, but it is also their responsibility to explain to their children that their parents are homosexuals, that they came from a sperm bank or egg donor, that only one (or neither) of their parents are actually related to them, and that one or both of their biological parents are complete strangers (or a family friend).  It is not the job of the Government to put a "seal of approval" on what gay people do, or "legitimize" the choices they make in their lives.  

The majority of Americans believe marriage is between one man and one woman.  This is not a judgment against gays, but an affirmation of the Laws of Nature.  Homosexuality is an alternative lifestyle outside the normal Family Unit of Mom, Dad and Baby.  Gay Marriage undercuts the foundation of Family itself- the premise that children come from one woman and one man, and together they form a Family (one man and one woman fall in love, have sex (an act of love), have a baby (a product of their love) and raise the baby (a family)). 

Negative Effect
If Gay Marriage advocates are successful in redefining Marriage as being between any consenting adults (instead of the traditional definition of one man, and one woman), this opens the door to legitimizing polygamous relationships.  It advocates a relativist view of Family to include ANY combination of people, not just Mom, Dad, Child(ren).  It also does a disservice to gays and their children because it fails to recognize the fact that gays ARE different from straights (they are attracted to the same sex, not the opposite sex, and cannot have biological children with each other), and it lies to children by telling them it is all the same, because it isn't.

Gay Marriage Advocates are a vocal minority trying to hijack and redefine marriage so they can feel good about themselves and impose their secular relativist view of the world onto the Silent Majority (those who believe Marriage is a sacred institution between man and woman).  And they don't seem to care who they hurt (kids) or what they have to destroy (family) so they can force their selfishness on others.   Marriage is defined by Nature. Man and woman come together and have baby and raise family. That IS where idea of marriage comes from.  If being gay is the same as being straight, then gay love-making would produce babies.  You came from the combination of your Mom's egg and your Dad's sperm.  Regardless of if they raised you or not, they are and always will be your biological parents.  Marriage is between one man and one woman.  Anything else is something else. 

I don't believe homosexual relationships are inferior to heterosexual relationships.  I just recognize that there is a difference.  And for recognizing that difference, I get labeled as a bigot, hater and homophobe.  Really rational.  Homosexuals need to come to grips with who they are (gay) and recognize that they are unique individuals with their own talents and good qualities who need to make their way in the world like everybody else.  They need to learn to be happy for what they are on their own without redefining marriage.  It is wrong for them to make it our job to make them happy.  Gay Marriage Advocates thinking they can change Nature is an act of supreme self-centeredness and arrogance.  What they don't realize is that even if they make Gay Marriage legal in every single state in America, at the end of the day, they are still going to be gay.  And Family is STILL going to mean Mom, Dad and Baby.  It's not this way because I say so, but because that is just the way it is.

For more on Why I Believe Marriage is Between One Man and One Woman, read my previous blog of the same title http://bit.ly/24Qz.

 


Comments

Phatlip12

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 19:31:18

"this opens the door to legitimizing polygamous relationships. It advocates a relativist view of Family to include ANY combination of people, not just Mom, Dad, Child(ren)."

What's the problem with that? This has no effect on you other than the fact you don't like it, so you have no reason to dictate how they live their lives.

"gays ARE different from straights (they are attracted to the same sex, not the opposite sex, and cannot have biological children with each other), and it lies to children by telling them it is all the same, because it isn't."

Love is love. You said it yourself when you said "I don't believe homosexual relationships are inferior to heterosexual relationships.". The fact that it's two men or two women in love is relevant. We both agree their love is no different than a heterosexual couple's relationship, so you just proved my point that it is the same.

"Gay Marriage Advocates are a vocal minority trying to hijack and redefine marriage so they can feel good about themselves"

It has nothing to do with them wanting to feel good about themselves. It's about being treated as an equal. You're no better than a homosexual and shouldn't have more rights than another all because of your sexual orientation. We're treated as equals in this country.

"And they don't seem to care who they hurt (kids) or what they have to destroy (family) so they can force their selfishness on others."

I asked you this dozens of times and you still don't have an answer for me. How does it "hurt" kids and "destroy" families. You may use myself as an example. Tell me how my future children my hurt and how it will destroy my family. Tell me how it will destroy your family. Tell me how it will destroy anyone's family. Please, I really want to hear this.

"Marriage is defined by Nature. "

Marriage is cultural and is defined by the law. You're wrong.

"Man and woman come together and have baby and raise family. That IS where idea of marriage comes from. If being gay is the same as being straight, then gay love-making would produce babies."

Great, that's what you think. Millions who choose to get married and NOT have kids disagree with you. Furthmore the law doesn't state conception is a marriage requirement. We are debating the law 'mam.

"And for recognizing that difference, I get labeled as a bigot, hater and homophobe."

Because you are one.

"They need to learn to be happy for what they are on their own without redefining marriage."

Okay, so the law currently says marriage is between a man and woman. So, using your logic people should just "learn to be happy". Forget that they can use the law to change the legal definition of that term. Deal with it and just "learn to be happy". Fine, let's do that.

Deal with anything and everything Obama doe's as President. If you don't like it shut the hell up, learn to deal with it and "be happy". Ignore the fact that you can change the law. Sound good?

"It is wrong for them to make it our job to make them happy."

It's not your job to dictate how they live THEIR lives. Mind your own damn business and they will be happy. They're not happy because people like you are hell bent on making sure they're NOT happy. You think you have the right to control who they can and can't marry all because of your sexual orientation.

"Gay Marriage Advocates thinking they can change Nature is an act of supreme self-centeredness and arrogance."

We're not talking about changing nature. We're talking about changing a law. You DO understand what a law is right?!?

"And Family is STILL going to mean Mom, Dad and Baby. It's not this way because I say so, but because that is just the way it is."

Damn, I guess my Uncle by marriage isn't my family. Good point.










 

Chloe1732

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 19:36:47

Phatlip12, I appreciate your thoughts. But I continue to be at a loss at how intelligent people like yourself are unable to see the obvious facts in front of your face. That Marriage will always be between one man and one woman, no matter what the law says. An apple will always be an apple, even if you call it an orange. Two men can't make a baby, nor can two women. Deal with it.

 

Steve

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 20:01:53

Would it satisfy you more, chloe, if they called it something different? Is it the word "marriage" that has people so up in arms? Is it the rights that people don't want homosexuals to have, or is it just the title? If people have to get married to have certain rights, then I believe it's totally fair for them to ask for the ability to do so. This is no different than when women wanted to the right to vote, because at the time men didn't think they were "smart" enough. People deserve to be who they are no matter what walk of life they come from. It's not the government's place to decide who gets to live in happiness with someone they love. I would much rather see kids grow up in a gay household than in a single parent one. I think they have a better shot with two stable people to guide them. That's just my 2 cents :).

 

Phatlip12

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 20:05:17

I question your intelligence due to your inability to answer my questions and ignore what I tell you time and time again.

I realize Marriage in this country is between a man and a woman. That is our damn debate. You don't need to keep saying this. I realize that's how it's been and realize that's how it is now.

We're debating changing the legal definition of that term to include homosexuals.

Your only reasoning for not changing it is because it's been since a man and woman so shouldn't change. You ignore the fact that we can do that. When asked why you state it will harm children and destroy families without being able to describe how.

Your inability to back up your argument is a reflection of your intelligence.

 

Anonymous

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 20:46:11

May I ask where exactly is it stated that a marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman. I am being quiet serious. I have not seen it written. If you could please provide where it is written as such, please present me with that information. Also, please provide sources from where you got your information from.

 

Chloe1732

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 07:47:58

None of you seem to have the foggiest concept of LIFE as it exists. It is not "written" anywhere. It just IS. You just don't see the Big Picture of Creation and Nature. Marriage Reflects Nature (Children come from one man and one woman). You Can't Change Nature. Like I said before, you can change the laws all you want, go ahead Phatlip12- change the "definition" of marriage in every single dictionary in the world, but it doesn't change the fact that the Nuclear Family Unit comes from Dad (man), Woman (mom), and Baby (child). Morons.

 

Phatlip12

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 09:14:58

Chloe, I'm STILL waiting for you to tell me how gay marriage will harm children and destroy families.

You're the moron, you can't even support your claims.

I'm waiting.

 

Jaxon

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 09:24:42

Interesting debate and points on both sides are real. The hard reality is neither side is going to change the way you think and name calling will never close the gap. Love and Aloha

 

Chloe1732

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 09:38:43

Jaxon, I agree, namecalling is usually not productive. But saying things like "I'm questioning your intelligence" is just a fancy way of saying F-You. There is nothing wrong with calling a Moron a Moron, especially a rude one. :)

 

Phatlip12

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 09:49:08

Seriously, if you don't answer my question you just proved to everyone here that you're a homophobe/bigot. You stated your argument 'mam. Now please support it.

Hurts children how.

Destroys families how.

Followed by proof to support your claim.

Otherwise this entire post you made was pointless, hateful rambling.

The only reason I'm pushing this issue so hard is because you assured me time and time again you would answer my question on your blog and you STILL haven't.

*I doubt you'll approve this comment though. Silence me to make it appear you "know what you're talking about". But deep down inside you'll know this crazy liberal "kook" as you called me before just destroyed your argument. It's okay though. Because we both know who won here today. *

Good day.

 

Chloe1732

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 10:02:46

Hurts children how.
"gays ARE different from straights (they are attracted to the same sex, not the opposite sex, and cannot have biological children with each other), and it lies to children by telling them it is all the same, because it isn't."
You don't think LYING TO CHILDREN hurts them?

Destroys families how.
"Gay Marriage undercuts the foundation of Family itself- the premise that children come from one woman and one man, and together they form a Family (one man and one woman fall in love, have sex (an act of love), have a baby (a product of their love) and raise the baby (a family)). "
You don't think attacking the VERY DEFINITION OF FAMILY ITSELF isn't Destructive?

Phatlip12, we will have to agree to disagree. I am more convinced that I am right, and motivated to fight against misguided liberals such as yourself who want to believe that "everything is relative" and standing up for your beliefs and principles and recognizing eternal truths about Humanity and the World we live in is being "mean" and "hateful." GROW UP.
And Please stop posting your repetitive comments.

 

Phatlip12

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 10:09:26

Hurts children how.
"gays ARE different from straights (they are attracted to the same sex, not the opposite sex, and cannot have biological children with each other), and it lies to children by telling them it is all the same, because it isn't."
You don't think LYING TO CHILDREN hurts them?

You didn't tell me how that hurts them. Anyways, we both agree love is love (see other comment).

"You don't think attacking the VERY DEFINITION OF FAMILY ITSELF isn't Destructive?"

I don't know. You tell me how and I'll right back at ya.

So. Still waiting.

I respect you have a different viewpoint, it's just your not going to get very far with it until you learn how to form a proper argument. You need to support your claims which you simply can't do. Until you can do that, you're not going to get very far in debates such as this.

I think I made my point. I'll move on now.

 

Helen Lindsey

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 10:30:23

Chloe,
I read your blog for two reasons:
1. Because Jason Duke posted it and said it was written by a friend, and I know Jason Duke from high school
2. Because I wanted to read how liberalism, in your mind, has destroyed the American Family

You made some valid points, but you also wrote some things that are totally subjective and don't appear to have any basis in fact or rational thought.

Before you read my objections, please know and understand that I am pro-life (that means all life, including criminals on death row), I have voted for conservative republicans more than I have voted for democrats, I'm a Catholic, I'm straight and married now (though I had a child out of wedlock and raised him without his father), and I believe I am a strong, vocal proponent of family. I think family is VERY important, and I think having two parents is, in many cases, if not most cases, better than having one parent. But more than that, I think having loving, nurturing, emotionally stable parents who don't belittle, degrade or otherwise abuse their children is the most important thing of all when it comes to family.

<b>FAMILY AND LOVE</b>
Family is not limited to dad, mom, baby. I married my husband, and I now consider his nephew, parents, cousins, aunts, brother and sister-in-law my family. I also consider my gay cousin and his partner my family. I consider some of my closest friends family, and because of them, my family has been enriched beyond measure.

I agree that family is extremely important, but I vehemently disagree when you say that family is mom, dad baby. Period. End of sentence. End of argument. "It's not because (you) say so, but because that is just the way it is." You are so hell bent on arguing your point, that you're limiting the family to man, woman baby. I am not an expert on the family unit around the world, but I do know that in many societies, and even in our own, the family extends far beyond man, woman baby and into man, woman, woman woman (the other women being grandmothers, great grandmothers, sisters, aunts, etc.) baby. Sometimes, the family is man, woman, village, baby. Sometimes, the only family someone has is his or her church family. Sometimes, family is friends. And sometimes, to some people, it's cats or dogs or other pets. The family unit is whatever people want it to be. They do not need your acceptance to know deep in their hearts that their family consists of the people who love them most in the world and would do anything for them.

The inability of two people to legally or physically produce a biologically-related baby does not mean, in any way, that those two people are not a family. If it did, how would that affect the infertile couples? Are they not a family because they cannot have children together? You say "no." You say they are a family because they can adopt a child. And you believe they are still a family because they are man, woman, someone else's biological child.

So, why then, is it so difficult for you to believe that a man and a man and a baby or a woman and a woman and a baby (whether adopted or via insemination) cannot be a family????

Would you not consider a single mother and her baby a family because the father either died or left the picture? Of course not. Yes, it's her biological child. But it's her child. And what if a family adopted a child, and the father died or left, leaving the woman with a child. Is that unit not a family because the child is NOT the biological child of the woman and she does not have a husband, leaving her "family" unit woman + child?

<b>GAY RIGHTS – ALL OF OUR RIGHTS</b>
As I said, I am not gay. None of my brothers are gay. My parents are not gay. But I have friends and relatives who are gay, and I can tell you a couple of things:

1. Gay people deserve every right that we "straight" people have - including the right to be able to legally make decisions for the person we love should that person be on his/her deathbed, including ALL of the rights we straight people have when we legally join our lives with another in a ceremony we call marriage. I'm not talking about the religious ceremony - it's up to the churches to decide if they will recognize gay marriage/union. I'm talking about the legal ceremony and the rights/responsibilities that come along with it. When I got married in a Catholic church, that wedding ceremony would have been legally meaningless unless we'd gotten a license to wed legally and civilly and had been wed by someone who had been given the legal right to marry us.

All people in love deserve those rights. Period. Not because I say so, but because that's just the way it is. (Take that as tongue and cheek). I have been a judgmental bitch in my life. I understand where you're coming from, because I believe that a solid family unit is so important to the ultimate survival of a society.

 

Chloe1732

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 10:48:48

Helen, thanks for posting your thoughts.
Gay people can have the same legal rights and privileges as marriage through a Civil Union. What you and I disagree on is that I believe that the relationship between a mother, father and child is Special. I KNOW the word "Family" includes brothers, aunts, nieces, step-sisters etc. etc. But I am talking about Family in the context of Parents and Child(ren). Your Immediate Family.
Heritage says it best:

"What is happening is no minor adjustment, a slight change in degree that just extends benefits or rights to a larger class, but a substantive change in the essence of the institution. It does not expand marriage; it alters its core meaning, for to redefine marriage so that it is not intrinsically related to the relationship between fathers, mothers, and children formally severs the institution from its nature and purpose.

Expanding marriage supposedly to make it more inclusive, no matter what we call the new arrangement, necessarily ends marriage as we now know it by remaking the institution into something different: a mere contract between any two individuals."

@Heritage The End of Marriage http://tinyurl.com/compc2

 

Helena Maximus

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 10:49:28

But I disagree so strongly with you when you say that this family must have rigid guidelines or it is not a family. Love is love. Raising children is an important job. More important than most, if not all, other jobs we'll ever have. Because a world without love, a world without respect for others, a world without responsibility to one another is not a world I want to live in.

2. Gay people can be great parents. It’s true that many gay people have emotional issues to deal with. We all do – straight or gay. And maybe, for the sake of argument, gay people have more issues to contend with because society has ostracized them, judged them, spit on them, and used God and his will as a reason to trample their rights. God. Oh, how I love it when people use God as a defense – that’s the way God intended it to be. People are being punished for being gay (yes, punished by God). If God wanted gays to marry, he would have made it possible for them to have children. To me, it’s all nonsense. Why? Not because I believe it’s possible and even likely that God did mean for children to be created between a man and a woman, but because God is, I believe, the most loving being. He loves with more power than any of us can truly comprehend. AND, he loves enough to let us live our own lives. He loves us enough to let us make mistakes, and while we’re making those mistakes, he loves us still and will forgive us. (I, in no way, mean to imply that being gay is a choice or a mistake). For those of you reading who think God doesn’t exist, I understand how you could question it, but I have a deep faith that there is a greater presence, a presence many of us call God. And I believe, without a shadow of a doubt, that what God thinks is the most important rule of all is that we love. Love him, love ourselves, and love others. All others. And with love comes acceptance, non-judgment, and equality. Even for the “gays.”

I'm sure you've seen how religious zealousness can cause so many problems. People kill in the name of religion. They ostracize in the name of religion. And they hurt others in the name of religion. In your case, it seems you’re willing to judge and state with certainty that you’re right – in the name of what? Religion? God? Absolute certainty that what you believe is the absolute gospel truth? God is not religion, and religion is not God. We should learn to separate those two, just as we should learn to separate this gay marriage issue you’re fighting against from the real issue of what they want, which is the equal ability to have the rights and responsibilities of being in a wedded union with someone they love. (Forgive me if I am misstating what most gay people want – that is not my intention, and I’m open to being corrected).

3. Gay people do NOT choose to be gay. They do not choose their biology and more than you or I do. They may choose to have sex with someone of the same sex, just as we might choose to have sex with someone of the opposite sex, but I believe with every fiber of my being that they did not choose to be attracted to people of the opposite sex. Do you think it’s been EASY for them? Hell no. Yes, they have parades. And that’s fantastic. They should. Someone has to celebrate the fact that they are people who have accepted what they are and are proud to have learned to accept it and love themselves and others no matter what. Black people have a history month and a TV station; is that enough? Should they then not be given all of the rights the rest of us have and just be happy with what they have on BET? Certainly you’re not a proponent of that kind of thing?
Yes, God gives us free will. We have the freedom to think, feel and act any way we choose. Which means you, Chloe, and all of those who agree with you, are free to believe that you’re right and gays and those who support them are wrong (or those who believe in helping people out of a bad situation, or those who know that abortion’s legality is not just about “getting rid of something” because it’s not convenient). You’re free to believe it, and you’re free to talk and write about it. And, on the other hand, the people who are gay are free to do what they want to do, say what they want to say, and write what they want to write. Oh, wait a minute. They’re NOT free. Not entirely. They’re not free to marry someone they love and want to spend the rest of their lives with, like you and I are. And if you and people like you had their way, they wouldn’t even be free to have a family. That’s the way it seems anyway. Do you ever look inside your soul and search for what is causing you to be so angry and hateful toward people you don’t know or understand?

ABORTION
I won’t go on and on about abortion, because, as I said, I’m pro-life.

 

Helen Lindsey

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 10:55:13

But what you wrote about the reasons for abortion, and the self-righteousness behind your words offended even me.

Do you really believe that legalized abortion is simply about empowering women to kill their babies if they don’t feel like having one? I have had bumper stickers on my car that say “it’s a child, not a choice,” I have spoken to high school classes about teen pregnancy and abortion (and how no decision is a good one when you’re pregnant and unprepared), I have posted thousands of words on an abortion forum as someone arguing the pro-life side, and I have prayed for an end to abortion. But I have also had good friends who had abortions, and I KNOW the torture they went through. This is part of why I think abortions are a bad idea.

BUT! I also know that sometimes, women are raped and impregnated. I know that sometimes, women get pregnant and then their life is in danger should she carry the pregnancy to full term. And, although most abortions are not performed to save a woman’s life or because a woman was raped or molested, some are. Therefore, making them totally illegal is not in the best interest of anyone.

I hope for EDUCATION, fewer unwanted pregnancies, support for unwed and young mothers/parents, and more people who are willing to adopt children who are black, children whose mothers are drug addicts or alcoholics, children who are from the ghetto, children who are not “perfect” (as if any of us are). And I hope that we, as a society, will teach our children that all life is sacred and should be cherished. However, I don’t think that throwing stones at gays and those on welfare and those who choose to or must work for a living is a good way to teach love, acceptance, tolerance and forgiveness – some of the most important character traits a human being can possess. Teaching our children to hate, make fun of, judge…those are not good lessons. I fear that people who are so self-righteous will teach their children the same thing. But I pray that somehow, our children, no matter how their parents act towards others, will figure out that love, acceptance, peace and a spirit of helpfulness is the way to go.

You have written that the “gays” are selfish. And I wonder how you think that your stance on these issues is not entirely selfish and self-serving. How is trying hard to take away people’s rights and their safety nets not selfish? It seems that way to me. Praying for an end to abortion and voting your conscience is great. Judging and making vast generalizations is not.

WELFARE
I agree that the welfare system needs to be reformed, because it does not do a good job of offering people a way out. That said, I guarantee that the vast majority of welfare recipients would rather have a good paying, stable job than be dealing with the situations they’re in. Some people certainly do play the system. It’s sad, and I wish they wouldn’t. But they are not the majority. And those people have been brought up in a way that you cannot even comprehend. When you’re imbedded in a culture like they likely are, it’s nearly impossible to get out. And maybe, for them, having a child and being taken care of is better than the alternative – which to them might be living on the streets or living in squalor. It’s very easy to judge when you’re on the other side of the poverty line, isn’t it? But I know that if you really tried to understand the people who are on welfare, you might change your mind. Fight the system – not the people caught up in it.

Yes, we should change the system so it truly helps people get out and get on their feet. But I know people who have taken government subsidies, and I know that the system, as it is, doesn’t reward working part time. It doesn’t reward working full time. If a person on welfare goes out and works at McDonalds for $6 an hour, he or she will lose at least a portion of the welfare, even though, he/she still desperately needs it. And daycare is expensive. It’s not something people barely making it can afford. Please, search your heart and try to have compassion for people who are less fortunate than you. And know that you are lucky, in many ways, to be as fortunate as I am guessing you are. You have a computer to type a blog on, perhaps you have children and you’re able to stay home with them. You probably have food on your table every night that doesn’t consist of a $1.00 menu at McDonalds. You’re lucky. Even if you’ve worked hard, gotten an education, and busted your butt to be there – you’re lucky. Many people work hard all of their lives and cannot retire – they die working in jobs they hate.

MOMS STAYING AT HOME
Finally, I will say that I agree that staying home with children is fantastic. I think it’s wonderful that

 

Helen Lindsey

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 10:56:47

Chloe,
I wrote all of this before I realized there was a word limit to posts. I hope you'll all forgive me for breaking up my "essay" response.
Helen

 

Helen Lindsey

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 11:00:10

Chloe,
I think you should ask the gay people what they really want - because I think you'd be surprised to find that they don't want to alter your idea of religious marriage. They simply want the right to have a civil union, called a marraige, so they can have the rights other married couples have (straight married couples).

Also, civil unions are only valid in a few states, and people are trying to take those rights away as well.

Definition of Marriage from www.m-w.com

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

 

Helen Lindsey

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 11:07:55

MOMS STAYING AT HOME
Finally, I will say that I agree that staying home with children is fantastic. I think it’s wonderful that some mothers and fathers have the luxury of staying home. And I think it’s sad when women who choose to stay home are judged for it. That said, I think many working mothers are totally supportive of those who choose to stay home, and most of them would love to have that luxury. I say, live and let live, and help each other pursue our dreams.

BRING THE FAMILY BACK THE LOVING WAY
I’ll say it once again. You’re lucky. Share the wealth. Give without expecting anything in return. Love without condition. Accept people for who they are and support their dreams. That is the kind of thing that will bring the American Family back. The basis of family is NOT man, woman, child. It’s people who love each other and will support and encourage one another no matter what. And yes, kick each other in the pants when we need it. I think I’d like you if I met you in person. Maybe we’d be good friends. I understand where you’re coming from, because in the past, I had some similar thoughts. But life has taught me that judging doesn’t help anyone. It’s taught me that the system isn’t set up to help people who aren’t as intelligent, educated or lucky as I am (or even the “little guy” who is as (or more) intelligent, educated or lucky). And, on the other hand, I think you could use a little kick in the pants, so to speak, right now.

You’re smart. You’re probably educated, and it seems to me, you’re lucky. Now, I ask you, think seriously about what you’re saying and writing. Spreading this kind of hate and judgment doesn’t do anyone any good – including you. Try to spread a little love and compassion. And laughter. That’s the kind of thing the world needs more of.
Peace,
Helen

 

Chloe1732

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 11:19:24

Helen, you don't seem to understand that I am NOT against Gay People in loving relationships committing to each other in some kind of ceremony (Civil Union) with ALL the same legal rights and benefits that come with that. But I DO object to it being called Marriage. By Changing the definition of Marriage to just be "a contract between two people", you are Destroying the meaning of marriage as it currently exists for most Americans. I am not religious, but I do believe in God, and I cannot deny that He made us in a way where children come from one man and one woman, and that makes it a relationship that is Different from a homosexual one.

As for Abortion, I support it in the case of rape, incest or if the life of the mother is in danger.

As for Welfare, I am not cold-hearted. I said I believe we need to reform the system and create incentives for those on it to find a way out of it. Stop treating these people like victims, they are totally capable of pulling themselves out of their situation if they want to.

As to my own financial/personal situation, I make a fair living for what I do, but I live in a very expensive city. I know what it is like to be broke. I have had to work very hard to get to where I am at, but I have a long ways to go if I want to be considered "well-off".

 

Helen Lindsey

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 11:35:58

Chloe,
I lived in the Chicago area my entire life, so I know it's expensive. I also worked very hard to get where I am. But I also know that just being where I am makes me lucky. You don't have to be "well-off" to be lucky.

I'm glad you support abortion in cases of rape or incest or when the mother's life is in danger. That said, do you really believe most people are just "killing their babies" because those babies are inconvenient? There is a bigger problem here - and it's lack of education and options that are available equally.

I'm not treating "these people" like victims, but I think you're making a mistake by assuming they're totally capable of pulling themselves out of their situation if they just wanted to. Do you also believe that alcoholics would just stop drinking, drug addicts would stop using, fat people would lose weight if they just wanted to? It's not black and white, nor is it easy. I'm glad you're not cold hearted, but your blog kind of sounded that way.

You've said you support gay unions, but I don't think that's really clear from your tone. Why does it matter to you what they call their union???? How does them calling their union a marriage affect YOU personally? And I definitely don't understand how it is a lie! Everyone knows that, at least sexually, gay people are different from straight people. But I think they are more the same than they are different. I don't think gay people are telling their children that Mary and Steve are the same thing as Mary and Eve or Steve and Steve. It's about equality.

If you don't want it to be called marriage, what would you have it called? AND, what should the government do? Should all 50 states allow a civil union with all of the rights of marriage, but by a different name? I think THAT would be a far cry from what we have now. But again, why does it matter to you what they call their union? Maybe the married straight people should start calling marriage by a different name so they can have their exclusive club, and let the gay people call it marriage?

 

Chloe1732

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 11:57:54

Helen, you wrote, "Do you also believe that alcoholics would just stop drinking, drug addicts would stop using, fat people would lose weight if they just wanted to?"

My answer to you is YES. I used to be fat (addicted to food) and addicted to drugs, and I was only able to stop doing harm to myself when I realized I had the power to take responsibility for my own life and the consequences of my actions. Everyone has the ability to determine the course of their own life, and if people would just take control of their own lives instead of depending on and blaming everybody else, the world would be a much better place.

What I keep hearing from people who support Gay Marriage is "What do you care? Why would it be harmful? Wouldn't it be great if we all had a big love-fest and anybody and everybody could get married?" Well, I found an article which I quote from below which is EXACTLY how I feel except said much better.

“…same-sex marriage would change the fundamental ideal of marriage. Even the most ardent defenders of divorce today view it as a necessary evil, a response to the tragedy of marriage failure. Same-sex marriage by contrast, would say that the ideal marriage is gender neutral – not a way for boys to become men by marrying and pledging to care for women. It would say that the ideal marriage includes children only when they have been specially planned and chosen – children would become optional extras rather than the natural fruit and symbol of the spouses union. It would say that the ideal family need not include a father – a message that is especially pernicious in a country where one-third of births in 2000 were to unwed mothers. And it would say (because who can imagine that most homosexual couples would wed?) that marriage itself is optional, not the norm – that marriage is for heroes, and since you and I aren’t heroic, we must not be called to marry. Any one of these changes would be destructive. Put together, they are a recipe for disaster, a recipe for revisiting and surpassing the harm done to families by the "sexual revolution."
Marriage has taken a beating. Americans cohabit, we divorce, we remarry, we split our resources between several sets of children. But we still have hope that we may recover the true meaning of marriage, because we still know the ideal: the lifelong, fruitful union that makes boys into husbands and fathers, and reconciles the "opposite sexes" to one another. Same-sex marriage would mean losing that ideal and losing our best hope for marriage renewal.”
What Homosexuals Want
by: Eve Tushnet
http://bit.ly/UKBW9

 

Chloe1732

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 12:16:11

As to what I would "call" Gay Marriage- I wouldn't call it anything. It would be two gay people who love each other and have decided to have a Civil Union and a ceremony to profess their love for each other in front of their friends and loved ones. They can call it whatever they want. Seriously, I want gay people to do WHATEVER THEY WANT. Just leave the sacred institution of Marriage alone!

Why should the will of this tyrannical minority Change the meaning of Marriage? Who the heck do they think they are? God? Can you look somebody in the eye and say that a Homosexual Relationship is exactly the same as a Heterosexual Relationship? Do they actually think that Changing the Legal Definition of Marriage is going to make them more "mainstream" and improve their quality of life? If anything, it'll probably create a huge backlash, and people won't even want them to have Civil Unions (which I support). I honestly can't believe this is happening to our Society. It's Relativism run amock.

 

Helen Lindsey

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 12:36:03

Chloe,
I too was overweight, and I lost weight. I gambled and when it seemed like a problem, I quit. I had some OCDs and when they were out of control, I quit them, cold turkey. I feel I am in pretty good control of my life. Now.

But I didn't do it alone, and I suspect you didn't do it alone either.

And I have been in your shoes. I have felt judgmental toward fat people, drug addicts, alcoholics, smokers, etc. (though never gay people), and I thought if I could do it, they could too. But I've learned that it's much easier said than done. People are all different. We have different strengths and weaknesses. I'm sure there are things you struggle with - like accepting that gay people want to be equal. And I'm sure there are things you have tried to change about yourself but have struggled with (as have I).

People do have an enormous capacity for change, but it's very difficult to do when society isn't set up to help you up - in fact, it keeps beating you down when you try to get up. This happens every day. I'm not making excuses. I think everyone needs to take responsbility for their actions and try again every day. They need to realize that they had some part in getting themselves into a sitation (as adults) or had some say in getting out of that situation. Blaming others is not the way to succeed. But it's hard. Very hard. And I think we need to have more compassion and be less selfish. That's what love is about.

And judging and making assumptions about what people can and can't do is not constructive.

 

Chloe1732

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 13:04:50

Helen, you are obviously a very nice person with a big heart. But what you said in your previous comment doesn't address my fundamental objection to Gay Marriage, which is that it undercuts and destroys Marriage as I know it to be defined as existing because children come from a man and a woman. And I take exception to you saying my defending Marriage against Gay Marriage Advocates is being "judgmental". I think you are being judgmental against those of us who believe in Marriage the way it is.

 

Helen Lindsey

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:31:05

Chloe,
I understand that you have an objection to Gay Marriage and why you have said that you do. And I'm not judging you for your opinion. What bothers me is that you're speaking out against something that it seems you don't fully understand. Heck, I don't know that I fully understand it.

You've quoted sources that are obviously biased one way. You are defending what you interpret as marriage. You want it to be between a man and a woman because only a man and a woman can produce a child, and thus, a nuclear family. Right? I think it's absolutely fine if that is what you want. You have that. You haven't said whether you're married and have a child, but let's assume you do. How would someone else getting "married" affect you.

I totally understand that you have no problem with gay people having a civil union. But for all intents and purposes, a civil union gives them everything a marriage does without the word. And you say you think that's ok. But do you really? Because it seems that the things you're worried about (and I can see your point) are related more to two men or two women raising a child and calling it a marriage and a family and how that will affect heterosexual marriages and families in the future.

Can you articulate what you are really concerned about? The things you've posted are interesting, but they seem a bit convoluted. I'd like to read your words, very simply. What exactly are you fighting against? Because what I think would happen is that you'd realize that either you really are ok with gay marriage as long as it's called something else, or you're not ok with gay unions if they are anything like legal marriages.

I don't think I'm being judgmental. I'm not asking you to change your point of view. I'm simply asking you to try to open your mind a bit more and understand that things are really not always absolute and this issue does have a lot of gray areas.

What is right and what is wrong? And who has the moral authority to decide?

Thank you for saying I'm nice and have a big heart. I appreciate that. I'm sure you are and do as well. But I do not think I'm being judgmental. I am just trying to shed some light on what the real issue here is in hopes that I'll help my friends, both gay and straight, have some peace and more love in their lives.

 

Chloe1732

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:48:43

"I'm not speaking about something I truly understand"? I don't think the issue could be more clear cut. You are a relativist, and someone who thinks Gay Marriage is a good thing because it makes it more "inclusive". But you don't care that it destroys Marriage as it currently exists, and the foundation and structure upon which Family is built. I've said all I have to say about this. Gay Marriage Advocates are either oblivious to or just don't care about how they are destroying Marriage- they think they are going to "remake" it or "improve" it somehow by turning it into a generic contract between two people, not the sacred institution between man and woman, the foundation of the American Family that is can and ought to be.

 

Alin_S

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 15:27:20

Church created this thing called marriage to make sure men would stop leaving pregnant women behind and thus avoid having bastard children growing up all over the "civilized" world. After all, there is a reason people were told that only married people should have sex, so if they got pregnant they would be in a stable relationship to raise the child. Then the state got involved because after all, the government must control everything even though laws can be created to deal with property rights, inheritances, and other "partner" rights.
Creating and bringing a child into this world is one of the most unbelievable feelings in life, and for that reason alone a homosexual couple is not equal to a heterosexual couple. So I have to agree, there is nothing sweeter than looking at my wife and seeing that her and I created our son. It is not some stranger/friend's egg or sperm. Mothers provide the care and love that females are so capable of, and also provide the sustenance through breastfeeding, which no gay male ever could no matter how hard he tried. So every child does need a mom. And I can't imagine having grown up without my dad to teach me how to be a man, and look at all the families where there are no fathers around and you will realize that every kid needs a dad. And lastly, I cannot fathom how I will ever be able to explain to my son when he grows up how two men can be married. I guess I can tell him that the birds and the bees don't need to pollinate plants anymore because science and the government are able to do a much better job than nature intended.

 

Helen Lindsey

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 16:05:58

I am not a relativist. And I am not in any way trying to destroy marriage as it is. Meaning, I am not trying to do anything to your marriage or mine or anyone else's.

So, your definition of a marriage is something that is between a man and a woman who later have a child that is the product of a man and a woman, but not necessarily of THAT man and THAT woman because adoption is OK. Did I get it right?

I'm confused, because this is not at all clear cut. I want to know what you and other opponents define marriage as and what you define a civil union as. You have refused to answer that, which is why I feel you don't entirely understand the issue at hand. I have a friend from high school who is gay. He has said that there is a big confusion about what gay people want. They just want a legal marriage. They don't want a religious marriage. They simply want the same rights that heterosexuals have when they are married to another person.

The homosexuals will be around, will be living together, and will be adopting and raising children together in YOUR community and YOUR schools regardless of whether they are allowed to be legally married. How will you explain this to your children? How should they explain it to theirs? Will you say they're different? Fine. Will you tell your children that you think homosexuals should have all of the rights of marriage just not the word marriage? And if these homosexuals were allowed to be civilly joined or married, would you still explain these same things to your children?

I just don't understand why anyone thinks that what someone else calls their loving union has any affect on his or her marriage - sacred and religious or just plain legal. Because it doesn't. You can still tell your children that homosexuals are different. You can tell them that you think marriage should be between a man and a woman, because nature and God intended it that way. And you can tell them that you feel your marriage is being trampled upon because homosexuals have rights. Your children can know exactly where you stand, and you can raise them to believe the same thing. You can do this no matter what other people are doing.

There are so many battles out there that are so much more important to fight. There are children and adults dying every second because they don't have clean drinking water. There are people being raped and imprisoned for talking to someone of the opposite sex who is not in her family. There are people killing and maiming in the name of religion and because of race and gender. In this country, even, there are basic human rights being denied to people every day. Children are beaten, abused and neglected. Schools are denying education to some children. Caretakers are allowing the helpless to live in their own feces because they just don't care enough to take care of the people in their charge. Animals are being slaughtered because of some misinformation. The list goes on.

Why would anyone waste their time fighting against two people who love each other and want to shout it out to the whole world? Fight against hate. Fight against ignorance. Fight against inequity and serious injustice. Fight against poverty. Please, don't waste time fighting against love - and something that really does not affect anyone who has the right to be married. It's all in your mind, this degradation of marriage. It's not real. Your marriage is as sacred as you want it to be - no matter what other people are doing. And it's legal, which is more than the homosexuals can say about their unions.

 

Helen Lindsey

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 16:15:35

To Alin_S,

Are you then OK with lesbian couples marrying and raising a child? Because science has been able to take two eggs and create a child, meaning that two women, with the help of a little invitro, can have a child that belongs to not just one of them, but both of them - biologically and otherwise.

And, yes, actually, men can breastfeed. Look it up.

So, although I agree that a two parent family is typically better than a one parent family (there are exceptions), that two parent family need not be a man and a woman - neither biologically or in daily life.

People argue that having two dads or two moms will mess children up. They will not understand the way "nature intended it." But I think the biggest thing that messes children up is having bad, incompetent, neglectful or otherwise inept parents AND growing up in a society that doesn't accept people for who they are. If we would all just accept gay marriage for what is is (the legal union of a man and man or a woman and woman) and not get all bent out of shape about it, I think these children would have a much better chance at having a "normal" life, should their parents even want them to have a "normal" life.

Can't we all just get along?

 

Phatlip12

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 16:57:28

"As for Abortion, I support it in the case of rape, incest or if the life of the mother is in danger."

Okay, I know I said I was done here but I found something I actually agree with you on (amazing huh)? However, I think I may cause you to think about abortion a little differently after you listen to what I say. So please, do listen to me, because we're on the same page with this.

You're against abortion because you obviously believe the fetus is a living human being with rights. HOWEVER, given such a belief would indicate NO SCENARIO would make an abortion an acceptable procedure. After all, it's a human life and to abort would be murder which is against the law.

So you can't be for abortion sometimes and against it others, because you can't support murder sometimes and oppose it others. That leaves you with he choice of picking a side.

Your choices are:

A. Pro life- No abortions ever because remember what I said earlier, you can't support murder sometimes and oppose it others.

B. Pro choice- Abortions are okay

I don't fall into either category so I'm not able to say I'm either pro life or pro choice. What I say is I favor pro life but I'm overall undecided. Because I feel, unless you support each either cause 100% you don't fall into that category.

 

Alin_S

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 16:59:49

To Helen Lindsey,

I thought you were actually making some sense in this conversation until you made the following points.

"...science has been able to take two eggs and create a child, meaning that two women, with the help of a little invitro, can have a child that belongs to not just one of them, but both of them - biologically and otherwise."

Very twisted, scientific creation of life. Very far out there thinking. Why not just clone children? This proves my point of how unnatural this really is, which is what two men and two women together is. This would never happen on its own naturally. Science can make men to be women, but that doesn't make them so. I think in those cases they need mental help, because something is not right.

"And, yes, actually, men can breastfeed. Look it up."

I am horrified of this thought. You actually state this as if it happens all around us. I must have missed this somewhere in biology class.
Using extreme cases to make your points is just that: EXTREME. Society is not based on living at the extremes.

"But I think the biggest thing that messes children up is having bad, incompetent, neglectful or otherwise inept parents AND growing up in a society that doesn't accept people for who they are."

So we should accept gay marriage because there are bad parents out there? Same reasoning is used to promote abortion because women get raped and we need this policy to be available to them. A lot more women have abortions because of irresponsible sexual activity, not the other way around. A lot more heterosexual couples are good parents and a lot more kids grow up happy with a mommy and a daddy than the other way around.

"Can't we all just get along?"

I would get along just fine if the gay industry didn't try to tell me how special of a group they are and how they need special rights.

 

Helen Lindsey

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 17:47:20

Alin,

I was using extreme examples, courtesy of my husband. He's good at coming up with extreme examples, and, I will admit, sometimes it annoys the heck out of me. So, I will back down from the extremes and stick by what I've been saying all along.

I don't think that I'm using the argument that children would be best off in a loving family and a society that accepts them for who they are as a way to defend gay marriage, per se. What I'm saying is that the most important thing we can do for our kids is love them and teach them to love, accept and resepct others. It doesn't mean we have to LIKE others or AGREE with them, but respect them and love them for who they are (isn't this what the Bible teaches?)

Gay parents are as capable of doing his as straight parents are. I have questioned during my life whether children of gay parents will be able to get along well in "normal" society, and I believe now that they will be able to do so at least as well as other children, because they will likely be taught tolerance for other people and their differences, which is so important.

Also, I'm not trying to ask for any special rights for homosexuals. Just the same rights the rest of us have.

And, I don't expect you to change your mind about the idea of gay marriage. Hate it all you want to. But seriously, don't you think there are other battles that are much more worthy of your time and energy?
I'm not asking you or anyone else to change your mind. What I ask is that everyone give this serious consideration. Think about what you would do if your son or daughter was gay and wanted to marry his/her partner. I think you would then feel differently. And even if you wouldn't, at least you'd be less likely to fight to take rights away from him/her.

I hope that people will find something more important to fight for rather than fighting to get into other people's private lives and intrude on something that really doesn't, or at least shouldn't, matter to them.

 

Alin_S

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 19:32:41

I want everyone to have rights that you or I enjoy. But as far as respect, what about respect for our right to live in a world where the values we uphold do not get trampled on? It just seems to me that if we want to believe in a traditional lifestyle, we get bombarded with gay this and lesbian that and transgender over there.
You are asking me to accept the redefining of marriage. Why impose that on my belief system? And this is not just some marginal issue, this is something that has withstood the test of time. Legal rights I am all for. The actual word "marriage" though makes me picture a bride and a groom. Maybe it's my fault for believing in such silly notions, but I sure used to love the the fairy tales of the prince coming to the rescue of the distresses princess and then riding off in the sunset to live happily ever after. But I guess that's considered old school and I should come around.
One question I would like answered: are we redefining the words groom and bride? If two men get married, does one have to wear a dress so we can see which one is the bride? Or is it gonna be two grooms? Bride and groom are terms used to describe the two parties getting married. So what are they gonna be called, and wouldn't that therefore change the definition?

 

Helen Lindsey

Wed, 08 Apr 2009 09:11:07

As long as people think it's their right to live in a world without opposing viewpoints that are allowed to be freely expressed, they will feel as if they are being trampled on. There will always be disagreements on issues, and I can't imagine anyone who would want to live in a world in which everyone was exactly like him (or her). Differences make the world go 'round.

Sometimes those differences make people angry, and sometimes they might actually make people think and evaluate their own thoughts and beliefs, which can be very good.

You can respect someone's differences without respecting their lifestyle. You can respect them as fellow human beings without agreeing with them.

As for what two men are going to call themselves if they are married, I would guess they will both consider themselves grooms. There's nothing wrong with that, is there? Maybe it's "weird" to you. Maybe it's "weird" to most people. But it's not weird to them. They are who they are, and they just want to be able to profess their love to one another and have the legal right to all the things that a legal union provides.

I'm NOT asking you to accept the redefining of marriage, because the word marriage means, among other things, the joining of two people. Your marriage is not affected if Steven and Joseph get married. It doesn't change what marriage is and what it means to you. It simply means that the law has changed to allow them to legally marry and have those rights (per the dictionary definition of marriage, which has nothing to do with religion).

I'm glad you're for legal rights. That's a good start. So, seriously, if gay men and women called their legal union a legal union and not a marriage, but they had all the rights of a marriage, would that be ok with you? Do you think that should be legal, because really, that's the bottom line. Equal rights for all people.

 

Chloe1732

Wed, 08 Apr 2009 15:26:09

Gay people already have the same legal rights as all people in America, all they have to do is enter into a legal agreement that is the same as marriage (Civil Union). The issue here is they want to REDEFINE Marriage, as in CHANGE ITS MEANING. That is where they go wrong. Gay Marriage would do two things:

1) Change the meaning of Marriage from meaning the union of one man and one woman based on biological attraction which exists for the purpose of procreation and raising offspring in society, to just a mere contract between any two people.

2) Lie to children and Gays and everybody else out there by demanding we see Homosexual Relationships as being EXACTLY the same as Heterosexual Relationships, ignoring the basic fact that babies come from one mother (woman) and one father (man) and that makes a Family, the building blocks of society.

If gays only cared about having the same rights as everybody else, they would be happy with a Civil Union. But that is NOT what they are after. Gay Marriage Advocates want to destroy Sacred Institution of Marriage so they don't have to deal with the fact that Homosexuals are different from Heterosexuals in that their union (love making/relationship) will Never Naturally produce biological offspring. They don't want to have to deal with the fact that a babies needs a Mom and a Dad to have the best possible environment to grow up in, become adults, and eventually parents. That is the way life is. Take it up with God, not me.

 

Helen Lindsey

Wed, 08 Apr 2009 15:53:40

Chloe,
Thank you for your response. I appreciate your stance, and I think I understand why you believe the way you do.

That said, and with all due respect, I must disagree with you. Why? Because gay people do NOT have all of the same rights as the rest of us do. They can NOT have legal unions in most of the 50 states. In most states, they cannot even engage in a civil ceremony that will give them those legal rights. Therefore, they are denied the rights that come along with a loving union between a man and a woman (often called marriage).

So, if you really want them to have all of the rights you have, aside from calling their unions marriages, then come out and say that (as you have tried). But don't confuse the issue by saying mistakenly that gays have all of the same rights. They don't.

Have you ever met a gay person and had this discussion with him or her? Can you really say that you understand exactly what gay people want regarding this issue. It doesn't seem like you do. They want to have the same rights, and they don't. I encourage you to seek out some gay people and have this discussion. I think both of you could learn something, because both of you have valid points.

As for taking this up with God and not you, well, the reason I'm having this dialogue with you is that you wrote a public blog and posted your opinions (and some incorrect statements) about gay marriage and civil unions. I would never have taken this up with you otherwise. I commend you for putting yourself out there like that for the entire world to see should they want to. I think it's great that you believe in things so strongly that you're willing to state them publicly and, in many cases, take a lot of heat for what you believe. It says a lot about you that you can do that. I am completely sincere when I say I think it's a good thing.

But because you have put yourself out there, I think you have to expect that people will disagree with you, sometimes strongly. I don't think that name calling (on either side) is productive, and I wish the others on here and you had not resorted to that. However, I understand there is a lot of emotion behind issues that relate to morals and values, so I know it's hard not to fight back when you feel attacked.

Chloe, I'd like for you to watch this short video about why a senator in Iowa won't sponsor a bill to block gay marriages. I thought it made a lot of sense. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2s2R5qKhbo

Take care, and keep blogging.

Helen

 

Chloe1732

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 23:05:18

Hi Helen, I just want you to know that I considered all the points you made with an open mind. And I understand your concept that Love should be the driving force behind Marriage, not sexuality. And I would agree with you but for the issue of Children. In fact, I have discovered that my opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with homosexuality, and everything to do with Children. Follow my thinking here for a minute.

I am opposed to the willful and intention creation of human life with full knowledge that the Child will not have a Mother or a Father. This includes heterosexual single women, heterosexual single men, homosexual single, women, and homosexual single men who use either a sperm donor and/or egg donor to create a baby for themselves KNOWING FULL WELL that baby will not have a mom or dad. An extreme example of this (I believe immoral) practice is Octomom, who, despite the fact of being single and unemployed, willfully created EIGHT babies who do not have a Daddy.

Gay Marriage will legitimize and encourage this practice of Willful and Intentional Creation of a baby that will have no mom or no dad. I support the right for a Gay Couple to adopt a child(ren) from a mother who is comfortable with a gay couple adopting her baby. I am uncomfortable with Straight couples using sperm and egg donations to create a baby that will not know it's biological mom or dad. But at least that baby will have a mom and dad. I am very uncomfortable with gay couples willfully and intentionally creating babies for themselves that will not have and/or know its father or mother (like Rosie O'Donnell has done). Obviously this is not something that will ever be illegal, but I think it is immoral.

Liberals want to take away an unborn baby's right to live, and those who are born are now going to be denied their most basic need- to have a Mom and Dad. I just think it's very sad that Gay Marriage Advocates don't recognize the significance of this.

 

Phatlip12

Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:14:46

Do you have any idea how many adopted children don't know who their biological parents are?

What you're saying is pretty irrelevant to gay marriage considering many people are married without even wanting children.

 

Chloe1732

Fri, 10 Apr 2009 12:17:29

"Do you have any idea how many adopted children don't know who their biological parents are?"

Yes, I know- and adopted children and their families have their own unique struggle because of that (wanting to know the biological parents, not being able to find them, or finding them and the reunion doesn't go well etc.) Adoption is something that happens as a result of an unwanted pregnancy or an orphan situation, neither of which is is created intentionally. Why would you intentionally create a child that has no Mom or Dad?

"What you're saying is pretty irrelevant to gay marriage considering many people are married without even wanting children."

It is COMPLETELy relevant. If kids didn't need a Mom and Dad, Nobody would be against Gay Marriage. Not even me. As for people who get married without wanting children, that is their choice to make. But Marriage is not just about two people in love coming together. It is an institution that creates a stable framework to raise the biological offspring that occurs as a natural product of the union between man and woman, and the Foundation of the Family.

 

Chloe1732

Sat, 11 Apr 2009 16:00:04

More sperm bank lunacy. Ethical questions over harvesting dead son's sperm http://bit.ly/3nvUbS

 

Comments are closed.