Seagoon, you do make an awful lot of worst-case scenarios trying to come up with some sort reasonably non-religious argument against homosexual marriage.
With "relationship lifespan" your facts aren't sourced, which is important to see the degree of neutrality behind the data. Data can be, and regularly is, created to meet certain ends. I can, within 5 minutes of searching throw this back:
MYTH #8: Gay, lesbians, and bisexual people cannot and do not want long-term relationships.
The stereotype is of the lonely gay man or woman drifting from one sexual liaison to another, never satisfied and never committed.
Studies have shown that between 40-60% of gay men are in steady relationships. These figures are probably higher because men in long term relationships tend to be older and less likely to go to bars, where these statistics were recorded.
Between 45-80% of lesbians are in steady relationships. In most studies, the proportion of lesbians in an on-going relationship was close to 75%.
It is hard to judge how long these partnerships last given the lack of marriage records. The few studies on older lesbians and gay men have shown that relationships lasting longer than 20 years are common.
Another study compared the rate of break-up between lesbian, gay, and co-habitating and married heterosexual couples over an 18 month period. For all couples who had been together for more than 10 years the rate of break-up was:
* 6% for lesbians,
* 4% for gay men,
* 4% for married couples.
For couples together for less than 2 years, only 1 in 5 relationships ended over the 18-month period. Overall the difference in break-up rates between homosexual and heterosexual couples is almost insignificant.
In general, a pattern of continuity and stability was seen in all the relationships.
http://www.mcgill.ca/studenthealth/information/queerhealth/myths/
Are they playing tricks with data? Maybe. But who cares? It's immaterial. It sounds like a desire to regulate marriage, heterosexual included I would assume at some point, to achieve an optimal level of societal correctness. I personally don't like strangers or the government deciding too specifically and minutely what is best for my marriage beyond what my wife and I decide is best for the needs of the family. Do you believe there needs to be stronger controls placed on heterosexual marriage?
Your fears about persecution at the pulpit? Very hard to see. Religion is not a governmental/public entity or a business or a public entity. I just don't see it. I would certainly protest on your side should such an enormous change in our way of government come to pass. But again, you base a current action that has no direct impact on your life on a future worst case scenario of what might become. And persecution at the office? I don't doubt your story. But you do seem to encounter a lot of "activist" gay people. How are the activist? Are they in your face all the time or just not ashamed to occasionally describe a weekend with his/or partner during normal lunch hour social discussions? I could also ask, how activist were you in promoting your religious beliefs at work?Why was that meeting on homosexuality being called?
As stated, I have worked with homosexuals. I also had a fundamentalist Christian work for me and I worked for a Jehova's Witness. Guess what? The Homosexuals weren't the activists. With my subordinate, we were in a laid back office, and neither I or the others cared all that much. The bible tracts, occasional preaching, the picture of the fetus on her cubical wall -- generally ignored. But she was clearly activist. I was a bit more worried about the Jehova's Witness, since he was my boss, but fortunately he knew that he could cross a harassment line and was very careful in getting your permission to proceed. I gave him that permission, out of curiosity
Sill, an activist looking to convert. Then there was the Amway guy… Your employment situation sounds like over reacting on management's part. It's also ironic that you fail to appreciate that there are plenty of people who would refuse to hire, or quickly fire a homosexual if they could easily get away with it. Or a black, or woman, or any other sub group of less favored class.
The way I see this affecting the America that my children will inherit, especially if they godwilling, continue in the covenant, will not be good. And I am not eager to bequeath a nation substantially more hostile to the faith than even the one I lived in. Still, if the early Church could continue on in Corinth, I have no doubt that the church can survive in the kind of America we are building. With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible and after all, the blood of the martyrs has ever been the seed of the church.
You see all this hostility to the majority Christian religion. But most of the "oppression" I see is some judge being put in his place for putting a two-ton stature of the 10 commandments in a public hall of justice and daring those who disagree with preeminent Christianity to take it away. I don't mind that type of oppression, though it equally has to be watched over for overreaction and excess. Christianity is a strong majority today, and into the future. The victim angle is a powerful one, but it rings hollow to me.
But ultimately, why don't I want to see it happen? Because I have never seen blessings follow in the train of sinful behavior, and I quake at the thought of the curses this will bring down upon our heads. That won't resonate with most, but then again, neither did the warnings of Jeremiah to his society, and as I said before, I speak from conviction and personal experience. I honestly don't want to see anyone inherit anything but God's blessings.
That's refreshing. Why even bother with all the complications, philosophy and extremist projections that make it palatable in some secular way.
Charon
BTW everybody, Have a great holiday weekend. May the weather be fine, the relaxation deep and the amusements merry as we enjoy celebrating America.
