Hi Charon,
Originally posted by Charon
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.
Not really, I'm simply reading what is going on in Europe and Canada, speaking with pastors and missionaries in those areas and applying the lessons to our own society. If you believe that what is currently happening throughout the Western nations cannot and will not happen it the USA, then I must respectfully disagree.
With "relationship lifespan" your facts aren't sourced, which is important to see the degree of neutrality behind the data.
Yeah I know the old saying "Lies, damned lies, and statistics". I tend to favor government, medical community, or pro-homosexual sources of stats in my writing. If you want a list of some the sources I used they are:
* Matthew D. Bramlett and William D. Mosher, "First Marriage Dissolution, Divorce and Remarriage: United States," Advance Data, National Center for Health Statistics (May 31, 2001)
* Current Population Reports: U.S. Census Bureau (2002)
* 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census (
http://www.glcensus.org)
* Adrian Brune,
"City Gays Skip Long-term Relationships: Study Says," Washington Blade (February 27, 2004)
In my own reading on current homosexual political theory (I end up reading this along with essays on homosexual theology which it tends to be closely tied with) I have found that the majority of gay scholars and writers consider monogamy to be a heterosexual construct that should not be a required part of marriage. In fact, there seems to be an attitude of don't patronize us with bits and pieces of your worldview.
For instance, Gay Australian Journalist Steve Dow writes:
"Same sex couples would bring that favourite 90s word to the marriage mix: diversity. Some of us would be monogamous, and some of us would have open relationships. And that scares the hell out of the likes of church leaders. But it would, wouldn’t it? Churches are not exactly repositories of honesty, are they? Perhaps we could inject a dose of much-needed honesty into the institution of marriage: that commitment is not always synonymous with exclusivity. Nice ideal if you can make it work. Many gay people can be monogamous but, regardless of whether they are, this is not an argument for denying anyone access to marriage"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?
The VP was an activist in that he actively sought to hire homosexual department managers who in turn sought to hire homosexual workers. This was considered a good "affirmative action" policy and the company was proud of it. The company was also way ahead of the curve in offering health benefits to domestic partners, in bringing in speakers from the gay community to conduct workshops on how to write about homosexual legal and political issues and so on. If that doesn't constitute "activism," I am not sure what does.
The luncheon was part of a sponsored company program called "Brown Bag Diversity Luncheons" where "diversity" issues were supposed to be openly discussed to promote greater understanding. The meeting apparently began with a number of white liberal managers spouting platitudes about gay friends and relatives and how they couldn't even understand a mentality that would think this was wrong, then a number of homosexuals spoke, one noting that tolerance was not the issue, equal rights was and equated it to the civil rights movement of the 60s. This irritated a black worker who thought that upper class white gays in management equating their "struggle" with that of his was going way too far (this began to put a damper on the proceedings) then my friend Maria (who was a little Hispanic lady and married to a black man) respectfully noted that she did not think it was a civil rights issue either and read a few passages from the bible indicating that this was a choice and that it was a wrong choice. At that point all hell broke loose with people shaking fingers at her, lambasting her, calling her a nazi, a bigot, and no different from those who lynched in prior years. That was when another sister who was crying because she loved Maria dearly ran to my cubicle to get me. I simply noted that Maria was right, that every theological giant of the faith had affirmed that, that this wasn't a "hate" issue and so on. Maria was union and effectively untouchable, I was a contract worker and quite expendable.
How activist was I in promoting my beliefs? We held meetings during the official "club time" on Wednesday in one of the lunch rooms at work. We did open bible studies, discussed theological topics, watched Christian history videos and invited anyone who wanted to, to attend. Aside from that, I answered questions from non-Christians that arose because people knew of my connection with the fellowship. If you view that as being an activist, then I guess I was.
- SEAGOON
