Gay marriage spurs debate among voters
The question of whether homosexual couples should be allowed to legally marry has drawn protesters and supporters to the streets near Fresno State in the past few weeks.
Supporters of Proposition 8 wave posters in the air on the corner of Herndon and Cedar and just down the road on Maple, a similarly resounding opposition is raised by demonstrators.
But on Nov. 4, the right of homosexual couples to marry in California will be in the hands of voters. Prop. 8 would add a new amendment to the California Constitution stating “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” according to California General Election Official Voter Information Guide. This amendment would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.
Many students would be affected by the outcome of Prop. 8 including Tom Hayhurst who married his partner, Dan Waterhouse, a Fresno State graduate, on Oct. 29. They met about five years ago, in the spring of 2003.
Waterhouse and Hayhurst are hopeful the proposition will not pass.
“We’d love to see it lose,” Waterhouse said. The two had a very simple civil ceremony but they plan to follow it up celebrating with family and friends in the future.
When it comes to the proposition, Hayhurst and Waterhouse feel the heart of the matter is that their civil rights are being challenged.
“A fundamental right cannot be made unconstitutional,” said Hayhurst, “and marrying someone of your own choice is a fundamental right.”
Originally they had planned to marry after the first of the year, but Prop. 8 changed that. In order to allow their union to be legally recognized, regardless of the election’s outcome, the two had to move up the marriage date. According to Waterhouse, “Everyone married before midnight Nov. 4 should remain so, regardless of the vote.”
“The word marriage is basically just a word, but it expresses the commitment and is a civil right I’m entitled to,” Hayhurst said.
That commitment is something both are dedicated to; they have engaged in many rallies against the proposition and have put many hours into the cause.
Joining them at many of these rallies are Dakota Draconi and her wife, Corky Draconi. Dakota is the Vice President of United Student Pride, the LGBT club on the Fresno State Campus.
The two women, like Hayhurst and Waterhouse, have been exceedingly dedicated to the “No on Proposition 8” cause. They were married on Aug. 30, and were thrilled to have the same legal rights as married straight couples.
Many supporters of Prop. 8 claim homosexual couples share the same rights as straight couples under domestic partnership laws, only without the legal designation of “marriage.” According to the experiences of both couples, restrictions under these laws are many, and those differences are at the front lines of their argument.
Dakota shared a repetitive fear she has every time her spouse walks out the door.
“For years it wasn’t just that I was afraid she would get into an accident. It was more than that. I was afraid that she would get into an accident, and I wouldn’t be allowed to be with her in the hospital.”
Under domestic partnership laws, unmarried domestic partners do not share the legal rights of visitation and medical decisions as legally married couples. They also do not share the legal standing of married couples in inheritance cases.
Katie Bishop is a married college student at Fresno State who supports Prop. 8. Bishop is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and bases her support on her religion.
“I support Prop. 8 mainly for religious reasons,” Bishop said. “Marriage has been ordained by God to be between a man and a woman. Any other definition would not fulfill the purpose of family life. I believe that children need a mother and a father. Gender is an essential role and characteristic that was given to us to provide for our children and our communities. Both men and women have something unique to give to children and this is taken away when the child is raised by a same-sex couple.”
But Bishop was certain to point out she had no problem with homosexuals as individuals, although she supported Prop. 8.
“I am not homophobic and I have nothing but positive feelings for those who are involved in a same-sex relationship,” Bishop said. “I do not agree with their lifestyle choices, but I recognize that it is their choice and every person should be allowed to live the way they so choose.”
Preservation of traditional marriage was a major reason Bishop supports Prop. 8. However, Dakota saw this a different way.
“The threat to traditional marriage is divorce, and interpersonal violence,” she said.
The Draconis, along with Waterhouse and Hayhurst, both felt religion was not the heart of the issue. Dakota asked if her friend, who was Buddhist, should not be allowed to get married for religious reasons.
She continued to address another issue often raised about the purpose of marriage; procreation.
“If marriage’s purpose is to create children, then should old people not be allowed to get married? What about infertile couples? Should they not be allowed to get married?” Dakota asked.
Prop. 8 will go before California voters on Tuesday, and neither side is certain which way it will go.
“It is a dead heat, and every vote counts,” Hayhurst said.
Related Content
A verified e-mail address is required to post a comment.
Views expressed in the comments section are not representative of The Collegian unless so specified. Comments must be approved by a moderator before they are published. Comments that are inflammatory, profane, libelous and/or posted under a false name may be removed at the discretion of The Collegian. Comments may be used in the print edition of the newspaper. Be sure to pick up next Friday's issue of The Collegian for featured comments.
80 Responses to Gay marriage spurs debate among voters
Leave a Reply
Connect with us »
Recent Posts »
- Year in Review: The Collegian sits down with President Welty
- Thrower McKee is a rare breed
- Sprinter perseveres through injuries
- Wrightful departure
- The “udder” truth about campus milk production
- Year in review: The Collegian sits down with President Welty
- What the future holds
- Student volunteer’s rough childhood fuels passion to give back
- Head Softball Coach Margie Wright announces retirement
- Shots fired in ‘Sin City’
- A final farewell: Seven seniors say goodbye
- Piercings represent independence and fashion for many
The gay community is using this as a ploy to shove there agenda in our faces and force everyone to have to agree with there lifestyle. This is not about civil rights or equality for all this is about redefining marriage. 4 judges had no right to overrule the will of the people with prop 22. Gays already have rights under california law and if Prop 8 passes with a Yes there rights WILL NOT be eliminated. Don’t be fooled people!!! Same sex marriage just diminishes the sanctity of marriage. The gay lifestyle is a sexcapade that we should not be forced to agree with on any level. Gay relationships statiscally last no longer than a year and half because they change partners so many times. Next they’ll pass a law that you can marry your pet or your sibling. If this was suppose to be normal than why can’t two men or two women PRODUCE children?? That’s one of the major sanctifications of marriage along with protection and nurturing.
The gay community is using this as a ploy to shove there agenda in our faces and force everyone to have to agree with there lifestyle. This is not about civil rights or equality for all this is about redefining marriage. 4 judges had no right to overrule the will of the people with prop 22. Gays already have rights under california law and if Prop 8 passes with a Yes there rights WILL NOT be eliminated. Don’t be fooled people!!! Same sex marriage just diminishes the sanctity of marriage. The gay lifestyle is a sexcapade that we should not be forced to agree with on any level. Gay relationships statiscally last no longer than a year and half because they change partners so many times. Next they’ll pass a law that you can marry your pet or your sibling. If this was suppose to be normal than why can’t two men or two women PRODUCE children?? That’s one of the major sanctifications of marriage along with protection and nurturing.
First of all, learn to use grammar, dear, it’s THEIR agenda, THEIR lifestyle, THEIR rights. We should be allowed to keep our rights just because we are grammatically correct.
There is nothing “sanctified” about a marriage that has domestic violence, child molesting, etc within the “traditional” family, and there are plenty of those.
Wow 4 Reel, and just how do you know so much about how long our partnerships last and our sexual practices? Takes one to know one perhaps? Love to see those “statistics” you spout — care to give a citation on where you got that data? I figure I have sex with my monogamous partner about as many times a month as you do, hm? I suppose you idolize celebrities who steal each other’s spouses, or have marriages that last about a week? I have known my partner for 30 years, and we have been a couple for 12. She had cervical cancer and had to have a hysterectomy — does that mean that if she can’t marry me, she’s out of luck because she can’t produce children?
The “four judges” did not overrule the will of the people, they correctly determined that something was discriminatory and set it aside. And that “fourth judge” was a Republican, I’m happy to say.
I have never shoved an “agenda” in anyone’s face. I have never tried to “turn” a child. We do NOT have the same rights (read the article above, perhaps?). Unlike the lies of the ad that shows the couple in Mass., California parents HAVE the right to pull their children out of any class with which they do not agree with the teaching. And marriage is usually NOT taught, in any form, to anyone.
Maybe if it were, we wouldn’t have one of the highest divorce rates in the land. THAT is the true threat to ‘traditional marriage.’
4 Shame, 4 Reel.
First of all, learn to use grammar, dear, it’s THEIR agenda, THEIR lifestyle, THEIR rights. We should be allowed to keep our rights just because we are grammatically correct.
There is nothing “sanctified” about a marriage that has domestic violence, child molesting, etc within the “traditional” family, and there are plenty of those.
Wow 4 Reel, and just how do you know so much about how long our partnerships last and our sexual practices? Takes one to know one perhaps? Love to see those “statistics” you spout — care to give a citation on where you got that data? I figure I have sex with my monogamous partner about as many times a month as you do, hm? I suppose you idolize celebrities who steal each other’s spouses, or have marriages that last about a week? I have known my partner for 30 years, and we have been a couple for 12. She had cervical cancer and had to have a hysterectomy — does that mean that if she can’t marry me, she’s out of luck because she can’t produce children?
The “four judges” did not overrule the will of the people, they correctly determined that something was discriminatory and set it aside. And that “fourth judge” was a Republican, I’m happy to say.
I have never shoved an “agenda” in anyone’s face. I have never tried to “turn” a child. We do NOT have the same rights (read the article above, perhaps?). Unlike the lies of the ad that shows the couple in Mass., California parents HAVE the right to pull their children out of any class with which they do not agree with the teaching. And marriage is usually NOT taught, in any form, to anyone.
Maybe if it were, we wouldn’t have one of the highest divorce rates in the land. THAT is the true threat to ‘traditional marriage.’
4 Shame, 4 Reel.
That is the major problem in America today. Intolerance. Freedom was the defining reason this country was formed. Not freedom but only if it fits what some of the people think it the right type of freedom.
I have a question for all you people out there that claim the bible as an excuse to stop this.
When you stand before God, and he ask you, “Who gave you the right to take away the free will I granted every man and woman? Who told you that you knew better than any other person I created?”. What are you going to answer? Who gave you the right to take away what God has given? Jesus said, “Love thy neighbor.” Not love them only when they are doing what you think is right.
The real truth though is that this is not about religion. It’s about tolerance and freedom. It’s about the basic rights of every single man and woman in the country and the world.
I choose to love and accept everyone the way they are.
If it harms none, do as you will.
That is the major problem in America today. Intolerance. Freedom was the defining reason this country was formed. Not freedom but only if it fits what some of the people think it the right type of freedom.
I have a question for all you people out there that claim the bible as an excuse to stop this.
When you stand before God, and he ask you, “Who gave you the right to take away the free will I granted every man and woman? Who told you that you knew better than any other person I created?”. What are you going to answer? Who gave you the right to take away what God has given? Jesus said, “Love thy neighbor.” Not love them only when they are doing what you think is right.
The real truth though is that this is not about religion. It’s about tolerance and freedom. It’s about the basic rights of every single man and woman in the country and the world.
I choose to love and accept everyone the way they are.
If it harms none, do as you will.
There is no ‘agenda’ beyond equal rights.
Marrying the person that you love is not a ‘lifestyle’.
The judges (majority conservative Republican) judges did their job and found prop 22 to be equivalent to mob rule and in violation of people’s rights and therefore correctly held it to be against the California Constitution.
Passing Prop 8 WILL eliminate rights, just as Plessy v. Ferguson (the ‘separate but equal’ doctrine) was found to be inherently discriminatory.
Encouraging more committed couples to marry does NOT diminish the sanctity of marriage, it only strengthens it. Divorce and interpersonal violence diminish the sanctity of marriage. Britney Spears’ 55 hour marriage diminishes the sanctity of marriage. Henry VIII’s six wives diminish the sanctity of marriage. What strengthens or diminishes the sanctity of marriage has to do with the depth of their commitment, not their sexuality.
We don’t require a fertility test for people to marry, so the argument about producing children is specious.
A pet is not capable of knowingly entering into a contract, which is what a marriage is, so the argument about marrying a pet is specious.
Marrying a sibling has legitimate *social* problems with the potential for birth defects, so it is in the state’s interest to prohibit such unions. No such potential problem exists for same sex marriages, so there is no state interest in prohibiting same sex marriages.
Sexual promiscuity (or ‘sexcapade’ as referred to by 4 reel) is not limited to same sex relationships. Having the societal structure and support for same sex relationships (a.k.a. marriage) would only serve to strengthen such relationships and reduce sexual promiscuity. With marriage, focus is shifted from a sexual relationship to an intimate interpersonal relationship. This should be encouraged by anyone believing in the sanctity of marriage.
In the United States, we have Separation of Church and State, codified in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is UNAMERICAN to support Prop 8.
Do your civil duty and VOTE NO ON PROP 8.
God gave us Free Will. It is not the place of the State to take away our God given Free Will.
Do your Christian duty and VOTE NO ON PROP 8.
There is no ‘agenda’ beyond equal rights.
Marrying the person that you love is not a ‘lifestyle’.
The judges (majority conservative Republican) judges did their job and found prop 22 to be equivalent to mob rule and in violation of people’s rights and therefore correctly held it to be against the California Constitution.
Passing Prop 8 WILL eliminate rights, just as Plessy v. Ferguson (the ‘separate but equal’ doctrine) was found to be inherently discriminatory.
Encouraging more committed couples to marry does NOT diminish the sanctity of marriage, it only strengthens it. Divorce and interpersonal violence diminish the sanctity of marriage. Britney Spears’ 55 hour marriage diminishes the sanctity of marriage. Henry VIII’s six wives diminish the sanctity of marriage. What strengthens or diminishes the sanctity of marriage has to do with the depth of their commitment, not their sexuality.
We don’t require a fertility test for people to marry, so the argument about producing children is specious.
A pet is not capable of knowingly entering into a contract, which is what a marriage is, so the argument about marrying a pet is specious.
Marrying a sibling has legitimate *social* problems with the potential for birth defects, so it is in the state’s interest to prohibit such unions. No such potential problem exists for same sex marriages, so there is no state interest in prohibiting same sex marriages.
Sexual promiscuity (or ‘sexcapade’ as referred to by 4 reel) is not limited to same sex relationships. Having the societal structure and support for same sex relationships (a.k.a. marriage) would only serve to strengthen such relationships and reduce sexual promiscuity. With marriage, focus is shifted from a sexual relationship to an intimate interpersonal relationship. This should be encouraged by anyone believing in the sanctity of marriage.
In the United States, we have Separation of Church and State, codified in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is UNAMERICAN to support Prop 8.
Do your civil duty and VOTE NO ON PROP 8.
God gave us Free Will. It is not the place of the State to take away our God given Free Will.
Do your Christian duty and VOTE NO ON PROP 8.
The Gay and Lesbian community isn’t trying to force ANYTHING down the throats of voters as the last entry said. What they are asking for is to be TREATED EQUALLY UNDER THE LAW. While the point of Civil Unions was brought up, it is still not marriage and does NOT grant the same BENEFITS as marriage, such as with health care.
With the last entry it is very clear that the writer doesn’t know anything about the Gay and Lesbian community, most of the marriages that have been performed already have been to couples that have been together for the very LEAST five years, yes, they are so short, aren’t they?
VOTE NO ON 8! LETS MAKE THE NEXT GENERATION OF AMERICANS GROW UP IN A WORLD WITHOUT INTOLORENCE!
The Gay and Lesbian community isn’t trying to force ANYTHING down the throats of voters as the last entry said. What they are asking for is to be TREATED EQUALLY UNDER THE LAW. While the point of Civil Unions was brought up, it is still not marriage and does NOT grant the same BENEFITS as marriage, such as with health care.
With the last entry it is very clear that the writer doesn’t know anything about the Gay and Lesbian community, most of the marriages that have been performed already have been to couples that have been together for the very LEAST five years, yes, they are so short, aren’t they?
VOTE NO ON 8! LETS MAKE THE NEXT GENERATION OF AMERICANS GROW UP IN A WORLD WITHOUT INTOLORENCE!
Gay relationship used to be a shameful thing.
Then it ceased to be.
Then they wanted to ‘marry’ gay mates.
Now they want the law to recognise such affairs.
And we call all this ‘advancement’.
Do we ever believe that society is regressing while technology is advancing?
Gay relationship used to be a shameful thing.
Then it ceased to be.
Then they wanted to ‘marry’ gay mates.
Now they want the law to recognise such affairs.
And we call all this ‘advancement’.
Do we ever believe that society is regressing while technology is advancing?
Enough already, Why not put gay marriage to the scientific litmus test?.
1) Place 100 married gay men OR 100 gay woman on an island.
2) Place 100 married heterosexuals 1/2 men and 1/2 women on a second island.
3) Wait 100 years……
When you return to the fist island you will find nothing but grave stones.
When you return to the second island you will find a new generation of people, growing learning, loving and creating the next generation.
Lets face it. If not for heterosexuals the gay lifestyle is a dead end….. with no future … no future generation.
How can anything that is an open loop with no future be natural or a good thing? In nature a species without a next generation is a species destined for extension.
Signed: Logical.
Enough already, Why not put gay marriage to the scientific litmus test?.
1) Place 100 married gay men OR 100 gay woman on an island.
2) Place 100 married heterosexuals 1/2 men and 1/2 women on a second island.
3) Wait 100 years……
When you return to the fist island you will find nothing but grave stones.
When you return to the second island you will find a new generation of people, growing learning, loving and creating the next generation.
Lets face it. If not for heterosexuals the gay lifestyle is a dead end….. with no future … no future generation.
How can anything that is an open loop with no future be natural or a good thing? In nature a species without a next generation is a species destined for extension.
Signed: Logical.
Let’s not make up questions that God will ask us when His word tells us the truth on the matter. God expects us to uphold His word and follow it. Anyone who honestly looks at the Bible cannot conclude that it supports homosexuality.
Romans 1:24
1:24 Therefore God gave them over 1 in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor 2 their bodies among themselves. 3 1:25 They 4 exchanged the truth of God for a lie 5 and worshiped and served the creation 6 rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
1:26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, 7 1:27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women 8 and were inflamed in their passions 9 for one another. Men 10 committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Let’s not make up questions that God will ask us when His word tells us the truth on the matter. God expects us to uphold His word and follow it. Anyone who honestly looks at the Bible cannot conclude that it supports homosexuality.
Romans 1:24
1:24 Therefore God gave them over 1 in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor 2 their bodies among themselves. 3 1:25 They 4 exchanged the truth of God for a lie 5 and worshiped and served the creation 6 rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
1:26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, 7 1:27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women 8 and were inflamed in their passions 9 for one another. Men 10 committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Loving gay couples who have committed themselves to each other should not be treated any less than their heterosexual counterparts. Some of the couples who have gotten married since June are those who spent years being fully committed to each other. The gay community is a part of YOUR community. We are teachers who educate your children. We are nurses who care for your health. We are artists who provide beauty and entertainment. Some of us are members of your church congregation. Some of us are your family members. Funny, if all we do is change partners and have sexcapades all the time, I guess either those things aren’t true or we must be great multi-taskers.
To reiterate the points of the author, this is NOT about religion. It is about civil rights and according to our constitution, each person is to be treated equally regardless of their race, religion or sexual preference. It was not long ago when people of different races were not allowed to marry. Let’s not undo our growth as a nation. The purpose of marriage is NOT for procreation as there are many who are not blessed in a heterosexual marriage to have children so we should be considerate of their feelings.
So for those out there who are still trying to decide, Consider the point of view from both sides, and listen to your heart. Promote peace and tolerance, and not hate and ignorance.
Loving gay couples who have committed themselves to each other should not be treated any less than their heterosexual counterparts. Some of the couples who have gotten married since June are those who spent years being fully committed to each other. The gay community is a part of YOUR community. We are teachers who educate your children. We are nurses who care for your health. We are artists who provide beauty and entertainment. Some of us are members of your church congregation. Some of us are your family members. Funny, if all we do is change partners and have sexcapades all the time, I guess either those things aren’t true or we must be great multi-taskers.
To reiterate the points of the author, this is NOT about religion. It is about civil rights and according to our constitution, each person is to be treated equally regardless of their race, religion or sexual preference. It was not long ago when people of different races were not allowed to marry. Let’s not undo our growth as a nation. The purpose of marriage is NOT for procreation as there are many who are not blessed in a heterosexual marriage to have children so we should be considerate of their feelings.
So for those out there who are still trying to decide, Consider the point of view from both sides, and listen to your heart. Promote peace and tolerance, and not hate and ignorance.
Norm,
Prop 8 is not voting on religious canon. It is voting on people’s civil rights. This is a *civil* matter, not a religious one.
Holding your beliefs is fine for how you live your life, but do not dictate to others how they live theirs when how they live their life has no impact on your freedoms.
Recognize other peoples rights to hold different beliefs. Do your American duty and VOTE NO ON PROP 8.
Norm
The quotes don’t help your case at all. No where in there are the questions I put to you answered. No where in your quotes does it say force your will onto others.
The question is.. Do you believe that God wants you to take away the free will he gave to others?
Learn love and stop trying to force hate into what you read from the bible.
Norm,
Prop 8 is not voting on religious canon. It is voting on people’s civil rights. This is a *civil* matter, not a religious one.
Holding your beliefs is fine for how you live your life, but do not dictate to others how they live theirs when how they live their life has no impact on your freedoms.
Recognize other peoples rights to hold different beliefs. Do your American duty and VOTE NO ON PROP 8.
Norm
The quotes don’t help your case at all. No where in there are the questions I put to you answered. No where in your quotes does it say force your will onto others.
The question is.. Do you believe that God wants you to take away the free will he gave to others?
Learn love and stop trying to force hate into what you read from the bible.
I never said the word hate. Why is it that when I give a verse from the Bible I am on the side of “hate” You give a verse from the Bible about Love and God is Love. He told us to love our enemies and pray for them. This is about what is right. God’s will is right. It is a higher standard than the “will of man” or the “free will” of man. If you want to exult the free will of man over the will of God, that is your choice. You have to answer to God for that decision, not me. I just don’t like it when you try to say that God is on your side…when the Bible says otherwise.
I never said the word hate. Why is it that when I give a verse from the Bible I am on the side of “hate” You give a verse from the Bible about Love and God is Love. He told us to love our enemies and pray for them. This is about what is right. God’s will is right. It is a higher standard than the “will of man” or the “free will” of man. If you want to exult the free will of man over the will of God, that is your choice. You have to answer to God for that decision, not me. I just don’t like it when you try to say that God is on your side…when the Bible says otherwise.
Logical,
Your ‘logic’ fails on the face of it. Take a look: We’re not stranded on an island. Same sex couples make up a small minority of the population. There is no danger of humanity dying out. One could (logically) argue that there is more danger to humanity from over-population.
I sincerely hope that you do not hold a job in any kind of scientific or engineering field. Science can only be conducted properly when you have an open mind.
Logical,
Your ‘logic’ fails on the face of it. Take a look: We’re not stranded on an island. Same sex couples make up a small minority of the population. There is no danger of humanity dying out. One could (logically) argue that there is more danger to humanity from over-population.
I sincerely hope that you do not hold a job in any kind of scientific or engineering field. Science can only be conducted properly when you have an open mind.
But you are totally wrong. The Bible doesn’t say otherwise. You chose to read it that way. Because you know better than others.
And God’s Will was to give man Free Will.
Guess you need to read a little more and stop trying to make it say what you want it to say and just let it say what it says.
And the great thing about the Bible is, once you let go of your on pre-conceived notions of what it has to say because that is what others have told you it says, is that you will find that all it really says is, Love one another.
But you are totally wrong. The Bible doesn’t say otherwise. You chose to read it that way. Because you know better than others.
And God’s Will was to give man Free Will.
Guess you need to read a little more and stop trying to make it say what you want it to say and just let it say what it says.
And the great thing about the Bible is, once you let go of your on pre-conceived notions of what it has to say because that is what others have told you it says, is that you will find that all it really says is, Love one another.
Jay,
It has little to do with an open mind and much to do with a controlled experiment….
I sincerely hope that you are not seriously advocating Gay marriage as some form of population or birth contol…. Two can take things out of context.
Jay,
It has little to do with an open mind and much to do with a controlled experiment….
I sincerely hope that you are not seriously advocating Gay marriage as some form of population or birth contol…. Two can take things out of context.
Oh and Logical,
You experiment, though totally useless, is very very unlikely to produce the results you quoted.
You make the assumption, which you should never do in a controlled experiment, that all of the children of the original gay couples will also be gay. Which is very likely not correct. That assumption alone causes all your “Logical results” to be of zero real value.
Oh and Logical,
You experiment, though totally useless, is very very unlikely to produce the results you quoted.
You make the assumption, which you should never do in a controlled experiment, that all of the children of the original gay couples will also be gay. Which is very likely not correct. That assumption alone causes all your “Logical results” to be of zero real value.
ahhh.. I see the OR.. for a controlled experiment the two groups should be made up of the same amount of each sex. only one variable allowed in a controlled experiment right? So sexual choice is your only allowed variable. Sorry. That is how a controlled experiment works. :)
ahhh.. I see the OR.. for a controlled experiment the two groups should be made up of the same amount of each sex. only one variable allowed in a controlled experiment right? So sexual choice is your only allowed variable. Sorry. That is how a controlled experiment works. :)
Logical,
But if you had an open mind, you would recognize that what you refer to as a controlled experiment does not in any way match reality. Any controlled experiment would have to use a population that mirrored the population at large.
Please do not try to call your bigotry ‘science’. It is too easy to disprove. It does a disservice both to you and to science.
Logical,
But if you had an open mind, you would recognize that what you refer to as a controlled experiment does not in any way match reality. Any controlled experiment would have to use a population that mirrored the population at large.
Please do not try to call your bigotry ‘science’. It is too easy to disprove. It does a disservice both to you and to science.
Jay,
You not I made the incorrect assumptions. I clearly stated that the first island would contain only men or only woman. No offspring is possible.
checkmat…
Jay,
You not I made the incorrect assumptions. I clearly stated that the first island would contain only men or only woman. No offspring is possible.
checkmat…
Let’s look at love once again. Loving God first was the greatest commandment. Jesus said if you love me, keep my commandments. When we love anything or anybody more than God, we have a displaced love.
As far as our will goes, God can enable believers to have the power to choose to do right rather than sin having the power over us. That is the right kind of free will. When sin controls our will we are slaves to sin. When God controls our will we are slaves to righteousness. Romans 6. I am not trying to have preconceived ideas, I am just trying to point out what the Bible teaches. We will probably never see eye to eye on this one.
Let’s look at love once again. Loving God first was the greatest commandment. Jesus said if you love me, keep my commandments. When we love anything or anybody more than God, we have a displaced love.
As far as our will goes, God can enable believers to have the power to choose to do right rather than sin having the power over us. That is the right kind of free will. When sin controls our will we are slaves to sin. When God controls our will we are slaves to righteousness. Romans 6. I am not trying to have preconceived ideas, I am just trying to point out what the Bible teaches. We will probably never see eye to eye on this one.
I doubt we will Norm.
Jesus did indeed say if you love me, keep my commandment. What was Jesus’s only commandment though?
The truth is I believe whole heartedly that God wants us to love and accept one another for what we are. There is nothing you can quote me from the Bible that will make me think differently. More than anything God wanted us to find our own way to him through love. Only that. Nothing else.
I say again. If it harms none, do as you will.
I doubt we will Norm.
Jesus did indeed say if you love me, keep my commandment. What was Jesus’s only commandment though?
The truth is I believe whole heartedly that God wants us to love and accept one another for what we are. There is nothing you can quote me from the Bible that will make me think differently. More than anything God wanted us to find our own way to him through love. Only that. Nothing else.
I say again. If it harms none, do as you will.
Logical,
Ugh. Do I really need to go into this level of detail? Your so-called ‘controlled experiment’ is a scientific fallacy. The first island does not in any way reflect any reality. It is completely contrived.
For your experiment to be valid, at most there would be 10 same sex couples out of the 100. The ten percent figure has been given as a *high* estimate of the homosexual population within any general population. Note that the ten percent figure is at the high end, and recent studies estimate the homosexual population to be significantly less than ten percent.
Reality: Same sex orientation has existed throughout history
Reality: Same sex orientation has throughout history been a small minority of any general population.
For any experiment to be valid, it would have to reflect those realities. Anything else is contrived to demonstrate a pre-conceived result. It is a reflection of your prejudice.
Science does not work well when you ‘game’ the experiment with preconditions that do not model reality.
Logical,
Ugh. Do I really need to go into this level of detail? Your so-called ‘controlled experiment’ is a scientific fallacy. The first island does not in any way reflect any reality. It is completely contrived.
For your experiment to be valid, at most there would be 10 same sex couples out of the 100. The ten percent figure has been given as a *high* estimate of the homosexual population within any general population. Note that the ten percent figure is at the high end, and recent studies estimate the homosexual population to be significantly less than ten percent.
Reality: Same sex orientation has existed throughout history
Reality: Same sex orientation has throughout history been a small minority of any general population.
For any experiment to be valid, it would have to reflect those realities. Anything else is contrived to demonstrate a pre-conceived result. It is a reflection of your prejudice.
Science does not work well when you ‘game’ the experiment with preconditions that do not model reality.
Good nite Jay,
I see that you can not have a conversation without trying to make it personal by calling people “close minded” or ” bigot” and instead of trying to answer any of my original questions you simply attacked and side stepped them.
Good nite Jay,
I see that you can not have a conversation without trying to make it personal by calling people “close minded” or ” bigot” and instead of trying to answer any of my original questions you simply attacked and side stepped them.
Norm,
I believe that you’re taking from Matthew 22:36-40, in which Jesus distills the Ten Commandments into two laws: Love God and love thy neighbor.
That is God’s commandment to each of us, and it is up to each of us to follow God’s law as we believe. It is not the place of any man (or earthly government) to force any particular interpretation of how to love God or love our neighbor upon us, except when the State can demonstrate a compelling (secular) purpose. When it comes to God’s law, it is up to each of us individually to do our best to adhere to God’s law. Only God will stand in judgement of how well each of us has obeyed His law. To force a particular interpretation of God’s law upon other people by force of secular law is to deny the individual the opportunity to obey or disobey God’s law. One can not hold God in his heart when any interpretation of God’s law is forced upon him.
This is why it is so important from a Christian perspective to vote NO on Prop 8. To do otherwise puts the government in the place of removing the individual’s ability to chose or reject God’s law. I think most Christians tend to believe that the whole purpose of our time on earth is to test and prove our love for God. To force a belief on someone else is to deny them their reason on earth.
It is also necessary to recognize that the United States is a pluralistic society, and it falls to each of us, if we are to “love thy neighbor”, to respect that different people have different beliefs, and that we must protect everyone’s freedoms lest our own freedoms be curtailed.
Norm,
I believe that you’re taking from Matthew 22:36-40, in which Jesus distills the Ten Commandments into two laws: Love God and love thy neighbor.
That is God’s commandment to each of us, and it is up to each of us to follow God’s law as we believe. It is not the place of any man (or earthly government) to force any particular interpretation of how to love God or love our neighbor upon us, except when the State can demonstrate a compelling (secular) purpose. When it comes to God’s law, it is up to each of us individually to do our best to adhere to God’s law. Only God will stand in judgement of how well each of us has obeyed His law. To force a particular interpretation of God’s law upon other people by force of secular law is to deny the individual the opportunity to obey or disobey God’s law. One can not hold God in his heart when any interpretation of God’s law is forced upon him.
This is why it is so important from a Christian perspective to vote NO on Prop 8. To do otherwise puts the government in the place of removing the individual’s ability to chose or reject God’s law. I think most Christians tend to believe that the whole purpose of our time on earth is to test and prove our love for God. To force a belief on someone else is to deny them their reason on earth.
It is also necessary to recognize that the United States is a pluralistic society, and it falls to each of us, if we are to “love thy neighbor”, to respect that different people have different beliefs, and that we must protect everyone’s freedoms lest our own freedoms be curtailed.
If you follow your logic through it sounds as though we should abolish all law all together. I understand a little about taking God out of a society. I live in a nation that outlawed all religion during communism. The effects were terrible. If you are serious about wanting to hold God in your heart you would also want to follow his Word. I believe that when a state sanctions what the Bible does not sanction we are heading down a path that only leads to destruction. Should we legalize drugs, prostitution, too? What is next?
If you follow your logic through it sounds as though we should abolish all law all together. I understand a little about taking God out of a society. I live in a nation that outlawed all religion during communism. The effects were terrible. If you are serious about wanting to hold God in your heart you would also want to follow his Word. I believe that when a state sanctions what the Bible does not sanction we are heading down a path that only leads to destruction. Should we legalize drugs, prostitution, too? What is next?