see what france discovered here
or the shorter summary, here
MONTREAL, March 20, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In late January, a 30 member parliamentary commission of the French National Assembly published a 453 page Report on the Family and the rights of Children, which rejected same-sex marriage.
this report is based on studies conducted by france on the five countries who have legalized gay marriage. france turned down gay marriage, concluding that it led to higher rates of teen pregnancy, higher levels of domestic violence and impinged on the rights of children.
this is why i'm against gay marriage. kids have a right for a chance at a two gender parent home, but also a need. gay marriage takes away that right.
and that reason has nothing to do with religion.
Friday, October 31, 2008
my reasons to vote yes on prop 8
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Thanks for sharing this, too. I always enjoy a good study with facts and all. :) I have come to the conclusion, however, that this will always come down to God vs. Satan. You just can't take religion/God out of a moral discussion. In the early days of Prop 8, I wracked my brains trying to come up with non-religious arguments to help others see the importance of passing Proposition 8. I did this mostly because I'm married to an attorney who likes to look at all sides of an argument. And, while I found many good discussions about the non-religious consequences of legalizing same-sex marriage, I also realized that in the end it comes down to homosexuality being a sin. And nobody likes to have what their doing be called a sin, so of course people are hurt and upset and trying in whatever way they can to receive the blessing of the greater community. But, ultimately we do not govern ourselves based on self-gratification. If we did, we would cease to govern or be governed at all. And...blahddy, blahddy, blah...maybe I should write another post on my own blog. :)
Oh my god - you can´t be serious. Where is the context between teenager pregnancy and gay marriage?? Or the context between gay marriage and domestic violence?
Okay, this is just ridiculous. I looked at the report and it is the most slanted, biased and UNscientific thing I have ever had laid eyes on.
While your last post about this topic was heartfelt and sincere, this is just unfortunate. Someone releasing a 'report' does NOT mean the data therein is fact. Do you know that Philip Morris releases "studies" and "scientific reports" about how smoking cigarettes is not addictive, doesn't cause cancer, and isn't destructive to your health? Do you believe those? I would certainly hope not.
When you take any type of college research course, the first thing they teach you about reporting is bias. The main underlying question is who is funding the report and who is it benefiting? That report is funded and was sought out by some 'family research counsel' who has a self serving agenda of keeping gay marriage illegal (which again, stems down to religion and morals). It's no different than the cigarette company telling you that smoking is safe.
Yet again, it shows that so many people are afraid of gay people taking over their precious, ideological ways of life. I promise you, gays don't want to turn other people gay. They just want to live their lives and be given civil rights that everyone deserves (gays, women, people of color, etc).
The idea that gay marriage leads to higher rates of teen pregnancy, domestic violence and lesser rights for children is completely absurd. It's a fear tactic and I'm disappointed that you buy into it.
Miriam, I know you're an intellectual woman. I know it. I also appreciate that you have a solid moral foundation and you hold fast to what you believe is right. Your previous post showed that you have the ability to see a topic from both sides yet have your point of view based on your convictions... I respect that. What I can't respect is the thought that homosexuality has any tie to things such as violence or abuse. That is just plain ignorant. Alaska doesn't allow gay marriage OR same sex civil unions and we have the highest rates of domestic violence, child abuse, rape and incest in the nation. I promise you it's not the gays going around and beating these guy's wives, raping their children and assaulting women on jogging trails.
I hope you can take a step back for a minute and see that "report" for what it is. Having an opinion based on your moral belief structure is commendable, but trying to pass propaganda and lies off as fact isn't.
Yikes, easy Molly. You seem to be biased in favor of non-existent, non-biased reports. It would seem that you agree with reports that smoking IS a health hazard (as do I), but do you stop to consider their bias? Perhaps you would counter that they are backed by countless other studies that confirm their findings. I don't suppose, though, that you've considered that others have also confirmed the findings of the French Assembly? Just because you do not agree with a study does not mean that it is propaganda. It is an opinion backed by research, and, as such, retains the same right to be shared as your opinion or my opinion.
Aside from this is the fact that this is not a report done by a special interest group. It is done by members of the French National Assembly, commissioned to research a specific topic to bring back to the assembly to discuss without taboo.
Furthermore, just because Alaska does not allow same-sex marriage or civil unions, but retains the highest rates of domestic violence, et. al., does not mean that homosexuals residing in Alaska are not violent. I believe the study was reporting on domestic violence within a homosexual relationship, not a homosexual beating someone else's wife/husband. That would be considered battery, not domestic violence.
Here are some links to articles that uphold the findings of the French National Assembly that there is an increased rate of domestic violence among homosexuals. Also important to take into account is the amount of unreported incidents due to the violent partner threatening to "out" the meeker partner. Biased reports? Perhaps. As you say all reports are. But I guess if there's enough of them that concur, you might consider they are true like the health-hazards-of-smoking reports.
http://www.narth.com/docs/domestic.html
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual_Couples_and_Domestic_Violence
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1799527
http://www.natchezdemocrat.com/news/2008/aug/10/homosexuals-face-domestic-violence-too/
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/DomesticBattering.pdf
Domestic violence among homosexuals has just recently come to light in the United States because, as one homosexual activist during a PBS interview revealed, "[battery has] been kept quiet in the gay community
for political reasons. It was dirty laundry that didn’t need to be aired in public.” Political reasons. Huh.
I am saddened by your inference that Miriam is demonstrating a lack of intelligence by citing the French Assembly report, regardless of whether special interest groups decide to subsequently cite those government findings.
Unforutnately my nativ language is german. Otherwise I could discuss this subject easily.
Just one more thing:
Being against gay poeble (or their rights) is just discrimination. The same we had in our past (?) with colourd people or people with different religious views, or ...
Maby you don´t know anybody who is gay. (Or maby you do, but you don´t know that he is gay!) One friend of mine is gay and he is just normal. But maby gay poeple are strange for you because you don´t know them. New food can be strange too, but it has a right to be tasted.
Birgit, I have a gay cousin and two gay brothers-in-law. Knowing gay people has nothing to do with it. I still love them, I just do not agree with their choice of lifestyle. To protect the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman is not discrimination as homosexuals in California already have all the same rights as heterosexual couples under the title civil unions, not to mention the protection of many anti-discrimination and hate speech laws. As Carol said in a comment on the previous post, it's semantics. Homosexuals want the word marriage in order to force their lifestyle to be more mainstream, more acceptable. They don't actually want the word for the meaning it has engendered since the beginning of time.
Liz, I´m a little bit confused now: They already have the right to have a civil union in California. But a civil union is not exactly the same as a civil marriage, right? So gay couples want to have a civil marriage, but that´s not allowed, right?
So your point is that you loose the protectio of sanctity if a gay couple is allowed to have a civil marriage, right? And here I have to stop because a civil marriage for me has nothing to do with sanctity. It´s just for the papers.
The real wedding for poeple who belive in god (like me) is at church. But for gay marriage we are talking about civil marriage.
So I still can´t see why a gay couple shouldn´t have a civil marriage.
Yes, Birgit, a civil union is exactly the same as a marriage. There is no difference in rights allotted to a homosexual civil union and a heterosexual marriage. The homosexual community wants a word - a word which can act as a tool in normalizing their immoral sexual practices. The reason a gay couple should not be able to "marry," in my opinion, is that conceding that word has massive consequences to religious, parental, and federal liberties as has been discussed in other comments. If you would like to learn more about these consequences, you could look up Parker v. Hurley or type in Google "Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association and same-sex couple." The first is a case where parental rights were denied and the second is an on-going case where federally protected religious liberties are being called into question by state discriminatory laws. You could also just look up the Alliance Defense Fund which is a team of legal experts involved in defending cases (in the US and Canada) where religious liberties, family values, and human life is(are) being impinged upon.
Liz, who are you and why aren't we friends? Thank you for your calm and logical reasoning. It is refreshing.
To Liz,
I have to disagree with you on your "God vs' Satan" argument...that homosexuality is a "sin"...and that you can't take God/religion out of a moral discussion. I think you can.
I'm probably a pretty rare 'Yes on 8' person who thinks it has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.
I believe what we're talking about comes down to simple natural order. It comes down to life as it has naturally established itself for thousands of years.
Since homosexual couples cannot physically create a biological human life, then I stand on the side that says homosexuality is "wrong". Not because of God, but because of nature. It just doesn't work.
Further, I believe that nature stipulates the union of a male and female in the creation of life because children are better off with a masculine/feminine balance in their development. (No, not every heterosexual set of parents is perfect, so don't throw that at me.)
I'm not afraid to call homosexuality "wrong" simply because natural order has shown us -- each of us (on both sides of Prop 8!) -- that it doesn't work for the natural purposes of procreation. That's all I need to know. I like order, and obviousness.
While sexual touching and other deviant, unnatural forms of "sex" may be enjoyable for those who engage in same-sex behavior -- if they feel that they're sexually "drawn" to the same gender...that they have certain "tendencies" -- then I'm sorry. Nature has proven that's not how it works. Evolution sucks sometimes.
If any of you 'No on 8' people want to tell me that homosexuality does exist in nature out in the animal kingdom, then all that does is further emphasize that evolution is not perfect and that God has nothing to do with it. It's a flawed system that is doing the best it can.
Nature and life try to figure out what works. And when something works, nature and life keep doing it. I don't like to fight the obvious. Forget God, forget equality...there's a more obvious force at work here.
For what it's worth, I didn't even vote. I don't like the idea that government has to tell people how to live. It sucks, but most people need to be told. At least Prop 8, for the time being, will help protect natural order and preserve that fundamental element of human society, the traditional family. And I'm not even religious.
-John
Disagree away, John! Just so long as you keep voting Yes on 8! :) I like your reasons, too, mine are just more important to me.
Post a Comment