This new edition of the number one web log gives bloggers even more to read while continuing to uphold the standard of quality applauded by blog instructors nationwide. Garlic Boy's Examples & Explanations provides the same clear and engaging introduction into Garlic Boy's life as would meeting his proud mother.
First off, I am a resident ofColorado, not California, so my point of view comes as an outsider... take that for whatever you like.
That said, I will be a friendly voice of dissent on this one.
I do not believe that Same-sex Marriage poses any threat, whatsoever, to the institution. As such, I believe Prop 8 serves only to further inflame unnecessary tensions between good people.
Prop 8 would ensconce in the Constitution a statement that one group of law abiding citizens is somehow better than others. It locks in a state of institutional discrimination against an insular minority.
It's no different than writing that a Christian can't marry a Jew, or a black man can't marry a white woman.
Garlic Boy, I appreciate you posting about this as I do live in CA and this is a point of concern for me and my family. We have been actively promoting Proposition 8 and we have a sign in front of our yard and our cars, to boot.
Those that oppose Proposition 8 incorrectly frame the argument as if it is a Civil Rights issue. Further, those that oppose it fallaciously label those that support it as bigoted and insensitive. This irony is that many of these "bigoted" and "insensitive" people have had their signs stolen, destroyed, or otherwise defaced.
I believe the family unit is the most fundamental institution in society as it is the very fabric of society. Traditional marriage provides a solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. Is it really wise for society to pursue such a radical experiment without taking into account its long-term consequences for children?
As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim. Beginning with elementary school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral. Classroom instruction on sex education in secondary schools can be expected to equate homosexual intimacy with heterosexual relations. These developments will create serious clashes between the agenda of the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality.
When marriage is undermined by gender confusion and by distortions of its God-given meaning, the rising generation of children and youth will find it increasingly difficult to develop their natural identity as a man or a woman.
Same-sex marriage is antithetical to the teaching's of Jesus Christ. It is in direct conflict with the institution of marriage and the rearing of children. Marriage between a man and a woman is central to the plan of salvation. The sacred nature of marriage is closely linked to the power of procreation. Only a man and a woman together have the natural biological capacity to conceive children. This power of procreation – to create life and bring God’s spirit children into the world – is sacred and precious. Misuse of this power undermines the institution of the family and thereby weakens the social fabric. Strong families serve as the fundamental institution for transmitting to future generations the moral strengths, traditions, and values that sustain civilization.
Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults. While governments did not invent marriage, throughout the ages governments of all types have recognized and affirmed marriage as an essential institution in preserving social stability and perpetuating life itself. Hence, regardless of whether marriages were performed as a religious rite or a civil ceremony, married couples in almost every culture have been granted special benefits aimed primarily at sustaining their relationship and promoting the environment in which children are reared. A husband and a wife do not receive these benefits to elevate them above any other two people who may share a residence or social tie, but rather in order to preserve, protect, and defend the all-important institutions of marriage and family.
Scott, I can't resist: Your George Michael photo seems oddly appropriate now. I was hoping more people would write "Jim Rome" type comments and sign them as George Michael, Michael Jackson, Ellen, Elton John, etc. Oh well, I guess it is a serious topic.
Goerge micheal be one sexy dude in that photo. I don't care who you are; you gotta admit that thick luxurious chest hair like that is a thing to be admired. Once a lady gets her hand caught in that, she ain't going nowheres.
PS- It was good seeing you today. I hope everyone is feeling better.
Also, some interesting comments/ quotes from the anonymous person from California. I don't agree, but do appreciate hearing the argument, even if a lot of it was copy/ pasted in. Thanks for sharing your position.
One note, and this is not meant ot dismiss the entire comment... I would refrain from using voter intolerance as justification for a position. The tearing down of signs is a symptom of wider intolerence of, and lack of respect for, others beliefs. It is not exclusive to this cause, nor any particular side of a given issue.
9 comments:
Thank you for lending your support to Proposition 8!
Now that you have posted this, I am definitely voting YES on Prop 8.
Have you found Bryan a job yet? I need some of Janel's cooking and company.
First off, I am a resident ofColorado, not California, so my point of view comes as an outsider... take that for whatever you like.
That said, I will be a friendly voice of dissent on this one.
I do not believe that Same-sex Marriage poses any threat, whatsoever, to the institution. As such, I believe Prop 8 serves only to further inflame unnecessary tensions between good people.
Sorry if this shocks or offends.
Prop 8 would ensconce in the Constitution a statement that one group of law abiding citizens is somehow better than others. It locks in a state of institutional discrimination against an insular minority.
It's no different than writing that a Christian can't marry a Jew, or a black man can't marry a white woman.
Garlic Boy, I appreciate you posting about this as I do live in CA and this is a point of concern for me and my family. We have been actively promoting Proposition 8 and we have a sign in front of our yard and our cars, to boot.
Those that oppose Proposition 8 incorrectly frame the argument as if it is a Civil Rights issue. Further, those that oppose it fallaciously label those that support it as bigoted and insensitive. This irony is that many of these "bigoted" and "insensitive" people have had their signs stolen, destroyed, or otherwise defaced.
I believe the family unit is the most fundamental institution in society as it is the very fabric of society. Traditional marriage provides a solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. Is it really wise for society to pursue such a radical experiment without taking into account its long-term consequences for children?
As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim. Beginning with elementary school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral. Classroom instruction on sex education in secondary schools can be expected to equate homosexual intimacy with heterosexual relations. These developments will create serious clashes between the agenda of the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality.
When marriage is undermined by gender confusion and by distortions of its God-given meaning, the rising generation of children and youth will find it increasingly difficult to develop their natural identity as a man or a woman.
Same-sex marriage is antithetical to the teaching's of Jesus Christ. It is in direct conflict with the institution of marriage and the rearing of children. Marriage between a man and a woman is central to the plan of salvation. The sacred nature of marriage is closely linked to the power of procreation. Only a man and a woman together have the natural biological capacity to conceive children. This power of procreation – to create life and bring God’s spirit children into the world – is sacred and precious. Misuse of this power undermines the institution of the family and thereby weakens the social fabric. Strong families serve as the fundamental institution for transmitting to future generations the moral strengths, traditions, and values that sustain civilization.
Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults. While governments did not invent marriage, throughout the ages governments of all types have recognized and affirmed marriage as an essential institution in preserving social stability and perpetuating life itself. Hence, regardless of whether marriages were performed as a religious rite or a civil ceremony, married couples in almost every culture have been granted special benefits aimed primarily at sustaining their relationship and promoting the environment in which children are reared. A husband and a wife do not receive these benefits to elevate them above any other two people who may share a residence or social tie, but rather in order to preserve, protect, and defend the all-important institutions of marriage and family.
http://prop8discussion.wordpress.com/
Scott, I can't resist: Your George Michael photo seems oddly appropriate now. I was hoping more people would write "Jim Rome" type comments and sign them as George Michael, Michael Jackson, Ellen, Elton John, etc. Oh well, I guess it is a serious topic.
Goerge micheal be one sexy dude in that photo. I don't care who you are; you gotta admit that thick luxurious chest hair like that is a thing to be admired. Once a lady gets her hand caught in that, she ain't going nowheres.
PS- It was good seeing you today. I hope everyone is feeling better.
Also, some interesting comments/ quotes from the anonymous person from California. I don't agree, but do appreciate hearing the argument, even if a lot of it was copy/ pasted in. Thanks for sharing your position.
One note, and this is not meant ot dismiss the entire comment... I would refrain from using voter intolerance as justification for a position. The tearing down of signs is a symptom of wider intolerence of, and lack of respect for, others beliefs. It is not exclusive to this cause, nor any particular side of a given issue.
Post a Comment