R-74 affirms our changing norms
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Marriage is a right. The courts have ruled as much. But it is a right within the statutory limits set by the state. Those limitations can and do change with society’s shifting moral norms. Unions our ancestors forbid and considered immoral are now accepted, admired and encouraged and the prohibitions of the past seem odd or hurtful. Our standard of acceptance is constantly changing, and our tradition of marriage changes with it. It is time again to recognize that, and expand the right of marriage to include same-sex couples. Vote to accept Referendum 74, and affirm the rights of marriage our elected representatives granted. Fairness and our sense of justice should encourage us to do so.
This is surely a major change, but not one forced on society. Our commonly held moral values are not being upended. We have not been ordered by a court to change against the majority will. Same-sex couples have advanced in public acceptance to a point considered improbable only a few years ago. This year they reached a point where the majority of our Legislature and our governor agreed they deserved the same rights as heterosexual couples, and inclusion in the same civic institutions the rest of us take for granted. There no longer was a “rational basis” for denying equality. What is normal now is different from norms past. The fears of society were for the majority dispelled.
Those fears live on, but need not. If the institution of marriage is weakened it will not be for the inclusion of same-sex couples, but by the changing outlook and expectations of the heterosexuals before them. Divorce once was rare and widely discouraged by both state and religion. It is now common and mostly accepted. Single parenthood once shunned is now routine. Nearly half of adults over age 18 are unmarried, the highest percentage in history. Child-rearing always is raised as an issue but there is no convincing evidence that same-sex couples will do poorly or do any harm. Our children, it must be said, face many perils among less-than-committed heterosexuals. Same-sex marriage will not add to their troubles.
Marriage is still important. It promotes commitment, unity, stability, devotion and mutual support. Those are qualities society should encourage for all couples, not held in exclusivity. Same-sex marriage is a state sanction. Its existence will not challenge the teaching and practice of any religious faith. Religions have explicit protections in the law and need not change their standards for what unions they wish to sanctify. The standards for heterosexual marriage and its dissolution already differ between law and faith, and between faith and faith. This is no different.
It is part of the process of change. Society has accepted same-sex couples. It has accepted their existence and affirmed their legal rights. There is no reason not to move to the next step, and accept their equality. Approve Referendum 74.
This is the opinion of The Wenatchee World and its Editorial Board: Publisher Rufus Woods, Editor Cal FitzSimmons and Editorial Page Editor Tracy Warner.
» 133 comments on this story
MORE LIKE THIS
Advertisement
UPCOMING EVENTS
Friday, May 24
BNI Wenatchee Valley Friday
Smitty's Pancake House, 7 a.m.
Monday, May 27
Conquer Your Fear of Public Speaking - Toastmasters Meeting
First United Methodist Church, 5:30 p.m.
Tuesday, May 28
Toastmasters
Chelan County PUD Auditorium, 327 N. Wenatchee Ave., 7 a.m.
Tuesday, May 28
Alzheimer's Association Caregiver Support Group
Lake Chelan Community Hospital, 1:30 p.m.
Comments
Want to comment on this story? All Wenatchee World members are invited to comment on stories, by using the form below. Please know that we at wenatcheeworld.com hope our site is useful, entertaining and civil. So we'll delete comments that are obscene, abusive or way off topic. We appreciate it when readers use the "suggest removal" button to flag inappropriate comments. For more about interacting with the site, see our Use Policy.
gayles 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Thank you!
GarySchoessler 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Very well said, it's a tough issue. Two thumbs up.
Rocci 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Thank you got taking a courageous and principled stand on what is nothing less than a civil rights issue.
Dudleydoright 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Where do you draw the line? What if five people wanted to marry each other? See, societies have different "norms" even what another would consider perverse. In some countries it is perfectly acceptable to marry what we consider children, ten and twelve year olds. Are we to allow anything a society deems "normal"? While I think gay marriage is wrong morally I do think civil unions (all but marriage) are appropriate. Call me old fashioned but as a Christian I see this as evidence of the end being near, thank God.
Chuck 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Next you're maybe going to drag out the old, "well, what if a man wants to marry a horse?" argument.
Sorry, but most of the fears thrust on us never materialize anyway. Bird flu? global warming? "terrorists" around every corner? communists in the '50's?
And isn't a core principle of most every religion on this planet to "fear not?"
Detach yourself from fear (much of which is manufactured anyway) and same sex marriage becomes a non issue in a hurry.
Dudleydoright 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Chuck this has nothing to do with fear it has to do with keeping marriage what it has ALWAYS been, between man and woman. What this law does is REdefine what the term "marriage" means. It isn't a civil right to do that. I really don't care what sin is your favorite, when the government slaps their seal of approval on it it lessens our society. Liberalism, taken to an extreem means the destruction of any society IMHO. In my earlier post I asked the question "where do you draw the line" it never gets answered, why? Because there is always one more perversion that needs to be included. You bring up the horse issue, are you aware their are perverts who do such things? As unbelievable as it sounds, children are being married as young as age ten and twelve, do we accept that? and if not why? it is acceptable in some societies. Liberalism has brought us many good things (both from the repubs and the dems) however when we begin giving a government stamp of approval to prostitution, drug use, and now so called "gay" marriage I thing we are on a slippery slope.
LCyberFox 7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
Onetimeinbandcamp 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Dudley, I think maybe you're confused about what marriage has "ALWAYS" been. In the past, Biblically, it has been between 1 man, 1 woman, and concubines; 1 man, many wives; 1 rapist, his victim; 1 woman, her deceased husband's brother. I think I covered most of them.
You do realize this is a nation that is not ruled by one religion, don't you? Christianity, or your brand of it anyway, does not get to dictate what is law. You only get to dictate what happens within your own church, and R74 allows for that. In MY church (also Christian), we'd like the opportunity to have actual legal wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.
Dudleydoright 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Please reread my comment, I said marriage has always been between "man and women" that is true. You also failed to explain where the line is to be drawn, which is standard in this arguement.
TheRaz 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Hate to break this news to you pal, but slippery slope arguments don't carry a whole lot of logical force. Extending civil liberties to queer couples does not imply that society is under any obligation to expand these liberties to whomever wants them. We are a democracy and we have rules. Ideally the rules reflect norms and yes, norms do change, but change is slow and typically has very robust, public, and coordinated reasoning behind it. This is the ideal anyways. Faced with a challenge to a traditional way of doing things, many people have come to realize that denying homosexuals rights the rest of us enjoy is immoral. This does not mean that we can swayed by any argument allowing anyone to do whatever they want. I'm in support of this legislation. I am opposed to allowing freedom to marry to also mean freedom to marry minors, animals etc. Just because one legal barrier gets erased does not open the floodgates.
I have four absolute rules I hope the state maintains regarding sexual conduct. 1) No animals 2) No kids 3) No family (incest) 4) Consent is required. Absolutely and unequivocally.
Beyond these rules, it is not my business, the state's business, or anyone else's business to establish legal obstacles for full civil participation.
Astute readers will notice I left polygamy out of this equation. To be honest with you, my jury is out on this one. I think it is a bad idea, but so long as everyone involved in the marriage is on the same page I just can't argue it from a legal standpoint.
Dudleydoright 7 months, 2 weeks ago
ok "pal" "queer" couples in Washington state have everything except the alteration of a term. In this case "marriage" I'm not for it, I am for granting them every legal right married couples have but not as far as changing a term.
Chuck 7 months, 1 week ago
I would submit that the United States of America is NOT a democracy. We are a REPUBLIC, founded under the Constitution.
While is may seem a subtle distinction of nomenclature, the fact of the matter is that under the US Constitution, the civil liberties of the minority are sacrosanct.
In other words, you could not legally require an art house to show only opera in our system any more than you could demand that the radio stations in this valley broadcast exclusively in English- regardless of what any "majority" of voters wanted.
You do not have to agree with your fellow man. But you do have to respect his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Norm 7 months, 1 week ago
"I would submit that the United States of America is NOT a democracy. We are a REPUBLIC, founded under the Constitution."
Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Yes, we are a republic; that does not mean that we are not a democracy.
"While is may seem a subtle distinction of nomenclature"
Not subtle, just a false dichotomy.
"the fact of the matter is that under the US Constitution, the civil liberties of the minority are sacrosanct."
Yes, they are. That does not mean that we are not a democracy.
Chuck 7 months, 1 week ago
It DOES mean that a fickle majority cannot subvert the civil liberties of the minority. Period. Regardless of what said majority may or may not deem "acceptable."
"Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch." — Marvin Simkin, often attributed to Benjamin Franklin
No false dichotomy. Simply stating the fact that the whims of a democratic majority cannot usurp the Constitutionally enumerated individual liberties of the minority.
What's so hard to understand about that?
Norm 7 months, 1 week ago
"No false dichotomy."
Yes, it is. You are claiming that we are either a republic or a democracy, when the fact is that we are both - a democratic republic, a representative democracy.
"Republic" and "Democracy" are not mutually exclusive terms.
Chuck 7 months, 1 week ago
While not mutually exclusive, nor are the terms interchangeable.
By erroneously referring to the USA as a "democracy" one marginalizes the civil liberties of the minority, and by extension the whole of the US population.
While we can vote on who represents us, they in turn cannot revoke Constitutionally enumerated individual liberty.
TheRaz 7 months, 1 week ago
If you are not willing to extend the language of full participation then you are still engaging in discrimination. Hedging your position by saying "everything but marriage" is a pretty weak position if the goal is broadening inclusion. The language means something. There is something profoundly, unbelievably wrong when a heterosexual couple that meets in the morning can, by end of day, proclaim "we're married!" while a queer couple in a decades old relationship does not have that right. The state made a big stride forward extending domestic partnership benefits to all couples, but this will achieve true equality. Read the language. Churches that don't wish to perform gay marriage will not need to. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. I don't know if you are married, but I can promise you, with 100% assurance, that your marriage will not suffer on account of this passing.
Every generation is faced with the choice to extend rights to a section of society that did not previously have them. Those that were on the wrong side of women's suffrage, civil rights, etc. look really bad in the lens of historical hindsight. Take a very good look at your position and decide which side of history you want to be on. I am not gay, but I feel very fortunate to be have the opportunity to consider myself an ally in the march towards absolute equality regardless of sexual orientation.
Dudleydoright 7 months, 1 week ago
You are right language means something and altering the term "marriage" is stupid. Eventually it will mean anything society wants, ten folks joined, kids joined etc...as I said I'm against it.
kyook 7 months, 1 week ago
"Those that were on the wrong side of women's suffrage, civil rights, etc. look really bad in the lens of historical hindsight."
Some would argue that women's suffrage, civil rights are not mentioned in the Bible & are therefore not on par with this issue. Your argument is a red herring.
TheRaz 7 months, 1 week ago
Some would argue this. They are wrong. Biblical language was foolishly espoused in both struggles. Learn some history please. The broader issue though is this: why should the bible dictate a civil matter? Religious freedom works both ways here. Churches can decide for themselves whether or not to perform or even acknowledge gay marriages. But the state is asserting that it is not, and should not need to consider religious argument in deciding what rights to extend to citizens.
kyook 7 months, 1 week ago
There a BIG difference between the Bible being mentioned in an issue and an issue being mentioned in the Bible. Perhaps it would behoove you to understand the distinction.
Who gives the state the power to dictate rights, civil or otherwise?
I'll go back to a question I asked earlier, who gives us the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? The state? You might want to brush up on a little history of that phrase yourself before you answer that question.
TheRaz 7 months, 1 week ago
You are mixing existential issues with legal ones. 1) The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document governing domestic affairs. It was basically a notice of separation. A statement of sovereignty, and an invitation to war. 2) The question of where rights come from is beyond the scope of this conversation. Or any conversation really. You are clearly religious, I am an atheist. The notion of the origin or foundation of rights is an existential question. The application of individual rights is a legal question. We don't need to agree on origins of rights to both acknowledge that we believe in rights. We do both need to acknowledge what sorts of reasoning do and do not reasonably bear on a discussion of legislation. You can infer whatever religious logic you want, but since neither I nor the state are compelled to give any weight to argument stemming from any religion whatsoever, this is not a terribly effective tactic on your part. We both probably acknowledge that some rights are absolute in the abstract sense, but not in the practical sense. We also both probably recognize that drawing this line is complicated and that this is why we have courts bound by law, legislative representation accountable to small subsets of the national population, and an executive who is accountable to the entire population. The system actually works pretty well. 3) The state does not dictate rights. It recognizes rights and it protects them. Where it gets its power from is another existential question not easily answered. The textbook says that the state gets this power from the citizens, and this process is complex and problematic. I see power as much more diffuse, dualistic, and abstract than most people. So I would say that no one really "gives" the state power but that the state has effectively monopolized the legitimate use of violence and has therefore asserted power, for better or for worse.
Biblical reasoning is a great mode of argument if you live in a society bound by biblical law. You do not.
Dudleydoright 7 months, 1 week ago
Nor should society redefine words. Gays have all the legal protection of marriage that's enough IMO.
TheRaz 7 months, 1 week ago
"Society" redefines words all the time. All. The. Time. There is an entire area of academic study called Lexicography that is devoted to precisely this phenomenon.
Mind game for a moment. Consider a gay couple who have had a ceremony facilitated by an officer of the peace or by member of the clergy, with witnesses gathered, in which they profess their lifelong commitment to each other.
I would consider them married. There! See? I've expanded a traditional definition of the word to be more inclusive. But I'm not really society. I'm just some guy out there who uses words in some particular way.
Right? Right.
Now imagine if the majority of a population did that. And imagine if, recognizing that the vernacular has changed, they organize to adopt the specific language of legal code to reflect a widespread awareness that the language means something different to this generation.
This is the world in which you live. You might not like that a word you used to consider to mean one thing now means something else, but there is really not much you can do about this.
gayles 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Well, if the end didn't occur when we had legal slaves, women and children being property of the man of the household, weapons of mass destruction on the Native Americans and many other things, I'm very sure this won't be the end either.
Personally, as a lesbian military veteran, I want to ensure our gay and lesbian heroes of past and present wars be given the same and equal rights as their non-gay counterparts.
gayles 7 months, 2 weeks ago
by Gayle Sorlien
gayles 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Saturday Soapbox: There’s a million reasons gay couple wants to marry
http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/2012/10/05/saturday-soapbox-theres-a-million-reasons-gay-couple-wants-to-marry
Plenty of Spokane’s faithful supporting Referendum 74
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/oct/06/plenty-of-spokanes-faithful-supporting-referendum/
JimboBear 7 months, 2 weeks ago
". . . weapons of mass destruction on the Native Americans . . ."
I beg your pardon? When did this happen? I think you are talking foolishness with that one.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Weapons+of+Mass+Destruction?s=t
Suz 7 months, 2 weeks ago
"The Hotchkiss Revolving Cannon, a revolving barrel machine gun invented in 1872 by Benjamin B. Hotchkiss (1826–1885), founder of Hotchkiss et Cie. It was a built-up, rifled, rapid-fire gun of oil-tempered steel, having a rectangular breechblock which moved in a mortise cut completely through the jacket. It was designed to be light enough to travel with cavalry, and had an effective range beyond that of rifled small-arms. The revolving Hotchkiss cannon had five 37 mm barrels, and was capable of firing 43 rounds per minute with an accuracy range of 2,000 yards (1,800 m)."
There were four of these at Wounded Knee in 1890. Perhaps this could be considered a weapon of mass destruction.
JimboBear 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Hardly, Suz. The Gatling and later the Hotchkiss were awesome weapons for their day, but did you read the definition I posted? Devastating, yes. WMD? Only in someone's imagination.
The German Maxim and American Browning .30 Cal. Water cooled MG of WWI and the German MG42 which came out in, you guessed it, 1942 were all devastating weapons for their day and fired anywhere from perhaps 400 rounds per minute depending on the loader (for the Gatling used in Civil and Indian Wars) to a maximum of 1500 rounds per minute of the MG42. A machine gun is not and has never been a "Weapon of Mass Destruction". Even the conventional bombs still in use today are not considered a WMD.
It is the nuclear, chemical and biological weapons which are capable of killing thousands with one explosion that are "blessed" with such a distinction. Simply stated, no conventional weapon is a "weapon of mass destruction".
Chuck 7 months, 2 weeks ago
We did give them blankets laced with small pox.
And didn't they used to load diseased corpses onto siege engines (trebouchets) and pitch them over city walls back in the day?
Hardly as flashy as your friendly neighborhood ICBM, but still at least a predecessor to the WMDs of today.
And agreed that the Hotchkiss, Gatling, Browning, Maximum, Spandau, Vickers, and MG42'2 were all fearsome in their time, but not definably WMD's.
How would you classify the "Atomic Annie" foray into early cold-war nuclear mobile infantry though?
http://youtu.be/iaW9uukoWjM
JimboBear 7 months, 2 weeks ago
I have to admit that you had me stumped there Chuck. Having been in the Navy rather than Army, I know little about field pieces. I have a little better than basic knowledge of sidearms and shoulder fired weapons, but cannons and howitzers are all but foreign to me.
I'm operating at a very limited download speed right now so it took me a while to view your YouTube post, but while waiting for it I checked Wikipedia and found this on the M65 Cannon.
M65 Atomic Cannon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Since it only lasted for 10 years and was only fired once, I didn't find it to be a very threatening weapon, but yes . . . I would say that yes it was an early WMD since it did fire a nuclear warhead or projectile even though it was rather small and had a very limited range. .Here's a link that gives some info on that projectile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W9_(nuclear_warhead)
Still, I think I'll stick with my original statement that no such weapons were used in the "Indian Wars" and that was where all this started. I guess I would classify the "Atomic Annie foray" as merely a failure. It was kind of an interesting search with you though! ;-)
Chuck 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Interesting links Jimbo. Thanks.
Couldn't find casualty estimates from the small pox blankets, but did find an interesting link on the validity and truth of that legend: http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html
JimboBear 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Yep! Interesting Chuck. I didn't see any mention of numbers of inflicted casualties though, so that still leads me to believe that although it was a type of biological warfare, it lacked the delivery system to be called a WMD. Isn't it amazing how mankind's greed and lust for power will in many cases overpower his moral standards?
Chuck 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Very interesting. I only added the Native American genocide via small pox blankets to make the point that "the more things change..."
gayles 7 months, 2 weeks ago
According to some accounts there were millions of peoples in Americas that died from the time the Spanish and other explorers came to when the European immigrants expanded to the west. There were many unintentional and intentional reasons as to the deaths of the many.
Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
gayles 7 months, 2 weeks ago
There are those who say the holocaust under the Nazis never occurred also. Since this is the GLBTQ History Month I thought I would post this link. http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/focus/homosexuals/
Chuck 7 months, 1 week ago
Thanks Gayle.
I think people forget that the fascist persecutions perpetrated under Nazi rule also included homosexuals, sexual deviants, and gypsies--among other groups.
But when one considers that they were led by a man who was a vehement non-smoker, moralist, and even a vegetarian one has got to wonder what sort of PC weaklings our made-for-television candidates will invariably rise through the ranks of our society in this day and age.
seems 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Thanks to our three local legislators who voted no on this issue- I am voting No on Ref 74. There are lots of things considered normal in our news- but that does not mean we should change the laws to accomodate their desires. Name one religion that accepts this lifestyle and what about federal laws on this issue?
http://dennishendricks.blogspot.com/2012/02/call-1-800-562-6000-marry-me.html
Suz 7 months, 2 weeks ago
"Name one religion that accepts this lifestyle..." Not necessary. This is a civil, secular law that allows churches to permit or refuse the sacrament of marriage within their domination or sect. This law only addresses marriage licenses. It just allows same sex couples to obtain a marriage license. With a license, couples will still need to find someone to perform the marriage ceremony. Since the internet provides ordination to anyone (http://www.ordain.org), that isn't a problem and need not trouble any religious group.
Peggy 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Unitarian-Universalism accepts all people and supports the right to marry by same sex couples. There, I've named a religion which accepts and even supports what you call a lifestyle. No one is forcing anyone to marry someone of the same sex.
JimboBear 7 months, 2 weeks ago
"There, I've named a religion which accepts and even supports what . . ."
Begging your pardon Peggy, but I believe you have named a church, not a religion. There is a distinct difference.
Suz 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Unitarian-Universalist is a religion Jimbo. They are not Protestant or Catholic or Jewish or Islamic or Hindu or Animist or..... They are a separate religion which recognizes the divinity of a monotheistic god, but do not recognize the triune god of the Christians (God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). They accept the divinity of one God similar to the Jews (but not the same).
JimboBear 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Hmmmmm! I won't argue the point Suz, because I am anything but well versed in the Unitarian Church's doctrine, but I suspect you may be splitting hairs. For instance, you note Catholic and Protestant as two separate religions when in fact they are both Christian denominations. If I applied your logic, then I would have to say the Seventh Day Adventists and the LDS Church for example are not Christian churches either because their doctrine does not agree with the Methodists, for example.
gayles 7 months, 2 weeks ago
I think the original question is moot because it was not specific on the "religion."
I agree that it is about civil rights.
Onetimeinbandcamp 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Seems, Many denominations within Christianity accept this. The UCC church, MCC, Episcopalians, many Presbyterian, Methodist, and Lutheran congregations. But that's not the point. It's not a religious law. It's a civil one. Why do you think it's okay to deny people rights that you have?
Chuck 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Better question: what is the state (or any other governmental entity for that matter) doing in the marriage business anyway?
Is it not the province of the individual to decide with whom he/she will couple?
Recognizing what's already there ought be a given, sadly but for a vocal few all too often it isn't.
Suz 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Chuck your post is very ironic because that is exactly what this law does. It gets the government out of the business of saying which adults citizens have the right to marry. It allows any two adult citizens to obtain a marriage license. That's it. The government licenses marriages because they are a legal and binding contract with many ramifications having to do with income taxes, estates, health care, social security benefits and so on which have by law certain regulations applying to married couples.
Chuck 7 months, 2 weeks ago
But it is not the government's business to specify the nature of contracts. Rather, that is for the individuals entering into said agreements to decide for and among themselves.
Ditto for estates. A will is a will. Hemingway left a lot to his cats. His choice. None of Uncle Sam's business.
And don't even get me started on tax laws and the ponzi scheme that is social security.
My point in the above is simply that under our Constitutional Republic, the scope of government in private affairs was very limited by design, and ought remain so in practice.
You know, "live and let live."
robbins 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Ernest Hemingway's will says nothing about his cats.
Chuck 7 months, 2 weeks ago
I doubt they'd agree with you on Key West:
http://cats.about.com/od/felinegenetics/a/polydactyl.htm
robbins 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Hemingway's Key West home was sold by his family after his death. Later, his widow criticized the subsequent owners for profiting off his name by marketing "Hemingway cats." Key West can disagree all it wants, but here's the will again. It says nothing about cats.
gayles 7 months, 2 weeks ago
The following is from a pic a friend shared a few days ago.
“So let’s get this straight…God didn’t judge America over the millions of natives that were [assaulted] and murdered and had their land stolen. God didn’t judge America over the millions of Africans that had boulders tied to their legs and were [assaulted], murdered and enslaved for centuries. And God didn’t judge America over not taking care of the needs of the homeless, hungry, sick and dying poor. But now God will judge America over abortion and gay marriage. Ok…I got it.” –tongue in check for the last sentence.
But yeah, I was referring specifically to the intentionally infected blankets that were given to the Native Americans to add to the holocaust of the Native Americans.
It was a biological warfare which is connected to be weapons of mass destruction. When the Spanish came to the Americas, according to history unintentionally brought over diseases that literally wiped out a vast majority of the native population. When the Europeans came back about a century later, they were expected to be served like royalty like the first explorers were -very hospitable like guests should be, but what they found were scarce tribes and peoples. So the Europeans had to fend for themselves with many dying.
http://www.fas.org/programs/bio/bwintro.html
Chuck 7 months, 2 weeks ago
A brief, but interesting article on genocide of American Native peoples.
http://www.operationmorningstar.org/genocide_of_native_americans.htm
gayles 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Thanks Chuck =)
gayles 7 months, 2 weeks ago
The bottom line is that America is still standing. It will still be standing when we of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered community have equal rights.
TerryFinn 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Well reasoned editorial.
seslar 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Thank you, World Editors, for taking this position and saying so unequivocally.
Don 7 months, 2 weeks ago
I find it offensive that in an era of equal rights we actually live in a society where we have to pass laws just to grant a subset of the population the same basic civil rights everyone else takes for granted. Gay marriage will be very common a decade from now. Thanks to the Internet we will all be able to look back at these absurd public comments and laugh at how ridiculous some of you sound.
kyook 7 months, 2 weeks ago
I don't understand how the state can pass a law allowing one "subset" "basic civil rights" while simultaneously denying another "subset" the same "basic civil rights".
(Gay marriage vs. polygamy)
How many "subsets" are there, really?
Taxguru 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Actually it will be just the opposite. As the health issues of these perverse and deviant lifestyles are brought to light knowledge will prevail as will the cost savings for our health care system.....
Don 7 months, 2 weeks ago
My comment stands on its own merit. Coincidentally, your comment is a stellar example of exactly what I was talking about.
gayles 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Taxguru
As a lesbian, I challenge you to apply your opinion to me.
Taxguru 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Wasn't an opinion, just fact. They abound in studies posted all over the internet....The higher rates of abuse, pedophilia, alcoholism, promiscuity, mental illnes, and on and on and on.....
Don 7 months, 2 weeks ago
I am a pretty well-read person. There are lots of studies pertaining to the differences between the straight and gay population. I have seen various conclusions drawn from those studies, oftentimes fundamentally flawed, but I have not ever seen anything even vaguely scientific make the claims you have posted here. The only exception to that would be with regard to promiscuity, and that only applies to homosexual men. You are either just making this up, or you are regurgitating some nonsense you were provided by an overzealous religious organization.
.
There are some other interesting studies about homosexuals. As a group they tend to have higher incomes and be better educated than the rest of the population.
Taxguru 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Wow, you are well read. You can reel off the 2 positives lickety split, but the negatives, which show up by the thousands of hits on Google, are just so hard too find...NOT...!!!
gayles 7 months, 2 weeks ago
I am "they" taxguru. I am a Christian Lesbian who is a military veteran and celibate. Those items (including "and on and on and on") do not apply to me. Period. Therefore, why should I be treated as a second-class citizen? I have the same right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as you.
Taxguru 7 months, 2 weeks ago
"they" means FACTS....If you are a Christian you need to study the Bible. Sexual perversion of any type is a Sin. Jesus made this very clear.
robbins 7 months, 2 weeks ago
In which chapter and verse?
Taxguru 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Romans 1:24-27:Homosexuality is Degrading, Unnatural Perversion
"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." (Romans 1:24-27, NIV)
robbins 7 months, 2 weeks ago
You're quoting Paul, not Jesus.
Dudleydoright 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Your kidding right? Paul was an apostle and his writings are considered the same as Jesus, Scripture.
kyook 7 months, 2 weeks ago
This seems like an apples to oranges debate between you and Taxguru. He argues from a Christian perspective and you seem to argue from a constitutional standpoint.
Just for clarification, constitutionally-who gives us the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? The State?
Taxguru 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Briiliant Kyook..!!! No, the State is NOT who gives us these rights......The Declaration of Independence makes it very clear who gave them to us.
Onetimeinbandcamp 7 months, 2 weeks ago
With you on this, gayles. I'm another Christian, celibate, lesbian. No military service though. :) If the time comes when I meet someone I want to marry, I'd like it be where I can marry her in my home state, with my pastor officiating legally.
gayles 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Please explain how I, as a celibate Lesbian Christian fit in that stereotype?
And you still haven't proven how your previous opinion applies to me.
And why as a positive contributor to my community, a taxpayer, voter, military veteran, lesbian and Christian should I be denied life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Dudleydoright 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Celibate lesbian : @ as long as you are not sinning your fine. We all have tendencies, as long as we don't act on them were good with God, Gayle.
gayles 7 months, 2 weeks ago
@taxguru, not duddley
When one commandment is broken all are broken--Bearing falsehoods against one's neighbor. Twice now I have asked for objective sources to your opinions and you have failed to post. You have used an age old tactic of using the Holy Bible as a weapon. It's my viewpoint you are spreading rumors and misinformation against God's children.
Dudleydoright 7 months, 1 week ago
This is the most moronic post I have seen in this thread. Gayle, sin is sin, get over it. Homosex is sin, same as adultry but you don't see adulters asking for their illicit relations to be "normalized" through the law. Most adulters realise the shame in their sin and try to hide it but not homosexuals who now demand, as a civil right no less, the law to alter the meaning of marriage to include them, unbelievable.
gayles 7 months, 2 weeks ago
taxguru
I would also know your objective sources to these falsehoods against not just me, but all gay and lesbians who have the right to marry.
Dudleydoright 7 months, 1 week ago
Don no one is being dening their civil rights. Since marriage is between man and women, if they wish to "marry" then all it takes is a member of the opposite sex. If two people want to "marry" of the same sex it need to be called something else but marriage it isn't. Civil unions are what they are currently called, to bastardize the meaning of marriage to include this is political correctness gone awry.
dharris 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Thank you, WW editorial board! Your reasoned endorsement of R74 heartens every lesbian & gay resident of Central Washington, as well as their many families, friends, colleagues & neighbors. Which really is all of us, isn't it? This referendum benefits everyone.
Onetimeinbandcamp 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Thank you, Wenatchee World! You bring hope to us in Central (and North-Central) Washington.
Taxguru 7 months, 2 weeks ago
1 Corinthians 6:9-11:Homosexuals Will Not Inherit the Kingdom of God
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters not adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (I Corinthians 6:9-11, NIV)
robbins 7 months, 2 weeks ago
You're quoting Paul again, not Jesus.
Taxguru 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Jesus did not encounter any openly homosexual people in his ministry and therefore had no need to call anyone to repentance for homosexual conduct. He also did not address other sexual issues such as incest and bestiality, but that hardly indicates a neutral or positive stance on such matters. Jesus, both in what he says and what he fails to say, remains on the side of those who reject homosexual practice."[13] Jesus warned that sexual immorality (the Greek word is plural, porneiai) comes from within and makes people unclean (Mark 7:21, NIV). Dr. Gagnon comments, "No first-century Jew could have spoken of porneiai (plural) without having in mind the list of forbidden sexual offenses in Leviticus 18 and 20 (incest, adultery, same-sex intercourse, bestiality)."[14] Add to this the fact that Jesus affirmed the model for marriage and sexual union given us in Genesis 1-2 (see Matthew 19:3-6). He affirmed the Old Testament (never overturning any prohibitions against immoral sexual behavior in the Law of Moses) and even required more than just external obedience in His teachings, applying God's standards to the heart of man (see Matthew 5:27-30). We should also remember that Jesus gave the Apostle Paul the revelation of the gospel that he preached (Galatians 1:11-12).
robbins 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Now you're not even quoting the Bible, but the Family Research Council.
Taxguru 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Duh! And the analysis and scripture links are spot on..!!! Immoral sexual behavior from the OT was affirmed by Jesus. If you are trying to say that perversion is not a Sin you have a rude awakening coming...
gayles 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Taxguru
What is your objective source to support your opinion that Jesus "did not encounter any openly homosexual people in his ministry" -quotes are your written words.
gayles 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Historically, the Holy Bible has been used to support both sides of the legal slavery in America, supported the oppression of women and children and bi-racial marriages. Presently there are people who still do. The Holy Bible can be used to support any issue.
gayles 7 months, 2 weeks ago
...so people continue to use the Bible to oppress those of us who are in the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered community-taking scriptures out of context, spin the words, use the Bible version (NIV) that support their justification to keep property taxpayers, voters, neighbors, co-workers, military & non-military war heroes, friends, relatives and so on.
Dudleydoright 7 months, 2 weeks ago
lol, yea and people use the bible to discriminate against Adulterers, what a crock.
gayles 7 months, 2 weeks ago
The Washington State Constitution's first article is considered to be the Declaration of Rights
Article I Text of Section 3: Personal Rights No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
We gays and lesbians should not be denied our civil rights.
Dudleydoright 7 months, 2 weeks ago
How on earth are you denied any of those with the current law? I may want adultry to be called "happy marriage" that is my civil right and any who oppose me are bigots and adulterphobes, lol. The only reason IMO the "gays" want this passed is it stamps societies approval on it, there are no legal benifits for doing so, since Washington passed the everything but marriage law.
JimboBear 7 months, 1 week ago
I'm inclined to agree Dudley. Mostly, I fail to understand what they think they are being denied. If they are being denied in any way, it is by individuals, not by the laws of the State. Take the individuals to court and sue the bejabers out of them if they feel they have been denied or refused their rights.
Dudleydoright 7 months, 1 week ago
Right you are Jim. Most folks thing their behavior is, at a minimum odd, and at a maximum, extreem perversion but like me they still think those folks ought to have the same legal rights of the rest of us. That said, altering the term marriage to comply with their false claim that their civil rights are being denied would be laughable if so many were not falling for it.
gayles 7 months, 1 week ago
The Tri-City Herald editorial board recommends voters approve Referendum 74
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2012/10/14/2133827/same-sex-marriage-yes.html
JimboBear 7 months, 1 week ago
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
gayles 7 months, 1 week ago
The anti-marriage equality posts on this blog are prime examples of this Seattle PI article.
"A proven strategy, used to defeat statewide initiatives and referendums, was once defined by a growling, roguish U.S. Senate aide and friend named Jerry Eller: 'Create chaos and doubt, then conquer.'
If doubts are planted in voters' heads, they will vote 'no' . . . even if those doubts are false and have no basis in fact."
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/connelly/article/Anti-gay-marriage-campaign-Launched-with-a-3944449.php
Dudleydoright 7 months, 1 week ago
Gayle why is the word "marriage" so important to the gay community? You currently have every legal protection the law can give.
carol 7 months, 1 week ago
I said it before and I'll say it again. For a true Christian, homosexuality is a sin... just like adultery and stealing are sins. We are ALL sinners. I am not judging gay couples but do not tell me it is not a sin. It is a sin and should not be condoned by any true Christian religion no more than adultery should be condoned. I don't care if you marry a hedgehog....just don't tell me it's not a sin.
JimboBear 7 months, 1 week ago
Spot on, Carol!
Taxguru 7 months, 1 week ago
Yes Carol, Jesus affirmed the moral laws of leviticus. It is clearly a sin.
Norm 7 months, 1 week ago
"Jesus affirmed the moral laws of leviticus."
Taxguru 7 months, 1 week ago
Norm 7 months, 1 week ago
"I said it before and I'll say it again. For a true Christian, homosexuality is a sin"
I didn't get the memo where God appointed you to be His spokesperson. I don't grant you any more authority to speak for God than I grant to the person who wrote this:
" miscegenation is a sin even as adultery is! It was a justifiable cause for divorce: Ezra 10...
...I see white women (especially in public places) as if they are being friendly in excess touching immigrants, if not fawning or cringing, because of the political correctness prestige and persecution upon whites. Do not touch them. You do not even have to be nice because you have to work with them. Respect white dignity even if it may unjustly cost you your job. Be sincere and think upon things that really matter--the dignity of yourself and race."
http://www.clrc.net/dating_and_marriage/miscegen.html
Dudleydoright 7 months, 1 week ago
Norm, would you like me to invite Tim back? I am sure he would be happy to answer your biblical questions.
kyook 7 months, 1 week ago
Dudley, don't you think that would be a waste of everybodys time?
Dudleydoright 7 months, 1 week ago
My inference in the question to Gayle was to demonstrate the only reason they could possible want more than what they currently have is to legitimise it in the eyes of the public. That will fail as most folks, even if they want them to have all the legal rights of marriage still want traditional marriage not to be confused with a bastardizied (illegitimate) version. Keep marriage what is was meant to be and call this something else, civil union is the current term.
TheRaz 7 months, 1 week ago
If this referendum passes, then will you pretty please acknowledge that your view of "most folks" and the democratic majority (Most Folks) required to pass a referendum are actually two different things?
There will come a time when you will be in the minority. At this point your "most folks" will actually be "a minority of folks" and will be considered by the rest of us (most folks) as "the narrow minded minority".
Dudleydoright 7 months, 1 week ago
So if Washington state passes gay marriage, that will be one out of 30+ states to vote on this issue, I have to admit "most folks" want gay marriage? I don't think so. When the day comes (and it may) when we as a nation accept this perversion as "nornal" God help us. Until then we will consider you the "don't stand for what's right" minority.
carol 7 months, 1 week ago
How about First Corinthians Chapter 6
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
And I did stat that TRUE Christians know it is sin. Anyone remember a place called Sodom?? Hello? There are other verses in the NT that demote homosexuality. Some of us are given the gift to receive God's word and some of you will never, ever understand.
iansfolks 6 months, 3 weeks ago
You don't need the bible to justify love, but no better tool has been invented to justify hate!
iansfolks 7 months ago
Maybe I'm new fashioned, but, as an athiest I have a difficult time understanding an arguement based on a book, written by men, over 2000 years ago, guiding the lives of people today. As Steven Colbert said:
Jesus would rather constantly shame gays, rather than let orphans have a family! Maybe this will get Tim back on line;)
Meowzzz 7 months ago
I agree iansfolks.
I assumed Tim had been shut down by the powers that be at wenworld.
Dudleydoright 7 months ago
Talk about changing the arguement, now orphans won't be adopted without gays?...lol
mizmaus 6 months, 4 weeks ago
God has nothing to do with any of this. Bravo to the WW editorialboard for telling the truth to an audience of so many bigots, hypocrites, and homophobes.
Dudleydoright 6 months, 4 weeks ago
Name calling, standard tactic when you disagree with the position of liberals I doubt anyone is "affraid" of Gays, we simply think they already have all the legal protections the law can give. We simply want traditional marriage seperate and distinct from this.
Barnyard2 6 months, 3 weeks ago
Dudley, I’d like to focus on your last comment as I’m not sure anyone has addressed that yet. First, can you speak more to why it is important for you to keep the current legal definition of marriage?
As a quick aside, I think it’s important to emphasize that it is the legal definition we are referring to here, because that’s what R74 is about. It does not touch marriage as defined by catholics or mormons or any religious institution.
So it would be great to hear some of your reasons and hopefully have a mature conversation comparing them to the reasons people want to redefine the civil definition (not religious definition) of marriage. I will go ahead and start with a few reasons from the proponents: Why have two legal definitions for the same thing? Separate but equal does not have a good history. It increases the chance of future inequality. Using a single term will help same sex couples maintain the same rights. It will also eliminate confusion and legal overhead. Finally, it will be a step towards equal rights at a federal level.
If you are arguing you do not want equal rights now or in the future, and want to make your case for separate rights for same sex couples, then you may do so. However, you can not make a logically sound argument with “you already have equal rights under the law, so we should not change the legal term”. It’s as if you are saying, “We already gave you your rights…why would you want to preserve them?”
I am interested in your response to my original question: What makes it important to you to hold on to the current legal definition?
kyook 6 months, 3 weeks ago
Is it so easy to dismiss the original definition?
Is there a higher court than mans "legal" definition?
Which carries more weight for mankind, the original definition or the politically correct definition?
When it's all been said and done, who do we answer to in the end? The State?
How one answers these questions may explain why this is an endless debate.
JimboBear 6 months, 3 weeks ago
Exactly Kyook. Your comment may be a bit on the philosophical side but it hits the nail on the head. I doubt that there can ever be a consensus on a moral issue such as this. I prefer the status quo but that doesn't mean I'll be pleased with the results of this election measure.
kyook 6 months, 3 weeks ago
For some people the legal question cannot be seperated from or outweighed by the fundamental religious origins.
To them, there is a bigger picture than the law.
Dudleydoright 6 months, 3 weeks ago
For Christians, and those with a moral foundation, marriage was instituted by God for "It is not good for man to be alone" so Adam as given Eve (not steve as some like to say) and the purpose was not only so man would have someone but to "fill the earth with posterity" Further homosexuality/sodomy is called a sin. As a Judeo/Christian nation we have maintained, along with the rest of the world this standard. As an enlightned people we have also recognised a small minority (3%) are due the legal protections of the law as far as pension, hospital visits and so forth. However to ask the vast majority of the world and our nation to place societies stamp of approval on this perversion (dictionary) is misguided. As previous posters stated, we will have to agree to disagree.
Barnyard2 6 months, 3 weeks ago
@dudley: Looking back at your posts I see you have mentioned multiple times in this thread that the only reason the gay community wants to change the definition is so it is “legitimized”. What do you think of the points I mentioned above? I’m not expecting you to do a 180 on the issue, rather I’m curious if these points help you answer your questions regarding why people would want R74. I appreciate your communication in helping me understand both sides of the issue.
@kyook: You said, “Which carries more weight for mankind, the original definition or the politically correct definition?” Am I correct in assuming you have reduced the points I listed (history of separate but equal, preserving rights, removing legal confusion and overhead, federal rights) to “political correctness”? If that’s true, could you walk me through that reduction?
Regarding some being unable to separate the legal definition from the religious one, that’s a good point, so thanks for reminding me of that! I think that kind of thought process is very limiting. We are much more effective if we can form our opinions/arguments in a way that does not include our religion. We can be inspired by or maybe completely led by our religion, but during political conversation if we resort to quoting scripture or the moral doctrine as laid out by our religion, then we are at an impasse with many, as this is a country of religious freedom. If instead you restructure your argument in a way that shows how your points are valid for people of all faiths or no faith at all, then you can really make a difference.
Dudleydoright 6 months, 3 weeks ago
Barnyard, you are a rare breed that can discuss this topic without insulting those who oppose you. I cannot seperate myself from my belief that marriage in the beginning came from God, hence the feeling that so called gay marriage should be called something different. God did in fact condemn homosexual relations.(along with other sexual sins) At the same time two people (whether married or not) should have some legal rights common to the married if they so desire. I feel that calling something so base in behavior, so condemned through the ages and until recently illegal, should not be associated with marriage between husband and wife. I believe when you lump a perversion (dictionary definition) in with what has been accepted throughout the ages as the acceptable and normal form, you lessen traditional marriage. As some of the other posters have said, when we start calling sin and deviant behavior acceptable and go to the extreem of giving societies legal protection to it I can only think that will undermine the tradition of marriage further, I agreee with that statement. I know some who are gay and love them, but the question isn't whether we love and respect them as individuals the question is whether we accept wrong behavior and further elevate that behavior to call it something to be desired and emulated. While I love the sinner I abhor the sin.
carol 6 months, 3 weeks ago
Amen. Thank you Jerald.
Barnyard2 6 months, 3 weeks ago
I can't help but notice you still have not addressed the points I mentioned. I won't press it further, but I hope you better understand why someone would want R74, beyond just "legitimizing it" as you have mentioned multiple times before.
Again, thank you for your comments Dudley. You've helped me appreciate just how difficult it is for some to discuss issues without referencing their religion. As I mentioned to kyook, I think we are at an impasse unless you can restructure your arguments without resorting to this. In other words, without using your interpretation of your religion as that which should govern others. If you can do this, then that would be great, and I would love to continue the discussion with you. Otherwise, we may indeed have to agree to disagree, as you previously stated. I think that's unfortunate because no progress could be made. You will always be able to reference your personal religious beliefs, and those who disagree with you will always be able to tell you that they do not have those beliefs. There is only stagnation, and no learning...so no need to continue the discussion (or post on a forum) =)
I wish you the best and thank you again for the discussion so far. I truly believe that if God is real and your interpretation of Christianity is real, then your beliefs can be transformed into arguments that speak to all people. But if you do not agree with that, then that is probably a much much longer discussion, so I will end it here.
Dudleydoright 6 months, 2 weeks ago
Simply stated, sodomy and same sex relations are forbidden in the Christian tradition. Biblically it takes some real stretching to dispute this. With the exception of some liberal countries same sex marriage is illegal, immoral and even defined as a mental illness (usa 1973). The reasons run from "it's the way it has always been" to "it is unhealthy" and more. Personally I want those who have the belief that they are "gay" to have rights, but as a Christian it is my belief that they have the choice to act, this choice is key. We all have tendencies that if we were to act on would be wrong. Whether it is wanting to punch someone, cheat in business or commit sexual transgressions (adultery, fornication, homo-sex) all are wrong even thought we may want to do them, and here is the key, EVEN if society says they are acceptable. We now, in the state, endorse so called "gay" marriage and that is a sign of the times, as the bible states will come before the second coming of Christ. Things are indeed going to be dicey prior to His coming and this is one example, persecution of the beliefs of Christians are another as is calling bad good. (great example with gay marriage)
Barnyard2 6 months ago
Going back to the original points I mentioned, you have not stated if this helped further your understanding of why someone would want R74 beyond “legitimizing it,” so I’m going to assume unless I hear otherwise that it helped and will be something you consider in the future when debating same sex marriage.
Also it appears you have not restructured your argument to make it valid for all people, instead of being valid only for those who are Christian and who have the same interpretation of Christianity as you in regards to this issue. Please let me know if you disagree with that assessment of your last comment. Assuming you agree with me, then you have chosen to not continue the discussion, which is unfortunate, but I will respect that.
To put it another way, in your last post you focus on the fact that same sex relationships are wrong (relating them with cheating in business, for example) but do not give any support for why they are wrong, other than to point at your interpretation of your religion. So I can see three options for you. 1: End the discussion. 2: Restructure your argument as I previously mentioned. 3: Tell us why this interpretation of your religion is correct.
Option 3 might be quite difficult and potentially too large of a tangent for this thread. I assume it will lead back to a bible verse, in which case you’ll need to be prepared to explain why this bible verse applies to our lives but many of the other ones do not. In particular you’ll need to explain why you do not kill homosexuals, as the bible instructs you to do.
Barnyard2 6 months ago
I suppose you did make some points that do not directly reference your religion, so I should address those in case you think those are key points. You mention that same sex relationships are illegal in many countries, but that itself does not make it right or wrong. Certainly being defined as a mental illness almost 40 years ago doesn’t hold water anymore, in particular since the organization you are referring to (the APA) has been very clear for a long time that they believe same sex relationships are a normal form of human bonding. You also mention that “it’s the way it has always been” which is a very vague statement but any way I interpret it I find that it provides no reason for opposing homosexuality (but please give me your own interpretation if you feel differently). Regarding “it is unhealthy”, for that to hold water you will need to both show how it is unhealthy and then show why that unhealthy behavior means we should oppose same sex relationships. Simply being unhealthy does not mean it should be opposed, so you have to show why this is the kind of unhealthy that is in fact wrong for anyone to do. Instead of, say, eating ice cream.
Sign in to comment