PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona voters will decide again in November whether to change the state's constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
A 16-4 vote by the state Senate on Friday night sends the gay marriage ban to the ballot. It had previously been approved by the House.
Arizona voters rejected a similar state constitutional amendment in 2006. That measure would have also stopped the state from recognizing civil unions of same-sex couples.
Arizona law already prohibits same-sex marriages. Supporters say this proposal would protect the sanctity of families by preventing judges from overturning the 1996 state law.
Sen. Paula Aboud of Tucson, who is openly gay, accused the amendment's supporters of being "afraid of me and my relationship."
Comments
We can also boycott McDonalds http://www.boycottmcdonalds.com/
The Mac Attack just attacked our family and faith.
Yes, the pro-gay agenda will not be happy until they have all the rights that they want. And waiting in the wings of this sorted drama are the incest couples, polygamists, and others of that sort.
And this is how the tolerance preaching homosexuals react to such a statement.
"That is just absurd! Incest couples should not be allowed to marry. It's just not right. The same with polygamists. Its not right to have more than one partner."
So thus, the pro-gay movement shows the depths of its hypocracy and rhetoric.
It is absolutely imperative for California voters to get out and vote on Proposition 8 in November (an amendment to ban same-sex marriage in California - again). Go to ProtectMarriage.com and see how you can get involved.
Already, the ACLU and others are in a feverish desperate attempt to get the judges to NOT ALLOW VOTERS TO DECIDE. We must do everything we can to help our Californian brother and sisters to stop this insanity.
matt, I appreciate your response, but I'm still unclear that if someone believes that homosexuality is a sinful sexual lifestyle why they would be in favor of unions since that would also give approval to a lifestyle they are opposed to. If one is not opposed to that lifestyle then let them get married, but if one is opposed to it I would sense they would be opposed to both marriage and unions.
Believer(I've asked this question before and never got a real response, what is the difference in being in favor of same-sex unions as opposed to being in favor of same-sex marriage. Because I have heard some Christians say they are in favor of unions but opposed to marriages, I don't see the difference since both promote a sinful lifestyle that is clearly condemned by God.)
Hey, believer. I believe that same sex couples could viably receive civil union benefits. If they want to have a private ceremony and call themselves married, so be it. As for promoting a sinful lifestyle, Americans have the right to live by any moral, religious or ethical code that they choose as long as it is not unlawful. We, as Christians may not like it but imposing our will on others isn't the way to win the fight. I don't believe that same sex couples should marry in Churches because honestly, it's silly. Why would you want to celebrate your lifestyle in a place who's belief system clearly condemns it?
Hey, I just wanted to give you my perspective on the question you had
(continued)
Of course, from a moral perspective, I also hold these are wrong.
From a religious perspective, God said these are wrong (if not directly, the principles that support not participating in these acts are certainly in the Bible).
(continued)
As well, we must consider the cost of cohabitation to society. Because people who are single tend to eat out more, when they choose to cohabitate, the funds introduced to society via such activities are lacking. This is true also for those people who rent or purchase homes while they are single. The renting and purchasing of goods associated with homes/apartments introduces money into the economy - and this is reduced when two people choose to cohabitate. The benefits to society of marriage (because of child rearing and the longer and more content lives of the individuals involved) between two heterosexual people outweighs the loss to the economy in those sectors.
We mustnât forget that people who cohabitate are more likely to separate after extended periods of time, or to divorce if they do marry, and the attendant costs to individuals and society concerning divorce apply to these people as well.
Our second someone said, âAbortion ensures that there are no children born out of such relationships, ensuring that society must not shoulder the costs of raising and supporting such children. Homosexual couples (absent artificial insemination and surrogacy) are not capable of yielding offspring and thus donât contribute to societyâs costs in that regard either. â
What you say concerning abortion is true to an extent. However, studies show (and personal experience has also shown) that abortion causes depression and other socio/psycho illnesses in many women. These in turn must be dealt with as mentioned above, and thus have a cost to society and individuals.
We must also consider that many homosexuals (even today, aside from the marriage issue) desire children. If homosexual couples who have children do divorce, the same issues mentioned above concerning divorce and the resulting lowered standard of living hold true for these couples as well.
The past successes in redefining the social mores concerning sex and marriage have resulted in high costs to society. While we can not be 100% sure this will be the case when societyâs mores have successfully changed nationwide (indeed worldwide) concerning homosexual marriage, we must postulate there will be some consequences to society that will parallel previous successes.
Of course, we have not even begun to cover the other costs that attend sex outside of marriage, such as the psycho/socio problems, as well as physical problems, such as disease.
Additionally, concerning the practice of homosexual sex, there are costs to society that parallel those costs associated with heterosexual sex outside of marriage. However, there are also other physical costs that are inherent in sodomy that will increase in incidents of occurrence as more people embrace this option.
Thus, from a utilitarian perspective, I hold the position that sex outside of marriage, homosexual sex, abortion, cohabitation, divorce, and homosexual marriage are bad for individuals and society.
(continued)
Speaking from a utilitiarian perspective, it is not cost effective to allow things such as sex outside of marriage, cohabitation, abortion, and divorce, because they cost society in financial resources due to the fact that the people who participate in such things make it more likely that poeple will have to raise children alone and/or need counseling to deal with the consequences of such things. This in turn affect the insurance costs for all, as well as increases the tax burden for all.
Let us examine some of these costs:
If people were not to divorce, there would be no need to deal with the chemical and psychological and sociological aspects of the emotional ramifications of divorce. While there might be other issues that people would address through counseling and medical intervention, the effect of divorce would not be one of them. Additionally, there would be less drug addiction, because these same people would not suffer depression, or other psycho/socio disorders/illnesses brought on by divorce. As such they would not begin psychological treatment for these same disorders, and thus would not be introduced to medical solutions, which often lend themselves (by their very nature) to drug abuse and addiction. This in turn would reduce the likelihood of some of these people seeking drugs through fake or imagined illnesses - which costs society in terms of lost work, hospital visits/stays, and increased medical insurance and other medical costs, and increased taxes to support such things, including the loss due to thefts from peopleâs attempts to either obtain drugs or money to purchase the same. This in turn would also reduce the danger of physical violence/death that sometimes accompanies such thefts.
Someone else said, âAs for the child support matter, this potentially valid concern does serve, in a utilitarian sense, to cut counter to the typical arguments against homosexual relationships and abortion. â
Actually, in marriages where there are no children, and only one person in the couple works, alimony must be paid in cases of divorce (in most states). This reduces the standard of living for both parties. This in turn can make it more difficult to receive health insurance, which in turn further reduces the standard of living for both people, as well as increases the cost to society for many of the same reasons mentioned above. This issue is compounded when children are involved.
Additionally, even when both parties work and there is no need for alimony, their standard of living is still reduced upon divorce, thus resulting in cost to the individuals and society as a whole.
As society moves to ânormalizeâ and legalize what God considers sin, more and more things that many consider wrong or harmful are being normalized and legalized.
It will not be 20 years after homosexual MARRIAGE is legalized nationwide (and while I am against it, I recognize it will eventually occur) before pedophilia is legalized.
Its already illegal to have separate gender public restrooms in Colorado. Although I seriously doubt this was the intention, this makes it much easier for pedophiles to stalk/choose their victims.
As society moves forward in its headlong rush to not make people feel bad for doing bad things or being certain ways (its innate, or its an illness, or its genetic - pick the excuse and justification), society begins to rush headlong into decadence and crumbles much like other societies in the past. As society makes it easier to not be self-sacrificing and self-controlled, society moves toward implosion.
It used to be the role of government to ease and protect commerce and its inhabitants. Now it is the role of government to encourage individual desires and selfishness and feeling good.
Just as ânormalizingâ (and making easier and legalizing) sex outside of marriage, cohabitation, abortion, and divorce have all had detrimental effects on âdevelopedâ nations (note that many developed nations have reached a point in their birth-death rates, where there will be an insufficient number of adults to support a growing population of aging people - or are close to reaching this point without immigration), so will homosexual marriage.
Lets us examine the example of the ease with which divorce can be obtained has a highly detrimental effect on children and society. Abundant research has shown that this has damaged children immeasurably, and in turn has damaged society â with increases in behavioral problems and the likelihood that children without both parents in the home have a higher incidence poverty, of divorce and of having children out of wedlock. By redefining marriage as a contract in which one or both parties can easily break the contract, individuals and society have suffered, and are suffering. By redefining societyâs mores to allow cohabitation outside of marriage, it is no longer considered taboo to cohabitate â this in turn has led to couples who do so and then marry being much more likely to divorce. This in turn causes more divorces. It is a cycle that our society has yet to unravel.
Someone has said, âthe only person who can make a decision about his or her sex outside of marriage, his or her cohabitation, her abortion or his or her divorce is the person himself or herself. â
I agree. However, when such things affect me - even from a purely humanistic and selfish point of view, I have a right and duty to speak out to protect myself.
mike-
Who says I don't see my faults. Yes, I've had brothers and sisters in the Lord confront me with my "offensive" tactics but they do agree that today's church is soft and they since a re freshness of my forthrightness. Though they don't agree with my tactic they totally agree with my message - once they wither thru the names - LOL!!!
Just because you went to catholics school nearly all your educated life, doesn't make you a Christian. As far as judging you? God is the ultimate judge, so as far as if you go to hell or go to heaven - that's HIS CALL. But I judge you as whether or not you're a Christian based on you posts is a great American privilege. Are you a Christian is probably what I should be asking though? Are you???
Have a great and safe trip. I did say a prayer for you that it would be safe by the way. I love you ... even though you're a "brianiac"! LOL
Rolln, once again, you can't seem to have a discussion without pulling out some names. The methods you employ differ greatly from Jesus, I hope you do see that. FYI, I went to Catholic school from 2nd grade through a 4 year college, so I know quite a bit about Jesus and scripture. Its funny, I don't judge your Christianity by your sins, yet you feel perfectly qualified to judge mine. Let he who is without sin throw the first stone. Wiat, maybe I'm making that quote up, since I don't know diddly about Jesus. Just one more thing before I hit the road (and I will be back on tomorrow, but I'm driving from CT to MD today) the names you claim gays are calling you, I have seen many people use those towards the gay community on here. Both sides have many faults. I am willing to see my own, why are you so scared to see yours?
mike-
You say: "you are attempting to force them down everyone's throughts and not even listening to the sides of those who oppose you, a practice Jesus certainly never employed."
First, I doubt you know diddle about how Jesus employed since your set against His teachings anyway. Jesus was a good name caller though - names like "get behind me Satan" when his real name was Peter. How about "broad of vipers" and "hypocrites" , "heathens", and on and on. Get a clue Mike. At least read the scriptures and post, brainiac.
"Forcing them down everyones throat"????? LOL! If you think my posting here on CP refers to everyone, then great. Remember, it's the gay agenda that is "forcing [their lifestyle] down everyones throat". They sue, harass, intimidate, name-call, flaunt the naked selfs in gay parades and do it incessantly and without respect for others feelings or religious beliefs. Join us in reality, mick.
mike-
Nice of you to chime in: You're right, I do have a tendency to "name call" a bit. Dongard does take it a bit hard too as he usually has to sulk for awhile before he comes out and plays again. Come on out Dongard - I'm sorry ... you big Baby! LOL!
Oh, Mike - on the name calling bit? Yeah, I'm certainly happy to know that you're taking the pious road as this would be totally contrary to the gay agendas method. You know the words the proudly throw at others who disagree with them: Names like - bigot, homophobic, intolerant, fascist, ignorant, zealots and on and on... but hey, I'm glad you're above all that.
Now for your history lesson: The checks and balances? I'm assuming you're referring to the judges - who you're right are not voted in via a majority. But other than that, most of what makes our government click is through a majority.
You know Rolln, a big reason Christians are losing ground is because you're not producing logical arguments, such as those Dongard and PhatDajuan made. You completely dismissed Dongard's question and quite honestly responded like an ignorant child. The will of the majority most certainly does not always pave the way in America, that's why we have a system of checks and balances (I'm going to hold my tongue and not call you a Bozo here, as you so kindly did to Dongard before.) This country was founded on Christian principles, but it was more importantly founded on the principles of freedom. That includes freedom of religion, meaning no one religion has the right to trump the others or to call all the shots in the country. There are many non-Christians in this country, yet you seem to think that doesn't matter because you're on a holy crusade from God to run the ship. While your passion for the Gospels is admirable, you are attempting to force them down everyone's throughts and not even listening to the sides of those who oppose you, a practice Jesus certainly never employed. Gays have had to get loud and in people's faces because we can only take so much of people like you plugging your ears and saying "la la la, I can't hear you, if you don't like my way, get out of my country!" Here's the fundamental problem: Its MY country too. I work, I pay taxes, I abide by the laws, I therefore have just as much right as you do to be heard before the Supreme Court of the United States, and we've had quite a few hurdles to jump before we could get there. Regardless of the court's decision, I know this is going to become a Roe v. Wade type argument where both sides will continue fighting for many years to come, but I believe justice will prevail, and it would be ignorant of either side to claim their know, without a doubt, that their side will be victorious.
Hollywood was the first to crumble under the gay agenda (not that this is saying much), the businesses of America were the next to go, the military is next in line (especially if democrats have control), the court system failed under them, and NOW it's the Christian church. In Canada, pastors are being fined and even imprisoned for their preaching. If we don't stand up as a Church and fight against gay rights, then we won't have a place to worship outside of the "underground" or catacombs as someone else once put it on this site.