Been a lot of press on Obama’s opinion on “homosexual marriage.” The only opinion that counts is God’s: see Romans 1:26-28 and Leviticus 20:13. Anyway you slice it, it is sin. Not to mention horrific social policy.
Sorry I’ve been busy and not had a chance to reply. David, in addition to the basic principal that it is morally wrong, here are three social reasons it’s horrific social policy: 1) Unnatural behavior which results in disease, not the least of which is its high association with the development and spread of HIV/AIDS; 2) Confusing behavior which is harmful to children who have a deep need to understand the proper role of men and women in society and the important differences between men and women, and fathers and mothers; and 3) Undermines the longstanding definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, a definition which has been key to all aspects of social order and prosperity. Anytime that definition is weakened our culture is also weakened. And yes, that is also true for other conduct which weakens marriage’s importance in society.
Gipson’s comments seem to suggest that he believes disease is actually the by-product of gay sex, as if even two monogamous gay men without STDs who have sex will still end up with an ailment or HIV. Not only are these remarks wholly offensive and ill-informed, but they contribute to the harmful stigma against gay men and lesbians and their families.
(sigh) this guy. mississippi. god damn.source
Edited at 2012-05-19 11:45 am (UTC)
His 'argument' is so old and tired I can't even be bothered to get angry about it.
And yes, posting that IS a death threat. You can't call on us to be put to death and it not be a death threat
Actually, his opinion on AIDS seems to be shared by my doctor, who offers me a HIV test every freaking time I go see him
But my doc prides himself on being aware of the needs of his gay patients. which seems to mean constant HIV testing
Tattoo of Leviticus 18:22 forbidding homosexuality: $200
Not knowing that Leviticus 19:28 forbids tattoos: Priceless
Ha!!
(you=guy in the photo, of course)
Edited at 2012-05-20 07:19 am (UTC)
Female me is gonna teach my hypothetical future daughters to drive stick shift, run a steam engine, do a roundhouse kick, love Star Wars and Transformers, install plumbing, install roofing, ride motorcycles, carry kayaks, climb mountains, and, hell with it, joust if they want to, regardless of whether I marry a woman or a man or no one or raise them in collective with half a dozen other adults.
Dude can put that in his gender role pipe and smoke it.
I'd compare his logic to a plate of spaghetti, but a plate of spaghetti is delicious and can be eaten, so it would be a misleading comparison.
So let God worry about it and leave same-sex couples alone.
Edit:
Edited at 2012-05-19 04:29 pm (UTC)
a) At present, it is heterosexuality which is the primary transmission route for HIV/AIDS.
b) Female homosexuality (y'know, like, half of homosexuality?) is and always has been the lowest risk group for HIV/AIDS.
c) The only reason HIV/AIDS managed to become "the gay disease" over here in America was pure chance that the "patient zero" who brought it over from Africa (where it is and was a predominantly heterosexually-transmitted disease) was a gay man instead of a straight man or a woman.
d) The primary reasons it spread so far as it did in America was due to the stigma homosexual behavior suffered under heteronormative America, which discouraged access to and essential communication with doctors and delayed any serious attempts to contain, treat, and cure the disease until straight people started contracting it in sufficient numbers to overcome the mentality that "they got it by being f*gs, let 'em die."
e) And said homophobia remains the reason that we're a good ten to twenty years behind schedule in terms of seeking a cure.
2) Confusing behavior which is harmful to children who have a deep need to understand the proper role of men and women in society and the important differences between men and women, and fathers and mothers
a) If these "proper roles" are so natural, why do children need to be indoctrinated into them?
b) All men and women are individual people who range far across every behavioral spectrum there is with little regard for what gender they are. Confining them in boxes of "proper roles" based on what they've got between their legs is oppressive and limiting.
c) No two fathers or two mothers are completely alike. Two opposite-sex parents do not guarantee the presence of "proper" male and female role models for a child, and two same-sex ones can easily provide all the parenting the child needs.
d) Parents are not a child's only role models. Teachers, relatives, family friends, troop/pack/team leaders, pastors/rabbis/imams/etc, and other adults a child meets and gets to know will all affect the child.
e) Every child develops hir own analysis of what hir gender means to hir. Healthy children develop into different women than their mothers, different men than their fathers. Some develop into similar women to their mothers, or similar women to their fathers, or similar men to their fathers, or similar men to their mothers, or similar men men or women or genderqueer individuals to someone else entirely. They manage. The important thing for a child to know is not "how to be a proper woman" or "how to be a proper man" but how to be themselves.
3) Undermines the longstanding definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, a definition which has been key to all aspects of social order and prosperity.
a) Your. Bible. Has. Polygamy. Out. Its. Wazoo.
b) Social order and prosperity are nice and adaptable, and will be just as well supported by any definition of marriage that treats the people in it well.
c) Marriage between one man and one woman has not prevented the Great Depression, the Dark Ages, the World Wars, or any other calamity that has plagued us in history. Sacrificing the happiness of millions of people for "social order and prosperity" doesn't guarantee us any social order or prosperity.
d) Even if it did, it's not the duty of gays and lesbians to bear that burden so straight people can reap the rewards and not share.
e) Societies all over the world and throughout history have had all sorts of arrangements, from free love to polyandry; one-man-one-woman marriages weren't the key to their prosperity.
Mr. Gipson, I award you no points, and may God use your soul as a ping-pong ball for a game or two before having mercy on it, because everyone who read that ridiculous, hateful, falsely-premised screed up there will never get those brain cells back, and as a state representative, you have a lot of people reading it.
Try using your powers for good next time, mmmkay?
I especially love it when people try to rationalize it with "WELL, IT WAS STILL A MARRIAGE BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN, JUST SEVERAL TIMES CUZ THE WOMEN DIDN'T MARRY EACH OTHER". /headdesk
Also, I don't know what's more disturbing, his comments, or the fact that people have actually "liked" them.