web_tb_torchjobfair_2014

Torch Voices February 22, 2012

Published: Feb 22, 2012

Dear Editor,

We’ve been hear­ing a lot about a right to homo­sex­ual mar­riage recently, but I’d like to ask a ques­tion — wher­ever has this pur­ported right of “mar­riage” come from? Certainly it was not endowed by our Creator, nor ensconced in the Constitution, nor endowed by cen­turies past!

The claim that “love” is the basic qual­i­fy­ing fac­tor for mar­riage is not log­i­cal, but absurd! Ms. Anger has argued that every­one has a right to marry the one they love, and that homo­sex­u­al­ity is jus­ti­fied by aber­rant ani­mal behav­ior. This is aston­ish­ing logic! How will you put any bounds on con­sen­sual sex­ual rela­tion­ships – or won’t you? Must we accept of humans any behav­ior found in the ani­mal world?

I can’t be con­vinced that being raised by two women, or two men, is equal to being raised by a mother and a father. You see, I expe­ri­enced what it was like to have both, and I’m here to tell you that there’s no sub­sti­tute – and a great deal of soci­o­log­i­cal, edu­ca­tional, and crim­i­nal research sup­ports my claim. Before you pass off the Christian world­view as a mere belief, you would be well-served to exam­ine the cor­re­spon­dence of that belief sys­tem with reality!

Finally, as to those who hold the tra­di­tional view of the fam­ily being xeno­pho­bic big­ots, I charge that you have dis­played the mod­ern con­cept of diver­sity for what it really is.

Rob Wagner, FSU Enrollment Services Technician

 
 
  • Elizabeth

    My god! Look at all the excla­ma­tion points! Everyone knows that more excla­ma­tion points means a stronger argument!

    If you can­not be con­vinced that being raised by any­one that does not have exactly one “God” ordained penis and one “God” ordained vagina is some­how less of a human than some­one raised by both, then please feel free to take your opin­ion to some­one who cares. This is exactly the kind of big­otry you just pro­claimed your­self bet­ter than. It is com­pletely illog­i­cal and unfair of you to sim­ply assume one option is bet­ter just because that is what you experienced.

    As a few side notes, what exactly do you rec­om­mend we base mar­riage on if not on love? Also, please refrain from call­ing him “our Creator.” I can’t be con­vinced that being raised by with reli­gion is
    equal to being raised by a fam­ily where I am free to choose my own path. You see, I expe­ri­enced
    what it was like to have both choices, and I’m here to tell you that there’s no
    sub­sti­tute for reli­gious free­dom – and a great deal of fear, Christian hypocrisy and Tea Party fanat­ics like you sup­port my claim.

    • Rob Wagner

       Dear Elizabeth,

      You might want to re-read what I wrote — I did not sug­gest, and in
      fact I absolutely dis­avow the pos­si­bil­ity that any person’s human­ity
      is pred­i­cated on the per­son or per­sons who raised them! Neither Zach
      Wahls, nor any­one else, is any less human than I.

      Marriage should be based on a lot of things – it ought to be
      between one man and one woman, for life. Both par­ties should be
      adults. It shouldn’t be between one man and two women, or one man
      and one ape – both would be wrong. It ought to involve not just
      the emo­tion of love, but also com­mit­ment and pre­pared­ness. It should
      involve qual­i­ties of lead­er­ship and sub­mis­sion and respect. Marriage
      is some­thing to be taken very seri­ously – if it were, we would have
      more happy homes and fewer bro­ken hearts.

      I would like to affirm your sup­port for reli­gious free­dom. While
      I believe that there is such a thing as a Creator to whom we are all
      account­able, I absolutely affirm your right, as a cit­i­zen, to free­dom
      of reli­gion. As far as reli­gion goes, I’m not hot on that as such –
      reli­gion doesn’t hold a can­dle to a per­sonal rela­tion­ship with the
      Lord Jesus Christ.

      Sincerely,

      Rob Wagner

      • FerrisChick

        Mr. Wagner, are you com­par­ing a rela­tion­ship between two peo­ple of the same gen­der to a rela­tion­ship of a man and an ani­mal?! I find that very rude to say. 
        Also stud­ies show that most of the divorces in America are the mar­riages that you call the right way. Between a man and a woman. Most cou­ples of the same gen­der are together longer then most men and women rela­tion­ships. They know each other inside and out, been there for each other when they need it, and they LOVE each other. 
        I under­stand that you have the right to speak your mind but I am offended by all that you are say­ing. I should have the right to love and marry who ever I want on this Earth. I don’t need you telling me that I am not allowed to get mar­ried. One you are no one in any power to con­trol that. 
        And the Lord Jesus Christ made me this way and brought the ones who I love into my life. If he didn’t want that then why would he do it. Please tell me that?

      • FerrisChick

        Also to add to my prior post. Why is it such a is it such a big deal to be raised by a men and a women? I meet so many peo­ple who have one dad, one mom, grand­par­ents, aunts, adop­tive par­ents, two dads, two moms, fos­ter fam­i­lies, so on and so forth. They have all turned out to be as dif­fer­ent as you and me. I was raised by my grand­par­ents, rarely saw my mom, saw my dad three times a year, then I was raised by my dad and my step mom, then my mom and my step dad, and then my grand­par­ents again. I say that if my mom and dad got mar­ried because they had me would not have be for the bet­ter. I am who I am today because I lived through what I have. I learned to trust peo­ple at a young age, be accept­ing, and to never JUDGE people. 

        Please before you start to judge the peo­ple who go to this school, live in this city, this state, this coun­try, and the earth. Take a long look in the mir­ror and think who you may be hurt­ing in the long run. Who you may be judg­ing. The only being that can EVER JUDGE me, is God. God made me, God loves me, and God can judge me. But you Mr. Wagner can­not. I will not let you tell me what I can and can not do. I find you ever rude and offensive. 

        And I hope peo­ple write to Ferris and ask for you to be let go. Because I sure as hell don’t want some­one work­ing here like you. Because if you judge peo­ple like this online, how do you ask at work, in life. Do you judge the peo­ple around you? Please just take your words and go away. 

        • Rob Wagner

          Dear FerrisChick,

             You asked whether I
          was “com­par­ing a rela­tion­ship between two peo­ple of the same gen­der to a
          rela­tion­ship of a man and an ani­mal”. 
          The answer is “No!”, not as such. I was ask­ing a ques­tion: If
          every­one has a right to marry whom they love, and if aber­rant ani­mal behav­ior
          is our jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for that (remem­ber, I didn’t pro­pose the con­cept; I’m
          argu­ing against it), then on what grounds will we limit *any* con­sen­sual sex­ual
          rela­tion­ship?  So far, nobody has
          pro­vided — or even attempted — a con­sis­tent line of valid rea­son­ing in
          oppo­si­tion to my argu­ment, so it still stands.

             Of course it would
          be true that most divorces in America are between a man and a woman — even if
          we accept the new def­i­n­i­tion of mar­riage which a hand­ful of states have adopted
          as being, in real­ity, mar­riage, most of the mar­riages in the U.S. are between

          men and women.  I
          dis­pute your sta­tis­tics regard­ing the dura­tion of mar­riages — per­haps you could
          help us out by post­ing doc­u­men­ta­tion for your claim.  I’ll attempt to do so for mine as soon as I
          get a chance.

             I will fur­ther
          address the ques­tion of rights in another post.

             You are exactly
          right that I am no one in any posi­tion to con­trol whether you get mar­ried.  I never claimed that author­ity!  I’m address­ing the ques­tion of whether such
          mar­riage, in any sit­u­a­tion, is right and proper.  Whether you get mar­ried is between you and
          God and the government.

             As to those you
          love — I’ve not crit­i­cized love between friends yet, and I don’t intend
          to.  I think it’s won­der­ful that you have
          friends of the same gen­der whom you love. 
          The ques­tion of you being “made… this way”, and the
          ques­tion of mar­riage is some­thing else entirely!

             On the ques­tion of
          a man and a woman rais­ing chil­dren, please see my response to Nathan.

             I find it
          inter­est­ing that you acknowl­edge a right of oth­ers to speak an opin­ion, but
          then hope that I’ll be fired so you won’t have to be around me.  But I’d like to repeat that I haven’t judged
          any­one here — and I don’t hate any­one here. Arguments were made in a pub­lic
          news­pa­per that described my posi­tion as not log­i­cal, xeno­pho­bic, and big­oted -
          and I thought it would be rea­son­able to reply!

             Sincerely,

                 Rob Wagner

          • Victor Serrano

            I will sim­ply say that you demand doc­u­men­ta­tion for claims against your argu­ments, but have pro­vided none yourself.

            Marriage is a civil right that no one has the right to keep from some­one. Period. Your reli­gious argu­ments have no place in the con­ver­sa­tion. Separation of church and state. Either pro­vide quan­tifi­able empir­i­cal evi­dence to sup­port your claims, or just stop. You’re only dig­ging your­self a deeper hole.

            Marriage is a union BETWEEN TWO CONSENTING ADULTS, so get rid of your bes­tial­ity argu­ments and ask your­self how you’d feel if peo­ple were ral­ly­ing against your civil lib­er­ties. You like vot­ing, I assume. You like the right to marry who you want, right? Imagine not hav­ing those rights. Now, try and tell me that you have the right to deny some­one of those things.

            • Rob Wagner

              Victor,

              You’re not the first to claim that
              homo­sex­ual “mar­riage” is a civil right – but I can claim that
              the moon is made of green cheese, and that doesn’t make it so. What
              is your argu­ment for why it is so? Can you argue it based on per­haps
              logic or his­tory or morality?

              As to sep­a­ra­tion of church and
              state, the idea that reli­gious con­vic­tions ought not be heard in
              gov­ern­ment is com­pletely for­eign to the early his­tory of our coun­try.
              Nevertheless, my argu­ment has been pri­mar­ily a moral one and not a
              uniquely reli­gious one. And you haven’t addressed my ques­tion about
              moral­ity, when I asked the basis on which you would put any lim­its on
              con­sen­sual sex­ual relationships.

              Sincerely,
                 Rob Wagner

          • Rob Wagner

             As to the dura­tion of mar­riages, I sup­port my claim with the fol­low­ing statistics:

            The Partners National Survey of Lesbian and Gay Couples reported in 1995
            on a study by Steve Bryant and Demian, Ed.D.  The study reported 25% of women and 25% of men
            hav­ing spent 10 or more years in “pre­vi­ous major rela­tion­ships” (an aver­age of
            1.52 for women, and 1.07 for men).  These
            are among the more gen­er­ous sta­tis­tics I encountered.

            According to the U.S.
            Census Bureau’s pub­li­ca­tion, “Marital Events of Americans: 2009” pub­lished in
            August 2011, the dura­tion of 72% of cur­rently mar­ried peo­ple is 10 years or
            more.

            Sources:
               http://​www​.bud​dy​buddy​.com/​s​u​r​v​e​y​.​h​tml
               http://​www​.cen​sus​.gov/​p​r​o​d​/​2​0​1​1​p​u​b​s​/​a​c​s​-​1​3​.​pdf
             
            Thanks,
                   Rob

  • Ashley

    Religious arro­gance, intol­er­ance, and stu­pid­ity at its finest. It sick­ens me that he would call him­self a Christian.

    • Anonymous

      “You know,there is so much hate in the world and all for know reason”

    • Rob Wagner

       Ashley,

         Your argu­ment is merely the “ad hominem” fal­lacy — an attack on the per­son,
      and not the argu­ment.  If you’d be will­ing to point out how a cer­tain aspect
      of my argu­ment is arro­gant, intol­er­ant, or stu­pid I’d be happy to have a dis­cus­sion
      about that!

      Thanks,
          Rob Wagner

    • Emily

      How is he being arro­gant? He is only stat­ing what he believes as well as let­ting you state what you believe? How is he being intol­er­ant? Did he call you names or say that you could not do as you were free to do under the law (he only expressed his opin­ion.) And stu­pid? Just because he has an opin­ion? It sounds as if he is actu­ally think­ing out his argue­ment instead of let­ting his emo­tions run ram­pant. And please, do tell what you would con­sider a Christian? Wouldn’t that be some­one who believes and stands up for the teach­ings of Christ?

  • Nathan

     How can you claim that there is no sub­sti­tute for being raised by a man and a woman, when you never expe­ri­enced any­thing else? That’s pretty much the same thing as me say­ing that there is no sub­sti­tute for hav­ing a brother when I have never had a sis­ter. Please, stop push­ing on other peo­ple what YOU think God wants for peo­ple. If what you say is true, then they will be judged by God him­self. Not some close-minded judg­men­tal mor­tal such as yourself.

    • Rob Wagner

       

      Nathan,

       

         I think you
      mis­un­der­stand my pre­cise argu­ment — I’ll expound.  In the tra­di­tional fam­ily, fathers and moth­ers ful­fill some­what dis­tinct and
      unique roles.  God’s gen­eral plan for the fam­ily is for the father to be a provider,
      pro­tec­tor, and leader, and for the mother to more espe­cially con­cerned with rais­ing the
      chil­dren, and man­ag­ing the house­hold.  While
      their roles over­lap, they are, in gen­eral, dis­tinct.  It is demean­ing and unfair to a woman to fail to rec­og­nize the
      unique role of a mother and demand of her all that is expected of a man in addi­tion to
      her respon­si­bil­i­ties as a woman.

       

         My argu­ment, then,
      is one from expe­ri­ence, not lack of expe­ri­ence. 
      I had the priv­i­lege of hav­ing both a father’s lov­ing lead­er­ship and a
      mother’s ten­der love.  Is every fam­ily a lit­tle dif­fer­ent, and does every par­ent
      have their own unique per­son­al­ity? Of course they do!  Do many sin­gle moth­ers brace them­selves under
      the load of two par­ents and raise the chil­dren alone?
      Certainly.  And there’s a rea­son that we go out of our way to sup­port peo­ple like that -
      they’re bear­ing the load of two.  I know bro­ken
      fam­i­lies, and things aren’t easy for them — for the par­ents or for the chil­dren — and that’s one rea­son why I think we
      should be pro­mot­ing some­thing better.

       

         You’re cor­rect that
      God is the judge of indi­vid­u­als, and not myself.  The Bible — and com­mon sense — have a great deal to say about the
      exer­cise of dis­cern­ment and the judg­ing of right from wrong.  I noticed that you weren’t inhib­ited from
      judging

      me as “close-minded” and
      “judg­men­tal”.  :-)

       

         Sincerely,

              Rob Wagner

  • Anonymous

    Here’s a bet­ter ques­tion. Why do we even need to get a mar­riage license? When did our lives become the prop­erty of the coun­try in which we live? America is sup­posed to be the land of the free, but instead we are reg­is­tered for a draft, our every move is mon­i­tored by an over­pow­ered cen­tral gov­ern­ment, and they tell us who we can and can’t marry.

    You are right about one point. It does not say in the Constitution that homo­sex­u­als have a right to get mar­ried. The Constitution actu­ally says noth­ing about the topic of mar­riage in gen­eral. By that logic you don’t have a right to get mar­ried at all. After all the idea that one man stays with one woman for their entire life is super unnat­ural so ipso-facto you’re a freak a we should prob­a­bly bust out the tar and feathers.Whether or not you believe that a man should be able to marry a man there’s noth­ing you can do to stop them from hav­ing lots of frothy butt­sex. Getting mar­ried is really only to show one’s close friends and fam­ily that they plan to stay loyal to one per­son for their entire life. Quire real­is­ti­cally they can do this just with­out the mar­riage license. The only thing that you’re doing is try­ing to entrench your­self in a world where homo­sex­u­als are such a small minor­ity they don’t have a right to get reg­is­tered as a cou­ple. That’s just silly and foolish.

    • Rob Wagner

      Anonymous,
      As regards the Constitution, you
      have made the error of assum­ing the inverse. I asked where the
      pur­ported right of homo­sex­ual “mar­riage” came from — it
      could be in the Constitution, but it isn’t. The same is true of
      het­ero­sex­ual mar­riage — the right could be found explic­itly in the
      Constitution, but it isn’t. When you state, “By
      that logic you don’t have a right to get mar­ried at all,” your
      logic is flawed.

      Maybe
      you could explain why you believe that the con­cept of a life-long
      mar­riage is unnat­ural. Why, *even* in the ani­mal king­dom we find
      species which mate for life! Historically, mar­riage for life has
      been expected, and the norm in sophis­ti­cated societies.

      Getting
      mar­ried is much more than a pro­nounce­ment to one’s close friends. It
      is a pub­lic pro­nounce­ment, it is a promise, and it is an action of
      moral and eter­nal import. That’s not a new or fringe idea – our
      gov­ern­ment thinks mar­riage is quite important.

      Sincerely,
           Rob Wagner

  • Chayton Dry

    Dear Mr. Wagner,
    Though the right to mar­riage may not be clearly extolled in the Constitution, it is quite clearly writ­ten into the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration estab­lished our nation as an inde­pen­dent coun­try, and is the true found­ing doc­u­ment of this coun­try.
        “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are cre­ated equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with cer­tain unalien­able Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are insti­tuted among Men, deriv­ing their just pow­ers from the con­sent of the gov­erned.”
    The very foun­da­tion of our coun­try states that we are all equal, from birth. We all have the right to our lives, to our free­dom, and to do what makes us happy, so long as it does not harm oth­ers.
    Question for you, Mr. Wagner. Do homo­sex­u­als hurt you? Do they harm you in any way? Do they, in the pur­suit of their hap­pi­ness, detract from your hap­pi­ness? They do not. They live their lives, and do not hurt your life or your fam­ily. What right have you to deny them the pur­suit of their hap­pi­ness? Would it be right if you were denied the right to marry the woman you love, because it offended the reli­gious beliefs of a par­tic­u­lar group? It is against many reli­gious doc­trines to eat the meat of a pig. By your logic, no one should be able to eat ham or pork. It is against many reli­gious beliefs to allow women any form of free­dom what­so­ever. By your logic, women around the world should be sub­servient to men.
    Or do you think that your beliefs are spe­cial, and that your beliefs should take prece­dence over all oth­ers? That your beliefs should be law, and other beliefs are chopped liver.
    I would like to refer you to the Constitution on that one:

         “Congress shall make no law respect­ing an estab­lish­ment of reli­gion, or pro­hibit­ing the free exer­cise thereof; or abridg­ing the free­dom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the peo­ple peace­ably to assem­ble, and to peti­tion the Government for a redress of griev­ances.”
    No law shall be made that favors one reli­gion over oth­ers. Both the Constitution and the Declaration sup­port the equal­ity of all men, and that no reli­gious beliefs hold more sway than any other when it comes to mat­ter of law.
    Now on to the topic of love qual­i­fy­ing mar­riage. If love does not qual­ify mar­riage, what does?
    You have no per­spec­tive on the issue of whether or not being raised by a man and a woman is supe­rior than being raised by a man and a man, or a woman or a woman.
    Before you pass off the world­view of all other peo­ple as mere belief, you would be well served to exam­ine the cor­re­spon­dence of those beliefs sys­tems with real­ity.
    Chayton Dry, Student and Decent Human Being

    • Rob Wagner

      Dear Chayton,

         I agree with you that “all men are cre­ated equal.” I think
      our dis­agree­ment comes with this phrase “and to do what makes us
      happy, so long as it does not harm oth­ers”. Quite pos­si­bly you
      were taught in school that that is what free­dom is, and in one sense
      it is a good start­ing point, but it is an incom­plete def­i­n­i­tion
      because it omits any ref­er­ence to law or morality.

         You asked whether homo­sex­u­als hurt me – that’s a fair ques­tion
      and worth ask­ing, but let’s think in big­ger terms than that. We
      dis­cussing a major issue at a state insti­tu­tion of higher learn­ing,
      so let’s also ask this: Is homo­sex­u­al­ity harm­ful to soci­ety as a
      whole, to indi­vid­u­als who prac­tice homo­sex­u­al­ity, or to oth­ers
      affected by it? I say, “Yes, it is harmful”.

      Let me sug­gest a few pos­si­ble rea­sons for my answer:

      1. The preva­lence of sex­u­ally trans­mit­ted dis­eases in the homo­sex­ual
      com­mu­nity. If prac­tices advo­cated by the Bible were respon­si­ble for
      the pain and destruc­tion caused by STDs around the world, it would
      be con­sid­ered a great evil. According to data from the CDC, the
      rate of new HIV diag­noses among homo­sex­ual men in the United States is more than 44 times that of other men (1). I think we should hear
      more about the avoid­able pain and suf­fer­ing caused by STDs because
      of lifestyle choices. The direct pain and suf­fer­ing caused by STDs
      is harm­ful to indi­vid­u­als and soci­ety as whole.

      2. In other data pro­vided by the CDC, STDs are esti­mated to cost the
      U.S. health care sys­tem sev­en­teen bil­lion dol­lars every year (2).
      Only a por­tion of this cost is asso­ci­ated with the homo­sex­ual
      lifestyle; nev­er­the­less, it is a cost to society.

      3.  I believe that homo­sex­u­al­ity is morally wrong, and a gate­way to
      other forms of sex­ual per­ver­sion (I wish to develop this argu­ment
      more fully later, but so far my ini­tial argu­ment on this topic
      remains largely undam­aged). If so, it can be expected to have
      far-reaching consequences.

      I want to come back to the con­cept of the free­dom to do what makes me
      happy, though.  Morality has to do with what is right, regard­less of
      whether the action is easy for me, or if it makes me happy. I can ratio­nal­ize a lot of morally wrong behav­iors.  Consider the fol­low­ing: - I can tell a lie
      this once; it won’t hurt any­one.
       - Officer, I know I was
      speed­ing, but I didn’t hurt any­one - Your Honor, I real­ize I was
      tres­pass­ing, but it did no harm to the prop­erty owner. He would
      never have know if it hadn’t been for… — WalMart is a big
      cor­po­ra­tion – it won’t hurt them if I take this – besides, its
      not for myself any­way
      – I can abort my child; it will feel no pain
      – Euthanasia is
      mer­ci­ful – it short­ens the suffering

          You get the idea — I know you do, because you’ve ratio­nal­ized your
      own actions when your con­science told you that what you were doing
      was wrong.  So have I, and it was wrong.

         But there’s more,
      because in a moral soci­ety, we do things that cause pain in the name
      of moral­ity. That’s what tick­ets and jail time do. Child dis­ci­pline involves that as well. It’s because some things are wrong, and bad
      actions have bad con­se­quences. Therefore, “hurt”, alone, is not
      a reli­able indi­ca­tor of the moral­ity or immoral­ity of an action.

      Sources:

      1. http://​www​.cdc​.gov/​n​c​h​h​s​t​p​/​n​e​w​s​r​o​o​m​/​d​o​c​s​/​f​a​s​t​f​a​c​t​s​-​m​s​m​-​f​i​n​a​l​5​0​8​c​o​m​p​.​pdf

      2. http://​www​.cdc​.gov/​s​t​d​/​s​t​a​t​s​1​0​/​t​r​e​n​d​s​.​htm

      Sincerely, 
           Rob Wagner

  • Brie

    I am Christian and i fully believe that no one has the right to judge. Heck, I have friends that are gay and les­bian. And do i say, “You are going to hell for what you are?” Nope. If you look in the Bible who was Jesus known for hang­ing around with? Homosexuals, pros­ti­tutes, and the so called “unde­sir­ables” of soci­ety. Did he judge? Nope!
    I was raised by a sin­gle mom…and she views mar­riage as a bad thing because of her bad expe­ri­ences. but i don’t let it influ­ence my deci­sions in life.And also, there will always be some­one who disagree’s with your opin­ion. Because to be hon­est, if every­one agreed, it would be a bor­ing world​.It comes down to “hate the sin, love the sin­ner” which is what I have cho­sen to do. 

    • Emily

      As far as I can tell, Mr. Wagner never said “You are going to hell” either. He stated his opin­ion. Jesus was known for hang­ing around all those peo­ple. Did you read any far­ther than that or is that just a quote you heard? Did you read why Jesus hung around with those peo­ple? He hung around them so they would be influ­enced by Him to change their ways, their sin­ning. He hated the sin and loved the sin­ner in the utmost way, but He didn’t do it just to be polit­i­cally cor­rect. He did it to help them see the error in their ways. Don’t see it as an error? Then look at Deuteronomy 23:17 and 18 in the Bible, the book of Jesus/God him­self. He said it, not me. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/dbalsitis David Balsitis

    I actu­ally have 2 Creator’s: Mother and Father.  Father was an abu­sive p.o.s.  Mother divorced Father.  Mother remar­ried to a man who made it clear a woman’s place was at home to clean, do laun­dry, and make the meals.  Mother divorced.  Mother is a depressed pes­simist. Guess how I turned out.  Depressed pes­simist with a tem­per.  Boy, I sure turned out great.  Thank you tra­di­tional beliefs passed down from reli­gious com­mand­ments and faith-spewing idiots like Rob.  

    Rob is right on one point.  History hasn’t proven mar­riage as a “right”.  Nope.  Because women never had a choice until around the early 1900’s and even then they still had to fight for their rights as human beings.  Because even some men didn’t have a choice because the par­ents pre­arranged a part­ner for them and forced them to marry.  Why was this?  Why is this still in some coun­tries?  Because of religion.  

    How can “love” be dis­re­garded when talk­ing about mar­riage?  I’ve already given two exam­ples where love has noth­ing to do with it.  It has been mar­riage of con­ve­nience and mar­riage of faith.  How well do these mar­riages do?  Let’s play a game of “Low/High” on the per­cent­age of suc­cess and I choose “low”.  

    Sociological and Educational research would only show Man x Woman.  And crim­i­nal?  Gay cou­ples with chil­dren is a fairly new con­cept so what sta­tis­ti­cal data would sup­port gay cou­ples with chil­dren are bound to build a meth lab in their Michigan base­ment?  How many gay cou­ples rais­ing their chil­dren while bury­ing bod­ies in their floor boards do you know?  And how many gay cou­ples have you seen dump their new­born in a lake or dump­ster — or even just kill out­right?  I’m fail­ing to think of any.  But I can think of a plethora of Man x Woman cou­ples that have.  I’m think­ing I was born in the wrong logic.

    • Emily

      I can totally see how you would abhor the tra­di­tional way of mar­riage when you have seen such a hor­ri­ble mis­rep­re­sen­ta­tion of it. God didn’t cre­ate mar­riage to be like that. He com­manded men to love their wives and wives to respect their hus­bands. When hus­bands and wives do this the reult can be amaz­ing, and many times is. Same sex cou­ples still com­mit crimes against each other just not as big per­cent­age wise, rea­son? Their aren’t as many same sex cou­ples per­cent­age wise.

      • Victor Serrano

        There are mul­ti­ple things wrong with your comment.

        Marriage pre­dates the bible, and was a way of join­ing two blood­lines in an agree­ment of mutual gain. “God” didn’t invent it, humans did. If it was your god’s inven­tion, then why did ancient Greece, who had a com­pletely dif­fer­ent reli­gion than you, have mar­riage as an insti­tu­tion? 
        Also, when speak­ing about per­cent­ages, the sta­tis­tics are taken as a per­cent­age of the total pop­u­la­tion being stud­ied. So if there are 1,000 het­ero­sex­ual cou­ples and you set aside 100 of them, that is 10%. If there are 100 homo­sex­ual cou­ples and you set aside 10 of them, that is 10%. The fact that you chose not to under­stand or research some­thing as con­crete and ver­i­fi­able as a sta­tis­ti­cal cal­cu­la­tion leads me to believe that you are not capa­ble of form­ing a ratio­nal argu­ment to your stance.The fact is, the gay mar­riage debate has been twisted into a reli­gious fiasco when it is a very sim­ple mat­ter of civil rights. This coun­try was not founded by the­ists nor was it founded on the­is­tic prin­ci­ples. The con­sti­tu­tion specif­i­cally states that there is a sep­a­ra­tion of church and state, so no reli­gious argu­ment is valid in these con­ver­sa­tions. If you can find a sci­en­tif­i­cally ver­i­fi­able rea­son why homo­sex­ual mar­riage should not be aloud in this coun­try, you can rejoin the dia­logue as an actual con­trib­u­tor. Since that will never hap­pen, I wish you the best.

  • Victor Serrano

    I under­stand that this is an opin­ion, but I am appalled at the edi­tor of the Torch for pub­lish­ing some­thing that is so obvi­ously inflam­ma­tory. Are you so des­per­ate for read­er­ship that you have to get it by sim­ply mak­ing the masses angry?

    Roger,

    In your first para­graph you state what all anti-gay Christians (and other reli­gious peo­ple) state: That it is for­bid­den by your god. However, I find that the com­mon pick and choose men­tal­ity (Religion A-La-Carte, if you will) is just…for lack of a bet­ter word, it’s just stu­pid. So there are approx­i­mately 6 pas­sages in the bible that are against homo­sex­u­al­ity, fine. But there are many other pas­sages that con­done slav­ery and sell­ing one’s chil­dren. Obviously you’d say own­ing a slave or sell­ing your daugh­ter would be immoral, and would prob­a­bly use the argu­ment that those pas­sages are just a sign of the times in which they were writ­ten, but you refuse to see the fal­lacy in that argument.

    You then go on to com­pare homo­sex­ual rela­tion­ships with bes­tial­ity, not only in your orig­i­nal opin­ion but in your replies to oth­ers below. Marriage is about com­mit­ment between two con­sen­sual adults, and requires com­mit­ment and sac­ri­fice, as well as love and com­pas­sion to func­tion prop­erly. We agree on this. But your insis­tence that a mother/father par­ent sys­tem is bet­ter than any other sim­ply because that’s what you had is just igno­rant. There is no research to sug­gest that mother/father is bet­ter than grandmother/grandfather or aunt/uncle or father/father or mother/mother. Any sup­posed “research” is done by peo­ple like you who have an agenda.

    What you’ve writ­ten below on the sub­ject of reli­gion is just…asinine at best. You state, quite lit­er­ally, that reli­gion doesn’t hold a can­dle to…your reli­gion? Seriously? Did you actu­ally write that? I know that express­ing my bewil­der­ment isn’t exactly pro­fes­sional, but I sim­ply can’t con­tort my logic enough to see that para­graph from your per­spec­tive. You’re belief in Yeshuah the Anointed, and your belief in the writ­ings of the Bible as your god’s word is your reli­gion. Simple as that. There is no other way of say­ing it. Honestly, your igno­rance on the sub­ject just mag­ni­fies your gen­eral igno­rance of the entire issue at hand​.In all hon­esty, my ini­tial reac­tion to your let­ter was anger. You likened my friends and loved ones to beasts, so I feel I have that right. Upon closer inspec­tion before I wrote this, that had been brought down to a sim­ple pity. While you would most likely say that one of the fun­da­men­tal teach­ings of your reli­gion is love, you ven­er­ate these delu­sions and spread hate with your poorly cho­sen words. I am truly sorry that you are so closed-minded, but I wish you the best and hope that some­day in the future you may have your eyes prop­erly opened.Sincerely,Victor Serrano

    • Victor Serrano

      I apol­o­gize for the typos and using the wrong name. It’s been a long day.

      • Rob Wagner

         Thanks Victor; I appre­ci­ate that.

               Rob

    • Victor Serrano

      I apol­o­gize for the typos and using the wrong name. It’s been a long day.

  • Anonymous

    Mr.Rob Wagner,

    I per­son­ally believe that  mar­raige comes from love,the love that two indi­vid­u­als desire to be together and that they truly and sin­cerely love each other from the hearts. Marriage is like say­ing ‚you love this per­son more then any­thing in the world and that you want to be with them for the rest of your life.

     Also ‚Mr.Wagner,let me ask you something,as a Christian(I assume you are),did not Jesus com­mand you to love oth­ers as yourself?

    * “John 13:34

     (John 13)

    A new com­mand­ment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.”

    Loving oth­ers is not just lov­ing other Christians,but lov­ing other peo­ple and accept­ing them for who they are.
    You should love other peo­ple like Jesus loved, ‚judg­ing some­one in the way you are ‚with­out know­ing any­thing about them makes you look igno­rant.. You are bas­ing your beliefs upon a belief sys­tem and you are fail­ing to see how other peo­ple feel.

    Also “remove the plank from your own eye”

    John 8:7

     (John 8)

    And as they con­tin­ued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is with­out sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”

                
    In my opin­ion Mr.Wagner,I stro­gly
    dis­like reli­gion for this very purpose,that it hurts peo­ple and tears them apart. I don’t care what reli­gion you are,but don’t enforce your reli­gious beliefs upon others.Man is the cause of prob­lems in this world and so are reli­gion. Why are peo­ple debat­ing about homo­sex­u­al­ity and why is it such a big deal?It is because of religion.There is so much hate in this world and it is for no rea​son​.It sad­dens me to see peo­ple hat­ing each other and hurt­ing each other for so many var­i­ous purposes.I have lost dear friends who I have loved very much  and cared about all due to  religous ideals.These peo­ple I will never be able to talk to again nor know and they have bro­ken off com­mu­ni­ca­tion andthey sim­ply hate me and all because I am not of there religion.Tell me what is wrong with this?It is religion.

            Love is what mar­riage is about,if some­one loves someone,whether they be male or female (Regardless of gender),then they have the right to be mar­ried and they have the right to have a child,I don’t care whether it is to men or two women,I do not see how that will effect the childs growth if he was raised in a lov­ing manner.If the fam­ily was healthy,then so-to would the child.

    • Rob Wagner

      Dear Anonymous,

         I do wish we could talk face to
      face, because it’s hard to know where to start in address­ing your
      argu­ments. Let me chal­lenge you, though; as some­one who strongly
      dis­likes reli­gion, and argues that your moral­ity is bet­ter than the
      Bible’s moral­ity, why do you point me to the Bible’s stan­dard of love? Of course I under­stand that you are point­ing me to my own stan­dard, but why not go beyond that and show me the higher stan­dard
      of your own belief sys­tem? If you can find me a belief sys­tem that
      demon­strates a love greater than that which you quoted in John 13:34,
      I would be very inter­ested to hear about it! But where else do we
      find a teach­ing to love even one’s ene­mies? Certainly not in the
      Humanist worldview.

         But I want to address your argu­ment
      about judg­ing oth­ers any­way, because there’s an impor­tant con­cept
      there. First, I think we need to draw the dis­tinc­tion between my
      point­ing a fin­ger at an indi­vid­ual and con­demn­ing their per­sonal sin ver­sus my tak­ing a stand against a pub­licly expressed idea – there
      is, of course, a clear dif­fer­ence. You rec­og­nize it, no doubt, and
      would vocif­er­ously con­demn, I am cer­tain, sex­ual slav­ery and human
      traf­fick­ing, for exam­ple, just as any Christian might. So, when you
      come to John chap­ter eight don’t stop read­ing at verse seven, but
      con­tinue at least to the end of the para­graph. The Lord Jesus never
      con­tra­dicted the Pharisees’ argu­ment that the woman was deserv­ing of
      death; in fact, He sup­ported it by say­ing to the woman, “Go now and leave your life of sin.” The impli­ca­tion is not that there was a prob­lem with the moral stan­dard, but that the Pharisees were every
      bit as guilty as the woman, only they were unwill­ing to repent and
      acknowl­edge their own rebel­lion against God.

         Love towards oth­ers is not just a
      warm emo­tion. The book of Proverbs com­mands, “Rescue those being
      led away to death; hold back those stag­ger­ing toward slaugh­ter.”
      In fact, the con­cept of love is never far sep­a­rated in the Bible from
      the con­cept of evil. In John chap­ter three, in the same para­graph as
      per­haps the most famous pas­sage of all on the love of God, we find
      these words, “This is the ver­dict: Light has come into the world,
      but men loved dark­ness instead of light because their deeds were
      evil.” (John 3:19 NIV) True love is con­cerned with the good of
      others.

         I hope you’ll humor me, if only for
      the sake of argu­ment, as I once again draw a dis­tinc­tion between
      reli­gion and Christianity as por­trayed in the Bible. I’m not about
      to stick up for reli­gion in gen­eral, but Biblical Christianity – as
      opposed to just any­thing that goes by the name – is worth stick­ing
      up for.  Although you might not be inclined to agree with me, I think
      it is very impor­tant to rec­og­nize that most of us have grown up in a
      soci­ety that has been very much soft­ened by Christianity. It might
      not be obvi­ous at first, but if you spent a great deal of time in a
      soci­ety where God had been sys­tem­at­i­cally erad­i­cated over a period of
      mul­ti­ple gen­er­a­tions, I think the dif­fer­ence would become very
      evi­dent. The exper­i­ment has been tried, and for those not able to
      per­son­ally expe­ri­ence the pain and hard­ness of a soci­ety and cul­ture where God is vir­tu­ally unknown, I highly rec­om­mend Larry Taunton’s
      book on the adop­tion of his ten year old daugh­ter from the Ukraine.
      It is called The Grace Effect. I regret if you have been
      hurt by reli­gion, but I tell you that they’re not all equal, and I am con­vinced that athe­ism will serve you no
      better.

         I main­tain my argu­ment that a fam­ily
      with­out a mother and a father is a bro­ken fam­ily – for gen­er­a­tions
      we’ve con­sid­ered it a tragedy when either par­ent was lost from a
      fam­ily, and that for a mul­ti­tude of rea­sons. I hope to present some
      of them a lit­tle later.

         Sincerely,

             Rob Wagner

  • Sladner84

    The guy who wrote this is an idiot and needs to get with the times… 

  • Kooky_dave

    First of all the Bible says , “Do not judge for you too will be judged.” Sencondly, who are you in this world to say that two men or two women can not raise a child? Where are your stud­ies you speak of to back up your claims? I do not see any research for the basis of your claims.

    You or any other per­son that walks this earth has the right to tell some­one they can not marry who they love.  How is me get­ting mar­ried to my boyfriend harm­ing you or threat­ing any­one. What we do in pri­vate in our own home is of no con­cern to you or any­one else?

  • Rpd

    Utter Nonsense. your Blantant Misinterpretation of the bible is  unflat­ter­ing and as far as i know theres more admoish­ments for  het­ero­sex­ual  cou­ples than theyre are for homo­sex­ual cou­ples.  reread the dam bible before spew­ing your  nonsense

    • Emily

      Have you tried read­ing the Bible through and check­ing out what it says on the issue? Maybe you should before you flip your lid.…Show me more admon­ish­ments for homo­sex­ual cou­ples than het­ero­sex­ual cou­ples. It bla­tantly spells out how God feels about the two issues. I’m just try­ing to make a point of using th Bible as your pedestal before check­ing out the facts.

  • Kevin and Doug

    Mr. Wagner,
    We are a same-sex cou­ple of alo­most 13 years and par­ents for over 7 years, and we want to tell you that your opi­ons on gay mar­riage and same-sex par­ents is old fash­ioned and back­wards.  We take great offense to your com­par­i­son that same-sex mar­riage is no dif­fer­ent than a man mar­ry­ing an ani­mal.  We would like to know what is this soci­o­log­i­cal, edu­ca­tional, and crim­i­nal research that backs your idi­otic igno­rant claim.  We are sure most of it is spon­sored for, or was paid for, by biased groups such as One Million Moms or Focus on the Family.  Regardless of what ani­mals do or don’t do, regard­less of whether homo­sex­u­al­ity is a choice or inher­ent at birth, the fact is that igno­rant self-righteous “Christians” who sup­pos­edly fol­low Christ (which would imply love, and we read noth­ing of love in your igno­rance) should not have the right to say whether or not we can marry each other.  Our home is filled with fam­ily val­ues and love, and our son is grow­ing up to respect and learn from dif­fer­ences between individuals. 

    The only thing we do agree with you on is that mar­riage should be for life.  It has been said that the insti­tu­tion of mar­riage would weaken if gays were allowed to marry, but it seems to be het­ero­sex­u­als that are weak­en­ing that insti­tu­tion.  People treat mar­riage as a dis­pos­able item that can be thrown away at a moments notice, and this we see played out in the press with the Hilton’s and Brittany Spears of the world.  We are sick of hear­ing that same-sex cou­ples would destroy the insti­tu­tion of mar­riage when it is appar­ent that “men” and “women” seem to be doing that on their own. 

    We are expected to pay taxes, the same as het­ero­sex­u­als, but yet we are treated like “ani­mals” (as you say) by deny­ing us the same rights as het­ero­sex­u­als.  “Our Creator” cre­ated man and woman to be equals, and “Our Creator” will be the only one to judge us. 

    Come our judge­ment day we feel safe — do you?

    • Anonymous

       Beautifully said.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1247760063 Chelsea Cripps

    Your reli­gious per­spec­tive SHOULD hold no value in an edu­cated soci­ety. Unfortunately, I can’t say that things are always as they should be.
    You are enti­tled to your incred­i­bly offen­sive and incom­pe­tent views, much like any­one else. However, for these religious-based views to hold polit­i­cal power in today’s gov­ern­ment in very tragic. 
    I’m not quite sure why the bes­tial­ity argu­ment is still going around. (Most likely, because there aren’t any tan­gi­ble, log­i­cal argu­ments.) No one is argu­ing with you that that is weird, or “bad,” or “per­verse” (all very sub­jec­tive words).
    Two con­sen­sual human beings, who both work toward a lov­ing rela­tion­ship (and *cough!* pay taxes *cough!*) deserve to be in happy and com­mit­ted rela­tion­ships, and those rela­tion­ships deserve the same finan­cial ben­e­fits awarded to oth­ers in this coun­try.
    I would, maybe some­day, like to sit down with you and go over this “clin­i­cal research” you’ve found sup­port­ing your claims that same-sex par­ents have neg­a­tive effects on rais­ing chil­dren. When, in all actu­al­ity, rais­ing chil­dren is a whole seper­ate topic.… I thought we were talk­ing about mar­raige?
    Maybe we can arrange a meet­ing time, Mr. Wagner?

    • anony­mous

       I here-by agree with Ms.Cripps in regards to this. Religion should hold no value in soci­ety and also:

      “Two con­sen­sual human beings, who both work toward a lov­ing rela­tion­ship
      (and *cough!* pay taxes *cough!*) deserve to be in happy and com­mit­ted
      rela­tion­ships, and those rela­tion­ships deserve the same finan­cial
      ben­e­fits awarded to oth­ers in this country”

  • Accurate

    One thing that always puz­zles me in rela­tion to this topic is that those who prac­tice Homosexuality want to be mar­ried. Marriage is a Biblical insti­tu­tion  — it was God’s idea.  A brief Scriptural quote, if you will allow:

       “The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suit­able for him.….for this rea­son a man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:18 — 24)

    The above pas­sage describes the mar­riage of the first man and the first woman. Logically, those who believe in homo­sex­u­al­ity reject the Bible, since the Bible speaks quite plainly against the prac­tice. Why then, do those who prac­tice homo­sex­u­al­ity want to engage in a Biblically ordained prac­tice? If homose­cuals want to be con­sis­tent, they should, at the very least make up a new word for their life­long com­mit­ment and call it some­thing besides mar­riage. Either God is God and the Bible is true, or there is no God and the Bible is false — if the later is true, want­ing to be be mar­ried is silly at best.

     

     

    • Victor Serrano

      Marriage pre­dates the bible, and was a way of join­ing two blood­lines in an agree­ment of mutual gain. “God” didn’t invent it, humans did. If it was your god’s inven­tion, then why did ancient Greece, who had a com­pletely dif­fer­ent reli­gion than you, have mar­riage as an institution?

      Furthermore, mar­riage law in the United States has noth­ing to do with your reli­gion, but rather the rights and priv­i­leges granted to those who are mar­ried under law. No reli­gious argu­ment for or against gay mar­riage has any place in this debate, since it is a mat­ter of civil rights, not reli­gious beliefs.

    • Victor Serrano

      Marriage pre­dates the bible, and was a way of join­ing two blood­lines in an agree­ment of mutual gain. “God” didn’t invent it, humans did. If it was your god’s inven­tion, then why did ancient Greece, who had a com­pletely dif­fer­ent reli­gion than you, have mar­riage as an institution?

      Furthermore, mar­riage law in the United States has noth­ing to do with your reli­gion, but rather the rights and priv­i­leges granted to those who are mar­ried under law. No reli­gious argu­ment for or against gay mar­riage has any place in this debate, since it is a mat­ter of civil rights, not reli­gious beliefs.

  • Mrpiggy_74

    The first recorded act of homo­sex­u­al­ity were in fact recorded in the Bible. David & Johnathon. For his love sur­passed that of a woman. Hmmmm. God loves every­one, even hate mon­gers like you.

    • Rob Wagner

      That is sim­ply not true!  You have read into the pas­sage some­thing that is absolutely not there.  Would you treat any other his­tor­i­cal doc­u­ment so care­lessly?  However, since you brought up the doc­u­ment as evi­dence, let’s take a seri­ous look at it…

      There is a con­cept here that we should dis­cuss, and that is what love really is.  Your impli­ca­tion above, and that of oth­ers in this con­ver­sa­tion, is that love is ulti­mately expressed through sex­ual inter­course.  You’ve gone so far as to state that one implies the other.  The Biblical con­cept of love is some­thing very dif­fer­ent — the deep­est love in the Bible is that which seeks the best for another regard­less of the con­se­quences to the one who loves.

      With that in mind, take another look at the story of David and Jonathan — read 1 Samuel 20.  Here Jonathan risks his life for his friend David.  Love in the Bible is not all about what is in a rela­tion­ship for me, for we read, “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” (John 15:13 NIV)
      You’ve seen the line, “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk”?  Real love doesn’t let a per­son set out to ship­wreck their life, and the lives of oth­ers, with­out warn­ing of the dan­ger ahead.  The God who loves the world demon­strated that love by pro­vid­ing a way that we could be saved from the eter­nal pun­ish­ment due us for our rebel­lion against Him.  He says, “If you love me, you will obey what I com­mand.” (John 15:8), and “The wages of sin [dis­obe­di­ence to God] is death” (Romans 6:23).Either the Bible is not true, and there is no lov­ing God, or the Bible is true and the God who loves us also expects cer­tain things of us!

      • Anonymous

         Mr.Wagner.

        I agree with your state­ments upon love,but explain some­thing to me,how come you are try­ing to enforce your reli­gious views upon other peo­ple?
        Are you ignor­ing the fact that you did this originally?I say this is why so many peo­ple are post­ing on this page,because you enforced your reli­gious ideals upon peo­ple.
        Also sex­ual inter­course can be a form of love,it depends upon what is in the per­sons heart and why they are doing it​.It does not have to be lustful.

        • Rob Wagner

           Anonymous,

             Thank you.  Actually, I’m not at all try­ing to force my reli­gious views on peo­ple.  Whether you choose to accept my world­view is up to you.  I’m con­vinced that the Biblical Christian world­view both cor­re­sponds with real­ity (that is, it is true), and invests life with mean­ing that no other belief sys­tem does.  I do highly rec­om­mend it to you!

             Morality is some­thing quite dif­fer­ent, though.  One of the pri­mary pur­poses of gov­ern­ment is to restrain evil — you don’t have to be reli­gious at all to agree with that, let alone be a Christian.  Why, even at Ferris one of our Core Values is “Ethical Community”, and we have a vari­ety of poli­cies in place hav­ing to do with basic moral­ity.  My let­ter was in sup­port of moral­ity, not reli­gion.  Morality, how­ever, does have to have some basis…

             Sexual inter­course does have a proper and won­der­ful place in a lov­ing mar­riage — absolutely.

             Sincerely,
                       Rob Wagner

          • Anonymous

             Mr.Wagner, thank you for offer­ing your explanation.I agree with you on the fact that the bib­li­cal Christian wordview(regardless of its ori­gin) holds life with a lot of mean­ing. I respect Christianity and the fact of the morals it teaches. In fact ‚I myself used to be Christian and I still hold a lot of those morals.

                 I would like to maybe some­time get together with you and dis­cuss your opin­ions in a  proffe­sional context.

            • Rob Wagner

              Anonymous,
                 My num­ber, at Ferris, is avail­able.  Leave me a mes­sage and I’ll get back with you.

                    Rob Wagner

  • Anonymous

    I find it inter­est­ing how reli­gion can really cause peo­ple to fight and  spark a debate as large as this​.It all started from some­thing  lit­tle and has grown into a big debate. Let me pro­pose something,the fac­tor of every reli­gion is this,they are all cre­ated by man.All knowl­ege comes from some­where and every­thing orig­i­nates from somehwere.Let start a chain of rea­son­ing to hereby sup­port what I say​.My chain of rea­son­ing will be Deductive reasoning,I herby need two log­i­cal answers and facts that can be proven thereby to sup­port my end claim which makes it true.

    1*
      Man sees a object he has never seen before ‚this item is a glass, he looks at it and sees it,he wants to tell other peo­ple about it,or wants to call it something,therefore he names it glass. (This is  a logic),man there­fore give names to things,such as : a avast body of water,he calls this ocean.I big green plant that has bark and is round at the base,he calls this Tree.

    2*All knowl­ege orig­i­nates from somewhere,whether it be Christianity,Peganism,Judaism,Muslim,Islamic. They all came from some­where.  With enough research,a man who is free from reli­gious bar­ri­ers and belief can with logic and truth­ful­ness prove that even a reli­gion such as Christianity has came from a ori­gin and then became what it is,that is,unless the man is igno­rant and cocky and refuses to see the truth of what he reads.

    Therefore we can assume this: If man names things, and all knowl­ege orig­i­nates from a point of ori­gin. Religion is a name for some­thing and it orig­i­nates from a point of origin.

    All reli­gion is ‚is a name for God,each is a way to try to define who or what he believes will hap­pen when he dies​.It in a way is also a way for a man to ease is fears of what will hap­pen when he dies.how do you as a mere per­son know who god is,can you give me one log­i­cal answer with­out infus­ing reli­gion into it or using the bible ? Because those things came from man!Christianity is a man-made reli­gion! Judiaism is to!Don’t believe me,don’t be ignorant,research it and you will per­son­ally see.Man does not know,because all he has done is cre­ated a belief sys­tem to name some­thing and ease his fears of the after­life. Man is per­son­ally igno­rant on many lev­els when it comes to things and he there­fore he refuses to see truth.

    • Rob Wagner

      Anonymous,

      Most reli­gions are human inven­tions.
      Christianity does not have to do with human inven­tion, but Divine
      rev­e­la­tion. I cite as evi­dence of my claim ful­filled Biblical
      prophecy in regard to the birth, life, death, and bod­ily res­ur­rec­tion
      Jesus Christ. Information is widely avail­able, but if any­one is
      inter­ested, I’ll be happy to pro­vide it.

      Sincerely,Rob Wagner

      • Anonymous

         I don’t believe God him­self wrote the Bible.  Rather, it has been told and retold, writ­ten and rewrit­ten, edited and reed­ited by humankind for cen­turies and cen­turies.  Ergo, it’s prob­a­bly not as purely divine as you are claiming.

        Also, it is impor­tant to real­ize that the Bible was orig­i­nally cre­ated fro a very spe­cific cul­ture of peo­ple with a spe­cific set of morals dur­ing a spe­cific time in his­tory.  I’m not say­ing that they do not all apply to today, but some may be outdated.

      • http://www.facebook.com/jcmacauley Justin Macauley

        I

  • Josh_vrona

    Dear Mr. Wagner,
    I have read your let­ter to the edi­tor and fol­low­ing posts found on this web page. I would like to say that I dis­agree with the above state­ments, but feel you are enti­tled to your opin­ion. Those ask­ing for you to be fired, or insult­ing your beliefs are not going to change your opin­ion. Instead I hope to pro­vide you with rea­sons why I believe in mar­riage equal­ity.
    For sta­trters, ” How will you put any bounds on con­sen­sual sex­ual rela­tion­ships – or won’t you?” posted in your orig­i­nal edi­to­r­ial arti­cal is insin­u­at­ing that if we allow mar­riage between two men / two women, that there will be no grounds to say a per­son can’t marry ani­mals, inan­i­mate objects, etc. I how­ever dis­agree. When two peo­ple enter into mar­riage regard­less of the sex­ual makeup of the rela­tion­ship, both part­ners share the will­ing­ness to love, care, and to be faith­ful. The dif­fer­ance between the mar­riage of two peo­ple together and that of a per­son and an ani­mal, is that the two par­ties par­tic­i­pat­ing know what they are enter­ing into. No mat­ter how much a per­son may love an ani­mal, that ani­mal does not under­stand and will never under­stand what mar­riage is. Therefore, an easy divid­ing line for what can be clas­si­fied as mar­riage can be drawn.
    What makes you feel that two men or women can’t have the prepar­de­ness and com­mit­ment that a rela­tion­ship between one man and one women can? I have been with my part­ner for almost a year now and am no way near get­ting mar­ried, but in our rela­tion­ship we value the same things such as trust, kindness,and respect. Qualities that every per­son wants in a com­mit­ted rela­tion­ship. You state in a later post, ” Marriage is some­thing to be taken very seri­ously – if it were, we would have more happy homes and fewer bro­ken hearts.” Why is it you assume that homo­sex­u­als can not take mar­riage seri­ously? Is it the mis­guided rep­re­sen­ta­tion of homo­sex­u­als tak­ing part in  group orgies, NSA sex romps, or any other ill-informed sterotype? I am as GAY! as they come, but would never par­tic­i­pate in any of these sex­ual activ­i­ties. I can’t speak for every­one in the gay com­mu­nity, but I am sure that most of us would like to one day set­tle down and be with somone spe­cial.
    Secondly, I believe the authors inten­tion of pro­vid­ing exam­ples of homo­sex­u­al­ity in the ani­mal king­dom was to show that homo­sex­u­al­ity occurs not just in humans. A com­monly held belief by peo­ple who dis­agree with a homo­sex­ual lifestyle say, it is because peo­ple chose to be gay or that the devil/sin/ungodliness has made them accept an unnat­ural lifestyle. By point­ing out that homo­sex­u­al­ity occurs in the ani­mal king­dom she dis­misses this argu­ment. Seeing as how ani­mals have no souls to be cor­rupted by evil or sin. Her evi­d­ance sup­ports, that being gay is a nat­ural occur­rance. Regardless of your strong devo­tion to faith and edu­cated man such as your­self must accept the laws of evo­lu­tion. The author aimed at demon­strat­ing that because homo­sex­u­al­ity is found in other ani­mals it is purely bio­log­i­cal char­ac­ter­is­tic that can not be changed. The U.S gov­ern­ment does not, nor should it for­bid a mar­riage based on bio­log­i­cal con­cepts just because it does not occur as often as a ‘tra­di­tional’ mar­riage. That would be equiv­i­lent to say­ing that mixed racial cou­ples (bio­log­i­cal char­ac­ter­is­tics that can not be changed) should not be mar­ried because it does not occur often. Oh wait those were laws in sev­eral states up until 1967, until thank­fully the Supreme Court ruled it was uncon­sti­tu­tional in Loving v. Virginia. Did these mar­riages vio­late the sanc­tity of marriage?The answer is unques­tion­ably no, so based on past his­tor­i­cal expe­ri­ence of chang­ing mar­riage laws what will hap­pen if you allow homo­sex­u­als to marry? Answer: Nothing.
    Your argu­ment that a house­hold with a mother and father is supe­rior to a same-sex par­ent house­hold is highly faulty. Since you have never lived in such a house­hold. Do you have any expe­ri­ence with same-sex house­holds to base your judge­ments on? An arti­cal found in Times mag­a­zine fol­low­ing research done in Amsterdam showed, that kids who were raised by les­bians scored equally on devel­ope­men­tal tests, and often had higher self esteem then other kids raised by tra­di­tional house­holds. http://​www​.time​.com/​t​i​m​e​/​h​e​a​l​t​h​/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​/​0​,​8​5​9​9​,​1​9​9​4​4​8​0​,​0​0​.​h​tml pro­vided is a link to the arti­cle so you may view it your­self. I would like to see your data sup­port­ing your side. I find it hard to believe that gay cou­ples who are as pas­sion­ate about rais­ing chil­dren to go so far as to adopt them would really pro­vide an an unfit envi­ron­ment for a child.
    I also have trou­ble with your state­ment say­ing that a rela­tion­ship should have a leader and somone who is sub­mis­sive. However these are mis­guided terms what is dom­i­nant and sub­mis­sive in a rela­tion­ship? Why should in your view a women be in charge of rais­ing kids, while a man pro­tects and earns money for the house­hold? Why must house­hold activ­i­ties be reg­u­lated by gen­der? and in that ret­ro­spect why can’t two men/women offer a child the same thing het­ero­sex­ual cou­ple can. I can’t argue my beliefs on this sub­ject since your pasts posts were to vague, I how­ever can say that from going to the event put on by Zach Wahl, that his moth­ers did a great job rais­ing him. (i.e he is an Eagle Scout, Owns own busi­ness, and is grad­u­at­ing from col­lege).
    As for your argu­ments on the bible.  The Bible was writ­ten by man not god. Sure the con­cepts in the bible may be handed down by God to man, but they were recorded by man. We know men to have ulte­rior motives, the catholic church has removed sev­eral scrip­tures that don’t fit their ideal. I digress, I am not here to attack your reli­gious beliefs in any­way, but if every­one were to dis­obey what the Bible has to say all the peo­ple who eat lob­ster, the peo­ple who where clothes made out of two fab­rics, the peo­ple who plant to seeds in one field, would all be going to Hell. Religion can be a good thing, but not when it is being used as a tool to dis­crim­i­nate against peo­ple who are dif­fer­ent.
    I can say more on this sub­ject but would like to give you a chance to respond.
    Sincerly
    Josh

  • Josh_vrona

    Dear Mr. Wagner,

    I have read your let­ter to the edi­tor and fol­low­ing posts found on this web page. I would like to say that I dis­agree with the above state­ments, but feel you are enti­tled to your opin­ion. Those ask­ing for you to be fired, or insult­ing your beliefs are not going to change your opin­ion. Instead I hope to pro­vide you with rea­sons why I believe in mar­riage equal­ity.
    ——————————————————————————————————————————————
    For sta­trters, ” How will you put any bounds on con­sen­sual sex­ual rela­tion­ships – or won’t you?” posted in your orig­i­nal edi­to­r­ial arti­cal is insin­u­at­ing that if we allow mar­riage between two men / two women, that there will be no grounds to say a per­son can’t marry ani­mals, inan­i­mate objects, etc. I how­ever dis­agree. When two peo­ple enter into mar­riage regard­less of the sex­ual makeup of the rela­tion­ship, both part­ners share the will­ing­ness to love, care, and to be faith­ful. The dif­fer­ance between the mar­riage of two peo­ple together and that of a per­son and an ani­mal, is that the two par­ties par­tic­i­pat­ing know what they are enter­ing into. No mat­ter how much a per­son may love an ani­mal, that ani­mal does not under­stand and will never under­stand what mar­riage is. Therefore, an easy divid­ing line for what can be clas­si­fied as mar­riage can be drawn.
    ———————————————————————————————————————————–
    What makes you feel that two men or women can’t have the prepar­de­ness and com­mit­ment that a rela­tion­ship between one man and one women can? I have been with my part­ner for almost a year now and am no way near get­ting mar­ried, but in our rela­tion­ship we value the same things such as trust, kindness,and respect. Qualities that every per­son wants in a com­mit­ted rela­tion­ship. You state in a later post, ” Marriage is some­thing to be taken very seri­ously – if it were, we would have more happy homes and fewer bro­ken hearts.” Why is it you assume that homo­sex­u­als can not take mar­riage seri­ously? Is it the mis­guided rep­re­sen­ta­tion of homo­sex­u­als tak­ing part in  group orgies, NSA sex romps, or any other ill-informed sterotype? I am as GAY! as they come, but would never par­tic­i­pate in any of these sex­ual activ­i­ties. I can’t speak for every­one in the gay com­mu­nity, but I am sure that most of us would like to one day set­tle down and be with somone spe­cial.
    ———————————————————————————————————————————————-Secondly, I believe the authors inten­tion of pro­vid­ing exam­ples of homo­sex­u­al­ity in the ani­mal king­dom was to show that homo­sex­u­al­ity occurs not just in humans. A com­monly held belief by peo­ple who dis­agree with a homo­sex­ual lifestyle say, it is because peo­ple chose to be gay or that the devil/sin/ungodliness has made them accept an unnat­ural lifestyle. By point­ing out that homo­sex­u­al­ity occurs in the ani­mal king­dom she dis­misses this argu­ment. Seeing as how ani­mals have no souls to be cor­rupted by evil or sin. Her evi­d­ance sup­ports, that being gay is a nat­ural occur­rance. Regardless of your strong devo­tion to faith and edu­cated man such as your­self must accept the laws of evo­lu­tion. The author aimed at demon­strat­ing that because homo­sex­u­al­ity is found in other ani­mals it is purely bio­log­i­cal char­ac­ter­is­tic that can not be changed. The U.S gov­ern­ment does not, nor should it for­bid a mar­riage based on bio­log­i­cal con­cepts just because it does not occur as often as a ‘tra­di­tional’ mar­riage. That would be equiv­i­lent to say­ing that mixed racial cou­ples (bio­log­i­cal char­ac­ter­is­tics that can not be changed) should not be mar­ried because it does not occur often. Oh wait those were laws in sev­eral states up until 1967, until thank­fully the Supreme Court ruled it was uncon­sti­tu­tional in Loving v. Virginia. Did these mar­riages vio­late the sanc­tity of marriage?The answer is unques­tion­ably no, so based on past his­tor­i­cal expe­ri­ence of chang­ing mar­riage laws what will hap­pen if you allow homo­sex­u­als to marry? Answer: Nothing.
    ————————————————————————————————————————————–
    Your argu­ment that a house­hold with a mother and father is supe­rior to a same-sex par­ent house­hold is highly faulty. Since you have never lived in such a house­hold. Do you have any expe­ri­ence with same-sex house­holds to base your judge­ments on? An arti­cal found in Times mag­a­zine fol­low­ing research done in Amsterdam showed, that kids who were raised by les­bians scored equally on devel­ope­men­tal tests, and often had higher self esteem then other kids raised by tra­di­tional house­holds. http://​www​.time​.com/​t​i​m​e​/​h​e​a​l​t​h​/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​/​0​,​8​5​9​9​,​1​9​9​4​4​8​0​,​0​0​.​h​tml pro­vided is a link to the arti­cle so you may view it your­self. I would like to see your data sup­port­ing your side. I find it hard to believe that gay cou­ples who are as pas­sion­ate about rais­ing chil­dren to go so far as to adopt them would really pro­vide an an unfit envi­ron­ment for a child.
    —————————————————————————————————————————————
    I also have trou­ble with your state­ment say­ing that a rela­tion­ship should have a leader and somone who is sub­mis­sive. However these are mis­guided terms what is dom­i­nant and sub­mis­sive in a rela­tion­ship? Why should in your view a women be in charge of rais­ing kids, while a man pro­tects and earns money for the house­hold? Why must house­hold activ­i­ties be reg­u­lated by gen­der? and in that ret­ro­spect why can’t two men/women offer a child the same thing het­ero­sex­ual cou­ple can. I can’t argue my beliefs on this sub­ject since your pasts posts were to vague, I how­ever can say that from going to the event put on by Zach Wahl, that his moth­ers did a great job rais­ing him. (i.e he is an Eagle Scout, Owns own busi­ness, and is grad­u­at­ing from col­lege).
    ————————————————————————————————————————————-
    As for your argu­ments on the bible.  The Bible was writ­ten by man not god. Sure the con­cepts in the bible may be handed down by God to man, but they were recorded by man. We know men to have ulte­rior motives, the catholic church has removed sev­eral scrip­tures that don’t fit their ideal. I digress, I am not here to attack your reli­gious beliefs in any­way, but if every­one were to dis­obey what the Bible has to say all the peo­ple who eat lob­ster, the peo­ple who where clothes made out of two fab­rics, the peo­ple who plant to seeds in one field, would all be going to Hell. Religion can be a good thing, but not when it is being used as a tool to dis­crim­i­nate against peo­ple who are dif­fer­ent.
    ———————————————————————————————————————————-
    I can say more on this sub­ject but would like to give you a chance to respond.

    Sincerly

    Josh

    • Anonymous

       Very Nicely said

    • Rob Wagner

      Josh,

         Thank you for the effort you put into reply­ing to my let­ter; I’ll get back to you!

              Rob Wagner

  • Accurate

    I feel it is appro­pri­ate at this point to admon­ish the homo­sex­u­al­ity com­mu­nity to a lit­tle self-examination. Take the time to read through the post­ings in response to  Rob’s let­ter. Frankly, if I were a mem­ber of your com­mu­nity, I would be embar­rassed. While a very few of the replies are respect­ful, the major­ity do not reflect well at all on your com­mu­nity. (Let me save you some time in re-reading all the posts — here are a smat­ter­ing of the adjec­tives used to describe Rob: fanatic, bigot, rude, arro­gant, stu­pid, idi­otic, igno­rant, asi­nine, not a decent human, freak, incom­pe­tent, and more. ) Additionally there were numer­ous ref­er­ences to pri­vate parts of the human anatomy which are not nor­mally brought up in polite pro­fes­sional con­ver­sa­tion and which added noth­ing to the dia­logue. I was under the impres­sion that uni­ver­si­ties were a pro­fes­sional envi­ron­ment — per­haps that is another of my allegedly out­moded ideas. Whether you agree with Rob or not (and I hap­pen to agree with him as you will gather from my pre­vi­ous post), it is pos­si­ble to debate ideas in an open forum with­out stoop­ing to abu­sive lan­guage, vul­gar­ity, and per­sonal attacks. 

    I was  also led to believe that uni­ver­si­ties were sup­posed to be places where ideas could be dis­cussed in an open minded fash­ion — where “diver­sity” was accepted. That is any­thing but evi­dent here. Ms. Anger pre­sented an idea in the Torch. Rob hap­pens to dis­agree with that idea and appar­ently has rea­sons for what he believes. Rob wrote a respect­ful let­ter explain­ing why he believes that his idea is cor­rect and Mr. Anger’s is incor­rect. From there the con­ver­sa­tion has taken a dive right into the dump­ster. Apparently, the “diverse” com­mu­nity only accepts  their own right to diver­sity, but not the right of those who have dif­fer­ent ideas that their own. Some have even called for Rob to be fired because of his stance. That, my friends, is NOT diver­sity. Think about if for a while before you begin exco­ri­at­ing me (then have at it — I’m used to it!)

    One more thing while I’m on a roll. Rob has been repeat­edly accused of “hatred” and “hate mon­ger­ing”. That is ridicu­lous. There is noth­ing in Rob’s let­ter to indi­cate that Rob exudes hate. He expressed an idea — he did not say he hated any­one. Just because some­one dis­agrees with your posi­tion does not mean they hate you. I do not agree with homo­sex­u­al­ity — I don’t agree with homo­sex­ual mar­riage, but I do not hate peo­ple who prac­tice homo­sex­u­al­ity.  I have worked and gone to school peace­ably with such peo­ple. I can carry on a civil dis­course with them. From the tone of some of the responses though, I ques­tion if there may not be some hatred directed toward Rob. Frankly, if the con­ver­sa­tion can’t be raised above this level it may be time for some here to stop kid­ding them­selves about who is open-minded, who is hate­ful, and who is diverse.

     

    • Anonymous

               Hence,this is why reli­gion should never be brought into con­ver­sa­tions such as these,religious beleifs will start noth­ing but argue­ments and debates among indi­vid­u­als and then the debates will often turn into fights and then per­sonal hatred among individuals..The cur­rent debates over homo­sex­u­al­ity in are coun­try in my per­sonal opin­ion are result­ing from reli­gious beliefs and indi­vid­u­als whose reli­gion influ­ences their morals.

             I study philosophy,religion and a vari­a­tion of other things  and once told a indi­vid­ual who stud­ied phi­los­o­phy  this, “when a indi­vid­ual desires to study philosophy,he should have a open mind and be free from per­sonal reli­gious beliefs which may hin­der the per­sonal talks and deep dis­cus­sions phi­los­o­phy brings,because indi­vid­u­als often argue over phi­los­o­phy and get into fights from their reli­gious beliefs.” and why should this be removed from dis­cus­sions such as these? Because they are a per­sonal thing and hin­der someone,they hin­der the abil­ity to dis­cuss and respect anoth­ers per­sons beleifs and cloud the mind from its full abil­ity to  debate and talk.

             Although I do not per­son­ally hate Mr.Wagner,I respect him for his beliefs,his view point comes from a Christian Perspective and this per­spc­tive influ­ences what he writes.These influ­ence the morals he has. Hence the rea­son I wrote about Religion and the truth about it. I am only try­ing to point out the truth and from what I under­stand is being said here.

  • Stephan Ziemba

    Rob, It just blows our minds that you and those agree­ing with your posi­tion don’t see the limb you’re out on. Are you claim­ing that Jesus is the author­ity that has deemed mar­riage as a strictly pro­cre­ative union?
    You have no evi­dence of this.
    If you could prove some­one named Jesus ever said this, you can not prove that Jesus’ author­ity to define some­thing that each cou­ple or group or indi­vid­ual has defined for them­selves and their maker for eons before Jesus stood.
    Your claim of CoEd parental supe­ri­or­ity has no more weight than some­one say­ing, “I ate Vanilla Ice Cream so no one has the right to eat choco­late and call that Ice Cream, and Chocolate is wrong!“
    No offense, Rob, but there’s a rea­son you are a tech­ni­cian and not a pro­fes­sor. A Christian Professor would have actu­ally attempted to describe the link between this opin­ion and the deities, while still hav­ing no more grasp of the sim­ple logic of rights and the logic of author­ity. Before one can impose on oth­ers as you do, you must demon­strate your author­ity, which you have already admit­ted you don’t have.
    Please show us a chain of logic, that backs up your claim. The con­flict­ing logic is sim­ply that there is no author­ity which has a right to sanc­tion mar­riage out­side of the only peo­ple involved directly in the union! Edison patented the light bulb. Who patented mar­riage? I guar­an­tee you, it is in pub­lic domain today!
    I would also like to add that while I believe in the true spirit of Christ regard­less of whether he walked in this real­ity or any other uni­verse, that those who would let him hang on that cross to pay for their sins would ever make a remark regard­ing some­one else’ sins, is in such oppo­si­tion to the fun­da­men­tal teach­ings of that Christ, that the hypocrisy is unsurpassed!

    NOW, let’s talk sci­ence! There are over 310,000,000 cit­i­zens in the United States alone. One out of EVERY hun­dred is deemed to be of sci­en­tif­i­cally inde­ter­mi­nate gen­der. Please do some research on this. What this means is that while these peo­ple may have pre­dom­i­nantly formed traits of one gen­der, there genetic code can be com­pletely oppo­site from the dom­i­nant gen­i­talia. Your hint that an argu­ment can be made that we can choose who to be attracted to, is pre­pos­ter­ous given the moun­tains of data we have on hor­monal effect. That is 3,100,000 US cit­i­zens of INDETERMINATE GENDER!

    And please Rob, the teach­ings of Jesus are for per­sonal moral intro­spec­tion. Even if you had a degree in divin­ity, I could not per­son­ally rec­og­nize your self pro­claimed “right” to inter­pret and preach Christ’s words until you have demon­strated the small­est com­pre­hen­sion of them and a real author­ity to do so.

    By now, the Bibles are lit­tle more than cheat sheets and gos­sip by ANY God’s stan­dards! All of you mass reli­gious con­formists claim the authen­tic­ity of your deities, yet rely on and spread noth­ing but hearsay, libel, and slan­der far above any per­sonal wit­ness to the inten­tions of God and Christ! You are con­fus­ing your spir­i­tual con­nec­tion to your peers, with your spir­i­tual con­nec­tion to Christ and God! Please stop. You have less author­ity to preach reli­gion then you have to prac­tice med­i­cine, yet you are injur­ing peo­ple spir­i­tu­ally far greater than you could harm some­one phys­i­cally by pre­scrib­ing phar­macy. You can­not know Christ or God until you see them in whole in the spirit of those who you would most despise or chal­lenge. When you have made this sacra­ment many times, you will begin to see your own place and the place of oth­ers bond­ing in life, and rec­og­nize the rights that you can not define or deny others.

    Stephan Ziemba

    • Anonymous

       True

  • Stephan Ziemba

    Rob-[“I expe­ri­enced what it was like to have both, and I’m here to tell you
    that there’s no sub­sti­tute”]  
    There is no sub­sti­tute for any par­ent, teacher, role model, or care­giver. Rob, you argue as though some­one was try­ing to sub­sti­tute some­one else for your mommy and daddy. Such is not the case and nei­ther is it true that your mom and dad were the per­fect par­ents. Most of us read­ing this thread would cite your intol­er­ance of oth­ers’ activ­i­ties that have no bear­ing on your life what so ever and no pre­sumed bad effect on those they do affect. We are each unique, and offer dif­fer­ent per­spec­tives that are all vital to grow­ing and learn­ing. What I mean by “dif­fer­ent per­spec­tives” is, peo­ple who accept dif­fer­ences, are not peo­ple who use leg­is­la­tion to restrict dif­fer­ences nor are they peo­ple who claim that it is respect­ful to say or write that these dif­fer­ences are invalid, immoral, or igno­rant in any way when none of these traits can be argued with any sup­port­ing evi­dence. On the con­trary, it is all of invalid, immoral, and main­tains the high­est bar of igno­rance to do so.

    Rob-[“and a great deal of soci­o­log­i­cal,
    edu­ca­tional, and crim­i­nal research sup­ports my claim.”] Bullshit! It is never intel­lec­tu­ally sound to claim that any con­clu­sion derived from a sta­tis­tic that is not labeled exactly as your con­clu­sion is stated, is merely a leap of faith, to put it politely, but an igno­rant fab­ri­ca­tion to put it more accu­rately!  Linking parental gen­der dis­tri­b­u­tion as the dom­i­nant sta­tis­tic pro­duc­ing a par­tic­u­lar detri­men­tal effect on some­one, when the only affect on a child’s growth is merely the abun­dance or short­age of the par­tic­u­lar skill being called upon to con­vey a par­tic­u­lar les­son, is pre­cisely the kind of thing that gives lawyers and sta­tis­ti­cians bad rap. It there­for works no bet­ter for you.

    Rob, your employ­ers are bound by law to enforce diver­sity and fair­ness. Your abuse of diver­sity by regur­gi­tat­ing your big­otry as an iden­ti­fied employee of the uni­ver­sity is by no means a civil act, as some writ­ing in your defense have invented. On the con­trary, you should very well con­sider it to be a threat to your con­tin­ued employ­ment. This would be a pre­fect oppor­tu­nity for an insti­tu­tion to cull the herd to send out a sig­nal to harder to replace employ­ees that this will not be tolerated.

    If you or your sup­port­ers feel there is even a hint of irony here, let me make this clear to all. You are being intol­er­ant of morally upstand­ing behav­ior whereas we are merely being intol­er­ant of INTOLERANCE! While I am in no way asso­ci­ated with your employ­ers, I will add that if I were your boss, I would be sorely tempted to place you out on the street before you ever had a chance to read a sin­gle reply to your post! I might offer you the chance to recant your posi­tion con­vinc­ingly after tak­ing a class on tol­er­ance. If you’re still hing up on the term tol­er­ant, I refer you to your own poorly stated slip­pery slope argu­ment where you threaten civ­i­liza­tion with bes­tial­ity if we don’t hit the brakes on gay mar­riage! I really hate how much I love irony!

    • Conan Bell

             I think that is being a lit­tle to harsh on this indi­vid­ual. I think if anything,he made a mis­take and now hope­fully he will lis­ten to oth­ers feel­ing about what he posted and hope­fully  might have learned some­thing from the post­ings of oth­ers who have expressed their feel­ings over his post­ing I think it is going to the extremes to sug­gest fire­ing him over some­thing when he was express­ing his own feelings.

          

        

    • Amy

      Stephan,

         I’d like to point out that there are cer­tain behav­iors which our soci­ety is intol­er­ant of, and rightly so — theft or mur­der, for instance, and even cheat­ing, for which dis­ci­pli­nary pro­ce­dures are in place at Ferris.  Because these behav­iors are unac­cept­able, those who choose to engage in them can expect to suf­fer the con­se­quences imposed by an “intol­er­ant” society.

         You may be aware that there is a major world reli­gion (one which stands in sharp con­trast to the teach­ings of the Bible) which would impose severe con­se­quences on indi­vid­u­als who engage in homo­sex­ual behav­ior.  In con­trast, although Rob con­sid­ers the behav­ior of homo­sex­u­al­ity unac­cept­able, he has shown no ani­mos­ity toward the indi­vid­u­als who con­sider it acceptable.

        As one who is very famil­iar with the teach­ings of the Bible, it is strik­ing how sim­i­lar Rob’s stance is to the atti­tude of God toward sin and the sin­ner.  For instance, when a woman caught in adul­tery was brought to Jesus for judg­ment, He did not con­demn her to death, but He did tell her to go and sin no more.  He did not con­demn the sin­ner, but He did con­demn the sin.

         Since God con­demns sin, why does He not con­demn the sin­ner?  We may find an answer in a quo­ta­tion from the Bible, taken from 2 Peter 3, where, speak­ing of a com­ing “day of judg­ment”, we read this of God the Judge, “He is patient with you, not want­ing any­one to per­ish, but every­one to come to repen­tance.”  Acts 17:31 tells us that God has set a day when He will judge the world with jus­tice.  In the mean­while, though, God’s desire is that men would repent — that they would agree with God that they are the sin­ner that deserves His judgment.

      I rec­om­mend to you that you take advan­tage of the oppor­tu­nity God has given you to repent and be rec­on­ciled to Him, as I have been.

  • David Bell

    I want to voice my opin­ion on some­thing and this is not to Mr.Wagner,but to  some indi­vid­u­als in gen­eral. This topic here I have noticed has caused a lot of differn’t indi­vid­u­als to be upset (includ­ing myself)and I start­ing to notice that some of the com­ments are get­ting rather hurtful,bashful and rude to the indi­vid­ual in gen­eral and are start­ing to say things such as ”

    “I will add that if I were your boss, I would be sorely tempted to place
    you out on the street before you ever had a chance to read a sin­gle
    reply to your post! ”

    Although I highly per­son­ally dis­like the response Mr.Wagner made,I have to come to the defense of him and per­son­ally say,I think every­one is enti­tled to their own opin­ion of things and this has noth­ing to do with his job at Ferris State.Just like I am enti­tled to write some­thing He sim­ply wrote a arti­cle and maybe he did make a mistake,maybe he worded it wrong,but this is what makes him for who he is and he is enti­tled to that as a individual,he can say some­thing what he feels.
    I think by insult­ing him,calling him names,or say­ing he should be fired is only a expres­sion of anger and this is being feuled by other peo­ples com­ments and views.I think we should be dis­cussing this as mature indi­vid­u­als in a proffe­sional con­text just as I am.

      

    • Stephan Ziemba

      That’s very big of you, Anonymous, but you are in denial regard­ing how seri­ous this is.  Ferris State is charged with main­tain­ing a diver­sity safe envi­ron­ment for both it’s employ­ees and it’s cus­tomers. I would give Mr. Wagner a choice. But they don’t have to do that. Welcome to the big leagues, boys and girls. You are expected to have passed kinder­garten when you work for a uni­ver­sity. Ferris has to choose now between being lenient on Rob, which would send a sig­nal to oth­ers that fur­ther chal­lenges could be tol­er­ated, or mak­ing an exam­ple of him in a way that’s fair but leaves no room for ques­tion whether this will be tol­er­ated. It is well past the time when any pro­fes­sional envi­ron­ment can have the lux­ury of allow­ing this dis­sen­sion to occur and cul­ti­vate. If you want a bet­ter world and a bet­ter gov­ern­ment, some­body has to make a stand. Every prob­lem we are hav­ing is due as much and more so to apa­thy and lack of  for­ti­tude as it is to the tyrants that usurp our rights and dig­nity from us. I feel very sorry for Mr. Wagner. I feel sor­rier for those who felt they had no safe future and ended their lives because of the inces­sant road­blocks thrown up by those who have no real vested inter­est other than appeas­ing oth­ers of the same igno­rance and assump­tion that the lives of oth­ers are open for their unwar­ranted inter­fer­ence and abuse.

      • http://www.facebook.com/jcmacauley Justin Macauley

        ..

      • http://www.facebook.com/jcmacauley Justin Macauley

        My appolo­gies for going under a anony­mous name .Yes I under­stand where you are com­ing from Stephan and if that is the way you feel about the situation,then I respect that and yes I can agree with you to some extent ‚but I also see it as him mak­ing a response to some­thing and he is enti­tled to the free­dom of speech,but yes I agree to that  he should also respect oth­ers and be aware of the impact to oth­ers  of some­things he says and he should have thought about what he said first before say­ing in a stu­dent body newspaper.

             Also,as I have said sev­eral times on this page,I think reli­gion should not be involved in things and mat­ters such as these and reli­gion should per­son­ally be kept to your­self and his com­ments have purely been influ­enced by Christianity. I wrote a response below to his response to some­thing I wrote regard­ing reli­gion. I pre­sented log­i­cal truth regard­ing Christianity and its ori­gin and pointed out how he is “Claiming his reli­gion is true”.

  • Stephan Ziemba

    Rob — [“That’s not a new or fringe idea – our gov­ern­ment thinks mar­riage is quite important”]

    As another com­menter pointed out, your impli­ca­tion is that same sex
    cou­ples don’t think it’s impor­tant. First, if that were so we would not
    be hav­ing this “dis­cus­sion”. Second, Half of het­ero mar­riages are tossed
    aside. You’re mak­ing a case that there is not much to pro­tect from some­one who is no threat in the first place.

    Rob, the fact that you have no clue how many lines you have crossed as a stated employee of Ferris State, speak­ing on behalf of dif­fer­ent groups and orga­ni­za­tions, and stretch­ing logic long past any break­ing point with state­ments like “our gov­ern­ment thinks”.…  How often do we see the ACLU make dough out of gov­ern­ment agen­cies and edu­ca­tional insti­tu­tions who do not act to address peo­ple with this poor behavior!

    You’re com­ing to an artillery bat­tle with a bro­ken, chewed up rub­ber band. When your dog eats your whole Crayola box, please don’t try to make art out of what he’s done and for God’s sake stop using them in your col­or­ing book!.

    You really don’t want to dig in where you’re stand­ing… Check your shoes!

  • http://www.facebook.com/jcmacauley Justin Macauley

    I want to write one last reply to Mr.Wagner regard­ing the sub­ject that was being addressed here.I hope you will read this and take this into consideration,but not just my comments,but all of them on this page in gen­eral left by alot of peo­ple from Ferris. First and foremost,Mr.Wagner,I respect you for what­ever your beliefs are,and I you are enti­tled to believe what­ever you want as a person,but also I think you should keep in mind the neg­a­tive impacts that can come from involv­ing your beleifs as you did here(I think a major­ity of the peo­ple that posted here ‚would probaly back me up on this state­ment.) I think what you wrote here — I am refer­ing to every­thing you posted — was either directly or non-directly influ­enced by your Christian beliefs. I don’t know what will hap­pen to you or what con­se­quences you may face as a result of what you posted,but just some advice and I think you should per­son­ally keep those out of any­thing you post or do in the future and those should per­son­ally be kept to yourself.

         Also Mr.Wagner,I would encour­age you to also learn more about “Christianity” and its origins,you seem to be igno­rant of its ori­gins and to some extents your own religion.I used to be Christian myself,so I know much about the reli­gion as I was Christian and part of a denom­i­na­tion with pas­tors that really engrained the study of the bible into me.
    I pointed out in  a log­i­cal train of thought and based it upon deduc­tive rea­son­ing and ana­lyt­i­cal rea­son­ing the rea­son there are so many reli­gions and why reli­gions are point­less  and I recieved a response to it from you ‚with this,I was able to fur­ther under­stand you a lit­tle better.

    *My train of rea­son­ing was the fact,that all reli­gions orig­i­nate from man himself,regardless of who it is​.In the sci­ence of deduc­tive rea­son­ing and the train of thought,it is hereby assumed that when two true state­ments and pieces of evi­dence are given,the final con­clu­sion result­ing from those two pieces of evi­dence are true​.My two peices of truth to sup­port the final con­clud­ing deduc­tion are log­i­cal and true.

    1*
      Man sees a object he has never seen before ‚this item is a
    glass, he looks at it and sees it,he wants to tell other peo­ple about
    it,or wants to call it something,therefore he names it glass. (This is  a
    logic),man there­fore give names to things,such as : a avast body of
    water,he calls this ocean.I big green plant that has bark and is round
    at the base,he calls this Tree.

    2*All knowl­ege orig­i­nates
    from somewhere,whether it be
    Christianity,Peganism,Judaism,Muslim,Islamic. They all came from
    some­where.  With enough research,a man who is free from reli­gious
    bar­ri­ers and belief can with logic and truth­ful­ness prove that even a
    reli­gion such as Christianity has came from a ori­gin and then became
    what it is,that is,unless the man is igno­rant and cocky and refuses to
    see the truth of what he reads.

    Therefore we can assume this: If
    man names things, and all knowl­ege orig­i­nates from a point of ori­gin.
    Religion is a name for some­thing and it orig­i­nates from a point of
    origin.”

    (*Your response to my logic was this)

    “Anonymous,

    Most reli­gions are human inven­tions.
    Christianity does not have to do with human inven­tion, but Divine
    rev­e­la­tion. I cite as evi­dence of my claim ful­filled Biblical
    prophecy in regard to the birth, life, death, and bod­ily res­ur­rec­tion
    Jesus Christ. Information is widely avail­able, but if any­one is
    inter­ested, I’ll be happy to pro­vide it.

    Sincerely,Rob Wagner ”

    (*I pointed out that as you say you are cor­rect in some areas of what you were saying,but again you based them upon your Christian background,you failed to see what I was saying.)

    “Christianity does not have to do with human inven­tion, but Divine
    rev­e­la­tion.“
    Chrisitianity is a man-made reli­gion ‚it is has a point of ori­gin like
    every other reli­gion there is ‚it orig­i­nates from some­place and say­ing
    that it orig­i­nates from god I per­son­ally feel is impy­ing that you are
    try­ing to say that it orig­i­nates from a true deity.Everything comes from
    somewhere.

    (*As quoted here,this is where you prove your igno­rance of my logic)

    “I cite as evi­dence of my claim ful­filled Biblical
    prophecy in regard to the birth, life, death, and bod­ily res­ur­rec­tion
    Jesus Christ”

    Your
    bas­ing your the­ory of  it upon the bible,although I agree with you on that aspect,but
    the truth is ‚the story of Jesus Christ itself is flawed,the fact is the
    bible itself is flawed. The truth Mr.Wagner is Jesus Christ is a
    myth,much of Christianity came from other reli­gions and was incor­po­rated
    into what it is now. Mythrasim is one of those reli​gions​.As I
    said,religion’s have a point of ori­gin as do all oth­ers. I cite this to
    sup­port my claim about one of those rel­gions and this is Mythraism,taken
    from this link “http://​jdstone​.org/​c​r​/​f​i​l​e​s​/mi…”)

    *In the end you based your logic from the bible it does not add up to my log­i­cal state­ments and the fac­tor is ‚Judaism is another big religion,do you know,they claim to be the true reli­gion to? So does a few other reli­gions. A rec­om­mend study­ing reli­gion and learn­ing about it.Truth is ‚reli­gion is all but a name,you limit your­self to with religion.

    Also lastly,I agree with every­one here and my opi­ons are ‚I will defend the Gay,Lesbian and Transgender com­mu­nity and per­son­ally say there is noth­ing wrong in any­way with Gay Marriage and also the log­i­cal rea­son peo­ple want gay mar­riage (Beside a rea­son to feel they are together with that per­son they love for­ever) is that its unequal to oth­ers . Why can a straight coulpe get mar­ried and yet gay cou­ple can’t?  —–Insert Christian,or other religious/homophobic rea­son here——- I see this as being com­pa­ra­ble to say­ing a African American per­son can­not do some­thing because they are black .I dis­like racism and I also dis­like big­otry com­ing from people,I love peo­ple and I see noth­ing  wrong with this.Why don’t you back up for a minute and put your­self into the shoes of these people.How would you like it if you were told you could not use the restroom some­where because you were white,or you were not allowed to work or go to col­lege all because of your color.How does that make you feel?Not nice ehh?Thats how this com­mu­nity feels and I hope you come to a real­iza­tion of this.

    I wish you the best Mr.Wagner and I hope you learn from the mis­takes pre­sented here,it might be wise for you to also appol­o­gize as this may spare you from the impact of the con­se­quences from your postings/letter at fer­ris ‚that is,if they decide to do this.

    Sincerely,

    Justin Macauley

  • Rob Wagner

    Before reply­ing to addi­tional indi­vid­ual com­ments, I want to return to
    my orig­i­nal argu­ment when I asked, “How will you put any bounds on
    con­sen­sual sex­ual rela­tion­ships — or won’t you?  Must we accept of
    humans any behav­ior found in the ani­mal world?”  Some of you may feel
    that my ques­tion is extreme and be hon­estly offended by it.  In any case, I believe that
    only one indi­vid­ual has attempted a par­tial response to the ques­tion -
    the argu­ment still stands largely undam­aged despite a lot of strong
    rhetoric.  There are some very inter­est­ing side con­ver­sa­tions occur­ring,
    but per­haps if I explain my argu­ment in more detail we can have a more
    prof­itable dis­cus­sion on the main topic.

    First we need to rec­og­nize that this is not, as some have sug­gested, an
    issue of the reli­gious beliefs of a few.  It is a ques­tion of
    world­views.  A world­view is an over­ar­ch­ing set of ideas through which a
    per­son views and under­stands the world around them.  All world­views rely
    on cer­tain foun­da­tional assump­tions; some are the­is­tic and oth­ers
    athe­is­tic; some are of a reli­gious nature.  Most of those tak­ing issue
    with the con­cept of the tra­di­tional fam­ily have been argu­ing from
    view­points largely con­sis­tent with the Secular Humanist and Postmodern
    world­views.  Secular Humanism is an athe­is­tic world­view in which man is
    wor­shiped instead of God.  Postmodernism is also an athe­is­tic world­view;
    both of these world­views hold ethics to be rel­a­tive, not absolute.

    Robert N. Whitehurst, a Humanist, writ­ing of a goal of see­ing the fam­ily
    recon­sti­tuted in dif­fer­ent forms lists a num­ber of pos­si­ble
    alter­na­tives to tra­di­tional mar­riage includ­ing “mod­i­fied open mar­riage
    (open to adul­tery), tri­ads, coop­er­a­tives, col­lec­tives, urban com­munes,
    extended inti­mates, swing­ing and group mar­riage, and part-time
    mar­riage”. (1)  Lester Kirkendall in a doc­u­ment signed by a num­ber of
    human­ists includ­ing Paul Kurtz and Albert Ellis “advo­cates a sim­i­lar
    list of alter­na­tive lifestyles, includ­ing homo­sex­u­al­ity, bisex­u­al­ity,
    pre-and extra-marital sex­ual rela­tion­ships (‘with the con­sent of one’s
    part­ner’) and some­thing called ‘gen­i­tal asso­ci­a­tions.’” (2)  Michel
    Foucault, a Postmodernist, “embraced all sex­ual activ­ity as
    per­mis­si­ble”.  I quote from the excel­lent book “Understanding the Times“
    by David A. Noebel; see foot­notes for pri­mary sources.

    You can see that the con­cept of vir­tu­ally unlim­ited con­sen­sual sex­ual
    rela­tion­ships did not orig­i­nate with me.  I now repeat my ques­tion -
    based on the logic expressed by Ms. Anger, how will you put any bounds
    on con­sen­sual sex­ual rela­tion­ships — or, like those I have quoted above,
    will you not do so?  Although you may have been taught such in school,
    do you really believe that there are no moral absolutes, that no action
    is absolutely wrong, regard­less of the cir­cum­stances?  If there are such
    things as moral bound­aries and absolutes, where do they come from?

    Sincerely,

          Rob Wagner

    1. Robert N. Whitehurst, “Alternative Life-styles,” The Humanist, May/June 1975, pg25-26

    2. Lester Kirkendall, “A New Bill of Sexual Rights and Responsibilities” (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1976, pg 9)

  • guest

    This is one of the lamest things I have ever read.  Its so stu­pid that I feel like I am low­er­ing my own bar by even respond­ing to it, but frankly if there is one thing that gets me going its this kind of big­oted pro­pa­ganda.   So here I go. 

    I would like to chal­lenge Mr Wagner’s claim that a  ” great deal of soci­o­log­i­cal, edu­ca­tional, and crim­i­nal research sup­ports my claim (that a male/female mar­riage is supe­rior)”.  This is hog­wash. There are no such stud­ies that have any cred­i­bil­ity..  Empirical stud­ies on this issue over­whelm­ingly val­i­date the claim that there are no dif­fer­ences in the chil­dren raised by a straight cou­ple and those raised in same sex part­ner­ships.   They are no more and no less psy­cho­log­i­cally grounded.  They are equal.   Mr Wagner  can prob­a­bly post stud­ies that seem to sub­stan­ti­ate his point, but they’ll be from his ver­sion of Christianity and thus will be skewed to be homo­pho­bic.  His impli­ca­tion is that male/female mar­riages some­how pro­duce chil­dren of more sound minds.  It’s not true.  See for your­self by doing a five minute search on Google.  

    Mr.  Wagner claims that he “can’t be con­vinced that being raised by two women, or two men, is equal to being raised by a mother and a father”.   I believe him.  I believe he will never be con­vinced in spite of the moun­tains of empir­i­cal data to the con­trary.  People like him rarely change.  What he claims to be his “Christian world­view” pre­vents him from under­stand­ing this one sim­ple truth:  When any one per­son is oppressed then all of human­ity is dimin­ished.  People like him can’t under­stand that.  They are too full of faith to be both­ered with that kind of compassion.

    A  right is some­thing some­one is enti­tled to.  A civil right is the right of a cit­i­zen to have the same rights as all other cit­i­zens.  Gay men and women have been denied this civil right;  and yet some of them—right now–are  fight­ing and dying in wars to defend the demo­c­ra­tic rights of reli­gious fun­da­men­tal­ists who are prob­a­bly not so unlike Mr. Wagner.  These sol­diers are defending–sometimes with their lives–Mr. Wagner’s rights too.  They are defend­ing his free­dom of speech so he can  say things like he has said in this post.   In spite of that Mr. Wagner, because of his “Christian world­view”  would deny even them the right that all other cit­i­zens in this coun­try have.…..the right to share their lives in the sanc­tity of a legal mar­riage.   He’s too much of a Christian to allow that.

    Mr. Wagner have a look at this: http://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​1​V​n​E​e​x​I​h​BTU

  • http://www.facebook.com/jcmacauley Justin Macauley

    I take back what I said pre­vi­ously and I sup­port Robert Wagner in what he was say­ing here.

     “I can’t be con­vinced that being raised by two women, or two men, is
    equal to being raised by a mother and father.  ”

     It is and never will be the same to being raised by a mother and father,the fam­ily struc­ture is not the same first of all and it is not the way Christ intended it to be.The way God cre­ated people,was male and female  and I site my source from here: :

    27     So God cre­ated man in his own image,

    in the image of God he cre­ated him;

    rmale and female he cre­ated them.

    r ch. 2:18, 21–23; 5:2; Mal. 2:15; Matt. 19:4; Mark 10:6
    The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. Wheaton : Standard Bible Society, 2001, S. Ge 1:27

    In defense to my brother,Mr.Steve Wagner I will per­son­ally say,the rea­son he is say­ing things and now me (There is a few things I dis­agree with,but that is human nature)is because of this.
    “And there is asalvation bin no one else, for cthere is no other dname under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” “
    a ch. 13:26; 28:28; John 4:22; Heb. 2:3; Jude 3

    b [1 Tim. 2:5]

    c [Gal. 1:7]

    d ch. 10:43; Luke 24:47; John 20:31

    The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. Wheaton : Standard Bible Society, 2001, S. Ac 4:12

    20 for lwe can­not but speak of what mwe have seen and heard.”
    l [Amos 3:8; John 15:27; 1 Cor. 9:16]

    m ch. 22:15; 1 John 1:1, 3

    The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. Wheaton : Standard Bible Society, 2001, S. Ac 4:20

    I don’t think I need any other words then that (that was refer­ing to Christ Jesus)We can­not help but preach about the Truth.

    10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet othe world did not know him. 11 He came to phis own,2 and qhis own people3 rdid not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, swho believed in his name, the gave the right uto become vchildren of God, 13 who wwere born, xnot of blood ynor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
    14 And zthe Word abecame flesh and bdwelt among us, cand we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of dgrace and etruth.
    n Isa. 49:6; 1 John 2:8

    o [ch. 16:3; 1 John 3:1]

    p Matt. 21:38

    2 Greek to his own things; that is, to his own domain, or to his own people

    q ch. 13:1

    3 People is implied in Greek

    r ch. 5:43; [ch. 3:11, 32]

    s See 1 John 5:13

    t 1 John 5:1

    u 1 John 3:1; [Matt. 5:45]

    v [Gal. 3:26]; See ch. 11:52

    w James 1:18; [ch. 3:3; 1 Pet. 1:3]

    x 1 Pet. 1:23

    y ch. 3:6

    z ver. 1

    a Rom. 1:3; 8:3; Gal. 4:4; Phil. 2:7, 8; Col. 1:22; 1 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 2:14; 1 John 4:2; 2 John 7; [ch. 6:51]

    b Rev. 7:15; 21:3

    c ch. 2:11; Luke 9:32; 2 Pet. 1:16, 17; 1 John 1:1; 4:14

    d See ver. 7

    e [ch. 14:6]

    The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. Wheaton : Standard Bible Society, 2001, S. Jn 1:8–14

    19 pAnd this is the judg­ment: qthe light has come into the world, and rpeople loved the dark­ness rather than the light because stheir works were evil. 20 tFor every­one who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, ulest his works should be exposed. 21 But who­ever vdoes what is true wcomes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been car­ried out in God.”
    p [ch. 9:39]
    q See ch. 1:4, 5, 9
    r [Isa. 30:10; Jer. 5:31]
    s ch. 7:7
    t [Job 24:13; Rom. 13:12; Eph. 5:13]
    u Eph. 5:11, 13
    v 1 John 1:6
    w Ps. 139:23, 24
    The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. Wheaton : Standard Bible Society, 2001, S. Jn 3:19–21

    25 iO right­eous Father, even though jthe world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me. 26 kI made known to them your name, and I will con­tinue to make it known, that the love lwith which you have loved me may be in them, and mI in them.”
    i Jer. 12:1; [ver. 11; Rev. 16:5]; See 1 John 1:9

    j See ch. 8:55; 10:15

    k ver. 6; ch. 15:15

    l ver. 23; ch. 15:9

    m See ver. 23

    The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. Wheaton : Standard Bible Society, 2001, S. Jn 17:24–26
    “I am lthe way, and mthe truth, and nthe life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 oIf you had known me, you would have pknown my Father also.
    l Heb. 9:8; 10:20; [Eph. 2:18]

    m ch. 1:14, 17; [1 John 5:20]

    n See ch. 11:25

    o ch. 8:19

    p 1 John 2:13, 14

    4 Or If you know me, you will know my Father also, or If you have known me, you will know my Father also

    q [ch. 6:46]

    The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. Wheaton : Standard Bible Society, 2001, S. Jn 14:6–7

  • Gary

    It just amazes me how pre­dictable the argue­ment for mar­riage between a man and a woman is the only mar­riage that should be allowed in this coun­try.  First of all, there is no right for any­one to be ‘mar­ried’ in our con­sti­tu­tion, but it is a ‘law’ that men and woman should get a license for such a pur­pose as to legally bind them­selves together as one, and in so doing, become ‘one’ in the states eyes.  That being said, if a man and a woman are to be mar­ried, they should not be allowed to be divorced, how can a cou­ple that has become ‘one’ be split again as if they were two.  If you made a vow, ‘for bet­ter or worse, richer or poorer, in sick­ness and in health, till death us do part’, then for the laws sake, if you were to split, then you should be put in jail, return any ben­e­fit the state gave you because of that ‘law’, and, if you have any rela­tion­ship out­side that ‘mar­riage’, you should be held in con­tempt of that law, and be jailed.
    Now, hav­ing said that, I have been with the same man for 32 years, have no rights other than what has been drawn up by legal doc­u­ments to pro­tect our­selves from self serv­ing big­oted peo­ple, and have watched oppo­site sex part­ner­ships split and divorce faster than any gay cou­ple, and in hav­ing chil­dren, destroyed lives in so doing. 
    As our uni­form ser­vices goes, so goes the coun­try, and one day, when I am old, after hav­ing worked for 50 years, will know that my part­ner, my soul­mate, will enjoy the same ben­e­fit that those who sup­port mar­riage between a man and a woman, who even­tu­ally ‘divorce’ any­way, should have.  If you want a mar­riage, then go to the church or tem­ple of your choice, but by law,  a piece of paper, legally bind­ing two peo­ple together, in the states eyes, should be issued to all.  I will win this, the supreme court will uphold my right and in so doing, give to my part­ner, the same pro­tec­tion it gives to peo­ple who are bigots.