web_tb_Quinns-Aug2012

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​.buddybuddy​.com/​s​u​r​v​e​y​.​h​tml
               http://​www​.census​.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 reason​.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 religions​.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.