Current weather

  • Overcast
  • 54°
    Overcast
  • Comment

Murkowski open to same-sex marriage

Posted: June 23, 2013 - 8:03pm  |  Updated: June 24, 2013 - 8:37am

JUNEAU, Alaska — Republican U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s announcement last week that she now supports same-sex marriage caused a ripple nationwide, but what effect it might have back home — if any — isn’t immediately clear.

Alaska in 1998 was the first state to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, a measure Murkowski says she voted for but has since changed her mind.

Leaders in the Alaska House and Senate don’t appear to be in a rush to change the state’s constitution to allow same-sex marriage, though some lawmakers believe that attitudes on the issue are changing.

House Speaker Mike Chenault, R-Nikiski, on Friday said there haven’t been any discussions within the caucus about the issue since Murkowski’s announcement. He said he supports the constitution that’s in place right now.

Republicans control both the Alaska House and Senate. House Minority Leader Beth Kerttula, D-Juneau, said she was heartened to get a hearing this year on a bill that would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity or expression. The bill stayed in committee, but remains in play when the Legislature returns to work in January. A similar proposal stalled during the prior Legislature.

“This is going to happen, it’s just, hopefully, a matter of when,” Kerttula said.

State Senate Majority Leader John Coghill said he doesn’t think the Legislature will take up the issue in the foreseeable future unless it’s forced to by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The court is expected to render decisions soon on two cases involving same-sex marriage. One challenges California’s voter-approved proposition defining marriage as between a man and a woman; another seeks to strike down a portion of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that denies to legally married same-sex couples benefits generally available to married heterosexuals.

In Alaska, a proposed constitutional amendment can appear on the ballot if it’s approved by two-thirds of each chamber of the state Legislature. Changes also can be made at a constitutional convention. Alaskans last year voted against a constitutional convention, where any issue could be up for debate.

Coghill, R-North Pole, said he’s a “traditional marriage guy,” who supported the 1998 amendment and still does. He said he doesn’t feel any pressure right now to revisit it. However, “I think there is a societal change coming,” he said.

Sen. Berta Gardner, D-Anchorage, the nation’s view on this is changing, and Murkowski’s statement helps.

She said she sees a growing movement toward civil unions and is considering legislation of some sort related to that.

Republican leaders of the Alaska House in February apologized for laughter by some caucus members when asked about same-sex partnerships at a news conference to discuss the caucus’ guiding principles. Some websites and blogs cast this as majority members laughing at or laughing off the idea of civil unions.

Chenault at the time called the laughter inappropriate but said it was in reaction to which legislator had to field the difficult question. House Majority Leader Lance Pruitt said it was a serious issue but not something the caucus had taken a position on.

On the national level, Murkowski’s announcement means both Alaska’s U.S. senators hold that position. But the state’s lone U.S. House member and its governor believe marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Joshua Decker, interim executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska, said Murkowski’s decision could be a watershed moment where others follow her lead. Democratic U.S. Sen. Mark Begich, who sees a ban on same-sex marriage as discriminatory, said Murkowski’s announcement showed “this isn’t some liberal agenda or some other agenda. It’s about people’s rights.”

But Jim Minnery, president of Alaska Family Action, said if anything, it shows Murkowski is a weak, vacillating politician and many conservatives were right in opposing her during her last re-election bid in 2010. He said he has nothing against people loving or being in solid relationships with whomever they please, but people are being too quick to “jump on the bandwagon” of same-sex marriage.

Once you change the definition of marriage and make it “genderless,” there’s no reason for also having a limit on how many people can be in a marriage, he said.

Murkowski, in a statement Wednesday, said her view on same-sex marriage “evolved as America has witnessed a clear cultural shift.”

She described a same-sex military couple who had adopted four children. “After their years of sleepless nights, afterschool pickups and birthday cakes, if one of them gets sick or injured and needs critical care, the other would not be allowed to visit them in the emergency room — and the children could possibly be taken away from the healthy partner,” she said. “They do not get considered for household health care benefit coverage like spouses nationwide. This first-class Alaskan family still lives a second-class existence.”

She called it a “personal liberty issue.”

“We don’t want the government in our pockets or our bedrooms; we certainly don’t need it in our families,” she said.

Murkowski became the third Senate Republican to come out in favor of same-sex marriage, joining 49 Democrats and two independents in the Senate with that view.

 

Follow Becky Bohrer at http:/twitter.com/beckybohrerap

 

  • Comment

Comments (59) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
LaFern
147
Points
LaFern 06/24/13 - 01:01 pm
4
4
Rights

Everybody deserves equal rights. Without gay marriage millions of Americans are prevented from entering into a legally binding contract which grants them thousands of legal and financial protections for their families. Our leaders against it are only delaying the inevitable and are showing that they still have discriminatory opinions that have no place in society on any level. And I don't remember voting for Jim Minnery to be Alaskan citizens' collective voice on the matter either. Religious leaders need to stay out of our government's affairs which are supposed to be serving everybody by giving all US citizens equal opportunities.

Localmrs
133
Points
Localmrs 06/25/13 - 10:12 am
1
4
People all have the same rights for 1 woman to marry 1 man

If homosexual couples wish to have the rights of being considered family, especially where hospital emergencies and inheritance issues are concerned. I would argue that if they really love each other that much, then they would take the steps necessary to secure those rights, even if they cannot be officially married. The problem of not being able to see each other in the case of a medical emergency is solved by signing the proper papers ahead of time, which would designate the partners as each others next of kin. Legally I could make anyone I wanted my next of kin, thus given the same rights as a family member. If that is not enough to satisfy the inheritance issue also, then I would propose that the couple write a will. Heterosexual couples even generally also go through the process of making a will. I think that it should also be noted that even in the case of a traditional marriage one spouse can fill out a will that would prohibit everything from being left to the other. A husband can just as easily leave everything to his favorite pet as he can to his wife.

LaFern
147
Points
LaFern 06/25/13 - 12:19 pm
3
0
Wrong

Gay families are subject to higher taxes and must pay hundreds of percent more on estate taxes alone, and some families are torn apart by greedy siblings or relatives who, especially in states that don't recognize gay families, can sue for an inheritance or property REGARDLESS of what any legal filing may already be in place.

I encourage people to read about the 1,138 rights and provisions for married couples under federal law which gays cannot be guaranteed if their marriage is legal in just their state. A good starting off point is the overview on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in...

Alaska must persevere over the whims of the minority who seek to harm the fabric of America to discriminate for their own personal beliefs which do not belong in our common society.

Suss
3490
Points
Suss 06/25/13 - 02:49 pm
4
0
Locomrs

I seriously doubt the validity of your family estate planning advice. I think I'll stick with my attorney's recommendations. Your next of kin remarks sound like kinfolk law in the hill country where it's okay to marry into your own family. On the other hand I got what I paid for with your advice. Thanks for the bargain chuckles.

Localmrs
133
Points
Localmrs 06/25/13 - 04:26 pm
3
4
Regardless

A large and growing body of scientific evidence indicates that the intact, married family is best for children. In particular, the work of scholars David Popenoe, Linda Waite, Maggie Gallagher, Sara McLanahan, David Blankenhorn, Paul Amato, and Alan Booth has contributed to this conclusion.

This statement from Sara McLanahan, a sociologist at Princeton University, is representative:

If we were asked to design a system for making sure that children's basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two-parent ideal. Such a design, in theory, would not only ensure that children had access to the time and money of two adults, it also would provide a system of checks and balances that promoted quality parenting. The fact that both parents have a biological connection to the child would increase the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to sacrifice for that child, and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child.

Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1994) 38.

The following are ten science-based arguments against same-sex "marriage":

1. Children hunger for their biological parents.

Homosexual couples using in vitro fertilization (IVF) or surrogate mothers deliberately create a class of children who will live apart from their mother or father. Yale Child Study Center psychiatrist Kyle Pruett reports that children of IVF often ask their single or lesbian mothers about their fathers, asking their mothers questions like the following:"Mommy, what did you do with my daddy?" "Can I write him a letter?" "Has he ever seen me?" "Didn't you like him? Didn't he like me?" Elizabeth Marquardt reports that children of divorce often report similar feelings about their non-custodial parent, usually the father.

Kyle Pruett, Fatherneed (Broadway Books, 2001) 204.

Elizabeth Marquardt, The Moral and Spiritual Lives of Children of Divorce. Forthcoming.

2. Children need fathers.

If same-sex civil marriage becomes common, most same-sex couples with children would be lesbian couples. This would mean that we would have yet more children being raised apart from fathers. Among other things, we know that fathers excel in reducing antisocial behavior and delinquency in boys and sexual activity in girls.

What is fascinating is that fathers exercise a unique social and biological influence on their children. For instance, a recent study of father absence on girls found that girls who grew up apart from their biological father were much more likely to experience early puberty and a teen pregnancy than girls who spent their entire childhood in an intact family. This study, along with David Popenoe's work, suggests that a father's pheromones influence the biological development of his daughter, that a strong marriage provides a model for girls of what to look for in a man, and gives them the confidence to resist the sexual entreaties of their boyfriends.

* Ellis, Bruce J., et al., "Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage Pregnancy?" Child Development, 74:801-821.

* David Popenoe, Life Without Father (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1999).

3. Children need mothers.

Although homosexual men are less likely to have children than lesbians, homosexual men are and will be raising children. There will be even more if homosexual civil marriage is legalized. These households deny children a mother. Among other things, mothers excel in providing children with emotional security and in reading the physical and emotional cues of infants. Obviously, they also give their daughters unique counsel as they confront the physical, emotional, and social challenges associated with puberty and adolescence. Stanford psychologist Eleanor MacCoby summarizes much of this literature in her book, The Two Sexes. See also Steven Rhoads' book, Taking Sex Differences Seriously.

Eleanor MacCoby, The Two Sexes: Growing Up Apart, Coming Together (Boston: Harvard, 1998).

Steven Rhoads, Taking Sex Differences Seriously (Encounter Books, 2004).

4. Evidence on parenting by same-sex couples is inadequate.

A number of leading professional associations have asserted that there are "no differences" between children raised by homosexuals and those raised by heterosexuals. But the research in this area is quite preliminary; most of the studies are done by advocates and most suffer from serious methodological problems. Sociologist Steven Nock of the University of Virginia, who is agnostic on the issue of same-sex civil marriage, offered this review of the literature on gay parenting as an expert witness for a Canadian court considering legalization of same-sex civil marriage:

Through this analysis I draw my conclusions that 1) all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution; and 2) not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research.
This is not exactly the kind of social scientific evidence you would want to launch a major family experiment.

Steven Nock, affidavit to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice regarding Hedy Halpern et al. University of Virginia Sociology Department (2001).

5. Evidence suggests children raised by homosexuals are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders.

Although the evidence on child outcomes is sketchy, it does suggest that children raised by lesbians or homosexual men are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders. Judith Stacey-- a sociologist and an advocate for same-sex civil marriage--reviewed the literature on child outcomes and found the following: "lesbian parenting may free daughters and sons from a broad but uneven range of traditional gender prescriptions." Her conclusion here is based on studies that show that sons of lesbians are less masculine and that daughters of lesbians are more masculine.

She also found that a "significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual mothers ... reported having a homoerotic relationship." Stacey also observes that children of lesbians are more likely to report homoerotic attractions.

Her review must be viewed judiciously, given the methodological flaws detailed by Professor Nock in the literature as a whole. Nevertheless, theses studies give some credence to conservative concerns about the effects of homosexual parenting.

Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" American Sociological Review 66: 159-183. See especially 168-171.

6. Same-sex "marriage" would undercut the norm of sexual fidelity within marriage.

One of the biggest threats that same-sex "marriage" poses to marriage is that it would probably undercut the norm of sexual fidelity in marriage. In the first edition of his book in defense of same-sex marriage, Virtually Normal, homosexual commentator Andrew Sullivan wrote: "There is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." Of course, this line of thinking--were it incorporated into marriage and telegraphed to the public in sitcoms, magazines, and other mass media--would do enormous harm to the norm of sexual fidelity in marriage.

One recent study of civil unions and marriages in Vermont suggests this is a very real concern. More than 79 percent of heterosexual married men and women, along with lesbians in civil unions, reported that they strongly valued sexual fidelity. Only about 50 percent of gay men in civil unions valued sexual fidelity.

Esther Rothblum and Sondra Solomon, Civil Unions in the State of Vermont: A Report on the First Year. University of Vermont Department of Psychology, 2003.

David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison, The Male Couple (Prentice Hall, 1984) 252.

7. Same-sex "marriage" would further isolate marriage from its procreative purpose.

Traditionally, marriage and procreation have been tightly connected to one another. Indeed, from a sociological perspective, the primary purpose that marriage serves is to secure a mother and father for each child who is born into a society. Now, however, many Westerners see marriage in primarily emotional terms.

Among other things, the danger with this mentality is that it fosters an anti-natalist mindset that fuels population decline, which in turn puts tremendous social, political, and economic strains on the larger society. Same-sex marriage would only further undercut the procreative norm long associated with marriage insofar as it establishes that there is no necessary link between procreation and marriage.

This was spelled out in the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts, where the majority opinion dismissed the procreative meaning of marriage. It is no accident that the countries that have legalized or are considering legalizing same-sex marriage have some of the lowest fertility rates in the world. For instance, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Canada have birthrates that hover around 1.6 children per woman--well below the replacement fertility rate of 2.1.

For national fertility rates, see: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sw.html

For more on the growing disconnect between marriage and procreation, see: http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/SOOU2003.pdf

8. Same-sex "marriage" would further diminish the expectation of paternal commitment.

The divorce and sexual revolutions of the last four decades have seriously undercut the norm that couples should get and stay married if they intend to have children, are expecting a child, or already have children. Political scientist James Q. Wilson reports that the introduction of no-fault divorce further destabilized marriage by weakening the legal and cultural meaning of the marriage contract. George Akerlof, a Nobel laureate and an economist, found that the widespread availability of contraception and abortion in the 1960s and 1970s, and the sexual revolution they enabled, made it easier for men to abandon women they got pregnant, since they could always blame their girlfriends for not using contraception or procuring an abortion.

It is plausible to suspect that legal recognition of homosexual civil marriage would have similar consequences for the institution of marriage; that is, it would further destabilize the norm that adults should sacrifice to get and stay married for the sake of their children. Why? Same-sex civil marriage would institutionalize the idea that children do not need both their mother and their father.

This would be particularly important for men, who are more likely to abandon their children. Homosexual civil marriage would make it even easier than it already is for men to rationalize their abandonment of their children. After all, they could tell themselves, our society, which affirms lesbian couples raising children, believes that children do not need a father. So, they might tell themselves, I do not need to marry or stay married to the mother of my children.

James Q. Wilson, The Marriage Problem. (Perennial, 2003) 175-177.

George A. Akerlof, Janet L. Yellen, and Michael L. Katz, "An Analysis of Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing in the United States." Quarterly Journal of Economics CXI: 277-317.

9. Marriages thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical roles.

If same-sex civil marriage is institutionalized, our society would take yet another step down the road of de-gendering marriage. There would be more use of gender-neutral language like "partners" and--more importantly--more social and cultural pressures to neuter our thinking and our behaviors in marriage.

But marriages typically thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical ways and are attentive to the gendered needs and aspirations of their husband or wife. For instance, women are happier when their husband earns the lion's share of the household income. Likewise, couples are less likely to divorce when the wife concentrates on childrearing and the husband concentrates on breadwinning, as University of Virginia psychologist Mavis Hetherington admits.

E. Mavis Hetherington and John Kelly, For Better or For Worse. (W.W. Norton and Co., 2002) 31.

Steven Rhoads, Taking Sex Differences Seriously (Encounter Books, 2004).

10. Women and marriage domesticate men.

Men who are married earn more, work harder, drink less, live longer, spend more time attending religious services, and are more sexually faithful. They also see their testosterone levels drop, especially when they have children in the home.

If the distinctive sexual patterns of "committed" gay couples are any indication (see above), it is unlikely that homosexual marriage would domesticate men in the way that heterosexual marriage does. It is also extremely unlikely that the biological effects of heterosexual marriage on men would also be found in homosexual marriage. Thus, gay activists who argue that same-sex civil marriage will domesticate gay men are, in all likelihood, clinging to a foolish hope. This foolish hope does not justify yet another effort to meddle with marriage.

Steve Nock, Marriage in Men's Lives (Oxford University Press, 1998).

Hardwired to Connect: The New Scientific Case for Authoritative Communities (Institute for American Values, 2003) 17.

This paper is reprinted with permission of the Witherspoon Institute, Princeton, New Jersey, on whose website a version of it first appeared at www.winst.org/index2.html.

Suss
3490
Points
Suss 06/25/13 - 06:09 pm
5
2
Alaska # 1

With 16.2 divorces per 1000 women, Alaska has the highest divorce rate for women in the country. That sure does not bode well for the intact families. With overwhelming odds of a divorce skewering all the Witherspoon wishes, it would appear that all those children without a dad intact (imbedded) in the marital unit are doomed, I do not buy into this dogma. Why not let those that love, love and take the plunge into marriage and quit the fear that keeps this serious legal ceremony a silly step away from total legal equality. You can always have exclusions based on sex at the church of your choosing, legal marriage for all will be the rule of law in this land of equality.

Localmrs
133
Points
Localmrs 06/25/13 - 07:43 pm
2
2
Divorce is just as devastating. There is no excuse for it.

It just doesn't work that way. I have a person in my family who lives as a [filtered word]-sexual. I love him very much and would never treat him any different and would be furious if someone treated him poorly. I don't care if people want tax breaks or visiting each other in the hospital. Just don't mess with traditional marriage or put homosexual propaganda in a text book a my child's school. Suddenly people who support tradional marriage are all biggots? How far will the gay movement take this? They won't stop until people like me are thrown in jail for speaking against it.

Suss
3490
Points
Suss 06/26/13 - 06:26 am
2
0
DOMA died today

"The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. “By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”

Localmrs
133
Points
Localmrs 06/26/13 - 09:52 am
2
2
It's complete rubbish

It's wrong and imorral. There is a way that seems right to a man but it leads to death. Gays are completely selfish and do not care that they are destroying our culture. They want acceptance from others and if we do not agree, they will try to force is legally. We will continue to stand up for children to be raised with 1 father and 1 mother. Homosexuality is an unnatural behavior that was outlawed at the creation of our Constituion and should still be. Our Nation is headed for turmoil. Our whole political system is currupt. What's next? Legalizing polygamy and marriage of children's to Adults? These thing might sound absurd but it is on the horizon.

AKtoAZ
71
Points
AKtoAZ 06/26/13 - 10:53 am
0
0
Equality is just that..

Localmrs,

I am happy that you say that you wouldn't want your homosexual relative treated any different, but at the same time, you are stating that you want his rights to be treated differently. So, pardon me for being so confused at your statements. You either want him treated equal or you don't. There really is no "unless" that can come after that comment.

As a mother of 2, I personally want my children to be well educated about acceptance and love. I want them to know that love should not become excluded due to one's sexual orientation. Equal rights related pieces of history have gone into school textbooks for a very long time and I want my children to learn acceptance in schools regardless of the subject.

You can support traditional marriage values, but understand that we can support equal marriage rights as well. Once marriage becomes legal for EVERYONE, it will be your right, as an American, to take your children out of public schools and home school them so that they only learn about what you feel is right to learn.

AKtoAZ
71
Points
AKtoAZ 06/26/13 - 11:39 am
1
1
Prayers

I suppose all I can do for you Localmrs is pray! I agree with you that our nation is turning to turmoil in a lot of ways. One of the biggest ways that our beautiful country is failing is through hate! The same hate that you have expressed.

"Legalizing polygamy and marriage of children's to Adults?"

REALLY??? Exaggerate much?

It's 2 people in love!!!! NOT THE ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE!!

Maybe you should try google?
Look up "How to control my hate for people that are different from me" May help!

Localmrs
133
Points
Localmrs 06/26/13 - 07:20 pm
0
1
You can call it marriage but it is not

You can get your contracts but it isn't true marriage. Homosexuality is is wrong and those living it and supporting it should feel ashamed. Somebody who is living a depraved lifestyle should not be rewarded for it and given benefits. The reason there were benefits for tradional marriage is to encourage strong families. This county is headed in the wrong direction. Homosexuality is wrong just like divorce, adultry, orgies, fornication and the like. I am no better than a homosexual, because I make mistakes too-but when I make a mistake I would like to be called out on it and not told it is acceptable to continue in bad behavior. So much for tolerance when you can't handle someone speaking out about homosexuality. I pray that when you pray for me God opens the eyes of your heart to the truth about the devastion caused by homosexuality.

Allen
618
Points
Allen 06/26/13 - 09:02 pm
2
0
As Christians we are taught

As Christians we are taught that God created human beings. That must include the 4% of humans whose sexual orientation is not heterosexual. And that must make Localmrs and others like her nothing more than selfish bullies.

Localmrs
133
Points
Localmrs 06/27/13 - 12:36 am
0
1
Speak the truth in love

Our culture has accepted two huge lies: The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone you must agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don't have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.

If you have to resort to name calling, then you're argument wasn't that strong to begin with.
I'm sure my kids think I'm a selfish bully because I make them hold my hand when we cross the street, smack their hand when they touch a hot stove, or make them turn off the television. While those things may not make me like-able at the moment, they are the very best thing to do for them and I would not be doing my job if I didn't do them. It certainly would be easier to just "go with the flow" and not speak out against something that is wrong and ignore the right thing to do. Christianity is not some buffet where you can just pick and choose what you like and leave the rest. God condemns sexual immorality along with all sin. Funny how the best path is always the hardest, but the most rewarding and worthwhile.

I'm not better than anyone else, just better than what I was before. The truth is still the truth even from a hypocrite.

I meant that I don't want my [filtered word]-sexual relative treated poorly. That means if someone was yelling at them, threatening them for their lifestyle- I would come to their aid. I would not back up the homosexual behavior. If people want to co-habbitate someone of the same sex, they don't need to get the same benefits as married couples. Period. Those benefits are meant to lessen the burden on families with 1 man and 1 woman who most likely will be raising a family. I have rented to [filtered word]-sexuals before. So I personally don't treat them any differently than an unmarried male and female couple living together. If you knew me and knew my heart, you would not attack me and call me names.

Perhaps if our culture wasn't so firmly rooted in sex and pornography and the "born this way" fallacy, this wouldn't be such a problem. It is an epidemic of morality. Why not take all this energy and focus on fighting on a worthy cause-like rescuing all the people from sexual slavery? Do you know how bad it is in this country? In our state? Did you know the Super Bowl is the busiest sex-trafficing event of the year?

Suss
3490
Points
Suss 06/27/13 - 08:31 am
1
0
Preoccupied

I did not know that all this sex was so disturbing and causing such an "epidemic of morality". I am sorry, I guess I just was too busy with living, kids, work and taking care of my own business to be concerned about anyone else's love life. Having a goal and focus is important and I'll try to think more about sex. Is there a particular brand of religion “localmrs” could recommend guiding me on sexual fixation?

Localmrs
133
Points
Localmrs 06/27/13 - 08:48 am
0
1
Clearly this coversatikn has become absurd

I can't take you seriously becasue you have proven yet against that you have to resort to mocking, negativity, snarky comments because you have no real research or facts to back up your perspective. You can't walk in tw grocery store, check your email, watch TV or surf the Internet without being confronted by sexual material. Holiness leads to happiness. Promiscuity might be temporally pleasing but it does not pay off in the long run. Why to I reduce this down to sex? Becasue that is what this is about sex and lust.

AKtoAZ
71
Points
AKtoAZ 06/27/13 - 11:02 am
1
0
Pot or Kettle?

When you called homosexuals selfish and destructive, is that not name calling? So, in your words, your argument is not that strong, right?

And, you are absolutely right! Christianity is NOT a buffet to pick or choose. However, I do anyway with some of it! I refuse to personally do or not do certain things.

I love my husband clean shaven and my hair cut from time to time as Leviticus 19:27 frowns upon. Or, there is my love for seafood, which Leviticus 11: 9-12 tells me that I cannot eat unless it has scales and fins. Hopefully, you have never tried crab, lobster, or shrimp!

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet." (1 Timothy 2:12)
-So if a man tells you to stop voicing your opinion, will you? After all, the bible tells you to be quiet.

"Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric" (Leviticus 19:19)
-Better check that the cotton shirt in your closet has no polyester added.

"If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them." (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
"Kill anyone with a different religion." (Deuteronomy 17:2-7)
-Hopefully your family is full of Christians or you are going to spend a long time in prison for murder.

There is much more, but this will do for now......

I think it's wonderful you have an opinion that you are passionate in voicing, but if you are going to speak of christianity as reasoning behind your opinion, and about how it's not a "buffet to pick or choose what you like and leave the rest" you should probably make sure that you have read the whole bible and not just Leviticus 18:22.

Localmrs
133
Points
Localmrs 06/27/13 - 11:20 am
0
1
Out of Context and no real grasp on the bible history

The Bible is God’s love letter to humanity. The Old Testament shows us the law that God’s holiness demands we all keep perfectly. It tells us of God’s mercy by promising us a savior because no human is sinless.

Therefore the Old Testament is as important as the New Testament is as the New Testament tells of the fulfillment of God’s promise. God planned from the beginning to send Jesus to save us all. Jesus lived a sinless life, and obeyed the law perfectly, then gave His life on the cross in payment for all sins, for all time, so that all who believe in Jesus will be saved from death, damnation, Satan and hell.

The Old Testament explains God’s plan to bring about our salvation. He called the Israelites to be His instrument of judgment on godless, evil nations. Nations that worshipped false gods by indulging in sodomy, ritual prostitution and child sacrifice. The Israelites were to worship the Lord Almighty and teach other nations to know Him. They would also produce the Messiah.

The passages that command the Israelites to kill and destroy other peoples should only be read in that historical context. Scripture is not meant to be taken out of context. When people do, they show their ignorance and lack of faith in God. Read the Bible — it is the word of life.

AKtoAZ
71
Points
AKtoAZ 06/27/13 - 12:17 pm
0
0
Love?

Sex and lust? Is that why man/woman relationships start and result in marriage? Or are only homosexuals capable of those feelings? Do you honestly believe that homosexuals aren't capable of experiencing the feeling of love?

AKtoAZ
71
Points
AKtoAZ 06/27/13 - 12:17 pm
0
0
Love?

Sex and lust? Is that why man/woman relationships start and result in marriage? Or are only homosexuals capable of those feelings? Do you honestly believe that homosexuals aren't capable of experiencing the feeling of love?

Localmrs
133
Points
Localmrs 06/27/13 - 12:57 pm
0
1
It is not love

Love is a commitment to pursue the greatest good of the object of one's love, with the revealed person and will of God as one's core motivation and ethical framework.

Only those born of God can love (1 John 3:10-18; 4:7, 16, 19; 5:1-2; 2 John 6).
Our glandocentric, relativistic, pomo culture focuses exclusively on feeling. So it is being argued (without much of a response) that homosexual "marriage" is as valid as any other kind, because homosexuals can love just like anyone else. For instance, one utterly mixed-up voter in Maine gave us the full benefit of her 26-year-old wisdom thus: "They love and they have the right to love. And we can't tell somebody how to love." Armed with this "reasoning," she voted for forcing all the citizens of Maine to redefine repeated acts of sexual perversion as "marriage." So agree the great sages of The Intrawebs.

In response, Christians tend to get into that mud-pit and try to wrestle, or they just ignore the argument.

I have this novel notion that Christians need to be Christians. Believe what we believe, and do it both out loud and without simpering or temporizing.

No, as a matter of fact, homosexuals cannot love. Because
Only Christians can love, and the embrace and practice of homosexuality marks one as a non-Christian.
Nobody committed to pursing the highest good of the one he loves would seek to involve him or her in that which will surely destroy him as a human being, and drag him down to Hell, where he will suffer the wrath of God for all eternity.
Now, note: I am not saying that homosexuals do not say that they love. I am not saying that homosexuals can't have warm, fond feelings for each other, nor passionate feelings. Nor, for that matter, am I saying that people who engage in bestiality nor pederasty never have such feelings for the objects of their perverse desire.

Nor, for that matter, that the man or woman who "sleeps around" may not have such feelings, and call such feelings "love."

It's just not love. By definition, it can't be.

This takes us right to the heart of why Christians are and always will be hated. People who would be infuriated by my argument may themselves not be slaves to these particular perverse desires. But they would insist on this: they should be free to pursue their heart's desires without criticism or interference, no matter where that pursuit takes them.

This is The Gospel According to Hollywood, and it's the most popular Gospel there is. Follow your heart. Your heart is never wrong. You must do what is in your heart.

Who could possibly stand against such a message?

Answer: the infinite-personal, transcendent, immutable God of Scripture.

That is why, even if we do not propose a single law nor a single penalty, just by virtue of believing what we believe, Christians are often so hated. We stand on the other side of the "You shall be as God" sales-line.

We know that in fact our heart can and usually does steer us wrong. That is why we — every one of us, no exceptions — need a new heart. It is why, as Jesus says, we need to be born again, so that our heart that hates God and refuses to submit to His law can be given new life as a gift, and re-created into a heart that loves God, believes Him, and flees from sin to embrace His will.

None of that happens by our re-defining sin. I can redefine a baseball bat as a pillow, but if you hit me in the head with it, I'm still eating dirt.

Redefining the perversion of sin as anything else simply tightens the chains on its captives. Only the power of God in the Gospel of Jesus Christ truly frees us.

Suss
3490
Points
Suss 06/27/13 - 05:59 pm
2
0
"Only Christians can love"

That quote insults most of the world's populations. Please pray tell, advise us all what is the one, the only, true and righteous path by God and by name is your flock called? Now before the [filtered word] crows thrice, name thy church so that we may all be saved. If you could save just one sinner, send them to your saving faith. A cowardly christian is no christian.

beaverlooper
2772
Points
beaverlooper 06/27/13 - 05:08 pm
1
0
Choice

Localmrs you act as if being gay is a choice. My understanding is they are born that way,God made them the way they are. Who are you to doubt God's work?

Localmrs
133
Points
Localmrs 06/27/13 - 06:58 pm
1
1
No one is born gay

Breaking News: Jason Collins announces he's gay. His identical twin brother, Jarron, announces he's straight. How is it possible that identical twins with identical DNA have different sexual attractions? Simple. No one is born gay, since the vast majority of gay identical twins have straight twin siblings. It's a lie that has been repeated so often people have believed it without any proof. Now there is a mountain of twin research that proves no one is born gay.
IS IT GENETIC OR A BEHAVIOR?

If someone is in fact born homosexual they are claiming to have a gene or combination of genes that create homosexual attractions in them. But is homosexuality "who someone is"?

To find out geneticists study large groups of twins, especially identical twins. Identical twins have identical DNA because they came from a single fertilized egg which splits into two babies. If something is in fact genetic, all identical twin pairs should share that quality.

For example: Identical Twins A and B always have the same eye color. Hair color, sex, blood type, and many other things are predetermined by your DNA. Most other things aren't, including behaviors.

SO, WHAT DOES GENETIC RESEARCH SAY ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY?

IF people are born homosexual, then all identical twin pairs should have identical sexual attractions, 100% of the time, right? Wrong - they don't.

In the largest twin study ever completed on the topic*, only 10-13% of all homosexual identical twins have identical twin siblings (co-twins) who are also homosexuals! That means that more than 80% of all homosexual identical twins have HETEROSEXUAL twin siblings.

If you are a homosexual identical twin, the chances that your co-twin is also a homosexual are less than 15%. If homosexuality were a genetic trait, that number should be 100%. This is proof that no one is born homosexual.

Of the dozens of twin studies on this topic not ONE study has found 100% agreement among identical twins who are homosexual. Not one has found 90 or 80 or 70 or even 60% concordance (same attraction in both twins) among identical twins. Not one, therefore, homosexuality is a behavior.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[*This study was completed by Langstrom, et al, in 2008 in Sweden and published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. The sample included 3,826 twin pairs. Another large study in Finland revealed the same results. A significant twin study among adolescents shows an even weaker genetic correlation. In 2002 Bearman and Brueckner studied tens of thousands of adolescent students in the U.S. The same-sex attraction concordance between identical twins was only 7.7% for males and 5.3% for females—lower than the 11% and 14% in the Australian study by Bailey et al conducted in 2000.]

In contrast: the number of identical twin pairs who share identical alcoholic behaviors are 50%!

"And you shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free." John 8:36

beaverlooper
2772
Points
beaverlooper 06/27/13 - 07:28 pm
1
0
So

"Breaking News: Jason Collins announces he's gay. His identical twin brother, Jarron, announces he's straight. How is it possible that identical twins with identical DNA have different sexual attractions? "
God makes all things possible, He parted the red sea didn't he?God makes all people different and doesn't have to explain why to you.
If one twin becomes sheriff and one twin becomes a robber is that in their DNA? A persons body is built a certain way but not their soul ,not who they are, that architect is on a much higher plain.You look through the glass darkly.

Localmrs
133
Points
Localmrs 06/27/13 - 08:09 pm
0
1
Seriously?

God obviously designed men and women for eachother to procreate and raise a family. 1 man 1 women for life. Take an anatomy course to show toy how God made men and women beautifully unique. It sounds like you are just making up some new philosophy that has no factual basis. Sure this is an emotional issuse, but when you make convicitons based on mere feeling, you lose all objectivity. Homosexuality is a destructive behavior. Marriage is a social institution of long-established rules (based on the natural design of the human body) that provides society with the very foundation of civilization—the procreating family unit. That is, marriage is fundamentally about children and the civilization of society both now and for the future. Only natural marriage can procreate and consistently provide a nurturing and stable environment for the growth and maturation of children. In this sense, the most basic and effective “form of government” is the natural two-parent family. Statistically, children and adults inside of natural marriage are much better off socially, physically, financially, mentally, and emotionally than those outside of natural marriage. Those outside of natural marriage are not only worse off personally by those measures, but they cost society billions of dollars in social welfare and law-enforcement expenses.

Localmrs
133
Points
Localmrs 06/27/13 - 08:16 pm
0
1
Homosexual Health

The bottom line is that homosexual behavior is unhealthy. All sexual behaviors are not equally beneficial, and some of them can have negative public consequences. Innocent people can and do get hurt.

Due to the devastating health effects of male homosexuality, most of the research into gay health issues has been concentrated on homosexual men. However, the research that has been conducted with respect to lesbians does not yield good news. Lesbians experience many more health problems than heterosexual women. Even the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association admits the following about lesbian women:

Homosexual Health - Lesbian Health

Lesbians have the richest concentration of risk factors for breast cancer than any subset of women in the world.
They have higher risks for cervical cancers.
They are more likely to be obese.
They use more tobacco, alcohol, and illicit drugs.24
A study of over 1,400 lesbians found the following:
Lesbians experience higher rates of bacterial vaginosis and hepatitis C.
They have more than twice the number of male partners than heterosexual women (only 7 percent who identify themselves as lesbians never have sex with men).
They are 4.5 times more likely to have fifty or more male sexual partners in a lifetime.
They are three to four times more likely to have sex with men who are at high risk for HIV—homosexuals, bisexuals, and IV drug users.
They are six times more likely to • abuse drugs intravenously.25
Other studies also confirm lesbian health problems.26

Many homosexual activists get angry when you cite these health facts. But why would anyone get angry over facts? As Augustine said, we love the truth when it enlightens us, but we hate it when it convicts us. However, other homosexual activists acknowledge negative health effects and then use them as a reason to support their cause. This “conservative” case for same-sex marriage suggests that homosexual monogamy, encouraged by government-backed same-sex marriage, would alleviate these health problems. Andrew Sullivan writes, “A law institutionalizing gay marriage would merely reinforce a healthy social trend. It would also, in the wake of AIDS, qualify as a genuine public health measure.”

Localmrs
133
Points
Localmrs 06/27/13 - 08:17 pm
0
1
Truth is that some relationships are better than others

The truth is that some relationships are better than others. People are equal, but their behaviors are not. Since homosexual behavior is contrary to the natural design and compatibility of the body, same-sex relationships can never function like man-woman relationships, nor can they birth the same benefits. So let’s stop trying to equate same-sex with heterosexual relationships. They never can be the same. Biology prevents it and the evidence we are about to see disproves it.

Homosexual Behavior - Medically Inferior
Even if we ignore the issue of procreation, the evidence shows that homosexual unions are medically inferior to man-woman unions. Homosexual behavior:

Results in numerous health problems to those who practice it, including increases in AIDS, other STDs, colon and rectal cancer, and hepatitis. According to the Center for Disease Control, more than 82 percent of all known sexually-transmitted AIDS cases in 2006 were the result of male-to-male sexual contact. Moreover, gay and bisexual men account for more than 60 percent of all syphilis cases.21

Shortens the life span of homosexuals, probably by eight to twenty years (see note 22 for data on homosexual life span studies, some of which are controversial).22 Smoking, on average, reduces life span by seven years. Since we discourage smoking, why are we thinking of endorsing homosexuality?

Spreads disease to innocent people who never engage in homosexual sex. A prominent example is Ryan White, the teenage boy who died of AIDS after a blood transfusion. There are thousands of Ryan Whites—according to the CDC, there are nearly ten thousand known cases of innocent people in the United States who have contracted AIDS the same way, including 160 in 2005 and 131 in 2006 (this despite improvements in blood screening).23 Moreover, there are thousands of innocent heterosexuals (many are spouses) who have contracted STDs via sexual contact with bisexuals.

Costs Americans millions in higher health insurance premiums because increased health costs from homosexual behavior are reflected in those premiums. In fact, the homosexual lobby has induced some states to prevent insurers from asking potential consumers any medical questions, including if they are HIV positive! As a result, every consumer is paying a higher premium because insurance companies are prevented from identifying clients who engage in high-risk sexual behavior.
- See more at: http://www.allaboutlove.org/homosexual-behavior.htm#sthash.gcveFm2u.dpuf

beaverlooper
2772
Points
beaverlooper 06/27/13 - 08:32 pm
1
0
Christian bully

"Sure this is an emotional issuse, but when you make convicitons based on mere feeling, you lose all objectivity."
Look in the mirror.
" It sounds like you are just making up some new philosophy that has no factual basis" Read 1 Corinthians 13 and you'll know where I'm coming from. Your right it has no factual basis, your wrong ,it's not a new philosophy.

Localmrs
133
Points
Localmrs 06/27/13 - 09:41 pm
0
0
You don't make any sense

If you have to resort to name calling you're argument wasn't that strong to begin with. I won't judge you on how you come to your convictions, but I will ask you to validate them with facts. You don't know my heart, God does and you have no right to judge me by call me a bully. I am telling the truth and it may bother you because it make you question your worldview. I don't enjoy this one bit.The Bible may hurt you with the truth, but it will not comfort you with a lie.
Our culture has accepted two huge lies: The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone you must agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don't have to comprimise convictions to be compassionate.

God's love is pure and is not corrupt. God made rules.

Just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (her). Homosexuality is a sin and like any other sin it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible. It needs to be laid at the cross and forsaken. Homosexuality is not a special practice that is exempt from God's righteous judgment simply because they claim they are born that way, or just want to be free to love, or say that it is normal. People are born with a tendency to lie. Does that make it okay? People want to love each other, but since when is "love" the determiner of what is right and wrong? If homosexuality is normal, then why is it practiced by so few? The great majority of people are heterosexual. Are they "more" normal?

Please understand that I don't hate homosexuals. I wouldn't care if my neighbor is gay. I've had homosexual friends and have loved them the same as I would anyone else. But, the Bible says homosexuality is a sin and the solution to the problem of sin (the breaking of God's Law, 1 John 3:4) is found only in Jesus. He is the Lord, the Savior, the risen King. Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1,14) and he died to save sinners. We are all sinners and we need salvation (Eph. 2:8-9) that is found in receiving Christ (John 1:12-13).

We Christians should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same as we would for any other person trapped in any other sin. This is not an issue of arrogance or judgmentalism. We don't want anyone to be lost due to their sin and that includes gays, lesbians, and transgenders.

The homosexual is still made in the image of God -- even though he (or she) is in rebellion. Therefore, we Christians should show homosexuals the same dignity as anyone else with whom we come in contact. Don't injure them. Don't hate them. Don't judge them. Inform them that freedom and forgiveness are found in Jesus. Let them know that God loves us and died for us so that we might be delivered from the consequences of our sin.

But, this does not mean that you are to approve of what they do. Don't compromise your witness for a socially acceptable opinion that is void of rationality, godliness, and biblical truth. Instead, stand firm in the word that God has revealed and patiently love him/her biblically, and pray for their salvation. Be kind to them. Be loving. And, when appropriate, tell them the gospel.

Finally, if you are a homosexual, please understand that I do not hate you nor do I judge you. Sin is sin and the forgiveness of our sins is found in Christ.

Back to Top

Spotted

Please Note: You may have disabled JavaScript and/or CSS. Although this news content will be accessible, certain functionality is unavailable.

Skip to News

« back

next »

  • title http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321268/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321253/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321248/
  • title http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321243/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321208/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/320593/
  • title http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321173/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321163/
My Gallery

CONTACT US

  • 150 Trading Bay Rd, Kenai, AK 99611
  • Switchboard: 907-283-7551
  • Circulation and Delivery: 907-283-3584
  • Newsroom Fax: 907-283-3299
  • Business Fax: 907-283-3299
  • Accounts Receivable: 907-335-1257
  • View the Staff Directory
  • or Send feedback

ADVERTISING

SUBSCRIBER SERVICES

SOCIAL NETWORKING

MORRIS ALASKA NEWS