<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: &#8220;Happy&#8221; Marriage</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.edadkins.com/happy-marriage/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.edadkins.com/happy-marriage/</link>
	<description>based on true events</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 03:12:46 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: SLG</title>
		<link>http://www.edadkins.com/happy-marriage/#comment-538</link>
		<dc:creator>SLG</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:54:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.edadkins.com/?p=255#comment-538</guid>
		<description>why should it matter if they want to get married. it really isn't anyone else's business besides the two people that are getting married. as long as you are happy and you are proud of the way that you are then what is the matter with someone else beeing happy. everyone in this world needs to stay out of everyone's business and start paying attention to themselves. why is it that theu will allow molesters to get married but not homosexuals?

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>why should it matter if they want to get married. it really isn&#8217;t anyone else&#8217;s business besides the two people that are getting married. as long as you are happy and you are proud of the way that you are then what is the matter with someone else beeing happy. everyone in this world needs to stay out of everyone&#8217;s business and start paying attention to themselves. why is it that theu will allow molesters to get married but not homosexuals?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EB</title>
		<link>http://www.edadkins.com/happy-marriage/#comment-537</link>
		<dc:creator>EB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2004 21:44:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.edadkins.com/?p=255#comment-537</guid>
		<description>True that Jason...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>True that Jason&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason</title>
		<link>http://www.edadkins.com/happy-marriage/#comment-536</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2004 16:46:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.edadkins.com/?p=255#comment-536</guid>
		<description>The thing that gets me about this whole argument is this:  About 50 years ago, there were laws banning marriage between people of different races (most commonly between whites and blacks).  The "moral majority" of the time - maybe not in the whole country, but in some regions at least - strongly believed that it was "wrong" to allow people of different races to marry.  This was one example of legalized discrimination that was eventually overturned and renounced.  These days, most intelligent people look back on those laws and shake our heads in disbelief.  How could anyone possibly have thought that this was a good idea?

Here we are, a half-century later, and I see the same arguments and the same road ahead.  I have little difficulty picturing later generations looking back on the current situation and laughing at our bigotry and intolerance.  The times they are a'changing.

Oh and by the way, I am married (to a woman), so this isn't some kind of personal thing for me.  To me it's just about right and wrong.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The thing that gets me about this whole argument is this:  About 50 years ago, there were laws banning marriage between people of different races (most commonly between whites and blacks).  The &#8220;moral majority&#8221; of the time - maybe not in the whole country, but in some regions at least - strongly believed that it was &#8220;wrong&#8221; to allow people of different races to marry.  This was one example of legalized discrimination that was eventually overturned and renounced.  These days, most intelligent people look back on those laws and shake our heads in disbelief.  How could anyone possibly have thought that this was a good idea?</p>
<p>Here we are, a half-century later, and I see the same arguments and the same road ahead.  I have little difficulty picturing later generations looking back on the current situation and laughing at our bigotry and intolerance.  The times they are a&#8217;changing.</p>
<p>Oh and by the way, I am married (to a woman), so this isn&#8217;t some kind of personal thing for me.  To me it&#8217;s just about right and wrong.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jimbo</title>
		<link>http://www.edadkins.com/happy-marriage/#comment-535</link>
		<dc:creator>jimbo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:57:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.edadkins.com/?p=255#comment-535</guid>
		<description>Mr. Brumley, I'm just wondering what the point of your statistics are, in terms of relating them to the marraige of homosexuals, not just homosexuality in general. The point is that if homosexuals MARRY, they won't be hurting anyone. If those are the statistics showing the negative effects of homosexuality, what does that have to do with them getting married?  Are you saying those numbers will increase? Are you saying that if homosexual marraiges are allowed, this will encourage more people to decide to turn gay? No, the statistics are going to be the same anyway. Hypothetical situation:

Formerly Straight Guy #1:"Hey, dude. If we get married, you could totally collect on my insurance." 
Formerly Straight Guy #2:"Sweet. I guess it's settled then. Let's have sex and exchange STDs." 

You did sound pretty educated though. Good job on that. The weird thing is that you sound kinda fruity yourself.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mr. Brumley, I&#8217;m just wondering what the point of your statistics are, in terms of relating them to the marraige of homosexuals, not just homosexuality in general. The point is that if homosexuals MARRY, they won&#8217;t be hurting anyone. If those are the statistics showing the negative effects of homosexuality, what does that have to do with them getting married?  Are you saying those numbers will increase? Are you saying that if homosexual marraiges are allowed, this will encourage more people to decide to turn gay? No, the statistics are going to be the same anyway. Hypothetical situation:</p>
<p>Formerly Straight Guy #1:&#8221;Hey, dude. If we get married, you could totally collect on my insurance.&#8221;<br />
Formerly Straight Guy #2:&#8221;Sweet. I guess it&#8217;s settled then. Let&#8217;s have sex and exchange STDs.&#8221; </p>
<p>You did sound pretty educated though. Good job on that. The weird thing is that you sound kinda fruity yourself.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mrjerz</title>
		<link>http://www.edadkins.com/happy-marriage/#comment-534</link>
		<dc:creator>mrjerz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2004 23:09:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.edadkins.com/?p=255#comment-534</guid>
		<description>Studies or not, the health of an individual is completely up to the individual.  It's a little disingenuous to come in and say you're opposed to ga marriage because it may lead to more suicides after already saying it's immoral (in so many words).

Personally, a litmus test is the only way to disallow gays (which I define as "people who are gay) to marry while not discriminating.  There should be questions like, "if you divorce, may the state take all kids and place them in foster homes until custody is decided?"  or, "to ensure the sanctity of marriage remains intact, would you be willing to have your arm cut off if accused of adultery?"  No one would agree to that.  Because while many marriages are very good ones, far too many are not.  Maybe it's a poor analogy, but I'll bet that there are plenty of statistics that show that heterosexuals in bad marriages have problems with suicide and alcoholism.  heck, people with sucky jobs have those problems.  Anyway, my SUV hating butt has run out of things to say.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Studies or not, the health of an individual is completely up to the individual.  It&#8217;s a little disingenuous to come in and say you&#8217;re opposed to ga marriage because it may lead to more suicides after already saying it&#8217;s immoral (in so many words).</p>
<p>Personally, a litmus test is the only way to disallow gays (which I define as &#8220;people who are gay) to marry while not discriminating.  There should be questions like, &#8220;if you divorce, may the state take all kids and place them in foster homes until custody is decided?&#8221;  or, &#8220;to ensure the sanctity of marriage remains intact, would you be willing to have your arm cut off if accused of adultery?&#8221;  No one would agree to that.  Because while many marriages are very good ones, far too many are not.  Maybe it&#8217;s a poor analogy, but I&#8217;ll bet that there are plenty of statistics that show that heterosexuals in bad marriages have problems with suicide and alcoholism.  heck, people with sucky jobs have those problems.  Anyway, my SUV hating butt has run out of things to say.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Laura</title>
		<link>http://www.edadkins.com/happy-marriage/#comment-533</link>
		<dc:creator>Laura</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2004 20:55:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.edadkins.com/?p=255#comment-533</guid>
		<description>Great points from both sides.  I have heard some pretty excellent arguments from both sides (provided they are halfway intelligent).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great points from both sides.  I have heard some pretty excellent arguments from both sides (provided they are halfway intelligent).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EB</title>
		<link>http://www.edadkins.com/happy-marriage/#comment-532</link>
		<dc:creator>EB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2004 20:17:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.edadkins.com/?p=255#comment-532</guid>
		<description>I gotta say Matt makes a pretty good argument...sounds like a Lawer or a Philosopher...but Ed's right, lots of those stats are a bunch of bull, I mean c'mon you cited a "Canadian Study"! Give me a break man! Mention a study from Harvard or from the Saulk Institute...but Canada? What are Canadians good at? They're good at two things....Jack and Squat, and Jack just left town!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I gotta say Matt makes a pretty good argument&#8230;sounds like a Lawer or a Philosopher&#8230;but Ed&#8217;s right, lots of those stats are a bunch of bull, I mean c&#8217;mon you cited a &#8220;Canadian Study&#8221;! Give me a break man! Mention a study from Harvard or from the Saulk Institute&#8230;but Canada? What are Canadians good at? They&#8217;re good at two things&#8230;.Jack and Squat, and Jack just left town!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Brumley</title>
		<link>http://www.edadkins.com/happy-marriage/#comment-531</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Brumley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2004 19:57:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.edadkins.com/?p=255#comment-531</guid>
		<description>Now why would they think that?  I'm not the one defending perverts...  

Oh well, I'm off to go club some baby seals...  I had some wonderful spotted owl for lunch too!  It tastes like chicken.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Now why would they think that?  I&#8217;m not the one defending perverts&#8230;  </p>
<p>Oh well, I&#8217;m off to go club some baby seals&#8230;  I had some wonderful spotted owl for lunch too!  It tastes like chicken.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ed</title>
		<link>http://www.edadkins.com/happy-marriage/#comment-530</link>
		<dc:creator>Ed</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2004 19:25:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.edadkins.com/?p=255#comment-530</guid>
		<description>First let me comment you on your excellent use of cut and paste. ;)

I followed your link. Interesting reading. I don't have time to go into length about why I may feel that some of the information found there may be a bit skewed, but a precursory search found many opponents to the opinions and facts presented in their articles. (&lt;a href="http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/frc.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;example&lt;/a&gt;)

My opinion is simply that it's not that big of a deal. I'm not planning on going homo tomorrow, I just think people should lay off it all. Canada allows it, and they're just fine. Heh. O.K. Bad example. 

Anyway. Stop thinking about homosexuals getting married so much. People are going to think you're some kind of pervert.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First let me comment you on your excellent use of cut and paste. <img src='http://www.edadkins.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /><br />
I followed your link. Interesting reading. I don&#8217;t have time to go into length about why I may feel that some of the information found there may be a bit skewed, but a precursory search found many opponents to the opinions and facts presented in their articles. (<a href="http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/frc.html" rel="nofollow">example</a>)</p>
<p>My opinion is simply that it&#8217;s not that big of a deal. I&#8217;m not planning on going homo tomorrow, I just think people should lay off it all. Canada allows it, and they&#8217;re just fine. Heh. O.K. Bad example. </p>
<p>Anyway. Stop thinking about homosexuals getting married so much. People are going to think you&#8217;re some kind of pervert.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Brumley</title>
		<link>http://www.edadkins.com/happy-marriage/#comment-529</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Brumley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2004 17:56:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.edadkins.com/?p=255#comment-529</guid>
		<description>I never said morality based on religion.  You need to read my post again.  This is morality based on culture.  Our American culture has defined marriage as "the union of a man and a woman."  

However, if you want to use religion and assume that since America has long been considered a Christian county then look to the bible.  God obviously disagrees with you or he wouldn't have blown away Sodom and Gomorrah.  (See Genesis 19)  Also see 1 Corinthians 6:9-13

But, I agree with you that we should keep religion out of it...

Also, your statement, "If the law began recognizing their union tomoroww there wouldn't be riots and orgies filling the streets. Let them marry." is full of holes too!  Where do we draw the line as a culture?  Do we allow beastiality because of a great outcry!?  Do we allow pedophilia because of riots in the streets??

"I see hetro idiots marrying at will all around- they have no beter qualifications then gays."

It's true that American society's concept of marriage has changed, especially over the last fifty years. But not all change is positive, and our experiences in that regard may be instructive. Consider some of the recent changes to the institution of marriage--and their consequences:

·  The divorce revolution has undermined the concept that marriage is a life-long commitment. As a result, there's been an epidemic of broken homes and broken families, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.

·  The sexual revolution has undermined the concept that sexual relations should be confined to marriage. As a result, there's been an epidemic of cohabitation, sexually transmitted diseases, abortions, and broken hearts, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.

·  The concept that childbearing should be confined to marriage has been undermined. As a result, there's been an epidemic of out-of-wedlock births, single parenthood, and fatherless children, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.

·  The pornography revolution, particularly with the advent of the Internet, has undermined the concept that a man's sexual desires should be directed toward his wife. As a result, there's been an epidemic of broken relationships, abused wives, and sex crimes, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.

And now there is social and political pressure to redefine what constitutes marriage itself. What grounds does anyone have for thinking that the consequences of that radical social revolution, unprecedented in human history, would be any more positive than the consequences of the much less sweeping changes described above?

And you saying that "gay couples aren't hurting anyone" really disturbs me...  You cannot be serious!?  The statistics are alarming!  See: &lt;a href="http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1&#38;v=PRINT" rel="nofollow"&gt;The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality&lt;/a&gt;

Homosexual men experience higher rates of many diseases, including:

·  Human Papillomavirus (HPV), which causes most cases of cervical cancer in women and anal cancer in men

·  Hepatitis A, B, and C

·  Gonorrhea

·  Syphilis

·  "Gay Bowel Syndrome," a set of sexually transmitted gastrointestinal problems such as proctitis, proctocolitis, and enteritis

·  HIV/AIDS (One Canadian study found that as a result of HIV alone, "life expectancy for gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men.")

Lesbian women, meanwhile, have a higher prevalence of:

·  Bacterial vaginosis

·  Hepatitis C

·  HIV risk behaviors

·  Cancer risk factors such as smoking, alcohol use, poor diet, and being overweight

Various research studies have found that homosexuals have higher rates of:

·  Alcohol abuse

·  Drug abuse

·  Nicotine dependence

·  Depression

·  Suicide</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I never said morality based on religion.  You need to read my post again.  This is morality based on culture.  Our American culture has defined marriage as &#8220;the union of a man and a woman.&#8221;  </p>
<p>However, if you want to use religion and assume that since America has long been considered a Christian county then look to the bible.  God obviously disagrees with you or he wouldn&#8217;t have blown away Sodom and Gomorrah.  (See Genesis 19)  Also see 1 Corinthians 6:9-13</p>
<p>But, I agree with you that we should keep religion out of it&#8230;</p>
<p>Also, your statement, &#8220;If the law began recognizing their union tomoroww there wouldn&#8217;t be riots and orgies filling the streets. Let them marry.&#8221; is full of holes too!  Where do we draw the line as a culture?  Do we allow beastiality because of a great outcry!?  Do we allow pedophilia because of riots in the streets??</p>
<p>&#8220;I see hetro idiots marrying at will all around- they have no beter qualifications then gays.&#8221;</p>
<p>It&#8217;s true that American society&#8217;s concept of marriage has changed, especially over the last fifty years. But not all change is positive, and our experiences in that regard may be instructive. Consider some of the recent changes to the institution of marriage&#8211;and their consequences:</p>
<p>·  The divorce revolution has undermined the concept that marriage is a life-long commitment. As a result, there&#8217;s been an epidemic of broken homes and broken families, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.</p>
<p>·  The sexual revolution has undermined the concept that sexual relations should be confined to marriage. As a result, there&#8217;s been an epidemic of cohabitation, sexually transmitted diseases, abortions, and broken hearts, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.</p>
<p>·  The concept that childbearing should be confined to marriage has been undermined. As a result, there&#8217;s been an epidemic of out-of-wedlock births, single parenthood, and fatherless children, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.</p>
<p>·  The pornography revolution, particularly with the advent of the Internet, has undermined the concept that a man&#8217;s sexual desires should be directed toward his wife. As a result, there&#8217;s been an epidemic of broken relationships, abused wives, and sex crimes, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.</p>
<p>And now there is social and political pressure to redefine what constitutes marriage itself. What grounds does anyone have for thinking that the consequences of that radical social revolution, unprecedented in human history, would be any more positive than the consequences of the much less sweeping changes described above?</p>
<p>And you saying that &#8220;gay couples aren&#8217;t hurting anyone&#8221; really disturbs me&#8230;  You cannot be serious!?  The statistics are alarming!  See: <a href="http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1&amp;v=PRINT" rel="nofollow">The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality</a></p>
<p>Homosexual men experience higher rates of many diseases, including:</p>
<p>·  Human Papillomavirus (HPV), which causes most cases of cervical cancer in women and anal cancer in men</p>
<p>·  Hepatitis A, B, and C</p>
<p>·  Gonorrhea</p>
<p>·  Syphilis</p>
<p>·  &#8220;Gay Bowel Syndrome,&#8221; a set of sexually transmitted gastrointestinal problems such as proctitis, proctocolitis, and enteritis</p>
<p>·  HIV/AIDS (One Canadian study found that as a result of HIV alone, &#8220;life expectancy for gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men.&#8221;)</p>
<p>Lesbian women, meanwhile, have a higher prevalence of:</p>
<p>·  Bacterial vaginosis</p>
<p>·  Hepatitis C</p>
<p>·  HIV risk behaviors</p>
<p>·  Cancer risk factors such as smoking, alcohol use, poor diet, and being overweight</p>
<p>Various research studies have found that homosexuals have higher rates of:</p>
<p>·  Alcohol abuse</p>
<p>·  Drug abuse</p>
<p>·  Nicotine dependence</p>
<p>·  Depression</p>
<p>·  Suicide</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
