rhino

As I said bfh, I came across it reading funny Dan Quayle quotes ... It made a lot of sense to me, and I doubt she made up the quotes ... and she quoted several researchers, as far as I can tell. I'm not sure if you are just trying to discredit her, or if you disagree with some specific points. I didn't see you offer any conflicting evidence or even any points you disagreed with. Do you have newer evidence that conflicts? Have families gotten stronger since 1988? You say the survey she used was from 1988 ... but it seems that was just used in the opening paragraph and she gives the date. This article is from 1993, by the way. Yes, even if you quote actual stats, they can be made to lie. It seemed she made many quotes from established researchers' conclusions that made sense. I don't see that things have improved since then, but rather have gone downhill. There is no doubt much newer stuff ... go ahead and present it ... anybody .... anybody ... .... sure ... give or take 12.542% for the margin of error ... but that is only true 47.3% of the time.

He quotes many different researchers and names them ... I guess we are used to links though. Almost every paragraph names a researcher and quotes them or paraphrases them. It looks very fact based to me.

This seems most likely to me ... homosexuals just don't reproduce enough to have this be a genetic trait, as I see it. Well I tend to agree except maybe when it comes to "marriage" and "distributing" children. If indeed these are "damaged" people, are there aspects that will be passed on to children? Even if it is not the homosexuality that would be passed on, do we know what it is? Maybe they should still raise kids in most cases, but maybe it really hasn't been looked at. Of course people are damaged and heterosexual also ... but voters seem to have a strong opinion on this marriage thing. If the village/government is raising the child and choosing caregivers ... it gets more complicated. Of the 10% buried in national cemeteries, are 80% single? I just wonder how many people are effected here. It seems something could be worked out in most situations like this. Without real evidence, it seems the left wants to use those arguments like Linda's as proof sexual preference is genetic. So say the kids Ductape mentioned has parents teaching about sexual roles, but there are a few teachers in school feeling the need to be sure that somewhat "prissy" Jonny needs to be told that it is quite OK if he likes boys. Maybe they can explain how condoms work since it will be especially important for him. And maybe they can demonstrate some gay sex with dolls, since his fundamentalist bigoted parents are not enlightened enough to teach him. I do know there are plenty of teachers that feel the need to insert some leftist dogma into their teaching, from grade school through college. For them, "gay marriage" is largely just another step in the political process. These leftist activist teachers need to be kept in check. My Dad was (rightly) fired from his teaching job for teaching the Bible some 50 years ago ... there needs to be as much control today over the leftist agenda/religion being pushed on the public today. I think that can be done, and homosexuals still can be treated fairly.

LOL ... now you are the one changing the conditions to fit what you want this simple commandment to say. "Honor they Father and Thy Mother" ... you add in crack whores and murderers and say I'm making a leap in logic? Come on Linda, you're smarter than that ... Again you are adding in unusual conditions ... not me. It is a simple commandment.Is this really even a question, for people that believe the Bible is inspired by God? It seems a pretty giant leap to say the Bible has nothing against homosexual acts. I don't see how you can honestly reconcile that conflict. You have to hold to the one and deny the other, at least on this point. The state is marrying gay people ... that is changing what the vast majority believe the state should be doing. Since the village is raising the child now, those decisions get taught in school to children. The state is deeply involved in deciding family issues ... these decisions don't happen in a vacuum. Her Uncle was in Hollywood and committed suicide ... this one bit of anecdotal evidence based on one supposed quote from a five year old doesn't seem to mean much, if anything. It may say more about the view of the person writing the story. A little more from my article ... "The amount of deviant behavior in American society has increased beyond the levels the community can 'afford to recognize,'" Moynihan argues. One response has been to normalize what was once considered deviant behavior, such as out-of-wedlock birth. An accompanying response has been to detect deviance in what once stood as a social norm, such as the married-couple family. Together these responses reduce the acknowledged levels of deviance by eroding earlier distinctions between the normal and the deviant. He is not talking about gay marriage, but the effect of any behavior outside the normal wedded birth. Your "yeah, but what if the father is a murderer and the mother is a crack whore" fits in here. Those extremes don't change the simple commandment. "Honor thy Father and thy Mother" There seems too much effort from the left to break down that traditional family unit. That is a very interesting article that is not about the gay issue ... I stumbled on it while reading humorous Dan Quayle quotes ... "I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy - but that could change."

This was brought up in another thread. Doesn't a power of attorney for health care override some family member's claim? Especially if it is done while the patient is of sound mind, I can't imagine that would not rule. In any case, that could be changed without changing what marriage is, or changing what the majority believe marriage is. Honor they mother and thy father? Did you not see that? How does the child really do that if they have two mothers or two fathers ... and one real parent is gone? I'm not big on everything in the Bible, but I'm not big on the state changing traditional beliefs, against the will of the majority. The state doesn't stop people from loving anyone, it just does not give them a license to marry. Taking the Bible out of it, I think the big issue is the children, not the sex. Evidence supports the bio family being the best unit, or a single parent being better than adding a step parent ... though this doesn't even get into the (added anxieties of?) same sex step parents. ... most children are better off economically when they are able to share in the income of two adults. When a second adult joins the household, there may be a reduction in the time and work pressures on the single parent. The research overturns this optimistic assumption, however. In general the evidence suggests that remarriage neither reproduces nor restores the intact family structure, even when it brings more income and a second adult into the household. Quite the contrary. Indeed, children living with stepparents appear to be even more disadvantaged than children living in a stable single-parent family. Other difficulties seem to offset the advantages of extra income and an extra pair of hands. However much our modern sympathies reject the fairy-tale portrait of stepparents, the latest research confirms that the old stories are anthropologically quite accurate. Stepfamilies disrupt established loyalties, create new uncertainties, provoke deep anxieties, and sometimes threaten a child's physical safety as well as emotional security. Perhaps it would seem a lesbian couple that decided to have the child together would come close to simulating the two bio parent family ... but I don't think there is data on that. I prefer more emphasis on the concept of the bio family unit ... instead of making having children seem more independent from marriage. So far the vast majority still think that way also, it would seem. Sorry, but I missed the significance of Jennifer not knowing what sex she was at five. Her mother was fundamentalist Christian .. where was the Father? Was she abused ... was the father absent, was the mother really gay (donna and rosie?) ... that is not much of a case history to make any "judgements" on. Even if she was born homosexual, why would she not know what sex she was at five? Something strange was going on in that house. And now she is a lesbian.

No, and that is why it has nothing to do with the positions of the various churches, but on the vote of the majority. There will always be judgment calls. Adultery is grounds for divorce ... but I thought it was no business of the state, what goes on in people's bedrooms. What is wrong with polygamy? This "union between any two of age people" is bigoted ... There are lines drawn somewhere, and the majority have overwhelmingly said male/female marriage is what they want. The minority should respect that instead of calling them bigots, haters, close minded, etc.

I would agree with jen-o ... it would be simple enough to briefly summarize why Eyes' would disagree with what seem to be obvious verses on the subject. Or if her views are even based on the Bible. The book seems based on many sources. As I recall, that topic of her book was not much on the book, but more on "buy my book". I just read the blurbs on it in Amazon and her own page ... and I saw no evidence of Teresa having any real background in Biblical research or any research, and actually there is evidence of problems with grammar. To do a fly by here, and spend a lot of time saying why she won't support her position, when just a little time supporting it would do, does seem evasive. OK city WOW ... don't you love homophobes too? God Bless Homophobes ... But really, the "God Bless Homosexuality" portion of this thread can be questioned. People may decide they don't want "marriage" to be allowed for homosexual mates, and they have ... it is that simple. Their vote may be partly or largely based on their interpretation of the Bible. It does not make them homophobes. It means they discriminate based on their belief that marriage is a man and woman. They do have history on their side as well. That is one problem I have with the "God bless California" lead in. What reason is given for saying "hey people, you can still believe adultery is wrong, but you need to change to the liberal university mandated dogma when it comes to homosexuality, or you are wrong." I would not want children taken from a Mom just because she lived with her lesbian lover, though Dad has rights also. And certainly lcm's rants sound pretty insane. I'd be in favor of some "equality", but not in favor of changing the "sacrament of marriage".

My point is the big problem is with so many young single people having children, as seen in Bramble's examples even. Yet there seems more emphasis (as I see it) on kids or society being told they have to accept all the alternatives, and seemingly even pushing the more liberal life style. And as Sudo noted, there is no stigma to having babies without being married. Safe sex and condoms seem a big issue in schools, but is there much emphasis on the importance of a whole family? Most of the kids I knew growing up had Mom and Dad, so what changed if now that is not the norm? I'm not sure Bramble's sample is representative ... several heterosexual moms in troubled situations, one solid lesbian couple with child. The radical left seems on a mission to push a standard that does not include married with children. That does not seem to be good for society, or something that should be "promoted" in schools. Most parents I knew stayed together ... so maybe I think it can still work. That seems to be what Sudo is saying, that it is now almost a standard to not get married ... is that somehow better ... let the teachers raise the children? Or the state .. or the village? I don't see why the lesbian couple could not give each other power of attorney for health care. I don't think the bio family could challenge that. In the case of death ... I don't know, but if the bio father wanted the child and had also been part of his life, I would think the other bio father would have rights also ... maybe even if bio-mom had remarried a man instead of a woman. As for health insurance, why do couples get a better deal than singles? And as to wills being challenged, any decent will would not be overturned.

I think they also found global warming on Mars. Probably a few years after we destroy our economy and the world is much less free, we will discover we are cooling and that CO2 had nothing to do with warming or cooling. I wonder if oil hits $200 ... if perhaps there will be a campaign issue about opening up ANWR or our many off shore sites for drilling. Maybe coal won't need to be perfectly pure. Maybe nuke reactors will be OK. The Gorebots have gotten their votes with the global warming scare ... what happens is evidence shows we have not warmed for a decade, and gas at the pump is $5.50? Perhaps people won't think these fairy tales from the left need to be put ahead of our lifestyle. Who is driving this old bUS anyway?

It doesn't seem to hurt the lesbian couple to not be married ... is there some standard that says a single mom can't be a lesbian or live as a lesbian couple? It does seem though, that besides learning about safe sex and being provided with condoms, that if somewhere these other young women had acquired more appreciation of the value of marriage and family in raising a child, it might have helped them. It seems instead there is more emphasis on making sure kids know how hip all the alternative lifestyles are, and "married with children" is cast as old fashioned or fundamentalist. For every one successful lesbian couple with child, there are what, 50 single heterosexual moms under 25?

This thread really started with a sort of dual subject. Should married homosexaul couples be treated as a "marriage" and afforded all the same benefits an protections (and liabilities). Does God bless this idea? Should Christians not believe what the Bible says about homosexual acts? So this merged the religious belief and the state position. But the state is the people. We are not a theocracy, run by the pope or the church, but we are a republic, and people can express their views and they get injected into the state. But I'll quote part of NIKA's intro ... If they can't live life, find true love, settle down, and raise a family, then that's wrong. I'm not trying to start a fight on this site. I'm just expressing my opinion that discrimination of this sort is as bad as racism or sexism. It's about time that a big state has taken a stand on it. This starts off assuming homosexual couples are the same as heterosexual. It is not axiomatic that because racism was wrong and sexism (depending on how that is defined) is wrong, that this is wrong. Discrimination takes place all the time .... age, size, intelligence, blood alcohol content ... the idea is to have a reason to discriminate. Either God made them that way, or they're convinced in their hearts that He did; either way, they feel that they have no choice but to be the way that they are. Again with the God thing ... the Bible God didn't make them that way as I recall, and how many homosexuals really believe any God did make them that way? I think mostly they are not religious people, which is fine. I don't know that this "no choice" thing is established, but for most intents and purposes, say it is. They are in no case a couple that can marry and bear their own children. Is this a reason to discriminate against them in any way, when it comes to raising children or being married? Despite a few wealthy and high profile examples, I'm not sure we know even from the sociologist's viewpoint. But every time it has been voted on, the people have voted against gay marriage. So the states have taken a stand on this issue time after time. This fall the state of California will vote on this issue again, and again they will take a stand on what they want. It may be mostly Christian people that vote against this, that doesn't make them bigots or wrong. It seems the burden of proof is on those that want to make the change. But maybe jen-o said it better.

It seems the only answer you will find acceptable is if Christians say yes, they are homophobes. My opinion is probably not representative ... jen-o is maybe closer ... but you keep trying to put this majority in a convenient box. So you are going to believe all those people are bigots because they disagree with you ... unless someone PROVES you wrong ... prove to me that doesn't make you bigoted. Kids learn concepts ... this further removes the concept of marriage and family ... Many today feel there is no good reason to get married, UNLESS you are going to have kids. But as Sudo's new thread points out, the standard now seems to just go ahead and have kids ... even in high school. It is not OK to "stigmatize" these kids .. so it is only acceptable to tell everyone how great it is that these young girls are having kids in high school. The concept that you get married then have kids has been removed. What are the schools teaching? I'm not adding to the legal definition. I'm saying it is part of the marriage picture. If you see people you haven't seen in 20 years what do you say? "So did you get married? Do you have kids?" The concept is of the longer term commitment ... and hopefully the idea of being "fruitful" and multiplying ... It just doesn't seem being fruity was part of the mix.

I think I said at the start .. the basic idea of marriage is family. No, not all heterosexual fam's bear and raise children ... still that is the basic idea of marriage and family. Simple Those stats are about the breakdown of the family .. redefining marriage to completely remove children as a component furthers that breakdown. He might be saying a lot of the current problems are from the leftward movement, and now this moves even further to the left. Entry level social workers are not the one passing out dictates on how the rest of the masses should live. Whole families have a better chance of raising the kid. Do you have any point here really? Well, did they do their job correctly? That can't be questioned? Judges can be removed. Why were they overturned, but the marriage law is never overturned? Because this is different .. which is my point ... yes I know what your point was. Hey, you said you were the homophobe and homosexual hater ... I don't think I ever was. I can give you any opinion I want, and I will answer the questions I want to answer. You have formed an image of the people that disagree with you ... homophobes, homosexual hating Christians .... but you don't know who they are ... I call them "the majority".

well, I'm guessing they don't have more than one volunteer yet ... Yeah, I liked those guys jumping ship in your ship pic ... freedom

Hey Bumpy one ... welcome back to the fray ... Glad you made it out of Africa ... time for a little wine ...

I don't read him much ... this article was linked from something else on the marriage subject ... but I don't know that he is a white supremacist. Your isolated quote sounds that way, but we have black pride groups (Obama's church) and Hispanic pride ... do you have to be white to be a racist? So you believe he is wrong on everything he says... because of your opinion about him ... Maybe you could just address what he says in my quote or the article. If you think it is all lies, wouldn't that be better than just labeling him? Bill Cosby seems to think the break down of the family unit is a huge problem in the black community. Is he also a racist ... a white supremacist?

Here is Buchanan's article on this subject. He seems to present a good case for why some of these Christian views make for sound culture. ... Christianity is the cornerstone of Western Civilization. Since the fall of Rome to our own time, nations have believed and acted on the belief that marriage and traditional families are the cinderblocks on which a society must be built. When these cinderblocks crumble, the society collapses. The truth has been born out in our own time. With a third of all children born out of wedlock -- 50 percent of all Hispanic kids, 70 percent of black kids -- and half of all marriages ending in divorce, the social indicators have recorded explosions -- in crime, violence, drug and alcohol abuse, dropout rates, gang membership, and jail and prison populations. The correlation between prison inmates and broken homes, or homes never created, is absolute. What armies of social scientists with six-figure salaries today tell us, 12-year-olds knew 50 years ago. Setting aside the risibility of the court's conduct, consider what it says about us as a democratic republic. We are supposed to be a self-governing people. "Here, sir, the people rule." Elected representatives write our laws. Yet, no Congress or state legislature ever voted to declare homosexual unions a marriage. The idea has everywhere been rejected. Wherever it has been on the ballot, same-sex marriage has been voted down.

I'll have to put one of those donate tabs with my messages, I don't need the kids so much, just send me money. Hey buddy, can you spare a dime? Stop global warming now ... Paint my barns, chop my wood, cook my meals, fix my old rusty truck ....

That is pretty interesting Bramble ... and it does seem socialism (or more socialized support) could work great, given a certain set of circumstances. A population of 300K on an island ... no military, I'm guessing a tiny "underclass" ... it also said there were some WW2 factors that benefited Iceland Much of their happiness may be that they are a small island of higher educated people, probably removed from some of the crime and problems of the lower class. So maybe they are shirking their "duties" of helping the "world's" poor. Or is it OK to be more isolationist? The first article I found on them though, said their economy is in a lot of trouble, they borrowed heavily to buy foreign assets, interest rates there are now at 15%, inflation between 10% and 28%, depending on the time frame. Your article also stated they are into brain gain, not brain drain ... on a world wide basis, that is a zero sum game. But the US has mostly been having brain gain ... though now we may be importing a lower class to do field work and menial labor. It would seem the US and most of the world is in a different situation. But I was raised by a single Mom. It was difficult for her, but extended family helped a lot. There are additional stresses that influence the Mom's life though, and that can get translated to the child. Hopefully it makes them stronger ...

Sure, words may change over hundreds of years. But you are treating this like first usage in the bible or something. The usage in our culture is the issue, not first usage 700 years ago, or whenever. Strike two.The comparison is of one thing to another ... even if the point is just the union ....the spiritual is compared to a real thing that has meaning. The real thing is bride and groom ... female and male. People understood that. In trying to squeeze your own meaning out of it, you blind yourself to the obvious. OK so you have an image of Christians being homophobes .... maybe you are projecting that on everyone that does not want a change in terminology. You said These views don't hold up to well in a social debate in a free country so the fundamentalist definition argument is what we get." I'm saying the definition is not a fundamentalist definition ... it is the definition everyone in the US used 40 years ago, whether they had a problem with homosexuality or not. It is still the established definition. To make the legal change seems an imposition. NIKA started the thread and titled it "God Bless California". So there was perhaps some irony that her God would be different than the traditions of Christianity. I don't accept the Bible's standards on many things, but it would not be surprising that many here still do. I can't see that the God of the Bible would bless a broader acceptance of the act of homosexuality. So someone said God would not bless California for this change ... but you saw that as them saying God damn America. Of the other things NIKA noted that "we" had wrong ... (adultery, abortion, women as second-class people) it is interesting that two of those hold more to the traditional Christian values, women as second class compares to the judge saying homosexuals were treated as second class if they were not treated equally in marriage law. Certainly TWI did not treat women fairly ... some more misogynist parts of the new testament are questioned as to validity ... I don't know of the real standard for treatment of women according to current Christianity. There is probably more importance put on the mother role than there is in the homosexual union. But NIKA was basically saying "God Bless the acceptance of homosexuality" ... so it would be little surprise that many that still believe the Bible would disagree with that. Yet no one said God Damn America ... and to compare them to Rev. Wright only seems half witty. This is different than a sodomy law ... it does nothing to interfere with what goes on in the bedroom. This is about changing the definition of marriage. You say things have changed ... in November we will see how much they have changed. If they change the constitution, their decision will not be judged unconstitutional. But 3 of 7 judges disagreed with the current decision, as well as a majority of citizens it would seem.

I stated that poorly ... she would not get half yours, she would get half that amount from the government ... This is just what I remember from an uncle ... she stayed over ten years which qualified her for better social security payments. Nothing to do with what you put in being taken ... of course it is already taken by the fed gov anyway.

There were a lot of "perhaps" in that word history ... and that was old english ... what is being voted on is American history and current majority opinion. I am a little surprised the constitution of CA can be changed with a simple majority, if that is correct. so ketchup got voted in, big deal ... I some some show with a restaurant where ketchup was not allowed .... damn the bigots ... There is certainly something about sex ... I think this says the opposite of what you are trying to make it say. The "metaphor", or whatever it is ... compares the relationship of Christ to the church (Israel?) with a man married to a woman. Or are you saying bride is gender neutral? Or that Christ is gender neutral? The point of comparison is the oneness as in a marriage ... I don't see how you can say a bride is referring to a man. Growing up (or even now?) if a man woman said they were married, didn't you assume it was to the opposite sex? That is what marriage was ... for all of US history probably, till recently. There is nothing fundamentalist about it ... that is the way it was for everyone. You seem to be trying too hard to tag people you disagree with with a label .. bigots, homophobes, racists .... didn't we already cover this name calling thing earlier? You really want to "god damn CA" because you don't agree with the voters ... they seem to want to bring it to a vote ... and they will be abiding by the judges ruling ... decent and in order ... you want to damn CA for that process proceeding?

So DM and sis donated this farm to which ministry? CFF? or is there another ministry? In any case, that is apparently the ministry that will have material abundance from this corps program? It is also the one that is closely tied to the program. They would probably have liability as well. But the donate button goes to v2p2.

Marriage of convenience ... I think of that movie "Green Card" I think a divorced spouse gets half the social security of his divorced spouse, if it was more than his? But they may have to be married for 10 years. It seems there can be health care benefits that favor a spouse on many jobs. But I was saying no couples should get tax breaks or extra benefits, unless perhaps it is for children. Anyway ... "legal protections" were mentioned at the outset. I still haven't seen those listed exactly. It seems this can be overturned by a vote in November. the measure would go on the November ballot and, if approved by voters, would override any court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage. Californians have already voted once, in 2000, to reaffirm the 1977 state law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The 2000 initiative, Proposition 22, was not a constitutional amendment.

Why does the chicken have to be Italian?