Just ask yourself ... is there a distinction between the family unit you were raised in, or the one you raised ... and the average homosexual union? Are there any qualities of the traditional family unit that might be beneficial to the child ... over the average gay unit?
You think the gender of the parents is the distinction to be focused on? I don't. I think it is the quality of the parent - do they love the child? Do they care about his/her education, sense of self, etc.? Do they spend time with the child? Do they protect the child? THOSE are some of the things that matter. Gender, not so much.
My 11 year old son's best friend comes from a unique family. He lives with his mother and step-father, and spends weekends with his biological father who is transgendered. He is comfortable with his transgendered father, whom he calls by HER name (I"ll use N).
His mother and step-father do not appear to spend much qualilty time with him. They do not appear to care overly much about his education - at least, not enough to ever participate in school functions or show up for the various holiday concerts and other events that occur there.
They are nice enough people, don't misunderstand there, they just don't appear to be all that involved in their son's life.
His transgendered biological father, on the otherhand, takes him hunting, fishing, gets involved.
Personally, I'm more comfortable having my son hang with N. because she takes an active interest in the kids.
As for her son, he seems quite well adjusted and does not have any problems explaining who N is to him. I've not seen him get any grief from other kids about it either. Sometimes I think the kids are much wiser than the adults when it comes to these things.
go ahead and have a party over this legal decision if you want... but don't expect God to bless california because of it!
God has already given his opinion on homosexual behavior:
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
[romans 1: 26-27]
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them."
[leviticus 20:13]
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination."
[leviticus 18:22]
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals (malakos), nor sodomites (arsenokoites), nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."
[1 cor. 6:9]
"And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father.
And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made."
[1 kings 15:11-12]
so like i said: have a party if you want, but don't expect God to bless it!
A majority of white Southerners didn't want Black people to be able to vote
i've heard this argument before, but being black is NOT the same thing as being homosexual...
homosexuals want "rights" based upon BEHAVIOR (specifically, sexual behavior)...
i've heard this argument before, but being black is NOT the same thing as being homosexual...
homosexuals want "rights" based upon BEHAVIOR (specifically, sexual behavior)...
Yeah, and there was a time when an unmarried woman could not get birthcontrol pills (though an unmarried man could still buy condoms). It took the passage of the 26th Amendment followed by CASE law, to make it legal for an unmarried woman to have access to birth control pills.
There is a law based upon rights regarding sexual behavior. Or should we go back to the old days when only single men could have access to birth control?
You think the gender of the parents is the distinction to be focused on? I don't. I think it is the quality of the parent - do they love the child? Do they care about his/her education, sense of self, etc.? Do they spend time with the child? Do they protect the child? THOSE are some of the things that matter. Gender, not so much.
If they are the parents, they are mother and father. I'm just saying there is a rather obvious difference. A man and wife can have their own children and raise them, which seems the best. If two homosexuals have children, that basic unit has already been broken .... at best one is a mother or father.
Voters thought there isa difference ... probably the writers of the constitution thought so ... five judges of eight (I think) decided otherwise. I don't know if this ruling has anything to do with the ability to adopt ... it is about whether homosexuals can be "married".
There is nothing (apparently) in the CA constitution to say there is anything wrong with having a distinct designation. It just happened that a slight majority of judges decided CA should have legal gay marriage, despite the preference of the majority of the people. Here again...
... they've determined that marriage is a
basic substantive right
, which is just jargon for "we're going to overrule the legislature and the people acting through the initiative process, just
because.
" That sounds snider and snarkier than it is. That's really all it means. Categorizing something as a "fundamental" or "basic" "substantive" "right" is just a bit of judicial code for "We get to decide and no one else does."
Well fortunately (or unfortunately-depending on your view) we dont live in a theocracy.
Iran was close for awhile--Al Qaeda is trying---our system evolved out of the era of divine kingdoms-- somehow that stuff never quite works in a practical way--no matter how many times it is tried---but because you still have the freedom to choose, no one is forcing you to go against your own personal interpretation of scripture for your own life.
If you are given that freedom to live as you choose, which I assume you think is a good deal, why do yo feel compelled to restrict the same freedom of choice to others?
I DON'T have the freedom "to live as I choose," and neither do you. I have to follow laws. I prefer those that are in accord with God's Word, because I believe those are most beneficial to mankind. I have the freedom to vote for those laws I desire (either directly or representationally through elected officials); but it's meaningless if a judge can decide that HE thinks the law is inappropriate and toss it out.
language is powerful... and categorizing something as a "basic, fundamental right" makes it more powerful...
abbie,
you really thing that having access to birth control is the same thing as practicing homosexual acts??
i don't...
shalom to all,
jen-o
*****POSTED BY ABIGAIL********** I forgot Sushi logged back in.
Yes, I do. Most Christian and many non-Christian religions teach sex outside of marriage is a sin. Why then, would any non married person need birth control, except to use it while committing a sin?
You do realize, Jen, that there are Christians who believe the use of birth control is sin. There are some Jewish people who have similar views towards birth control. I don't want either group dictating such laws to me.
I don't wish to have any religious group dictate civil laws to me.
From a religious standpoint, I will follow those creeds that fit with my own religious beliefs, but I will not impose those upon another.
If they are the parents, they are mother and father. I'm just saying there is a rather obvious difference. A man and wife can have their own children and raise them, which seems the best. If two homosexuals have children, that basic unit has already been broken .... at best one is a mother or father.
Fertilizing a woman's egg and/or giving birth may make one a biological parent, but it doesn't make a person a good, decent, fit parent. Not by a long shot!!!
If the fear is the destruction of the "typical" or "old fashioned" family unit - look around you. In most states homosexual marriages are not legal and are not recognized. Despite that, the family unit, as it was once known, is by and large gone. That is not the fault of homosexuals, that is the fault of heterosexuals.
If the goal is to preserve the family unit, then we need to turn time and laws backward. We need to make it darned near impossible to get divorced. We need to make unwed pregnant girls either abort, give the child up for adoption, or marry the father.
Yet, even if we do those things, it won't mean the family unit is good, healthy, or best for the child. So we better come up with some laws governing what is and is not acceptable parenting.
Is it okay to feed the kid three squares, house them, send the to school but not be in any way shape or form involved in their education, moral upbrining, etc.?
Is it okay to spank them? Is it okay to refuse to spank them?
Do we allow them to play video games instead of making them play outdoors?
Is it okay to let them eat unhealthy junk food and if so, how much?
Who and what governs what makes a family a whole unit (as opposed to the broken one you refer to)? Is simply having two parents of opposite sex under one roof all it takes or is it, perhaps, a bit more involved than that?
Well asked questions. How many people on GSC have commented/complained about their divorces? And what is/was the pain cost to the children? Were we any better than a gay family? In many cases (unless you still swear by some TWI Romans teaching) the answer is no. I am not a big gay supporter - however I just don't think this is such a big issue unless conservative scripture is somehow still a controlling influence.
Fertilizing a woman's egg and/or giving birth may make one a biological parent, but it doesn't make a person a good, decent, fit parent. Not by a long shot!!!
If the fear is the destruction of the "typical" or "old fashioned" family unit - look around you. In most states homosexual marriages are not legal and are not recognized. Despite that, the family unit, as it was once known, is by and large gone. That is not the fault of homosexuals, that is the fault of heterosexuals.
If the goal is to preserve the family unit, then we need to turn time and laws backward. We need to make it darned near impossible to get divorced. We need to make unwed pregnant girls either abort, give the child up for adoption, or marry the father.
Yet, even if we do those things, it won't mean the family unit is good, healthy, or best for the child. So we better come up with some laws governing what is and is not acceptable parenting.
Is it okay to feed the kid three squares, house them, send the to school but not be in any way shape or form involved in their education, moral upbrining, etc.?
Is it okay to spank them? Is it okay to refuse to spank them?
Do we allow them to play video games instead of making them play outdoors?
Is it okay to let them eat unhealthy junk food and if so, how much?
Who and what governs what makes a family a whole unit (as opposed to the broken one you refer to)? Is simply having two parents of opposite sex under one roof all it takes or is it, perhaps, a bit more involved than that?
The biggest social cost of this move will be to companies that offer subsidized insurance to married couples. not the tax issue. All companies that offer shared or free health coverage to spouses will now have to offer it to same-sex partners if they are married.
Actually, the more immediate effect may be current same sex 'partners' to lose their subsidized medical benefits unless they actually get married...In Arizona, where same sex marriage is not legal, a live-in hetorosexual partner must be married to the employee for them to qualify for insurance benefits, but since same-sex couples cannot be legally married, and employers cannot discriminate against same sex couples, the live-in 'domestic partners' of gays qualify for bennies...So, in effect, in California, employers will now be able to force the hand of gay couples---either get married or the live-in partner loses his/her benefits...
Today as I was sitting on the patio I noticed the birds, Cardinals in particular. They are mates for life, you know. One male and one female. We have mostly Cardinals nesting around us. Their diligence impresses me. We had a nest of Towhees. The mom and dad worked to build the nest on the patio arbor. They took turns sitting on the beautiful blue eggs. They worked like crazy to feed those four beautiful babies. We have 10 Dove mates (20) that have lived around us for years. Their children are close by. They are mates for life also. Male and female. We have plenty of squirrels, too. There are several nests in the Oak trees. The babies sure have a loud screech. The parents scamper up and down the trees all day long. Sorry, but I can't tell the difference between mom and dad. All squirrels look alike to me.
Who wrote their constitution? The critter kingdom gets it where the human kingdom is found wanting and hanging in the balance.
To a certain extent yes you do, nobody is trying to harness your beliefs or practice of those beliefs other than where it is restrained by law (No you cant sacrifice animals or stone unruly children or marry multiple wives..)
As a christian I assume you believe that a young virgin gave birth to a child, who grew through his years without ever once doing anything wrong, and after he died became "undead" (or something along those lines).
To many people that sounds completely crazy.
So they think its crazy, so what? You still have the freedom to love and serve the undead guy to your hearts content no matter what anyone says
To you -well--you havent stipulated exactly what you think -only that it is against your God's Law so I assume you think it is crazy (or pick your own word..)for the possibility of people of the same sex to fall in love and want to be wed.
Is it any crazier than believing a man rose from the dead, or a woman who never had sex could conceive? Not really.
If equality under the law and equality of justice are hallmarks of this country and its supposed freedoms, how can one group (in this case fundamentalist christians )legally and in good conscience demand special attention that excludes others who are also promised the same freedom to "pursue their happiness".
It doesn't make sense to withhold from others what has been given to them.
IMO Christians would do well and go a lot further in their impact in society if they would learn to Love their Neighbor instead of spending their energies looking on others as misfits, undesirables and evil ones..
Fertilizing a woman's egg and/or giving birth may make one a biological parent, but it doesn't make a person a good, decent, fit parent. Not by a long shot!!!
If the fear is the destruction of the "typical" or "old fashioned" family unit - look around you. In most states homosexual marriages are not legal and are not recognized. Despite that, the family unit, as it was once known, is by and large gone. That is not the fault of homosexuals, that is the fault of heterosexuals.
I think Kimberly makes a good point ... in nature it is instinctive for the actual parent to care more about their kids. Just because our culture seems to be breaking that structure is not reason to say it is a failure. What does it matter if many fail ... what does that have to do with redefining "marriage"?
As I said earlier, I don't really see the point of big tax breaks for married people, except that it promotes "society" to reproduce itself. It seems a large part of the problem with kids today is the breakdown of that husband wife structure, the loss of either father or mother oversight. What is the logic of saying since there are broken homes and marriages, we should just break down the rules even further?
If the goal is to preserve the family unit, then we need toturn time and laws backward. We need to make it darned near impossible to get divorced. We need to make unwed pregnant girls either abort, give the child up for adoption, or marry the father.
Yet, even if we do those things, it won't mean the family unit is good, healthy, or best for the child. So we better come up with some laws governing what is and is not acceptable parenting.
Well YOU have come up with a bizarre list of solutions. I don't see why any of those things are the way to preserve the family unit.
There are already standards for marriage, that is being changed, time and laws are not going backward. There are aready laws for proper parental care. Are you saying there should be more laws on what parenting should require? What does that have to do with changing the law to include homosexuals n the marriage institution?
Who and what governs what makes a family a whole unit (as opposed to the broken one you refer to)? Is simply having two parents of opposite sex under one roof all it takes or is it, perhaps, a bit more involved than that?
Well history shows what has worked best ... and maybe the animal kingdom ... but government governs. Saying the strongest unit has been the real mother and father raising their children, is hardly the same as saying that is ALL that is required. But your idea of making a hundred new laws on diet and parental involvement seems bizarre to me.
Of course there is more to parenting than just having the kids ... but it seems quite evident that a "broken home" is one where those natural parents are not together. In general, the real parents will have the strongest instinctive drive to care for and protect the child. Isn't that obvious?
Many things in culture have worked toward breaking that family unit. Much of psychology revolves around mother and father figures, or lack thereof. You seem to be saying the choice is either to add a whole nuther level of draconian laws, or give up on it entirely.
Why not just keep marriage what it was ... and again, the only reason I see for tax breaks is for promotion of bearing and raising children. The real parents will have by far the strongest natural bond to care for their kids. There are already laws that make it more difficult to leave that institution ... which seems most important for the kids.
Putting "gay marriage" in that mix doesn't make sense to me, or the voters, or the state (of CA in this case). It made sense to a slim majority of judges who determined it on their own ...
Again, it does NOT appear to be based in law ... except what was just defined by some judges. From mstars quote ..
Discrimination based on sexual orientation, the majority ruled on Thursday, also requires that sort of more rigorous justification. The court acknowledged that it was the first state high court to adopt the standard, strict scrutiny, in sexual orientation cases.
The judge compared it to inter racial marriage, which seems pretty lame. Race is not even definable. But the concept of parents raising their young has been around for a while. But the judges determined that it would need more "rigorous justification" ... which apparently legally means these judges decided there must be gay marriage, it is the same because they said so.
Then they admit they are the first to adopt that standard. It is not as Hap put it ...
the CA Supreme court ruled on the basis of one thing ONLY! - Did the statute violate the CA STATE Constitution. It is not a matter of them over-ruling the 'will of the people', but whether the 'will of the people' violated the Constitution. IT IS THEIR JOB, under the law, to make that decision.
The only thing "violated" was the rule that these judges just now determined on their own. I suppose IT IS THEIR JOB ... but this is new and determined not by the constitution or any precedent ... this was decided solely by these judges. THEY decided ... it seems misleading to say it violated the CA STATE Constitution.
BUT ... in CA, it seems all rights of marriage are already granted, except for the name of "marriage" ... so perhaps their own opinion is more justified ... the protection of children and all is already a moot point. If all the rights of marriage are already granted ... and homosexual couples can have kids, what does it serve to not allow them to be called "married"?
If we are promoting anything by way of incentive ... it would seem the mother father raising their kids should be the gold standard. The roles and provisions for foster parents or adopted parents is secondary, but important. Establishing gay unions as a first choice for raising children seems questionable to me.
I say live and let live, if this encourages gay people to get married, I think society benefits.
If this helps to make people healthier by having access to med bennies, that's good too...In addition they'll be 100% responsible for eachother's debts, be able to form marital trusts for themselves and legally claim and protect their children etc., again, society benefits. All bringing more stability to this segment of society.
Let's face it, gay people are here to stay, excluding them from having recognition as a family is discriminatory, on a human plane, its the loving thing to do.
YES!!!! PRAISE GOD!!! That chant is running through the compounds of the FLDS , even though they are strongly against same sex anything. If you don't define marriage as a civil contract between a man and a woman you've opened the door for the plural marriage lobby. The Texas compound and the Canyon City bunch are now loading their hand carts and will flee the oppression of the persecuting states they live in. FLDS compounds around the world are waiting to see the reception to see if the Lord God Almighty has given them a new Zion, like he gave them Utah before the corruption of doctrine.
Animal rights groups that REALLY love their animals are also watching with great expectations!
I think Kimberly makes a good point ... in nature it is instinctive for the actual parent to care more about their kids. Just because our culture seems to be breaking that structure is not reason to say it is a failure. What does it matter if many fail ... what does that have to do with redefining "marriage"?
I have to say, I find the whole example of animals in nature to be rather hilarious. For every type of animal that mates for life, there are at LEAST two more that do not. Similarly, there are plenty that do not care for their young, or only care for them for a very short period of time. Indeed, there are even some that will eat their own young.
I could very easily take the argument you and Kimberly have presented and say we should all eat our young. Look at rats, they do it, therefore God must have designed us that way.
As I said earlier, I don't really see the point of big tax breaks for married people, except that it promotes "society" to reproduce itself.
I want to know what these big tax breaks for married couples are!!! Really, I am married and I do not get big tax breaks. In fact, I lost $5,000 on my return from the earned income credit when Sushi and I got married. The only "extra" tax break I get is the deductibles for my two children (deductibles I would still be eligible for even if I were not married) and those aren't huge. I certainly do not get back what I spend to feed, clothe, and house them. Nor do I even get back what I spend for childcare while I work.
Regardless, people will reproduce with or without tax breaks. Those who want children (homosexual or heterosexual) and cannot have them naturally, will still look to adopt them with or without tax breaks. So I guess I agree with you here, I don't see the point in big tax breaks for married people, nor am I convinced they even exist.
It seems a large part of the problem with kids today is the breakdown of that husband wife structure, the loss of either father or mother oversight. What is the logic of saying since there are broken homes and marriages, we should just break down the rules even further?
Are you being intentionally dense or can you just not help it? The point was simply to point out that allowing homosexuals to marry isn't going to harm the traditional family unit and the argument saying it will is completely flawed and lacking in logic.
There are aready laws for proper parental care. Are you saying there should be more laws on what parenting should require? What does that have to do with changing the law to include homosexuals n the marriage institution?
Thank you for making my point. What does allowing homosexuals to marry have to do with laws for proper parental care or the protection of the fictionalized and overly romanticized traditional family unit? Homsexuals do not threaten the family unit and I fail to see why those opposed to homosexual marriage continue to try to argue that it does.
Well history shows what has worked best ... and maybe the animal kingdom ... but government governs. Saying the strongest unit has been the real mother and father raising their children, is hardly the same as saying that is ALL that is required.
I still don't see why or how history shows the reall mother and father raising the children has been historically proven to be what works best. I think one can find millions and millions of situations where that was not the one that worked best for the child.
The unit that works best for the children is the unit where there are adults (ideally more than two counting an extended family unit and/or support system of concerned adults) who are willing to give the child the proper love and care, regardless of gender or biology. Indeed, I'm betting there are a large number of people who have adopted kids, who would argue the biological parents would NOT have been the best parents for the child. Again, it is a flawed argument and really, has nothing to do with whether or not homosexuals marry. Homosexuals do not threaten the traditional family unit. Heterosexuals are the ones who have threatened that.
In general, the real parents will have the strongest instinctive drive to care for and protect the child. Isn't that obvious?
No, it is not obvious. One could argue that IDEALLY the real parents would have that, but in reality many do not. How many stories does one have to read about abused and neglected kids before one realizes we are not born with instincts on how to properly parent. Hell, all I have to do is spend a week or so at any public school in this city to realize a large number of parents do not have an instictive drive to care for and protect their children. Many of them have never even seen the inside of the school building or met the person they "entrust" their child to for 7 hours a day 5 days a week.
I dunno Ductape. If someone wants to marry Fido.. why not let them? I mean.. a person generally marries with one considered an intellectual peer of sorts..
YES!!!! PRAISE GOD!!! That chant is running through the compounds of the FLDS , even though they are strongly against same sex anything. If you don't define marriage as a civil contract between a man and a woman you've opened the door for the plural marriage lobby. The Texas compound and the Canyon City bunch are now loading their hand carts and will flee the oppression of the persecuting states they live in. FLDS compounds around the world are waiting to see the reception to see if the Lord God Almighty has given them a new Zion, like he gave them Utah before the corruption of doctrine.
Animal rights groups that REALLY love their animals are also watching with great expectations!
Ya know, Ducttape. I could care less if people have multiple spouses. I fail to see how it is any of my damned business if someone is married to 2, 3, or more people of the same or opposite sex at the same time as long as they are all CONSENTING ADULTS.
However, forcing 13 and 14 year old children into marriage, forcing them to have sex, that is an entirely different topic that again, has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not homosexuals should marry.
Straw man arguments - that is the best the opposition can come up with.
My personal experiences with homosexuals is what has lead me to think that they realy are a sub culture to themselves..that is on the rise everywhere. It has slowly been on the rise due to the increase of being accepted way of life, where somewhere in thier own personal choices they choose this lifestyle do to self esteem, bad hetero relationships, personal gratification.Instituting the right to be wed to each other only gives it more credance for it to florish more. It is a glorifed way of life only to them. Most of the folks I have met have clearly had or have deep emotional troubles..they also feel secure in thier own kind..
Last month I walked into the coffe break room and one of the guy's getting coffee was gay..he was all pretty in a pink shirt. the other guy was hetero and complimented me on my pink sweater..they gay guy got all flustered and stuck his nose up in the air and left abruptly...I didnt deserve that.
I could very easily take the argument you and Kimberly have presented and say we should all eat our young. Look at rats, they do it, therefore God must have designed us that way.
Well, I said it was an INSTINCTIVE part of humans that is clear in nature ... most animals will fight heroically to protect their young, and that is true of most humans.
That is a very clear point, your point of eating our children because some rats do ... would be a stupid argument. People that are called dirty rats are not good people But yes, you could easily make that stupid argument.
Are you being intentionally dense or can you just not help it? The point was simply to point out that allowing homosexuals to marry isn't going to harm the traditional family unit and the argument saying it will is completely flawed and lacking in logic.
Is it possible to be intentionally dense? No ... YOU are completely flawed and lacking in knowledge. What does that phrase contribute to the dialogue? And we are well off the point of this CA ruling ... but the broader subject is more interesting.
"Marriage" has a different historical meaning than gay couples. What is the purpose of breaking that down? Changing the "institution of marriage" can do harm. Why should it be changed to make it something it never was? There is little history to go on to show if children raised in homosexual families will do well. Since they will never be the actual parents, will there still be mother /father roles? They are not equal to a regular marriage, why pretend they are?
What does allowing homosexuals to marry have to do with laws for proper parental care or the protection of the fictionalized and overly romanticized traditional family unit? Homsexuals do not threaten the family unit and I fail to see why those opposed to homosexual marriage continue to try to argue that it does.
that is better than saying everyone is stupid if they don't agree with you.
It is your opinion that the traditional family is fictional and overly romanticized. So single teenage mothers as the norm is just fine ... the traditional family is fiction anyway. Yet much of psychology and resolving problems revolves around these mom and dad characters in our life. The term parenting has it root in "parents".
Changing the meanings of words is fundamental to changing society itself. Most seem to think marriage has a more special place, that includes parenting. Same sex marriages that don't have children have failed in that aspect ... but I guess they have the potential to be parents. A gay union is a different concept.
I still don't see why or how history shows the real mother and father raising the children has been historically proven to be what works best. I think one can find millions and millions of situations where that was not the one that worked best for the child.
Well "broken homes" are more prevalent now I guess ... why is that? I was raised by a single Mom, but almost all my friends had mom and dad. Now it is much more the norm for kids to be raised by one parent or none, I guess. But I think those single teen mothers would be better off if they had held a standard of having a Dad in the effort with them. As I said, it seems that should be the gold standard. Not the notion that "married with children" is fiction and a farce.
The unit that works best for the children is the unit where there are adults (ideally more than two counting an extended family unit and/or support system of concerned adults) who are willing to give the child the proper love and care, regardless of gender or biology. Indeed, I'm betting there are a large number of people who have adopted kids, who would argue the biological parents would NOT have been the best parents for the child. Again, it is a flawed argument and really, has nothing to do with whether or not homosexuals marry. Homosexuals do not threaten the traditional family unit. Heterosexuals are the ones who have threatened that.
Who will be determining who the best parents should be? Maybe there should be some of those previous standards you mentioned (involvement, diet) and there can be a legal scorecard, and the children can be taken from the parents and distributed to those homosexual couples that have higher scores.
You mention the extended family, which is extremely important .... but how often does that extended family have as its most heroic helpers ... other blood relatives? Family is blood ... it is not old fashioned tradition and fictional. Families come from marriages.
Hell, all I have to do is spend a week or so at any public school in this city to realize a large number of parents do not have an instictive drive to care for and protect their children.
That breakdown in society should be looked at. It does not indicate the real parents don't have an instinctive drive to care for their kid ... but it has been replaced by something ... the government? So we need more government, or a better vision of the strong family?
You got to tell me that if there was parenting -- help me -- if there was parenting, he wouldn’t have picked up the Coca Cola bottle and walked out with it to get shot in the back of the head. He wouldn’t have. Not if he loved his parents. And not if they were parenting! Not if the father would come home. Not if the boy hadn’t dropped the sperm cell inside of the girl and the girl had said, “No, you have to come back here and be the father of this child.” Not ..“I don’t have to.”
LikeAnEagle ... I agree, it is a subculture ... gay marriage is a celebrity cause ... but does it really help us .. or is it just another thing the left wants to break down?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
22
22
52
16
Popular Days
May 18
57
May 17
34
May 25
29
May 21
27
Top Posters In This Topic
jen-o 22 posts
WhiteDove 22 posts
rhino 52 posts
bfh 16 posts
Popular Days
May 18 2008
57 posts
May 17 2008
34 posts
May 25 2008
29 posts
May 21 2008
27 posts
Posted Images
Abigail
You think the gender of the parents is the distinction to be focused on? I don't. I think it is the quality of the parent - do they love the child? Do they care about his/her education, sense of self, etc.? Do they spend time with the child? Do they protect the child? THOSE are some of the things that matter. Gender, not so much.
My 11 year old son's best friend comes from a unique family. He lives with his mother and step-father, and spends weekends with his biological father who is transgendered. He is comfortable with his transgendered father, whom he calls by HER name (I"ll use N).
His mother and step-father do not appear to spend much qualilty time with him. They do not appear to care overly much about his education - at least, not enough to ever participate in school functions or show up for the various holiday concerts and other events that occur there.
They are nice enough people, don't misunderstand there, they just don't appear to be all that involved in their son's life.
His transgendered biological father, on the otherhand, takes him hunting, fishing, gets involved.
Personally, I'm more comfortable having my son hang with N. because she takes an active interest in the kids.
As for her son, he seems quite well adjusted and does not have any problems explaining who N is to him. I've not seen him get any grief from other kids about it either. Sometimes I think the kids are much wiser than the adults when it comes to these things.
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
God has already given his opinion on homosexual behavior:
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
[romans 1: 26-27]
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them."
[leviticus 20:13]
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination."
[leviticus 18:22]
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals (malakos), nor sodomites (arsenokoites), nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."
[1 cor. 6:9]
"And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father.
And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made."
[1 kings 15:11-12]
so like i said: have a party if you want, but don't expect God to bless it!
i've heard this argument before, but being black is NOT the same thing as being homosexual...
homosexuals want "rights" based upon BEHAVIOR (specifically, sexual behavior)...
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Yeah, and there was a time when an unmarried woman could not get birthcontrol pills (though an unmarried man could still buy condoms). It took the passage of the 26th Amendment followed by CASE law, to make it legal for an unmarried woman to have access to birth control pills.
There is a law based upon rights regarding sexual behavior. Or should we go back to the old days when only single men could have access to birth control?
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
If they are the parents, they are mother and father. I'm just saying there is a rather obvious difference. A man and wife can have their own children and raise them, which seems the best. If two homosexuals have children, that basic unit has already been broken .... at best one is a mother or father.
Voters thought there isa difference ... probably the writers of the constitution thought so ... five judges of eight (I think) decided otherwise. I don't know if this ruling has anything to do with the ability to adopt ... it is about whether homosexuals can be "married".
There is nothing (apparently) in the CA constitution to say there is anything wrong with having a distinct designation. It just happened that a slight majority of judges decided CA should have legal gay marriage, despite the preference of the majority of the people. Here again...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
rhino,
i agree with you...
language is powerful... and categorizing something as a "basic, fundamental right" makes it more powerful...
abbie,
you really think that having access to birth control is the same thing as practicing homosexual acts??
i don't...
shalom to all,
jen-o
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
I DON'T have the freedom "to live as I choose," and neither do you. I have to follow laws. I prefer those that are in accord with God's Word, because I believe those are most beneficial to mankind. I have the freedom to vote for those laws I desire (either directly or representationally through elected officials); but it's meaningless if a judge can decide that HE thinks the law is inappropriate and toss it out.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
*****POSTED BY ABIGAIL********** I forgot Sushi logged back in.
Yes, I do. Most Christian and many non-Christian religions teach sex outside of marriage is a sin. Why then, would any non married person need birth control, except to use it while committing a sin?
You do realize, Jen, that there are Christians who believe the use of birth control is sin. There are some Jewish people who have similar views towards birth control. I don't want either group dictating such laws to me.
I don't wish to have any religious group dictate civil laws to me.
From a religious standpoint, I will follow those creeds that fit with my own religious beliefs, but I will not impose those upon another.
Edited by SushiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Fertilizing a woman's egg and/or giving birth may make one a biological parent, but it doesn't make a person a good, decent, fit parent. Not by a long shot!!!
If the fear is the destruction of the "typical" or "old fashioned" family unit - look around you. In most states homosexual marriages are not legal and are not recognized. Despite that, the family unit, as it was once known, is by and large gone. That is not the fault of homosexuals, that is the fault of heterosexuals.
If the goal is to preserve the family unit, then we need to turn time and laws backward. We need to make it darned near impossible to get divorced. We need to make unwed pregnant girls either abort, give the child up for adoption, or marry the father.
Yet, even if we do those things, it won't mean the family unit is good, healthy, or best for the child. So we better come up with some laws governing what is and is not acceptable parenting.
Is it okay to feed the kid three squares, house them, send the to school but not be in any way shape or form involved in their education, moral upbrining, etc.?
Is it okay to spank them? Is it okay to refuse to spank them?
Do we allow them to play video games instead of making them play outdoors?
Is it okay to let them eat unhealthy junk food and if so, how much?
Who and what governs what makes a family a whole unit (as opposed to the broken one you refer to)? Is simply having two parents of opposite sex under one roof all it takes or is it, perhaps, a bit more involved than that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Well asked questions. How many people on GSC have commented/complained about their divorces? And what is/was the pain cost to the children? Were we any better than a gay family? In many cases (unless you still swear by some TWI Romans teaching) the answer is no. I am not a big gay supporter - however I just don't think this is such a big issue unless conservative scripture is somehow still a controlling influence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I dunno. I think the "demonization" of homosexuality is really nothing more than finding a scapegoat for what's supposedly *really* wrong in america..
from a "christian" or "biblical" point of view, it's just too easy of a target..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
simonzelotes
Actually, the more immediate effect may be current same sex 'partners' to lose their subsidized medical benefits unless they actually get married...In Arizona, where same sex marriage is not legal, a live-in hetorosexual partner must be married to the employee for them to qualify for insurance benefits, but since same-sex couples cannot be legally married, and employers cannot discriminate against same sex couples, the live-in 'domestic partners' of gays qualify for bennies...So, in effect, in California, employers will now be able to force the hand of gay couples---either get married or the live-in partner loses his/her benefits...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kimberly
Today as I was sitting on the patio I noticed the birds, Cardinals in particular. They are mates for life, you know. One male and one female. We have mostly Cardinals nesting around us. Their diligence impresses me. We had a nest of Towhees. The mom and dad worked to build the nest on the patio arbor. They took turns sitting on the beautiful blue eggs. They worked like crazy to feed those four beautiful babies. We have 10 Dove mates (20) that have lived around us for years. Their children are close by. They are mates for life also. Male and female. We have plenty of squirrels, too. There are several nests in the Oak trees. The babies sure have a loud screech. The parents scamper up and down the trees all day long. Sorry, but I can't tell the difference between mom and dad. All squirrels look alike to me.
Who wrote their constitution? The critter kingdom gets it where the human kingdom is found wanting and hanging in the balance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
To a certain extent yes you do, nobody is trying to harness your beliefs or practice of those beliefs other than where it is restrained by law (No you cant sacrifice animals or stone unruly children or marry multiple wives..)
As a christian I assume you believe that a young virgin gave birth to a child, who grew through his years without ever once doing anything wrong, and after he died became "undead" (or something along those lines).
To many people that sounds completely crazy.
So they think its crazy, so what? You still have the freedom to love and serve the undead guy to your hearts content no matter what anyone says
To you -well--you havent stipulated exactly what you think -only that it is against your God's Law so I assume you think it is crazy (or pick your own word..)for the possibility of people of the same sex to fall in love and want to be wed.
Is it any crazier than believing a man rose from the dead, or a woman who never had sex could conceive? Not really.
If equality under the law and equality of justice are hallmarks of this country and its supposed freedoms, how can one group (in this case fundamentalist christians )legally and in good conscience demand special attention that excludes others who are also promised the same freedom to "pursue their happiness".
It doesn't make sense to withhold from others what has been given to them.
IMO Christians would do well and go a lot further in their impact in society if they would learn to Love their Neighbor instead of spending their energies looking on others as misfits, undesirables and evil ones..
( I think that is also one of Gods Laws...)
Edited by mstar1Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I think Kimberly makes a good point ... in nature it is instinctive for the actual parent to care more about their kids. Just because our culture seems to be breaking that structure is not reason to say it is a failure. What does it matter if many fail ... what does that have to do with redefining "marriage"?
As I said earlier, I don't really see the point of big tax breaks for married people, except that it promotes "society" to reproduce itself. It seems a large part of the problem with kids today is the breakdown of that husband wife structure, the loss of either father or mother oversight. What is the logic of saying since there are broken homes and marriages, we should just break down the rules even further?
Well YOU have come up with a bizarre list of solutions. I don't see why any of those things are the way to preserve the family unit.
There are already standards for marriage, that is being changed, time and laws are not going backward. There are aready laws for proper parental care. Are you saying there should be more laws on what parenting should require? What does that have to do with changing the law to include homosexuals n the marriage institution?
Well history shows what has worked best ... and maybe the animal kingdom ... but government governs. Saying the strongest unit has been the real mother and father raising their children, is hardly the same as saying that is ALL that is required. But your idea of making a hundred new laws on diet and parental involvement seems bizarre to me.
Of course there is more to parenting than just having the kids ... but it seems quite evident that a "broken home" is one where those natural parents are not together. In general, the real parents will have the strongest instinctive drive to care for and protect the child. Isn't that obvious?
Many things in culture have worked toward breaking that family unit. Much of psychology revolves around mother and father figures, or lack thereof. You seem to be saying the choice is either to add a whole nuther level of draconian laws, or give up on it entirely.
Why not just keep marriage what it was ... and again, the only reason I see for tax breaks is for promotion of bearing and raising children. The real parents will have by far the strongest natural bond to care for their kids. There are already laws that make it more difficult to leave that institution ... which seems most important for the kids.
Putting "gay marriage" in that mix doesn't make sense to me, or the voters, or the state (of CA in this case). It made sense to a slim majority of judges who determined it on their own ...
Again, it does NOT appear to be based in law ... except what was just defined by some judges. From mstars quote ..
The judge compared it to inter racial marriage, which seems pretty lame. Race is not even definable. But the concept of parents raising their young has been around for a while. But the judges determined that it would need more "rigorous justification" ... which apparently legally means these judges decided there must be gay marriage, it is the same because they said so.
Then they admit they are the first to adopt that standard. It is not as Hap put it ...
The only thing "violated" was the rule that these judges just now determined on their own. I suppose IT IS THEIR JOB ... but this is new and determined not by the constitution or any precedent ... this was decided solely by these judges. THEY decided ... it seems misleading to say it violated the CA STATE Constitution.
BUT ... in CA, it seems all rights of marriage are already granted, except for the name of "marriage" ... so perhaps their own opinion is more justified ... the protection of children and all is already a moot point. If all the rights of marriage are already granted ... and homosexual couples can have kids, what does it serve to not allow them to be called "married"?
If we are promoting anything by way of incentive ... it would seem the mother father raising their kids should be the gold standard. The roles and provisions for foster parents or adopted parents is secondary, but important. Establishing gay unions as a first choice for raising children seems questionable to me.
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
now I see
I say live and let live, if this encourages gay people to get married, I think society benefits.
If this helps to make people healthier by having access to med bennies, that's good too...In addition they'll be 100% responsible for eachother's debts, be able to form marital trusts for themselves and legally claim and protect their children etc., again, society benefits. All bringing more stability to this segment of society.
Let's face it, gay people are here to stay, excluding them from having recognition as a family is discriminatory, on a human plane, its the loving thing to do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ductape
YES!!!! PRAISE GOD!!! That chant is running through the compounds of the FLDS , even though they are strongly against same sex anything. If you don't define marriage as a civil contract between a man and a woman you've opened the door for the plural marriage lobby. The Texas compound and the Canyon City bunch are now loading their hand carts and will flee the oppression of the persecuting states they live in. FLDS compounds around the world are waiting to see the reception to see if the Lord God Almighty has given them a new Zion, like he gave them Utah before the corruption of doctrine.
Animal rights groups that REALLY love their animals are also watching with great expectations!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I could very easily take the argument you and Kimberly have presented and say we should all eat our young. Look at rats, they do it, therefore God must have designed us that way.
I want to know what these big tax breaks for married couples are!!! Really, I am married and I do not get big tax breaks. In fact, I lost $5,000 on my return from the earned income credit when Sushi and I got married. The only "extra" tax break I get is the deductibles for my two children (deductibles I would still be eligible for even if I were not married) and those aren't huge. I certainly do not get back what I spend to feed, clothe, and house them. Nor do I even get back what I spend for childcare while I work.
Regardless, people will reproduce with or without tax breaks. Those who want children (homosexual or heterosexual) and cannot have them naturally, will still look to adopt them with or without tax breaks. So I guess I agree with you here, I don't see the point in big tax breaks for married people, nor am I convinced they even exist.
Are you being intentionally dense or can you just not help it? The point was simply to point out that allowing homosexuals to marry isn't going to harm the traditional family unit and the argument saying it will is completely flawed and lacking in logic.Thank you for making my point. What does allowing homosexuals to marry have to do with laws for proper parental care or the protection of the fictionalized and overly romanticized traditional family unit? Homsexuals do not threaten the family unit and I fail to see why those opposed to homosexual marriage continue to try to argue that it does.
I still don't see why or how history shows the reall mother and father raising the children has been historically proven to be what works best. I think one can find millions and millions of situations where that was not the one that worked best for the child.The unit that works best for the children is the unit where there are adults (ideally more than two counting an extended family unit and/or support system of concerned adults) who are willing to give the child the proper love and care, regardless of gender or biology. Indeed, I'm betting there are a large number of people who have adopted kids, who would argue the biological parents would NOT have been the best parents for the child. Again, it is a flawed argument and really, has nothing to do with whether or not homosexuals marry. Homosexuals do not threaten the traditional family unit. Heterosexuals are the ones who have threatened that.
No, it is not obvious. One could argue that IDEALLY the real parents would have that, but in reality many do not. How many stories does one have to read about abused and neglected kids before one realizes we are not born with instincts on how to properly parent. Hell, all I have to do is spend a week or so at any public school in this city to realize a large number of parents do not have an instictive drive to care for and protect their children. Many of them have never even seen the inside of the school building or met the person they "entrust" their child to for 7 hours a day 5 days a week.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I dunno Ductape. If someone wants to marry Fido.. why not let them? I mean.. a person generally marries with one considered an intellectual peer of sorts..
Edited by HamLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Ya know, Ducttape. I could care less if people have multiple spouses. I fail to see how it is any of my damned business if someone is married to 2, 3, or more people of the same or opposite sex at the same time as long as they are all CONSENTING ADULTS.
However, forcing 13 and 14 year old children into marriage, forcing them to have sex, that is an entirely different topic that again, has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not homosexuals should marry.
Straw man arguments - that is the best the opposition can come up with.
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
likeaneagle
My personal experiences with homosexuals is what has lead me to think that they realy are a sub culture to themselves..that is on the rise everywhere. It has slowly been on the rise due to the increase of being accepted way of life, where somewhere in thier own personal choices they choose this lifestyle do to self esteem, bad hetero relationships, personal gratification.Instituting the right to be wed to each other only gives it more credance for it to florish more. It is a glorifed way of life only to them. Most of the folks I have met have clearly had or have deep emotional troubles..they also feel secure in thier own kind..
Last month I walked into the coffe break room and one of the guy's getting coffee was gay..he was all pretty in a pink shirt. the other guy was hetero and complimented me on my pink sweater..they gay guy got all flustered and stuck his nose up in the air and left abruptly...I didnt deserve that.
I dont get it..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
To each his own,
Said Farmer Jones,
As he kissed ol' Bossie The Cow.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shellon
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Well, I said it was an INSTINCTIVE part of humans that is clear in nature ... most animals will fight heroically to protect their young, and that is true of most humans.
That is a very clear point, your point of eating our children because some rats do ... would be a stupid argument. People that are called dirty rats are not good people
But yes, you could easily make that stupid argument.
Is it possible to be intentionally dense? No ... YOU are completely flawed and lacking in knowledge.
What does that phrase contribute to the dialogue? And we are well off the point of this CA ruling ... but the broader subject is more interesting.
"Marriage" has a different historical meaning than gay couples. What is the purpose of breaking that down? Changing the "institution of marriage" can do harm. Why should it be changed to make it something it never was? There is little history to go on to show if children raised in homosexual families will do well. Since they will never be the actual parents, will there still be mother /father roles? They are not equal to a regular marriage, why pretend they are?
that is better than saying everyone is stupid if they don't agree with you.
It is your opinion that the traditional family is fictional and overly romanticized. So single teenage mothers as the norm is just fine ... the traditional family is fiction anyway. Yet much of psychology and resolving problems revolves around these mom and dad characters in our life. The term parenting has it root in "parents".
Changing the meanings of words is fundamental to changing society itself. Most seem to think marriage has a more special place, that includes parenting. Same sex marriages that don't have children have failed in that aspect ... but I guess they have the potential to be parents. A gay union is a different concept.
Well "broken homes" are more prevalent now I guess ... why is that? I was raised by a single Mom, but almost all my friends had mom and dad. Now it is much more the norm for kids to be raised by one parent or none, I guess. But I think those single teen mothers would be better off if they had held a standard of having a Dad in the effort with them. As I said, it seems that should be the gold standard. Not the notion that "married with children" is fiction and a farce.Who will be determining who the best parents should be? Maybe there should be some of those previous standards you mentioned (involvement, diet) and there can be a legal scorecard, and the children can be taken from the parents and distributed to those homosexual couples that have higher scores.
You mention the extended family, which is extremely important .... but how often does that extended family have as its most heroic helpers ... other blood relatives? Family is blood ... it is not old fashioned tradition and fictional. Families come from marriages.
That breakdown in society should be looked at. It does not indicate the real parents don't have an instinctive drive to care for their kid ... but it has been replaced by something ... the government? So we need more government, or a better vision of the strong family?
Maybe Bill Cosby can help ...
LikeAnEagle ... I agree, it is a subculture ... gay marriage is a celebrity cause ... but does it really help us .. or is it just another thing the left wants to break down?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ductape
I heard liberals do eat their young.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.