A Lesson in Biology (needed for a California judge)

[Jay74]

beyondthenews.com/1334325.aspx

**A Lesson in Biology
**June 8, 2005
Albert Mohler

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Columnist William Murchison has argued that the best case against same-sex marriage focuses on procreation. The society must put a premium on procreation to survive, so Murchison reasons, that this should be sufficient privilege and protect marriage as a heterosexual institution.

“No heterosexual relationship, no procreation,” he reminds. “No procreation, no human future. This is where the state’s interest in this thing comes in. It comes in also in consideration of the massive evidence supporting the heterosexual family as the most successful setting for training up the products of conception, namely, children.”

This may make sense to you, but it didn’t make sense to California Judge Richard Kramer, who struck down that state’s ban on gay marriage. Homosexual couples may not procreate, he argued, but they can cause procreation. Cause procreation? Perhaps this judge needs a lesson in biology–or a dictionary.

Albert Mohler is the host of The Albert Mohler Program.
Read Albert Mohler’s blog on Crosswalk.

 

[cathgal]

So deficient in moral knowledge, I wonder how he became a judge???

 

[Jay74]

cathgal:

So deficient in moral knowledge, I wonder how he became a judge???

I think deficiency in moral knowledge if a prerequisite for being a dictator, er, I mean judge. After all, anyone with morals is labeled a dangerous extremist and filibustered.

 

[vern_humphrey]

cathgal:

So deficient in moral knowledge, I wonder how he became a judge???

You do realize we select judges exclusively from a profession known for its lack of moral knowledge?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[Steve_Andersen]

Well to say the State’s interest in marriage is based solely on procreation is kinda silly.

After all, post-menopausal women and other infertile people are allowed to marry.

The State’s interest is economic and legal with issues on inheritance, property rights, and decision making

Are children a part of that mix? Sure, but the state clearly has other interest. If you look at the terms and conditions of the civil marriage license most of the terms are related to the responsibilities of the individuals to each other

 

[Jay74]

Steve Andersen:

Well to say the State’s interest in marriage is based solely on procreation is kinda silly.

After all, post-menopausal women and other infertile people are allowed to marry.

The State’s interest is economic and legal with issues on inheritance, property rights, and decision making

Are children a part of that mix? Sure, but the state clearly has other interest. If you look at the terms and conditions of the civil marriage license most of the terms are related to the responsibilities of the individuals to each other

I agree that basing it solely on procreation is silly. It’s an argument, and a good one, but not the only one and certainly not enough to base it on alone.

It is funny that the judge, rather than saying it wasn’t soley about procreation, argued that gay marriage can cause procreation. That was even more silly.

 

[tcay584]

beyondthenews.com/1334325.aspx

A Lesson in Biology
June 8, 2005
Albert Mohler

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Columnist William Murchison has argued that the best case against same-sex marriage focuses on procreation. The society must put a premium on procreation to survive, so Murchison reasons, that this should be sufficient privilege and protect marriage as a heterosexual institution.

“No heterosexual relationship, no procreation,” he reminds. “No procreation, no human future. This is where the state’s interest in this thing comes in. It comes in also in consideration of the massive evidence supporting the heterosexual family as the most successful setting for training up the products of conception, namely, children.”

This may make sense to you, but it didn’t make sense to California Judge Richard Kramer, who struck down that state’s ban on gay marriage. Homosexual couples may not procreate, he argued, but they can cause procreation. Cause procreation? Perhaps this judge needs a lesson in biology–or a dictionary.

Albert Mohler is the host of The Albert Mohler Program.
Read Albert Mohler’s blog on Crosswalk.

Actually, with artificial insemination, they can. The child isn’t biologically related to both of them, but they can indeed have children just like many single women have chosen to do. It’s irresponsible, selfish, and immoral…but I guess that’s not the point.

 

[Jay74]

tcay584:

Actually, with artificial insemination, they can. The child isn’t biologically related to both of them, but they can indeed have children just like many single women have chosen to do. It’s irresponsible, selfish, and immoral…but I guess that’s not the point.

Two things are absolutely needed to conceive a child. 1) a mother’s egg, and 2) a father’s seed. I believe God made both mother’s and father’s necessary in the creation of a child for good reason. We’ve tampered with His plan, with disastrous consequences. Evidently, many in society don’t care about the consequences because they are bent on doing more to undermine God’s family.

 

[Mom_of_one]

cathgal:

So deficient in moral knowledge, I wonder how he became a judge???

**Apparently, he’s deficent in basic biology, as well. Must be you don’t need to know anything about science to be in the legal profession-look at Roe v. Wade. **

 

[Steve_Andersen]

Jay74:

I agree that basing it solely on procreation is silly. It’s an argument, and a good one, but not the only one and certainly not enough to base it on alone.

It is funny that the judge, rather than saying it wasn’t soley about procreation, argued that gay marriage can cause procreation. That was even more silly.

I don’t know how common it is but I suppose it is possible for a homosexual couple to find a donor or womb at the inn and thus “cause procreation”

After all homosexuality doesn’t make you infertile per se…it just makes the logistics a little more difficult.

 

[Jay74]

Steve Andersen:

I don’t know how common it is but I suppose it is possible for a homosexual couple to find a donor or womb at the inn and thus “cause procreation”

It’ll be a lot more common if gay “marriage” is legalized. Then such “marriages” will deprive children of mothers or fathers by design.

 

[mikev]

cathgal:

So deficient in moral knowledge, I wonder how he became a judge???

Unfortunately, that’s probably how he became a judge. No place for morality in the courtroom.

 

[norbert]

beyondthenews.com/1334325.aspx

A Lesson in Biology
June 8, 2005
Albert Mohler

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Columnist William Murchison has argued that the best case against same-sex marriage focuses on procreation. The society must put a premium on procreation to survive, so Murchison reasons, that this should be sufficient privilege and protect marriage as a heterosexual institution.

“No heterosexual relationship, no procreation,” he reminds. “No procreation, no human future. This is where the state’s interest in this thing comes in. It comes in also in consideration of the massive evidence supporting the heterosexual family as the most successful setting for training up the products of conception, namely, children.”

This may make sense to you, but it didn’t make sense to California Judge Richard Kramer, who struck down that state’s ban on gay marriage. Homosexual couples may not procreate, he argued, but they can cause procreation. Cause procreation? Perhaps this judge needs a lesson in biology–or a dictionary.

Albert Mohler is the host of The Albert Mohler Program.
Read Albert Mohler’s blog on Crosswalk.

This is dumb. Homosexual marriage doesn’t exclude heterosexuals from marrying or having children. Homosexual civil marriage doesn’t hurt anybody, except it hurts the insides of the bigots who hate gays so much.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

norbert:

This is dumb. Homosexual marriage doesn’t exclude heterosexuals from marrying or having children. Homosexual civil marriage doesn’t hurt anybody, except it hurts the insides of the bigots who hate gays so much.

It is a calculated attack on the family. Bigots who hate so much huh? You must not hold the Holy father or the late Holy Father in high regard:banghead: Why do you not care for the homosexuals soul?Do you believe Church teachings?What is your position?Out with it Norbert be honest:ehh:

 

[Mom_of_one]

I didn’t realize that calling sin for what it is -sin- was bigotry. Wow. I guess that Jesus was a bigot, too.

Love often must be tough. Parents(at least good ones) set down rules and when they are broken, there are consequences. Telling someone that their behavior is wrong is not bigotry. Telling someone that there are consequences is not bigotry.

You want to know what real bigotry is? Look at what happened to Matthew Shepard! Look at what happens to a woman in some parts of the world when she is raped. Unless there are multiple witnesses, the woman is put to death. Same thing if she has a sexual relationship outside of marriage(whether pre- or extra-marital)She’s punished, the man is not. Look at what happened to the marchers in Selma. I could go on and on.

 

[Nan_S]

Steve Andersen:

The State’s interest is economic and legal with issues on inheritance, property rights, and decision making

Are children a part of that mix? Sure, but the state clearly has other interest. If you look at the terms and conditions of the civil marriage license most of the terms are related to the responsibilities of the individuals to each other

After much serious reflection I came to the conclusion that true Marriage is fundamentally a religious institution, a Covenant, and can not be separated from religion without destroying it. Those among us who downgrade Marriage to the level of a mere civil contract, to be dissolved when no longer convenient, are putting their own selfishness ahead of God.

The marriage union has always been directly tied to our religious beliefs, with the rite administered by our religious leaders whether they were Cro-magnon shamans, Catholic priests, or anyone else inbetween. Even before we had states and civil laws, we had marriage covenants.

The state sees societal benefits in the union of the married couple, and therefore passes civil laws that encourage marriage. But the state can not ever legislate God nor His covenants.

It is laughable and tragic that certain states pass civil laws authorizing the civil unions of same-sex couples, who are by biblical definition incapable of making a marriage covenant, and have the arrogance to elevate and equate those civil unions with a covenant whose rules were ordained by God.

 

[Jay74]

norbert:

This is dumb. Homosexual marriage doesn’t exclude heterosexuals from marrying or having children. Homosexual civil marriage doesn’t hurt anybody, except it hurts the insides of the bigots who hate gays so much.

Homosexual marriage will hurt children. I know you don’t believe that, but it will.

And most of us who oppose homosexual marriage do not do so out of bigotry or hatred. Two homosexual men were involved in my wedding–one sang, the other played piano. They are wonderful men, and are unique in that they both grew up with mothers and fathers, and disagree with homosexual marriage as well. Talk about selfless, they express concern over children if marriage is redefined.

Sure, there are some bigots. But don’t use that as an ad hominem weapon against the many with good intentions and reasons, just to shoot someone down without making intellectual arguments–it will only dull your mind.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

cathgal:

So deficient in moral knowledge, I wonder how he became a judge???

Cathgal:

We’re talking about CALIFORNIA, Home of the 9th Circuit Court!

We’re talking about California where the State DEMOCRATIC Attorney General says that Schools have the right to take YOUR Daughters right out of school straight to Abortion Mills, without ever telling you, even if you call the school WHILE THEY’RE AT THE CLINIC!

Remember, the LEFT can’t push it’s agenda by getting people to vote for it. They have to get Unelected, Unaccountable Judges like the one above to through the actual VOTES of the People.

It’s that way with the “Gay Rights” Agenda, and it’s that way with Abortion on Demand! The people have either voted them down or voted limitations on them whenever given the choice.

Ask this, If the American people are so Pro-Choice, why do the PRO-ABORTS insist doing everything they can to keep ROE V. WADE from bring OVERTURNED?

Blessed are they who act to save God’s Little Ones. Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

norbert:

This is dumb. Homosexual marriage doesn’t exclude heterosexuals from marrying or having children. Homosexual civil marriage doesn’t hurt anybody, except it hurts the insides of the bigots who hate gays so much.

Norbert:

Putting the Sacred Scriptures and its prohibitions aside…

Societies, both Christian and otherwise, have defined marriage as being between men and women for some 25,000 years, or as long as the institution’s existed. Societies have always stated that marriages were for the BENEFIT OF THE SOCIETIES and the SURVIVAL of the Tribes or the Human Species.

I’m sorry, but I fail to see how HOMOSEXAUL MARRIAGE, which is INCAPABLE of Reproduction would be capable of giving any of those BENEFITS TO SOCIETY!

If you’d care to show me how, I’ll listen, but I refuse to listen to anyone who resorts to calling me and mine “bigots” without the slightest proof of the bigotry, and I see NO reason why anyone else here should listen to you either.

Norbert, You’re the one who wants society to change to fit your desires. It is up to you to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the change is necessary, that it is good and that it would cause less harm than the present situation.

ALL those pushing social change in DEMOCRACIES have had to do that. It’s part of living in a Democratic and Civil Society. The only ones who haven’t have been those who circumvented the Democratic process like thos pushing Gay Marriage are doing. Please realize that those who believe in the Democratic process resent having someone circumvent the Democratic process to shove his agenda down our throats.

So, you might want to try to make your case, and you’re not going to do it by calling everyone who disagrees with you “Bigots”.

Blessed are those who act to save God’s Little Ones. Michael

 

[norbert]

Momofone:

I didn’t realize that calling sin for what it is -sin- was bigotry. Wow. I guess that Jesus was a bigot, too.

Love often must be tough. Parents(at least good ones) set down rules and when they are broken, there are consequences. Telling someone that their behavior is wrong is not bigotry. Telling someone that there are consequences is not bigotry.

You want to know what real bigotry is? Look at what happened to Matthew Shepard! Look at what happens to a woman in some parts of the world when she is raped. Unless there are multiple witnesses, the woman is put to death. Same thing if she has a sexual relationship outside of marriage(whether pre- or extra-marital)She’s punished, the man is not. Look at what happened to the marchers in Selma. I could go on and on.

I don’t remember Jesus saying anything about homosexuality. He certainly wasn’t preoccupied with it like many people on this board.

What is your point about Matthew Shepard? His death is an example of what happens when the “gays are wrong, gays are sinners, gays are evil” mentality gets taken to heart by the ignorant.