Mere Civil Unions

[Texas_Roofer]

I just think that Christians need to consider Lewis’s reasoning, not the fact that this “great man” was the one to say it:

“A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mahommedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine.”

Christians should not think that everything that Christians believe ought to be made law. You might think that it is immoral not to go to church every Sunday, but should it be illegal not to?

Leela divorce should be difficult for the individuals involved, regardless of society. The divorce hurts the wife, and children and displays the “hard hearts” and “stiff necks” as referred to in the teachings

I agree that the Church has never called same-sex unions marriages, and I’m not suggesting that they should or that the government should. But apparently it has recognized and sanctified same-sex unions in the past.

colfaxrecord.com/detail/91429.html

"Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the “Office of Same-Sex Union” (10th and 11th century), and the “Order for Uniting Two Men” (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiated in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterward. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12thand/ early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded.

Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe list in great detail some same gender ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century rite, “Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union”, invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, and called on God to “vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints”. The ceremony concludes: “And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded”.

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic “Office of the Same Sex Union”, uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century.

The Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books, “Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae” (Paris, 1667).

While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, homophobic writings didn’t appear in Western Europe until the late 14th century. Even then, church-consecrated same sex unions continued to take place.

At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope’s parish church) in 1578, as many as thirteen same-gender couples were joined during a high Mass and with the cooperation of the Vatican clergy, “taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together” according to a contemporary report. Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century.

Prof. Boswell’s academic study is so well researched and documented that it poses fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their own modern attitudes towards homosexuality.

For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be cowardly and deceptive. The evidence convincingly shows that what the modern church claims has always been its unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is, in fact, nothing of the sort.

It proves that for the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom, from Ireland to Istanbul and even in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given love and commitment to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honored and blessed, through the Eucharist in the name of, and in the presence of, Jesus Christ. "

The professor needs to show his “Vatican” references until he does this is only accusation. The current teaching is same-sexes cannot marry regardless of opinion of church or state. The professor needs to show the Church taught differently.

…And as for natural law, as far as I can tell, natural law is just whatever you say it is.

This is a reoccurring problem in your posts, please do some research on Natural [Moral] Law it may help explain the issue for you.

I hope that helps

 

[ricmat]

I don’t buy for a second that somehow males are physically incapable of being as nurturing as females and that females are somehow physically incapable of teaching responsibility as well as males.

Men and women are different not just physically, but also in things like temperment. Of course, it is useless to compare an individual man and an individual woman and make conclusions about men and women in general. But you were to take the “nurturing” scale, and the “responsiblilty” scale (and many others), you’d probably get a bell curve for men and a bell curve for women. On the nurturing curve, the peak for women would be toward the more nurturing end than for men. But there would be some overlap - so some men at the high end of the male nurturing curve would be better at nurturing than some women at the bottom of the female nurturing curve.

It is an illusion and a mis-truth not to recognize the inherent differences between men and women, and to try to overlay these curves one on top of the other. As desirable as it sounds, as fair as it sounds, as wonderful as it sounds (to you), it just doesn’t represent reality.

And as for natural law, as far as I can tell, natural law is just whatever you say it is.

Leela, I’m not sure what your background is, but there’s an excellent book called “50 Questions About the Natural Law” by Dr. Charles Rice. Although I’m an electrical engineer by training, I found this book to be very readable though it is written more from a “legalistic” perspective. Actually, it is not dry reading and is quite entertaining.

 

[naptown22]

If my 80 year old widowed mother wishes to remarry, even though she cannot bear children, the church would certainly grant her a sacramental marriage, with lots of “aren’t they cute” overtones. Surely this dismisses the idea that marriage requires openness to having children. The same for her (hypothetical) fiance, who is impotent due to age and complications of prostate cancer. In fact, if he wished to marry a 30 year old woman, many people would turn up their noses, but the church would allow the marriage.

As to children being raised by one or more adults of either sex, let’s not be making the mistake of thinking that one man and one woman is always the ideal combination. There are lots of children growing up in abusive situations with both biological parents doing the abusing. On the other hand, there are lots of children growing up in loving, nurturing situations with both fathers or both mothers doing the nurturing. You cannot say that every father/mother combination is always superior to every father/father or mother/mother situation. And if you cannot say that, then you cannot say that the father/mother situation is inherently superior. The superior situation for a child is to have loving adults care for her, and every clearheaded person recognizes that.

Let’s get straight what marriage is for – it’s not always for children, it’s not always for love, it’s not always for companionship. It’s a legal and economic construction, and it was such a construction long before Trent created the sacrament. As a legal and economic construction, it is currently denied to a significant portion of the population, who now wish to take advantage of its legal and economic advantages. As these legal and economic benefits are not a zero-sum game, I can’t see how the extension of those advantages to male couples or female couples reduces in any way the value already being derived by mixed couples. In fact, it seems particularly nasty of those in mixed-sex marriages to now be claiming the benefits and denying them to others on completely specious grounds, like the welfare of children.

And while I’m on my soapbox, let me get to adoption. It is far more advantageous for a child to be raised in a loving home by two loving parents than to be raised in an institution. Will anybody argue that? Then why do you deny children the opportunity to be raised in such a loving home based solely on the sex of the adults in the home? Adoption is NOT for the benefit of the parents, it’s for the benefit of the children, as any legitimate adoption agency will attest. The adoption of my two children was not based on my or my wife’s desire to have children, but on the need of the children to have parents. To deny adoptions to same-sex couples is to deny a child the opportunity to live in a loving home. It punishes the child far more than it punishes the adults.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

If my 80 year old widowed mother wishes to remarry, even though she cannot bear children, the church would certainly grant her a sacramental marriage, with lots of “aren’t they cute” overtones. Surely this dismisses the idea that marriage requires openness to having children. The same for her (hypothetical) fiance, who is impotent due to age and complications of prostate cancer. In fact, if he wished to marry a 30 year old woman, many people would turn up their noses, but the church would allow the marriage.

As to children being raised by one or more adults of either sex, let’s not be making the mistake of thinking that one man and one woman is always the ideal combination. There are lots of children growing up in abusive situations with both biological parents doing the abusing. On the other hand, there are lots of children growing up in loving, nurturing situations with both fathers or both mothers doing the nurturing. You cannot say that every father/mother combination is always superior to every father/father or mother/mother situation. And if you cannot say that, then you cannot say that the father/mother situation is inherently superior. The superior situation for a child is to have loving adults care for her, and every clearheaded person recognizes that.

Let’s get straight what marriage is for – it’s not always for children, it’s not always for love, it’s not always for companionship. It’s a legal and economic construction, and it was such a construction long before Trent created the sacrament. As a legal and economic construction, it is currently denied to a significant portion of the population, who now wish to take advantage of its legal and economic advantages. As these legal and economic benefits are not a zero-sum game, I can’t see how the extension of those advantages to male couples or female couples reduces in any way the value already being derived by mixed couples. In fact, it seems particularly nasty of those in mixed-sex marriages to now be claiming the benefits and denying them to others on completely specious grounds, like the welfare of children.

And while I’m on my soapbox, let me get to adoption. It is far more advantageous for a child to be raised in a loving home by two loving parents than to be raised in an institution. Will anybody argue that? Then why do you deny children the opportunity to be raised in such a loving home based solely on the sex of the adults in the home? Adoption is NOT for the benefit of the parents, it’s for the benefit of the children, as any legitimate adoption agency will attest. The adoption of my two children was not based on my or my wife’s desire to have children, but on the need of the children to have parents. To deny adoptions to same-sex couples is to deny a child the opportunity to live in a loving home. It punishes the child far more than it punishes the adults.

Is this intended to mean in the Quaker Church? Please explain to me how marriage particularly in the OT was a “legal and economic construction”? What is my economic gain? What “legal” system allowed Adam to marry? What was Adam’s economic gain? etc. etc.

You may not believe a “mother/father” pair is best however have you seen any children produced without a “mother/father”?

 

[Thales]

If my 80 year old widowed mother wishes to remarry, even though she cannot bear children, the church would certainly grant her a sacramental marriage, with lots of “aren’t they cute” overtones. Surely this dismisses the idea that marriage requires openness to having children. The same for her (hypothetical) fiance, who is impotent due to age and complications of prostate cancer. In fact, if he wished to marry a 30 year old woman, many people would turn up their noses, but the church would allow the marriage.

The reason an 80 year old woman can marry an 80 year old man sacramentaly, full well knowing no children can come from the union, is that it stays in line with the ideal of what marriage has been defined as. Regardless of whether a particular man or woman couple cannot produce children does not matter because it still perpetuates the ideal. A gay man can marry a lesbian woman, adopt 5 children, and be a happy family. This will never be commonplace, probably not recomended (especially by the Church), but nevertheless allowed by the state and maybe by the Church. If you accept every exception within the defenition of something, that defenition, that institution, ideal, or whatever will become meaningless. Eventually you will encompass so much under one defenition it will have to be divided up in order to distinguish anything from it. Man wants to marry man , so we call it homosexual marriage, woman wants to marry a rock or the Eiffle Tower (don’t say it won’t happen because I heard a story on NPR about this very thing, with leading pchyclogists making the case for its legitimacy), we call this inanimate object marriage. Soon a once meaningful and important institution will mean little more than the combination of two things and nothing at all more. Look up the definition of marriage here, merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage. In the future we can remove the first two instances and be left with “3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting
and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>”.

I’m afraid this is all an attempt at equality. Since traditional marraige exempts some people it should not stand and has to be alterred to accept anyone who wants to participate regardless whether they meet the criteria.

 

[JimG]

If my 80 year old widowed mother wishes to remarry, even though she cannot bear children, the church would certainly grant her a sacramental marriage, with lots of “aren’t they cute” overtones. Surely this dismisses the idea that marriage requires openness to having children. The same for her (hypothetical) fiance, who is impotent due to age and complications of prostate cancer.

Not quite. Antecedent, permanent, and irreversible impotence is an impediment to marriage in the Catholic Church. If either or both parties are incapable of marital intercourse, the marriage could not be valid. Of course, there are a lot of cures for impotence, even for 80 year olds, so age alone would have no bearing.

 

[Thales]

As to children being raised by one or more adults of either sex, let’s not be making the mistake of thinking that one man and one woman is always the ideal combination. There are lots of children growing up in abusive situations with both biological parents doing the abusing. On the other hand, there are lots of children growing up in loving, nurturing situations with both fathers or both mothers doing the nurturing. You cannot say that every father/mother combination is always superior to every father/father or mother/mother situation. And if you cannot say that, then you cannot say that the father/mother situation is inherently superior. The superior situation for a child is to have loving adults care for her, and every clearheaded person recognizes that.

It is always the ideal. The ideal or definition doesn’t change or at least shouldn’t change. Again because we are imperfect we fall down on the path of the ideal. Does that mean we should not have them? Should we not have goals because sometimes we can’t meet them, or certain individuals don’t qualify. Should I change nature because as a man I cannot bear children? I never said children growing up in the ideal always has the best results. I forseen this argument coming and made it clear, children have the best chance in this situation, and I stress chance. Someone needs to provide some evidence that same-sex couples return as good or better results on the rearing of children to adults.

 

[Leela]

The reason an 80 year old woman can marry an 80 year old man sacramentaly, full well knowing no children can come from the union, is that it stays in line with the ideal of what marriage has been defined as. Regardless of whether a particular man or woman couple cannot produce children does not matter because it still perpetuates the ideal. A gay man can marry a lesbian woman, adopt 5 children, and be a happy family. This will never be commonplace, probably not recomended (especially by the Church), but nevertheless allowed by the state and maybe by the Church. If you accept every exception within the defenition of something, that defenition, that institution, ideal, or whatever will become meaningless. Eventually you will encompass so much under one defenition it will have to be divided up in order to distinguish anything from it. Man wants to marry man , so we call it homosexual marriage, woman wants to marry a rock or the Eiffle Tower (don’t say it won’t happen because I heard a story on NPR about this very thing, with leading pchyclogists making the case for its legitimacy), we call this inanimate object marriage. Soon a once meaningful and important institution will mean little more than the combination of two things and nothing at all more. Look up the definition of marriage here, merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage. In the future we can remove the first two instances and be left with “3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting
and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>”.

I’m afraid this is all an attempt at equality. Since traditional marraige exempts some people it should not stand and has to be alterred to accept anyone who wants to participate regardless whether they meet the criteria.

A rock or the Eiffel tower? Come on. We are talking about consenting adults. No one in this conversation is arguing about people marrying their dogs or anything. That’s just silly.

 

[Leela]

It is always the ideal. The ideal or definition doesn’t change or at least shouldn’t change. Again because we are imperfect we fall down on the path of the ideal. Does that mean we should not have them? Should we not have goals because sometimes we can’t meet them, or certain individuals don’t qualify. Should I change nature because as a man I cannot bear children? I never said children growing up in the ideal always has the best results. I forseen this argument coming and made it clear, children have the best chance in this situation, and I stress chance. Someone needs to provide some evidence that same-sex couples return as good or better results on the rearing of children to adults.

Someone need to show me evidence that Catholics are as good or better parents than Protestants. Otherwise, only Protestants should be able to marry. And no fat people, either. We all know they generally aren’t as good parents as skinny people. And while we’re at it, no short people. Short parents tend to have short kids, and short kids get picked on at school. I guess they can still adopt. I’m sure we can agree to also rule out anyone earning below the median salary and anyone of below average intelligence. In fact, what we should really do is identify this “ideal couple” and only allow that couple to marry and have kids.

No, of course we shouldn’t do any of that. Why? Because the issue should not be about having data to prove that a given couple is statistically likely to be at least average, it is about having a good reason to discriminate. The burden of proof is not on same sex couples to prove that they are just as good parents (while Catholics would completely bar them have even having the opportunity to prove themselves anyway). The burden is on you to provide evidence that same-sex couples do not make good parents. Do you have any such evidence?

 

[Thales]

I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m referring to when I say “ideal”. I’m not referring to individuals. Although there may be some ideal aspects about a man or woman or couple, the way a nose is shaped, their height, these things are to a great extent subjective. I’m talking about standards, principles, and ideas. The basic ideal of marriage is one man and one woman because this is the only union that can produce new human life. It doesn’t matter if the individuals involved are fat, short, ugly, poor, blind, have only one arm, or anything like that.

Maybe I should try and use a different term rather than ideal, but have a look at the differing definitions according to merriam-webster: ideal
You probably think I’m using the term as it is defined in instance 3. Try to read my argument using the 1st definition,

“1: existing as an archetypal idea.”

 

[Thales]

A rock or the Eiffel tower? Come on. We are talking about consenting adults. No one in this conversation is arguing about people marrying their dogs or anything. That’s just silly.

Silly? Of course, but true. I’m just showing what manifests when traditional standards and ideals are degraded. When you change the definition of a thing once, it becomes very plastic from then on.

In case you don’t believe me here is a link to the silliness.
telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2074301/Woman-with-objects-fetish-marries-Eiffel-Tower.html

Getting back to the original issue of government involvement, would you prefer the government just get out of the marriage business altogether? What ramifications on society do you think that might have? I’ve considered it a possibility, to let individuals do what they want with their commitments to each other. My marriage is valid in the Catholic Church which I am a member of, but why should I care if an atheist or my government doesn’t recognize it. Likewise whatever two homosexuals uniting want to call themselves certainly won’t be recognized as marriage to me, the Church, or a Mormon. I guess I have no problem with that unless it has long term effects on society. So, the real question seems to be: Does government recognition and support of the committed union of individuals effect a society? And if so why?

 

[Thales]

The burden of proof is not on same sex couples to prove that they are just as good parents (while Catholics would completely bar them have even having the opportunity to prove themselves anyway). The burden is on you to provide evidence that same-sex couples do not make good parents. Do you have any such evidence?

My reason for throwing the burden of proof on the same-sex couple raising children is because it is not natural. It’s is not the natural environment in which children are conceived. When you come up with something as radically new as state sanctioned homosexual marriage with complete consent to raising children, which has never existed (as far as I know) in the history of mankind, I think you do have the burden.

 

[naptown22]

Don’t know about ever in history, but we all know of children being raised in extraordinary circumstances (extraordinary in the sense of not-usual, not in the sense of outlandish). Single fathers raise children, single grandmothers raise children, wicked stepmothers raise children, aunts and uncles who never met the children raise children, Auntie Mame raised a child, untrained nun raised children, loving foster couples raise children, and whether the parenting is good or not is largely dependent on the love which the parent gives the child.

Adoption doesn’t work this way :“Oh you want a kid? Here’s one, now off with you.” Adoption works this way – there’s a home study and social worker visits to the house, and full length adult biographies, individual and group meetings, and all this is BEFORE the parents are considered for the child. In one of the group sessions I was in, a hetrosexual birth father of other children mentioned that his father had struck him with his belt for discipline, and that he himself had not turned out too bad. He and his wife were not at any further adoption study group meetings. After placement, there are more home visits and narrative reports and social workers making sure the adoption is working well. Only after all the responsible parties are sure that the parents are good for the child is the adoption final. Nobody gets to adopt after a drunken night out.

A lot of discussion of opposite-sex parenting seems to be “Egg, sperm, baby, everybody’s cool” because that’s natural. Among the most unnatural situations is that of child with no adult to love her. There’s a special place in hell reserved for those who would deny a child a happy and loved start in life because of prejudice against the sexual predilection of other adults. I repeat myself: denying adoption to a loving same-sex couple is denying a loving start in life to a child.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

… I repeat myself: denying adoption to a loving same-sex couple is denying a loving start in life to a child.

Natural mothers are females and preprogramed to bond with their child. This natural process is not perfect, however it does not exist in men. Call me sexest but that is the facts. All men either go through, or know a man who goes through a total change in his spouse after a baby is born.

 

[Thales]

Don’t know about ever in history, but we all know of children being raised in extraordinary circumstances (extraordinary in the sense of not-usual, not in the sense of outlandish). Single fathers raise children, single grandmothers raise children, wicked stepmothers raise children, aunts and uncles who never met the children raise children, Auntie Mame raised a child, untrained nun raised children, loving foster couples raise children, and whether the parenting is good or not is largely dependent on the love which the parent gives the child.

Show me a moderately successful state or government in history that has affirmed and supported homosexual marriage.

Yes, of course there are extraordinary circumstances, and they don’t always end up bad. I know great people who were raised in single family homes. That doesn’t mean you should change the definition of things because extraordinary things happen. You don’t redefine ideals because they aren’t met. If I misspelled a word in an essay, and it doesn’t result in the complete failure of the thing, let alone even a misunderstanding, should we alter the dictionary to include the misspelling because I did it and nothing too terrible happened?

 

[naptown22]

No, you redefine ideals as you come to learn their shortcomings.

And you don’t let ideals hurt other people. Actively, directly, hurt other people.

The people who are being hurt here are the children who will not live in loving homes. The placement of children with adoptive parents is not for the benefit of the parents, it’s for the benefit of the children. Some are the very children that so many on this site, if not on this thread, are so concerned about before birth, but so quick to deny the opportunity to live in loving families – in the name of an ideal. Tell the kid who had to live in an institution about your ideals.

 

[Leela]

Show me a moderately successful state or government in history that has affirmed and supported homosexual marriage.

Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, France, South Africa, and the US in 5 states, all recognize same-sex mariage.

Many other countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Uraguay, Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Switzerland, Denmark, Sewed, Finland, Iceland, Greenland, Norway, Great Brittain, Portugal, Australia, New Zealand, and a few others have some name for a formal recognition of same-sex relationships such as what I am proposing in this thread for the US.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, France, South Africa, and the US in 5 states, all recognize same-sex mariage.

Many other countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Uraguay, Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Switzerland, Denmark, Sewed, Finland, Iceland, Greenland, Norway, Great Brittain, Portugal, Australia, New Zealand, and a few others have some name for a formal recognition of same-sex relationships such as what I am proposing in this thread for the US.

I do not accept this argument and here is why: If equal volumes legalize abortion should the Church follow (?) absolutely not !

 

[Thales]

No, you redefine ideals as you come to learn their shortcomings.

And you don’t let ideals hurt other people. Actively, directly, hurt other people.

The people who are being hurt here are the children who will not live in loving homes. The placement of children with adoptive parents is not for the benefit of the parents, it’s for the benefit of the children. Some are the very children that so many on this site, if not on this thread, are so concerned about before birth, but so quick to deny the opportunity to live in loving families – in the name of an ideal. Tell the kid who had to live in an institution about your ideals.

I thought this thread was about civil-unions/same-sex marriage and how distinguishing between the state and religious conceptions and recognition of marriage may allow for it? What connections about state recognized homosexual “marriage” and its effect on the future of society are you trying to make with adoption?

Catholics have always been champions of adoption and orphanages, with bishops and monasteries taking in children of misfortune for as long as Christianity existed, the Jews before them. The way things are going with my wife and I, we will probably end up adopting as well, if the powers that be see us fit to. You described earlier the hurdles one must go through to adopt a child, do you agree with what they do? Is it better to be overly cautious with whom the care of an innocent child is entrusted or is the orphanage a worse place than even a bad home? I think it is a good thing they are so cautious. I want to make sure children do end up in loving homes where they won’t be abused, neglected, or exposed to danger. I surely wouldn’t want children to go to a drug user’s home or to a couple where the man was found to be addicted to pornography or the couple partook in sadomasochism. I wouldn’t want the child in a home where the couple never cleaned, and there was filth all around even if the couple truly loved the child. Is this unreasonable? I don’t think you believe love is the only criteria for a couple to have the right to adopt a child. I believe a pedophile or serial bank robber can whole-heartedly love a child but it is a good idea to place a child in a home where this kind of activity is practiced or accepted? Catholics view the practice of homosexuality as a perversion, inherently disordered, a harm to the participant and the greater society, like other sexual deviance. Not that homosexuals are bad as people, but the practice of homosexuality. There are many statistics on the perils of homosexual behavior. Those partaking in homosexual behavior are more likely to have STD’s and other infectious diseases like AIDS, and Hepatitis. They have a much lower mortality rate, in some cases 20+ years less than heterosexuals. Higher incidence of drug and alcohol use. Higher rates of suicide, mental disorders, vastly higher rates of sexual promiscuity. About 50% of the women on death row are lesbians. It’s not out of bias that Christians do not approve of homosexual behavior and placing children into this environment, it’s out of love. We do not want to see homosexuals destroy themselves through this lifestyle and drag children into it. Even the FDA has banned the donation of blood by homosexual men.

Men who have had sex with other men, at any time since 1977 (the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the United States) are currently deferred as blood donors. This is because MSM are, as a group, at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion.

Instead of making a mistake of the emotions and creating a future problem that could be much more costly for innocent children why don’t we try and encourage more heterosexual couples to adopt. Encourage and help through charity, families who don’t have the means to support their children. Developed and fund orphanages to make them a better place to be while the children wait to be placed. Ideals and standards are not arbitrary, constructs of some one individual or group. They are time tested ways of producing the best results, for the common good, not just the individual good. If people today are that arrogant to think all of history was wrong and they know more than the collective wisdom of the past to begin tossing out truths (small ‘t’), we will suffer greatly because of novel bad ideas.

Here are my sources:
americansfortruth.com/news/fda-policy-banning-blood-donations-from-gay-men.html
freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1501855/posts
wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48542

 

[Thales]

Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, France, South Africa, and the US in 5 states, all recognize same-sex mariage.

Many other countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Uraguay, Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Switzerland, Denmark, Sewed, Finland, Iceland, Greenland, Norway, Great Brittain, Portugal, Australia, New Zealand, and a few others have some name for a formal recognition of same-sex relationships such as what I am proposing in this thread for the US.

I’m guessing it takes a few generations for moral decay to destroy a country or civilization. It’s not fair to use these examples when it has been only in the very recent past, maybe not even a generation ago, that those countries have recognized same-sex “marriage” as something equal to heterosexual marriage.