Obama- urges court, Gay Marriage ban

[josh987654321]

Also, I do act on my every desire, save for the ones that stand to harm myself or others, my homosexual desires, it turns out, do NOT.
As for my children, I will teach them to be respectful and tolerant of people from all walks of life and ways of living, because any other mode of parenting would be a disservice to them

I apologise, I did not know that you were homosexual, I would not have been as insensitive to the issue as I was.

I want you to see that Hetrosexuals also suffer from disordered and immoral desires that we must also try to control, however homosexuals suffer from disordered and immoral desires more than most hetrosexuals do, you need the strength to control them, because ultimatly they will destroy you, leaving you in despair, because by trying to imitate or mimic a hetrosexual union you are aiming for a goal that you cannot achieve, not because of human opposition, but because of nature itself, the human anatomy of a man and a women.

The only way is for you to be happy and content with who you are, knowing that you have every opportunity to live a full and fruitful life with the rest of us, you yourself in no way are disordered or immoral, your desires you have for homosexuality are though, in which alot of people are also suffering from in different ways, and are trying to obtain the strength to control them, it’s not just something unique to homosexuals, but it requires more strength as a homosexual, please don’t be a slave to your desires, because our desires will destroy us, leaving us in despair.

As a hetrosexual, I must also try and control my desires that are immoral, like paying for a prostitue or recklessly sleeping around with mulitple women simply for the plesure.

We all must pray for the strength we need to control our desires, because there is far more to life than giving into our sexual desires.

Many fall short of controling their desires that are immoral, homosexuals and hetrosexuals, but we shouldn’t be saying that it’s okay, we should always be trying to be stronger when it comes to controling our desires.

Kdruesedow I sincerely apologise for being so insensitive in my previous posts.

And in regards to adopting children, I don’t see a problem with it, unless you are in a sexually active homosexual relationship, than with what I said above is why I would think that, that is wrong.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[GaryTaylor]

Again, this has nothing to do with a supreme being, this is about the legality of the marriage of homosexuals, not the morality of such a union. “lol” he obviously made beings that could reproduce to keep the race going, “lol”

Obviously men and men and women and women cannot procreate, so, instead, he made people of all types and genders, who are attracted to all types and genders, thus making it possible for the human race to go on. Have you ever thought that perhaps the purpose of homosexual couples is to adopt and care for the children who are unwanted by their heterosexual parents? We have a great and powerful God who MADE ALL HIS CREATURES with a purpose, so why are you so quick to point out a ‘mistake’ in his creation of homosexuals.

Also, following your logic, is marrying a woman who is unable to have children because of a problem with their reproductive system is equivalent to being a homosexual? The man and his barren woman cannot have children…and you have cited the inability to use their respective “parts” to procreate as the main reason that homosexuals are unnatural…

Following your logic a women with a reproductive issue has a medical issue, follows by reason Homosexuals then ALL have a medical issue?

No God didn’t create Homosexuals, He created man and women and the 10-commandments. Mans inclination to sin in his free will created. in other words we created it and its called genetic mutation doomed for failure. Its does not produce life, cannot produce life and cannot exist on its own. Natural Selection leaves no aura of equal rights here.

That is unless you want to fall back on the “its a behavior issue” or a “medical issue” or God Its not… it just is. Unfortunately that is incorrect.

 

[vsedriver]

for the THIRD time, this is not a theological issue, but a legal one.
Also, I do act on my every desire, save for the ones that stand to harm myself or others, my homosexual desires, it turns out, do NOT.
As for my children, I will teach them to be respectful and tolerant of people from all walks of life and ways of living, because any other mode of parenting would be a disservice to them

Everyone who desires to be a parent should put the welfare of their children first not their personal desires. Part of the welfare of a child, is providing each and every child with a natural right to the experience of a mother and a father in a stable home. To deliberately deprive a child of knowing the experience of two gender parenting is an act of selfishness. As far as adoption goes, a stable two gender family should always be the standard. Since infants are easier to place I would doubt any gay couple would ever have the opportunity to adopt an infant unless he/she was special needs. However hard to place children should be allowed to be adopted by both single people and gay couples.

There is no need for legalized gay marriage since gays have never been forbidden to marry legally. If, however gays wish to change the law to allow them to marry who they wish then the law must change for everyone. Otherwise discrimination then comes into play. If a gay man wishes to marry someone of same sex then there is no legal reason to refuse a man from having more than one spouse. If gender is not necessary to the law then neither is number. Nor for that matter is close blood relations. There is no legal reason to prevent close blood relations from marrying. If marriage is all about who you love then you must allow anyone who loves one or more persons to marry. They must be persons since only persons can legally consent to a contract which is what a marriage license really is. And of course they must be of age since only persons of legal age can consent to a contract.

So if gay marriage is legal, then plural marriage must be allowed as well. And then finally incestuous marriages should be legal. After all, can anyone honestly say why I can’t marry my mother if two lesbians can marry?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Also morality can’t be restricted from marriage as not of issue, or we have immorality. Why would immorality of marriage be considered an equal right? Is immorality an equal right?

So yes this is also a moral question in the realm of Civil. Its not simply Civil and immorality equates to equal.

 

[rossum]

Also morality can’t be restricted from marriage as not of issue, or we have immorality. Why would immorality of marriage be considered an equal right? Is immorality an equal right?

So yes this is also a moral question in the realm of Civil. Its not simply Civil and immorality equates to equal.

Morality and immorality are not necessarily a matter for civil law. It is immoral for a Catholic to miss Mass on a Sunday, but civil law says nothing about it.

Civil marriage is already different from Catholic marriage – it allows divorce and remarriage. Same sex marriage is yet another difference between two things that are already different.

rossum

 

[GaryTaylor]

Morality and immorality are not necessarily a matter for civil law. It is immoral for a Catholic to miss Mass on a Sunday, but civil law says nothing about it.

Civil marriage is already different from Catholic marriage – it allows divorce and remarriage. Same sex marriage is yet another difference between two things that are already different.

rossum

Not necessarily defines nothing, it either is or isn’t. Point being this, if we are to deem Homosexual marriage moral, so to this needs restrictions defined.

I’m not equating Civil to Religion. I’m saying there is not one single paradigm this can be argued effectively. Be it from a religious, behavior or genetic.

As for immorality the Civil paradigm is fine. If immorality is not of question then a adult could marry a child, an adult could marry many other adults, and an adult could marry many children. Morality is of issue.

Morality is of issue and also reflects the definition of what indeed we call marriage.

 

[_Abyssinia]

International jurists tell SCOTUS: Marriage is between one man and one woman

 

[GaryTaylor]

International jurists tell SCOTUS: Marriage is between one man and one woman

Thanks Ab, your research is always a help.

 

[fix]

They most certainly do, could you be a little more explicit about your point?

They ought not be subjected to faux unions. Certainly, all children in society ought not be indoctrinated into this new kooky ideology.

 

[Dawnia]

Morality and immorality are not necessarily a matter for civil law. It is immoral for a Catholic to miss Mass on a Sunday, but civil law says nothing about it.

Civil marriage is already different from Catholic marriage – it allows divorce and remarriage. Same sex marriage is yet another difference between two things that are already different.

rossum

That is true. In the civil realm, marriage is a legally binding “contract” between the husband, wife and the State. There are specifically described responsibilities and rights that are outlined in law. Those responsibilities and rights have been acquired over 200+ years of male/female relationships.

The legal basis has nothing to do with feelings or sexual interest. Any two people in Iowa can get married regardless of their sexual orientation. They are not required to live together, co-mingle funds, be monogomous, or even like each other.

 

[epan]

That is true. In the civil realm, marriage is a legally binding “contract” between the husband, wife and the State. There are specifically described responsibilities and rights that are outlined in law. Those responsibilities and rights have been acquired over 200+ years of male/female relationships.

The legal basis has nothing to do with feelings or sexual interest. Any two people in Iowa can get married regardless of their sexual orientation. They are not required to live together, co-mingle funds, be monogomous, or even like each other.

civil marriage is not a contract with the state. it is between two people.

 

[Dawnia]

civil marriage is not a contract with the state. it is between two people.

Sorry, but you’re wrong. The State is involved in every civil marriage.

You can not get married without their approval, you cannot get divorced without their approval. A contract that is only between two people…does not need State approval to create or disolve.

 

[Monkey1976]

What in the world? … there are civilizations that allowed people to live and let live, I’, not sure why finding a historical society that acknowledged same sex marriage would make the argument of supporters any more or less valid…that’s like saying that since divorce has been an institution of so many cultures it should be a “banner behind which” divorce supporters should rally…

We’re being told that gay “marriage” will benefit society. I’m asking for evidence of that claim. If it is indeed a benefit to society, then it follows that some society at some point would have accepted it, especially those societies which actively encouraged and celebrated homosexual behavior. I’m giving you 15,000 years to work with. Is coming up with just one example really so much to ask?

 

[fix]

What in the world? … there are civilizations that allowed people to live and let live, I’, not sure why finding a historical society that acknowledged same sex marriage would make the argument of supporters any more or less valid…that’s like saying that since divorce has been an institution of so many cultures it should be a “banner behind which” divorce supporters should rally…

So the answer is it has never existed anywhere.

 

[rossum]

We’re being told that gay “marriage” will benefit society. I’m asking for evidence of that claim.

One benefit is that it helps their children:

The nation’s most influential pediatrician’s group says gays should be allowed to marry to help ensure the health and well-being of their children.

The American Academy of Pediatrics’ new policy, published online Thursday, cites research showing that the parents’ sexual orientation has no effect on a child’s development. Kids fare just as well in gay or straight families when they are nurturing and financially and emotionally stable, the academy says.

Source: US pediatricians back gay marriage, cite research.

rossum

 

[fix]

One benefit is that it helps their children:

The nation’s most influential pediatrician’s group says gays should be allowed to marry to help ensure the health and well-being of their children.

The American Academy of Pediatrics’ new policy, published online Thursday, cites research showing that the parents’ sexual orientation has no effect on a child’s development. Kids fare just as well in gay or straight families when they are nurturing and financially and emotionally stable, the academy says.

Source: US pediatricians back gay marriage, cite research.

rossum

That old political lefty group. They should stick to sore throats and physical ailments.

 

[Seeker1961]

We’re being told that gay “marriage” will benefit society. I’m asking for evidence of that claim. If it is indeed a benefit to society, then it follows that some society at some point would have accepted it, especially those societies which actively encouraged and celebrated homosexual behavior. I’m giving you 15,000 years to work with. Is coming up with just one example really so much to ask?

Aren’t married couples more stable than unmarried people? Isn’t that one of the arguments that has always been made? Married people settle down, they buy houses, they buy stuff to furnish their houses, they take vacations to get away from their houses, they get jobs and work to keep their houses and vacations…in other words-married people are more stable for the economy than single people. They spend more, and they spend more consistently.

All those companies who support gay rights-you think they’re doing that because it makes them feel good? Sure, they’re going to say it’s all about equal rights, but if it wasn’t going to be economically beneficial they wouldn’t wade in on it.

Follow the money…

 

[_Abyssinia]

One benefit is that it helps their children:

The nation’s most influential pediatrician’s group says gays should be allowed to marry to help ensure the health and well-being of their children.

The American Academy of Pediatrics’ new policy, published online Thursday, cites research showing that the parents’ sexual orientation has no effect on a child’s development. Kids fare just as well in gay or straight families when they are nurturing and financially and emotionally stable, the academy says.

Source: US pediatricians back gay marriage, cite research.

rossum

“Pediatrics Group Backs Gay Marriage, Saying It Helps Children,” proclaims a headline in The New York Times. But the advocacy group presented no new studies, no new data, to support this claim. And the studies the group cites have been shown to be insufficient to come to this conclusion about same-sex parenting.

Turns out the press release, picked up nationwide, was a PR stunt aimed at influencing the Supreme Court. The nine justices are set to hear oral arguments Tuesday and Wednesday in two cases about the constitutionality of marriage laws.

…

So what about that release from the American Academy of Pediatrics? Two eminent political scientists, Leon Kass (a professor at University of Chicago) and Harvey Mansfield (a professor at Harvard), filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court cautioning against accepting politicized science: “Claims that science provides support for constitutionalizing a right to same-sex marriage must necessarily rest on ideology. Ideology may be pervasive in the social sciences, especially when controversial policy issues are at stake, but ideology is not science.”

Kass and Mansfield urge the court not to redefine marriage based on new, inconclusive research. The academic studies on same-sex parenting purporting to show “no differences” are, they argue, “subject to severe constraints arising from limited data” and a lack of “replicable experiments.” The professors contend:

“Even if same-sex marriage and child rearing by same-sex couples were far more common than they now are, large amounts of data collected over decades would be required before any responsible researcher could make meaningful scientific estimates of the effects.”

Although we still have much to learn about the impact of same-sex parenting, we do know quite a bit about marriage and child well-being. We have decades of rigorous social science data confirming that children do best with a married mother and father.

In another amicus brief submitted to the court, a group of social science professors explains:

“It is not simply the presence of two parents … but the presence of two biological parents that seems to support children’s development. … Experts have long contended that both mothers and fathers make unique contributions to parenting.”

Indeed, scholars have known this for quite some time. Professor David Popenoe of Rutgers University explains:

“We should disavow the notion that ‘mommies can make good daddies,’ just as we should disavow the popular notion … that ‘daddies can make good mommies.’ … The two sexes are different to the core, and each is necessary—culturally and biologically—for the optimal development of a human being.”

These statistics have penetrated American life to such a great extent that President Barack Obama can refer to them as well understood:

“We know the statistics—that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.”

Fathers matter, and marriage helps to connect fathers to mothers and children.

But how can the law teach that fathers are essential if we redefine marriage to make fathers optional?

Redefining marriage denies the importance of mothers and fathers, and same-sex parenting arrangements, as the social science professors note, “by definition, exclude either a mother or a father.” The concern is not whether same-sex couples can make “quality and successful efforts in raising children.” The concern is that there “remain unique advantages to a parenting structure consisting of both a mother and a father, political interests notwithstanding.”

Marriage policy should place the needs of children before the desires of adults. It should respect the rights of children to the care of the man and woman who created them as much as the rights of adults to live and love as they choose—which adults can do, without redefining marriage for the entire nation.

edition.cnn.com/2013/03/22/opinion/anderson-states-same-sex-marriage/index.html

 

[_Abyssinia]

Story 1 - Seeing through the spin: Why did Pediatrics group back same-sex marriage?

 

[_Abyssinia]

EXCLUSIVE: EMails Show Prop. 8 Judge Sought Ted Olson’s Advice On Whether to Attend Supreme Court Argument on Gay Marriage