S
StAnastasia
Guest
So he was a Christian and treated you in this fashion.
- Status
P
pathia
Guest
This explanation has been spelled out in full, all at once many times in the past. The reason why I select bits is because
1.) Honestly, would you be comfortable with this much of your personal experiences being searchable by google?
2.) I hate repeating myself over and over, many of the people in this thread have talked to me before and already know the whole stream of events already.
D
DLT
Guest
Homosexuals and lesbians have no more right to marry than two brothers have a right to marry, or two sisiters, or a man and his sister, or a man and his aunt, or a woman and her aunt, or two women with one man, or one man with two women. Allowing two people of the same sex to marry would open the door to chaos–anything goes. There would no longer be any legal reason to stop anyone one from marrying anyone else, or one could claim discrimination.
The states and countries of the the world discriminate all the time concerning marriage and rightfully so. There is bad discrimination (refusing benefits to people because of their race, color or religion, etc.), and there is good discrimination (controlling incest through marriage laws, deciding what friends to have because of their moral values, etc.) And controlling marriage is the latter, good discrimination. It is also common sense, besides being very Biblical, especially marriage between one man and one woman according to Christ. The marriage he attended only had a bride and a groom. Judiasm, also, was finished with polygamy by then.
I would also like to say that marriage was instituted mainly to protect the woman from being left by the man or vice versa and for the protection of children. Every child has the right to a biological mother and father if that is at all possible. Those adults who came from broken homes all will tell you that.
The states and countries of the the world discriminate all the time concerning marriage and rightfully so. There is bad discrimination (refusing benefits to people because of their race, color or religion, etc.), and there is good discrimination (controlling incest through marriage laws, deciding what friends to have because of their moral values, etc.) And controlling marriage is the latter, good discrimination. It is also common sense, besides being very Biblical, especially marriage between one man and one woman according to Christ. The marriage he attended only had a bride and a groom. Judiasm, also, was finished with polygamy by then.
I would also like to say that marriage was instituted mainly to protect the woman from being left by the man or vice versa and for the protection of children. Every child has the right to a biological mother and father if that is at all possible. Those adults who came from broken homes all will tell you that.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
No! Not necessarily! Many fine people were raised in orphanages, grew up to be happy, balanced people, even went on to do great things. Depends on the personnel running the orphanage. Depends on the friendships, as well, gained therein.
A blanket statement like that cannot be made.
V
v3orb
Guest
And neither can one that eliminates the possibility that a same-sex couple can parent better than a civil institution or foster home. It’s about matching the child with the closest to the ideal for them and not just “this works” and “this doesn’t work”.
R
RobertLGarrett
Guest
Good for you! I think you got it! The “ideal for them” is a home with a loving mother and father. That doesn’t exist in a home with a same-sex couple.
S
sedonaman
Guest
No, because men need civilizing, and it’s the woman who civilizes him, not another man who also needs it.
This whole debate is moot in any event because the church has declared such unions as intrinsically evil, i.e., never permissible.
“As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.” vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
L
LeroyCRHP
Guest
No. In the beginning, everyone has a mother and a father. That is the basis for my order.
Note: [Middle English, from Old French, from Latin parhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.gifns, parent-, from past active participle of parere, to give birth;
Acceptable parents.
- Husband and wife, the way it was meant to be, even then raising a child is hard work but a joy.
- Acceptable adoption husband and wife.
- Grandparents.
- Single parent, statistically severe problems occur
- Two sets of husband/wife parents.
- Orphanage, last resort, .
Below the line: - Common law marriage, many forms of this, but if you have a child, get a legal marriage.
- Two fathers, two mothers, etc.
- People with felony convictions, especially pedofiles.
S
sedonaman
Guest
That’s all well and good, but did you ever notice that sodomites never argue based on order?
V
v3orb
Guest
“There is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth.”
apa.org/pi/parent.html
V
v3orb
Guest
You’re right. “Sodomites” argue facts that have no order, while the church ignores new scientific findings, and above all the unitive aspects of a homosexual relationship.
S
sedonaman
Guest
So? What does that have to do with church teaching? My whole point is that arguments for sodomite “marriage” are moot here because of church teaching.
Besides, the APA has removed homosexuality from its list of disorders for political reasons, not due to any scientific findings; and political correctness was invented to deny/conceal truth.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
R
RobertLGarrett
Guest
What “scientific new findings,” related to homosexual acts, has the Church ignored? As far as “unitive aspects,” homosexual acts are a sin. The ends don’t justify the means (no pun intended
).
P
PRmerger
Guest
Agreed. In the history of all the civilizations of the world, there has never EVER been a better way to raise children than in a home with a mother and a father. Period.Good for you! I think you got it! The “ideal for them” is a home with a loving mother and father. That doesn’t exist in a home with a same-sex couple.
S
sedonaman
Guest
“Ralph McInerny once offered a brilliant definition of the gay rights movement: self-deception as a group effort. Nevertheless, deception of the general public is also vital to the success of the cause. And nowhere are the forms of deception more egregious, or more startlingly successful, than in the campaign to persuade Christians that, to paraphrase the title of a recent book, Jesus Was Queer, and churches should open their doors to same-sex lovers. The gay Christian movement relies on a stratagem that is as daring as it is dishonest. I know, because I was taken in by it for a long time. Like the owners of Lobo’s, success depends on camouflaging the truth, which is hidden in plain view the whole time.” – Ronald G. Lee, “The Truth About the Homosexual Rights Movement”What “scientific new findings,” related to homosexual acts, has the Church ignored? As far as “unitive aspects,” homosexual acts are a sin. The ends don’t justify the means (no pun intended
New Oxford Review
February 2006
S
sedonaman
Guest
You mean “scientific evidence like the following taken from “PART IV: HOMOSEXUAL ‘MARRIAGE’" ?
catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp
What does the scientific evidence show about homosexuality?
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of diagnostic disorders. In retrospect, this decision appears to have been inspired by political pressure rather than medical evidence.
Homosexuals of both sexes remain fourteen times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexuals and 3½ times more likely to commit suicide successfully. Thirty years ago, this propensity toward suicide was attributed to social rejection, but the numbers have remained largely stable since then despite far greater public acceptance than existed in 1973. Study after study shows that male and female homosexuals have much higher rates of interpersonal maladjustment, depression, conduct disorder, childhood abuse (both sexual and violent), domestic violence, alcohol or drug abuse, anxiety, and dependency on psychiatric care than heterosexuals. Life expectancy of homosexual men was only 48 years before the AIDS virus came on the scene, and it is now down to 38. Only 2 percent of homosexual men live past age 65.
Male homosexuals are prone to cancer (especially anal cancer, which is almost unheard-of in male heterosexuals) and various sexually transmitted diseases, including urethritis, laryngitis, prostatitis, hepatitis A and B, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, and genital warts (which are caused by the human papilloma virus, which also causes genital cancers). Lesbians are at lower risk for STDs but at high risk for breast cancer. Homosexuals of both sexes have high rates of drug abuse, including cocaine, marijuana, LSD, and other psychedelics, barbiturates, and amyl nitrate.
Male homosexuals are particularly prone to develop sexually transmitted diseases, in part because of the high degree of promiscuity displayed by male homosexuals. One study in San Francisco showed that 43 percent of male homosexuals had had more than 500 sexual partners.[1] Seventy-nine percent of their sexual partners were strangers. Only 3 percent had had fewer than ten sexual partners.[2] The nature of sodomy contributes to the problem among male homosexuals. The rectum is not designed for sex. It is very fragile. Indeed, its fragility and tendency to tear and bleed is one factor making anal sex such an efficient means of transmitting the AIDS and hepatitis viruses.
Lesbians, in contrast, are less promiscuous than male homosexuals but more promiscuous than heterosexual women: One large study found that 42 percent of lesbians had more than ten sexual partners. A substantial percentage of them were strangers. Lesbians share male homosexuals’ propensity for drug abuse, psychiatric disorder, and suicide.[3]
The statistics speak for themselves: If homosexuals of either gender are finding satisfaction, why the search for sex with a disproportionately high number of strangers? In view of the evidence, homosexuals will not succeed at establishing exclusive relationships. Promiscuity is a hard habit for anyone to break, straight or homosexual. Promiscuous heterosexuals often fail to learn fidelity; male homosexuals are far more promiscuous than heterosexual males, and therefore far more likely to fail. Lesbians are more promiscuous than heterosexual women. There is little good data on the stability of lesbian relationships, but it is reasonable to speculate that their higher rates of promiscuity and various deep-seated psychological problems would predispose them to long-term relational instability. Existing evidence supports this speculation.
The more radical homosexual activists flaunt their promiscuity, using it as a weapon against what they call “bourgeois respectability.” But even more conservative advocates of gay marriage such as New Republic editor Andrew Sullivan admit that for them, “fidelity” does not mean complete monogamy, but just somewhat restrained promiscuity. In other words, they admit that exclusiveness will not happen. And without exclusiveness, their “marriages” will have little meaning.
Sullivan argues that marriage civilizes men, but anthropology would counter that marriage to women civilizes men. Male humans, homosexual or heterosexual, are more interested in random sex with strangers than women are. Men need to be civilized, to be taught the joys of committed sex, and that lesson is taught by marriage to women, not by other men who need to learn it themselves. The apparent instability of lesbian relationships suggests that lesbians understand that lesson less well than heterosexual women do. Exclusivity will not happen, and without exclusivity, marriage does not exist.
Without exclusivity, permanent and unconditional relationships will not happen, either. By definition, a relationship that allows for “cruising” will be shallow and mutually exploitative, just as sex with strangers is shallow and mutually exploitative. So far, same-sex marriage is 0 for 3: likely to be neither exclusive nor unconditional nor permanent.
Notes:
- A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg,* Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women* (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978).
- Ibid.
- J. B. Lehmann, C. U. Lehmann, and P. J. Kelly, “Development and Health Care Needs of Lesbians,” Journal of Women’s Health
T
TamM
Guest
B
Barclay
Guest
Gay marriage is not acceptable by God. No, they should not be allowed to adopt children because children learn what they live. It is unfair to the child to be introduced to that alternate lifestyle, which according to the bible is devoid of God’s blessings. God’s calls gay relationships an abomination.
gifts-for-weddings.co.uk/wedding-resources.html
gifts-for-weddings.co.uk/wedding-resources.html
- Status