Republican senator announces support for gay marriage

[josh987654321]

Two gay men take in a foster infant, addicted to crack. The birth mother left the child in the hospital. Both men raise this child, provide for this child, walk this child day in, day out as it gets the DT’s and goes through excruciating withdrawal. Fast forward 18 mths - 2 yrs. The men decide to adopt the child. However, the birth mother must be found for consent. She is found. She says she is “clean”. However, she has little to nothing to provide for herself, let alone a 2 yr old who still needs medical care. The state gave the child back to the birth mother. Now mind you, there isn’t a dad in the picture. This child went back to the gutter.

Was this the right thing to do for this child? This is TRUE story. Is this child still a victim? Are the odds that this child will grow up in a loving family good? Both men were gainfully employed and this child didn’t spend one hour in daycare. One of the men worked his business from home to care for the child. Home studies were done, background investigations were done, SSDI visited on a regular basis. However, with the birth mother, no such studies were done. Interesting???

Neither of these men wear pink tu-tu’s and parade up and down the street. They pay taxes and own their own home. However, civil and legal restraints prevent them from a civil union. Marriage refers to a clear cut faith based dogma. No one is going to force the Church to do anything… enough with the paranoia.

Did you read what I was reffering to? I said I can understand a homosexual union adopting a child if it is for the benefit of a child, but hetrosexual unions should have priority when adopting, as a father and mother is the best option, my whole point of why it is selfish is because of homosexuals trying to have their own biological children, because thats not done for the benefit of the child at all, as it is intentionaly crippling the child by removing their biological mother or father, not because the parents are abusive or anything, not because they think it will benefit the child, but because of their own selfish desires to bring a child into their own homosexual union, it’s the whole idea of bringing a child into the word with intent to deprive them of a mother or father, thats why it’s incredibly selfish.

Like I said -

They put their own selfish desires of homosexuality above the needs of a child to their mother and father, I can understand if a mother or father is removed from a child in order to benefit the child, but in regards to the post I was replying to, it has nothing to do with the benefit of children and everything to do with the selfish acts of two/three consenting adults trying to have children through a third party when it comes to homsoexuality, which is just so very wrong.

Because it envolves depriving a child of their biological mother or father, not because that’s what they think is best for the child, but because that’s what they selfishly want in their homosexual union.

In your situation, you need to ask yourself, what would be best for the child? and in your situation, the homosexual couple didn’t try to have a biological child with the use of a thrid party, so you don’t have to relate my words to that situation.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Equal but different isn’t equal. It’s that simple.

rossum

Yes it is, because some things are equal under law but very different in reality and they have a separate but equal policy, this is one of them, the sexual nature of homosexuality and hetrosexuality means that they are very different in reality, even if people want to treat them equally under law, they are still very different.

Therefore in regards to marriage, it shouldn’t be reffered to as same sex marriage, you might be fighting for equality between homosexuality and hetrosexuality under law, which I still don’t agree with for certain things, but in reality they are very different unions.

So Rossum, in reality a homosexual union is not marriage, even if you want to give them the same rights as marriage’s under law, it’s still not marriage and therefore there would have to be a spearate but equal policy, I don’t agree with equating homosexuality and hetrosexuality under law for certain things like adoption and education, but in regards to marriage, the reality is that word should not be used for homosexual unions.

No matter what you call a plant it will never smell like a rose unless it’s a rose, so why give the same name to two different plants? you might want to treat two different plants equally under law, but that doesn’t mean you call both plants the same thing because the law doesn’t view the differences in reality, it’s illogical.

Just because you want to treat two different things equally under law, doesn’t mean that they are equal, such as men and women are equal under law, but do we say that women will now be reffered to as men? why don’t women have the right to be recognised as men under law? they are treated equally under law are they not?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Hi_How_Are_You]

Did you read what I was reffering to? I said I can understand a homosexual union adopting a child if it is for the benefit of a child, but hetrosexual unions should have priority when adopting, as a father and mother is the best option, my whole point of why it is selfish is because of homosexuals trying to have their own biological children, because thats not done for the benefit of the child at all, as it is intentionaly crippling the child by removing their biological mother or father, not because the parents are abusive or anything, not because they think it will benefit the child, but because of their own selfish desires to bring a child into their own homosexual union, it’s the whole idea of bringing a child into the word with intent to deprive them of a mother or father, thats why it’s incredibly selfish.

Like I said -

In your situation, you need to ask yourself, what would be best for the child? and in your situation, the homosexual couple didn’t try to have a biological child with the use of a thrid party, so you don’t have to relate my words to that situation.

Thank you for reading
Josh

It is a false dilemma anyway. It is like asking “would it be better to let someone stab you and give you a flesh wound versus allowing them to shoot you and mortally wound you?”

Except in this case, both options are potentially mortal in nature.

It doesn’t have to be either. if we live our whole life according to God’s plan, meaning families that procreate, stay married and faithful, work hard, and stay with God, there will be much less of a need for this sort of “dilemma.”

We have so many sins piled upon one another over the centuries that we have created a tough world for ourselves and our children. And instead of turning back to God and what the Church asks of all of us, we keep looking for shortcuts that create more problems through more sin.

When will we learn?

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Civil unions aren’t enough for gay rights advocates. They’ve proved that in California and Washington where civil unions already existed. It’s never enough.

That is nonsense and you know it. I would wager that most in our community would have settled for civil unions, but that was years ago, before your side started a culture war with ballot initiatives and legislative action.

 

[Elizabeth502]

That is nonsense and you know it.

No he doesn’t know it. He is correct. In States where the exact same privileges apply in every respect, it is not enough. They want to Play House. They don’t want partnerships with equal privileges (which includes tax privileges, by the way); they want to be “husbands” to each other and “wives” to each other officially, by name, and they want to force the rest of the world to call their partner their “husband” or their “wife.”

It’s complete nonsense to call it a battle of “equal rights.” It’s a demand for moral equivalency and an attempt to control the general public by force.

 

[josh987654321]

No he doesn’t know it. He is correct. In States where the exact same privileges apply in every respect, it is not enough. They want to Play House. They don’t want partnerships with equal privileges (which includes tax privileges, by the way); they want to be “husbands” to each other and “wives” to each other officially, by name, and they want to force the rest of the world to call their partner their “husband” or their “wife.”

It’s complete nonsense to call it a battle of “equal rights.” It’s a demand for moral equivalency and an attempt to control the general public by force.

No matter what they call a plant it will never smell like a rose unless it’s a rose, so why give the same name to two different plants? they might want to treat two different plants equally under law, but that doesn’t mean they call both plants the same thing because the law doesn’t view the differences in reality, it’s illogical to argue for homosexual unions to be recognised as marriage’s.

Just because they want to treat two different things equally under law, doesn’t mean that they are equal, such as men and women are equal under law, but do we say that women will now be reffered to as men? why don’t women have the right to be recognised as men under law? they are treated equally under law are they not?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[rossum]

Marriage is marriage - civil or uncivil.

This is incorrect. There are, and have been, many different arrangements which fall under the name “marriage”.

I have posted this before, but it appears I need to post it again:

• Marriage (Solomon) = 1 husband, 700 wives, 300 concubines.
• Marriage (Nehemiah 13:25) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same people.
• Marriage (Moslem) = 1 husband, up to 4 wives.
• Marriage (Joseph Smith) = 1 husband, many wives.
• Marriage (mainstream Mormon) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Catholic) = 1 husband not previously divorced, 1 wife not previously divorced.
• Marriage (Protestant) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Virginia pre-1967) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same race.
• Marriage (California June 2008 - November 2008) = two adults.
• Marriage (California since November 2008) = 1 husband, 1 wife.

There are many different versions of marriage recognised by different religious groups and by different legal entities.

You are incorrect to think that all marriages are the same. Civil marriage allows divorce. Is that the same as Catholic marriage? Trying to argue from the basis that there is only one type of marriage is bound to fail. Marriages come in many different shapes and sizes.

rossum

 

[rossum]

No he doesn’t know it. He is correct. In States where the exact same privileges apply in every respect, it is not enough. They want to Play House. They don’t want partnerships with equal privileges (which includes tax privileges, by the way); they want to be “husbands” to each other and “wives” to each other officially, by name, and they want to force the rest of the world to call their partner their “husband” or their “wife.”

It’s complete nonsense to call it a battle of “equal rights.” It’s a demand for moral equivalency and an attempt to control the general public by force.

There are very few, if any, states where " the exact same privileges apply in every respect". For instance, the Federal treatment of civil unions differs from the Federal treatment of marriages. Marriage allows foreign partners to gain entry to the US; civil unions do not. A great many old laws refer explicitly to marriage, and not to civil unions. Unless and until all those old laws are updated to refer to both, then there will not be legal equality. It is far simpler to change the name of civil unions to marriage, and then none of those old laws will need amending.

rossum

 

[josh987654321]

This is incorrect. There are, and have been, many different arrangements which fall under the name “marriage”.

I have posted this before, but it appears I need to post it again:

• Marriage (Solomon) = 1 husband, 700 wives, 300 concubines.
• Marriage (Nehemiah 13:25) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same people.
• Marriage (Moslem) = 1 husband, up to 4 wives.
• Marriage (Joseph Smith) = 1 husband, many wives.
• Marriage (mainstream Mormon) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Catholic) = 1 husband not previously divorced, 1 wife not previously divorced.
• Marriage (Protestant) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Virginia pre-1967) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same race.
• Marriage (California June 2008 - November 2008) = two adults.
• Marriage (California since November 2008) = 1 husband, 1 wife.

There are many different versions of marriage recognised by different religious groups and by different legal entities.

You are incorrect to think that all marriages are the same. Civil marriage allows divorce. Is that the same as Catholic marriage? Trying to argue from the basis that there is only one type of marriage is bound to fail. Marriages come in many different shapes and sizes.

rossum

Why do you think that marriage should be changed from a man and a woman, to include same sex unions Rossum? how do you define marriage Rossum? you said before that you don’t know, so if you don’t know the definition of marriage, than I would suggest you and others similar must be making it up as they go, and we are trying to say that there is already a definition for marriage, which is the union of a man and a woman.

You wont give a definition of marriage Rossum, because you know when it is no longer between a man and a woman, it is open to just about any meaning.

Just because they want to treat two different things equally under law, doesn’t mean that they are equal, such as men and women are equal under law, but do we say that women will now be reffered to as men? why don’t women have the right to be recognised as men under law? they are treated equally under law are they not? by your logic Rossum trying to argue from the basis that there is only one type of man is bound to fail, men come in many different shapes and sizes, so why can’t women be recognised as men?

At least google still agree’s with me -

mar·riage

/ˈmarij/
Noun
1.The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
2.A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts.

Synonyms
wedding - matrimony - wedlock - nuptials - espousal

google.com.au/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=define+marriage&oq=define+marriage&gs_l=hp.3…0l4.1214755.1216837.0.1217145.15.13.0.0.0.0.424.3238.2-2j7j1.10.0…0.0…1c.1.8.psy-ab.uy9eP9Lbodk&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44990110,d.aGc&fp=2462fe685fb2c670&biw=1661&bih=927

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[rlg94086]

Why do you think that marriage should be changed from a man and a woman, to include same sex unions Rossum? how do you define marriage Rossum? you said before that you don’t know, so if you don’t know the definition of marriage, than I would suggest you and others similar must be making it up as they go, and we are trying to say that there is already a definition for marriage, which is the union of a man and a woman.

You wont give a definition of marriage Rossum, because you know when it is no longer between a man and a woman, it is open to just about any meaning.

Just because they want to treat two different things equally under law, doesn’t mean that they are equal, such as men and women are equal under law, but do we say that women will now be reffered to as men? why don’t women have the right to be recognised as men under law? they are treated equally under law are they not? by your logic Rossum trying to argue from the basis that there is only one type of man is bound to fail, men come in many different shapes and sizes, so why can’t women be recognised as men?

At least google still agree’s with me -

mar·riage

/ˈmarij/
Noun
1.The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
2.A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts.

Synonyms
wedding - matrimony - wedlock - nuptials - espousal

google.com.au/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=define+marriage&oq=define+marriage&gs_l=hp.3…0l4.1214755.1216837.0.1217145.15.13.0.0.0.0.424.3238.2-2j7j1.10.0…0.0…1c.1.8.psy-ab.uy9eP9Lbodk&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44990110,d.aGc&fp=2462fe685fb2c670&biw=1661&bih=927

Thank you for reading
Josh

Relativism is rampant in our culture - even among Catholics. I should probably list the various definitions of Catholic, I guess.

 

[Monkey1976]

This is incorrect. There are, and have been, many different arrangements which fall under the name “marriage”.

I have posted this before, but it appears I need to post it again:

• Marriage (Solomon) = 1 husband, 700 wives, 300 concubines.
• Marriage (Nehemiah 13:25) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same people.
• Marriage (Moslem) = 1 husband, up to 4 wives.
• Marriage (Joseph Smith) = 1 husband, many wives.
• Marriage (mainstream Mormon) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Catholic) = 1 husband not previously divorced, 1 wife not previously divorced.
• Marriage (Protestant) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Virginia pre-1967) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same race.
• Marriage (California June 2008 - November 2008) = two adults.
• Marriage (California since November 2008) = 1 husband, 1 wife.

There are many different versions of marriage recognised by different religious groups and by different legal entities.

You are incorrect to think that all marriages are the same. Civil marriage allows divorce. Is that the same as Catholic marriage? Trying to argue from the basis that there is only one type of marriage is bound to fail. Marriages come in many different shapes and sizes.

rossum

I’ve responded to this before, and it appears I need to respond to it again: In every historical record we have, the institution which we call marriage has always been something that can only exist between man and woman. The first time in the entire span of human history that it was seen as anything else was in AD2000. There is no other institution that has been so universally accepted across time and cultures. Slavery, the rights of women, even murder - all of these have differences in how they are defined, with no constant that crosses every cultural boundary. Marriage as something that only exists between the sexes is one of the - if not the only - institution that (until AD2000) was constant across every time, culture, and place.

 

[holyrood]

This is incorrect. There are, and have been, many different arrangements which fall under the name “marriage”.

I have posted this before, but it appears I need to post it again:

• Marriage (Solomon) = 1 husband, 700 wives, 300 concubines.
• Marriage (Nehemiah 13:25) = 1 husband, 1 **wife **of the same people.
• Marriage (Moslem) = 1 husband, up to 4 wives.
• Marriage (Joseph Smith) = 1 husband, many wives.
• Marriage (mainstream Mormon) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Catholic) = 1 **husband **not previously divorced, 1 **wife **not previously divorced.
• Marriage (Protestant) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Virginia pre-1967) = 1 husband, 1 **wife **of the same race.
• Marriage (California June 2008 - November 2008) = two adults.
• Marriage (California since November 2008) = 1 husband, 1 wife.

There are many different versions of marriage recognised by different religious groups and by different legal entities.

You are incorrect to think that all marriages are the same. Civil marriage allows divorce. Is that the same as Catholic marriage? Trying to argue from the basis that there is only one type of marriage is bound to fail. Marriages come in many different shapes and sizes.

rossum

Notice that apart from a new creation pushed through by liberals, that only lasted for 6 months out of thousands and thousands of years of human history, every single marriage involves some configuration of husband and wife(ves).

I want an answer to one question:

Every single world religion throughout history has said homosexual behavior is wrong. (With the very, *very *recent exception of certain denominations changing their stance under political pressure.) No single society in the entire history of mankind, anywhere on earth, has had ‘marriage’ between two men or two women.

On what grounds do liberals claim that they know better and/or have more wisdom than every single major religion and society throughout the history of mankind?/

Were all those people, all those religious leaders, every single one of them fools, duped, hateful, misguided? And today’s liberals alone finally have the real truth? Please explain this.

 

[scipio337]

There are very few, if any, states where " the exact same privileges apply in every respect". For instance, the Federal treatment of civil unions differs from the Federal treatment of marriages. Marriage allows foreign partners to gain entry to the US; civil unions do not. A great many old laws refer explicitly to marriage, and not to civil unions. Unless and until all those old laws are updated to refer to both, then there will not be legal equality. It is far simpler to change the name of civil unions to marriage, and then none of those old laws will need amending.

rossum

State marriage laws didn’t change Federal laws.

Try some logic here.

So activists pushed marriage for over a decade in CA, after having domestic partnerships in 1999…

why???

leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5

Can you please point out where the STATE benefits weren’t “the exact same privileges apply in every respect”??

Now, ask yourself if those differences (if they exist) couldn’t have been amended in the existing law.

 

[rossum]

Why do you think that marriage should be changed from a man and a woman, to include same sex unions Rossum?

Fairness and equality under the law. I am only talking about civil marriage, not religious marriage.

how do you define marriage Rossum?

I do not have “a” definition. As my post indicates there are many different definitions of marriage. For civil marriage the definition is whatever is enacted in the laws of that particular country. For example, in the US some states allow first cousin marriage while others do not. Those are two different definitions of civil marriage within the USA.

You wont give a definition of marriage Rossum, because you know when it is no longer between a man and a woman, it is open to just about any meaning.

As I said, I will not give “a” definition because there isn’t one single definition to give. Does marriage allow divorce? Does marriage include first cousins? There is no single definition that covers all cases.

At least google still agree’s with me -

mar·riage

/ˈmarij/
Noun
1.The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
2.A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts.

Definition 2 applies to all legally married same sex couples.

rossum

 

[scipio337]

That is nonsense and you know it. I would wager that most in our community would have settled for civil unions, but that was years ago, before your side started a culture war with ballot initiatives and legislative action.

Which culture war was that? Who started it?? Here was the civil union law passed in California…

in 1999. If you didn’t know, the registry still exists today.

leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5

297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.

Who wanted more? Gavin Newsom, maybe?? And yet you call playing defense a “culture war”.

I bet you’re probably wondering why the US, Canada and the UK invaded the peace-loving French countryside in June of 1944.

 

[holyrood]

That is nonsense and you know it. I would wager that most in our community would have settled for civil unions, but that was years ago, before your side started a culture war with ballot initiatives and legislative action.

Why in the world would you say such a thing? He had just given concrete examples of it already happening.

Our side started a culture war???

That would only make sense if for the entire history of mankind there had always been ‘marriage’ between two men or two women and these upstart Christians and conservatives suddenly got a bee in their bonnet. Not exactly the way it happened.

Is this an example of ‘if you tell the same lie often enough people will believe it?’

IT’S ALREADY HAPPENING. People who have the option of civil unions and all the legal benefits of marriage ARE pushing to redefine marriage.

 

[rossum]

Can you please point out where the STATE benefits weren’t “the exact same privileges apply in every respect”??

Certainly, in cases where other states are involved. All (?) states have laws saying that they recognise marriages performed in other states. No state that I am aware of recognises civil unions performed in other states (I may be wrong on that). That is why some states have passed specific laws withdrawing recognition of same sex marriages performed in other states. However, a legally married same sex couple from California can still be legally recognised as legally married in some other states, where a civil union would not grant such recognition.

Now, ask yourself if those differences (if they exist) couldn’t have been amended in the existing law.

They could have been, but it would require amending the law in every state. Simpler just to say “marriage” and save those state legislators a lot of work.

rossum

 

[rlg94086]

I’ve responded to this before, and it appears I need to respond to it again: In every historical record we have, the institution which we call marriage has always been something that can only exist between man and woman. The first time in the entire span of human history that it was seen as anything else was in AD2000. There is no other institution that has been so universally accepted across time and cultures. Slavery, the rights of women, even murder - all of these have differences in how they are defined, with no constant that crosses every cultural boundary. Marriage as something that only exists between the sexes is one of the - if not the only - institution that (until AD2000) was constant across every time, culture, and place.

Unfortunately, it’s like talking to a wall with these people. They put out long lists of marriages defined with men and women and figure the extremely recent redefinition to include two men is just fine. There is little reason involved, just pure “anything goes” relativism.

Next, they deny incestual and adult/12yo combinations will ever happen, even though historically they existed.

 

[scipio337]

Certainly, in cases where other states are involved. All (?) states have laws saying that they recognise marriages performed in other states. No state that I am aware of recognises civil unions performed in other states (I may be wrong on that). That is why some states have passed specific laws withdrawing recognition of same sex marriages performed in other states. However, a legally married same sex couple from California can still be legally recognised as legally married in some other states, where a civil union would not grant such recognition.

Again, other states aren’t obligated to honor same sex marriages performed in California, either. That’s not a difference.

rossum:

They could have been, but it would require amending the law in every state. Simpler just to say “marriage” and save those state legislators a lot of work.

rossum

Are you kidding me? There is no differences because individual states are not obligated to recognize domestic partnerships/civil unions, OR same sex marriages performed in other states.

So again, what are the differences??

 

[scipio337]

I’ll answer the question for you, rossum:

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.

The evidence, directly from the In re Marriage Cases decision:

Offering a legal relationship called “marriage” to opposite-sex couples while consigning same-sex couples to “domestic partnerships” impinges upon the fundamental right to marry by denying such legal relationships equal dignity and respect…

There was no difference in the legal protections that the court could find. It’s a cultural distinction. Like emperornapoleon said, it’s a culture war, but our side didn’t start it. Acceptance and normalizaion are the goals.