Republican senator announces support for gay marriage

[Cor_Cordis]

you just excused yourself, and not for the first time, from rational discussion.

your rants contribute nothing. do you understand that extreme distortion and untruth only weaken your argument.

i’ll mark on my ignore list. feel free to rant on for those who will listen.

It’s okay epan.

You can admit that you have no rational response.

There’s no need to hide behind the predictable “moral” disdain when you’re advocating the immorality of increasing depravities upon our already crumbling society.:yawn:

 

[holyrood]

Open Monogamy In Gay Relationships

"Proponents of “marriage equality” sing their refrain over and over: “Our relationships are just the same as yours.”

I have in the past read that even when reading such studies, it’s important to remember that those homosexual relationships which claim to be monogamous do so by redefining the word ‘monogamy,’ not by actually being 100% faithful to one another.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

i’ll mark on my ignore list. feel free to rant on for those who will listen.

You were never listening in the first place.

And if my conclusions are truly distortions and falsehoods, then you should be able to reveal their fallacies quite readily - no?:ehh:

Critical thinking is not an element of the same-sex advocates.

 

[holyrood]

you just excused yourself, and not for the first time, from rational discussion.

your rants contribute nothing. do you understand that extreme distortion and untruth only weaken your argument.

i’ll mark on my ignore list. feel free to rant on for those who will listen.

In both instances in which I’ve seen you claim this, I have seen nothing irrational with Cor Cordis’s statements. Please explain how posting and discussing a study relevant to the discussion at hand excuses oneself from rational discussion. Or how doing so constitutes a rant. Or what, in any of these posts, is ‘extreme distortion’ or untruth.

This is the hallmark of a rational discussion: if there is a distortion or untruth there, point it out, rather than call names and belittle.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I have in the past read that even when reading such studies, it’s important to remember that those homosexual relationships which claim to be monogamous do so by redefining the word ‘monogamy,’ not by actually being 100% faithful to one another.

Quite right holyrood.

They use the contradictory term “open monogamy” in the gay parlance.

Such is the insidious nature of a movement that must redefine established meanings into meaningless immorality in order to convince itself that depravity is now a “natural” good.

 

[rossum]

I’m not aware of any new scientific discovery that suddenly rendered the disordered and dangerous act of sodomy into a “natural” “healthy” and functional part of our intended design.

So, you have no objection on those grounds to two lesbians getting married? Even less risk of sodomy there than in a heterosexual marriage.

rossum

 

[Crescentinus]

Meanwhile, rossum is celebrating what had happened…

 

[epan]

Yes. As long as you consider an inordinately high percentage of same-sex attraction among children "normal. But of course this entire “study” is pro-gay so…circular reasoning much?

Uhm… the fact that the children who where raised by these dysfunctional people actually ended up with an unusually high degree of dysfunctional sexual attractions of their own does rather inadvertently suggest that homosexuality has a rather significant environmental factor to it - no?

So yes. They actually did reveal an etiology.

What???

So you admit the entire study is agenda-based and completely bias in it’s selectivity, and thus it stands to reason that the conclusions as well as the entire study as a whole is…er…rather pointless.

And you had the audacity to claim that my point was pointless?

Do you even read the inane irony of your own written thoughts? Seriously.:ehh:

You might take the time to understand what you are reading before you respond to it, if it seems difficult for you. Not everyone’s point of view is as simplistic as yours. You might learn something. As someone I know says, try thinking with your mind instead of with your mouth. And if there is a word that you don’t understand, just look it up. We all improve our vocabularies that way, and it helps with comprehension. Just a suggestion.

I finally found the ignore option. I’ll check back in a week or two to see if you are doing any better.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

So, you have no objection on those grounds to two lesbians getting married? Even less risk of sodomy there than in a heterosexual marriage.

rossum

Did the genders suddenly become physically, cognitively and spiritually interchangeable?

Did lesbianism suddenly alter the inherent and disordered nature of it’s evolutionary dead-end by magically becoming reproductive?

 

[epan]

You might take the time to understand what you are reading before you respond to it, if it seems difficult for you. Not everyone’s point of view is as simplistic as yours. You might learn something. As someone I know says, try thinking with your mind instead of with your mouth. And if there is a word that you don’t understand, just look it up. We all improve our vocabularies that way, and it helps with comprehension. Just a suggestion.

If you don’t quite understand something, ask for clarification. It’s clear from many of your responses to people that you are missing their points.

You may take this in the wrong way. I hope not. I’m trying to be helpful. You’ll find that conversations are easier when you listen, as well as talk.

I finally found the ignore option. I’ll check back in a week or two to see if you are doing any better.

 

[epan]

Yes. As long as you consider an inordinately high percentage of same-sex attraction among children "normal. But of course this entire “study” is pro-gay so…circular reasoning much?

Uhm… the fact that the children who where raised by these dysfunctional people actually ended up with an unusually high degree of dysfunctional sexual attractions of their own does rather inadvertently suggest that homosexuality has a rather significant environmental factor to it - no?

So yes. They actually did reveal an etiology.

What???

So you admit the entire study is agenda-based and completely bias in it’s selectivity, and thus it stands to reason that the conclusions as well as the entire study as a whole is…er…rather pointless.

And you had the audacity to claim that my point was pointless?

Do you even read the inane irony of your own written thoughts? Seriously.:ehh:

One other thing. I don’t know if you actually read the report that you are misrepresenting. I did, when you brought it up, to see if you were being accurate or not, and to see what I could learn from it. Then I checked the opinion of qualified critics, to see what they thought of it. I didn’t just rely on the opinions of others from biased sources.

It appears from your posts that you never actually read the report. You might find that to be a more effective means of critique, that is to understand what you are critiquing, first.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

You might take the time to understand what you are reading before you respond to it, if it seems difficult for you. Not everyone’s point of view is as simplistic as yours. You might learn something. As someone I know says, try thinking with your mind instead of with your mouth. And if there is a word that you don’t understand, just look it up. We all improve our vocabularies that way, and it helps with comprehension. Just a suggestion.

I finally found the ignore option. I’ll check back in a week or two to see if you are doing any better.

So it took you a paragraph to make obtuse and baseless assertions and yet you could not respond to the actual facts that caused you such distress in the first place?

And that tired old excuse used by liberal progressives that “these things are just too gosh darned complicated and nuanced” is always dragged out whenever their contradictory rationales and mental gymnastics are illuminated with the clarity of critical thought and sound reasoning.

These things are not analytically complicated, but rather they are found “difficult” by their advocates because the inherent nature of their dysfunction is so painfully obvious.

What you are alluding to is not intricate in it’s complexity, but rather, cognitively dissonant in it’s relatively simple reality for those who embrace its permissive irresponsibility.

 

[HansTrappist]

There is no such thing as “gay marriage”. It is just a semantic illusion of the Devil.

“Gay marriage” is a sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance. It is also a form of demonic child abuse, as our Holy Father has pointed out when he was then a Cardinal.

So, the proper title for the headline of this news article should read: “Republican senator announces support for demonic activity, for a sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance and for a form of child abuse.”

 

[twoshoes]

That is an interesting observation. On the one hand, when I vote what I want more than anything is for the candidate to honestly represent what he believes, and what he intends to do. I hate the current poll driven politics, where the politician changes his platform with each new ratings poll.

On the other hand, I respect a person who can change his or her opinion in the light of personal growth, and new insight or information. This is a requirement of good leadership.

So, I would not be so quick to cry out “betrayal”. But I get your point.

In this case, it appears that a person with certain impersonal moral values was confronted with the personal ramifications of his beliefs. That is where the rubber meets the road.

By analogy… ra ra for the “chicken hawks” who have never served a day in the military, but are quick to commit our military men and women. How would they make the same decision, if their sons and daughters were eligible to be drafted, of if they had to report for duty themselves?

This is the true moral test. Does one’s personal moral perspective hold up to personal commitment, in the face of moral dilemma and personal adversity. Do you betray your friend to save your own skin? Do you take a bullet to protect your comrade? and so on…

I guess my final point is that this senator made a very personal decision, based on his own values and his life experience. For each of us, that is different.

On questions of the day changing your mind is apropriate and necessary, but on issue of Morality they should have been set in his mind long before he knew his son was gay. Not correcting your children is neglecting your responsibilty as a parent from birth until at least discernment. You should love your son, and still be able to correct his behavior.

If your 30 year old son smokes, would you not point out the consequence of this action. Moral beliefs shouldnot change because they are unpopular at the present time. This is why we have moral positions to get us thru an ever changing secular world.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

One other thing. I don’t know if you actually read the report that you are misrepresenting. I did, when you brought it up, to see if you were being accurate or not, and to see what I could learn from it. Then** I checked the opinion of qualified critics**, to see what they thought of it. I didn’t just rely on the opinions of others from biased sources.

It appears from your posts that you never actually read the report. You might find that to be a more effective means of critique, that is to understand what you are critiquing, first.

“Qualified critics”. Translation: Biased gay-advocates hiding behind meaningless credentials.

Oh but wait, the “qualified critics” weighed in to tell everyone that these inherent biases of the agenda-driven “research” were no longer relevant?

And yet, these pesky stubborn facts remain:

Aside from looking at the findings and effects on the orientation of children raised in same-sex homes, Stanton also looked at the methodology used to conduct the research.

He told The Christian Post that it was not “representative or objective in any way,” which is a problem since it’s the longest, largest study of same-sex families to date.

He said that the research only focuses on a small population sample of “highly educated upper middle class women that are in their 30s” – all from Boston, Washington, D.C., or San Francisco. He said most of them were recruited through gay activist channels and the parents self-report the well-being of their own children for the study.

Oh, and then there is this:

The New Family Structure Study (NFSS) suggests notable differences on many outcomes do, in fact, exist [between same-sex, intact-married, and biological homes]. This is inconsistent with claims of ‘no differences’ generated by studies that have commonly employed far narrower samples than this one.”

*Compared with off-spring from married, intact mother/father homes, children raised in same-sex homes are markedly more likely to…

• Experience poor educational attainment
• Report overall lower levels of happiness, mental and physical health.
• Have impulsive behavior
• Be in counseling or mental health therapy (2xs)
• Suffer from depression (by large margins)
• Have recently thought of suicide (significantly)
• Identify as bisexual, lesbian or gay
• Have male on male or female on female sex partners (dramatically higher)
• Currently be in a same-sex romantic relationship (2x to 3x more likely)
• Be asexual (females with lesbian parents)
• As adults, be unmarried; much more likely to cohabit
• As adults, more likely to be unfaithful in married or cohabiting relationships
• Have a sexually tramsmitted infection (STI)
• Be sexually molested (both inappropriate touching and forced sexual act)
• Feel relationally isolated from bio-mother and -father (Although lesbian-parented children do feel close to their bio-mom – not surprisingly – they are not as close as children with a bio-mom married to father)
• Be unemployed or part-time employed as young adults
• As adults, currently be on public assistance or sometime in their childhood
• Live in homes with lower income levels
• Drink with intention of getting drunk
• To smoke tobacco and marijuana
• Spend more time watching TV
• Have frequency of arrests
• Have pled guilty to minor legal offense*

But hey, if the “qualified critics” have concluded with their “expert opinions” that these are really just minor little insignificant details, then who are we to use our critical thinking to illuminate any contradictory truth out of their lofty opinions?

Gee, this “thinking” stuff is just so gosh darned “complicated” and hard and stuff…

 

[Cor_Cordis]

BTW epan: You actually produced more meaningful and rational responses before you chose to “ignore” me.

"We love truth when it enlightens us, but we hate truth when it accuses us." ~St. Augustine

 

[twoshoes]

So what? The law does not say you must create a child in order for your marriage to be valid. Otherwise there would be a lot of impotent married couples in trouble.

Actually it is the same biologically, its 99% the same physically, its the same emotionally. The only place where its not the same is theologically which is not a concern of the law. Bottom line it is equality and its freedom. Freedom to love whoever you want to love and devote yourself to whoever you want to devote yourself to. Unlike righties, the left truly believes in limited government intrusion in personal lives.

Why is law needed to codify or certify a loving relationship. Love is an emotion, should all other emotion be legalized, what other types of Love do we legalize, why stop at same sex marriages. I think your bigoted by limited it to only homsexual and heterolsexual marriage. Think of how progessive we can be. Wouldn’t that be good for society.

We also have 99% of the genes of animals does that make us the same as them.

The left also believes in unlimited intrusion in your pocket book, telling people what to eat, what to drink, what your faith shoud be, how we should protect our selves, what we should teach our children, indebt our children for life, pick what industries should survive, and on and on. It is only in the area of same sex marriage that the left is truly for limited government intrusion. The left never looks at results, only does it feel good.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

So what? The law does not say you must create a child in order for your marriage to be valid. Otherwise there would be a lot of impotent married couples in trouble.

Reproduction and child rearing is the primary basis for the exclusive and protected recognition of the societal institution of marriage. And these inherent aspects have been recognized as the healthy, fundamental, and necessary building blocks of all established societies in every sustainable civilization in human history spanning the vast and diverse separations of time, geography, and divergent belief systems.

And even if a married heterosexual couple does not produce offspring, the inherent nature of their exclusively dedicated monogamous relationship on an institutional basis relative to its interactive contribution to its respective society does fit within the paradigm of the long recognized pattern of a healthy and thriving civilization.

And that is a matter of historical record.

 

[rossum]

Did the genders suddenly become physically, cognitively and spiritually interchangeable?

Did lesbianism suddenly alter the inherent and disordered nature of it’s evolutionary dead-end by magically becoming reproductive?

So, you are unable to answer my question. Why am I not surprised?

rossum

 

[rossum]

There is no such thing as “gay marriage”. It is just a semantic illusion of the Devil.

False. There is gay civil marriage. Civil marriage is defined in civil law, not in religious law. There is indeed no gay Catholic marriage, but there is gay civil marriage.

rossum