Republican senator announces support for gay marriage

[josh987654321]

I think you are lacking in biology and reason

WHAT! you mean the biology and reason that a homosexual couple cannot have a child together? because they need hetrosexuality where the child will only be tied to one of the parents and the other parent will be permanantly removed from the childs life.

I THINK YOU ARE SEVERELY LACKING IN BIOLOGY AND REASON!

Gay men and women can easily “work out” around this “problem” together. As i said it is very easy to deliver sperm into a woman’s vagina.And delivering it into a vagina wont make them heterosexual. They can do it even without any intercourse and without any medical instruments\procedures

WORK OUT! WHAT! are you shitting me?

Yea they’ll work out around this problem alright, they’ll just remove the good or rights of children for the conveniance of adults, you think that homosexuals can have a child that is only biologically tied to one partner and remove the other biological parent from their lives?

My question stands still: would you by force remove these children from their families?

I refrase that question right back at you, will you be force removing these children from their biological parents? and the answer is yes, so Lana Morgan you don’t have a leg to stand on when you try and debate with me about the children, as you are miles wrong, any other debate you could have had more sympathy for, but I find it hard to be sympathetic when people play the victim for homosexuals when it comes to children, because they are no where near victims, it’s the children who are the victims.

This is a meaningless sentence. Children are formed in a womb and are born out of women’s bodies that get pregnant by inserting male’s sperm.

The way it is inserted doesn’t matter much

But it has to be inserted doesn’t it? and that kind of goes against the whole point of homosexuality.

Especially it is meaningless sentence Nature-wise considering that there are plenty of species that can procreate by a wide variety of means not related to biological sex or intercourse between opposite sex species.What a shocker! God must be angry!

WHAT?

Are you mocking us?
A homosexual woman gives birth to a child. It’s her own child
Are you going to take that child away?

A homosexual woman cannot have children, it is no longer homosexuality otherwise, no Im not going to take that child away INSTEAD IT’S YOU WHO WILL TAKE THE CHILD AWAY FROM THE FATHER!

A homosexual man delivers sperm to a,say, gay woman vagina- they are both biological parents.
It has nothing to do the their sexual orientation.

I don’t mean to offend you, but I find your words to be very offensive, DON"T YOU DARE SPEAK ABOUT CRIPPLING CHILDREN BY INTENTIONALY REMOVING THEIR BILOGICAL FATHER OR MOTHER AND THAN PLAY OUT TO BE THE VICTIM.

Every child belongs biologically to a mother and a father, not just an individual, it’s not up to one individual to remove the other biological parent from a childs life and to intentionaly remove a childs biological parent from their lives is just so wrong, so yes i’ll do what ever I can to stand in the way of the horrors you speak of.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

I apologise if you were offended by my above post Lana Morgana, people do what they know how to do until they know better and when they know better they do better.

It just pisses me off when people put themselves above the welfare of the children.

If you were fully aware of what you were advocating in your posts, I doubt you would be saying those things, what you are advocating in your posts Lana Morgana will cause a tremendous amount of harm to a poor childs life.

A child needs their biological mother and father, please put yourself in the childs shoes Lana Morgana, how would you feel if because a homosexual couple wanted to have children, they artifically inseminated your mother and than purposly removed your biological mother from your life in order to continue with their homosexual relationship?

Therefore you were only biologically tied to your father in their homosexual family you were a part of and you never knew your mother as she was permanantly removed from your life?

And all of this wasn’t done for the good of you, the child, but for the conveniance or good of your homosexual fathers, not because they wanted what was best for you, but because they wanted what they thought was best for themselves.

It’s terribly upsetting when people put themselves above the welfare of the children, Lana Morgana you seem to be speaking of children like they are some kind of object or economic item that should be acquired by anyone and everyone, that every indivisdual has some kind of right to a child and that mother and father being part of one child has nothing to do with it.

A child has a right to their biological mother and father, to intentionally set it up, to remove a childs biological father or mother is just so incredibly wrong, you need to see that Lana Morgana, please I beg you, put yourself in the childs shoes, before you advocate such horrific actions.

When a child is removed from their biological mother or father it is a tragedy, and to speak as if a child doesn’t have a right to their mother or father I find offenseive, to speak as if it is the parents rights to deprive a child of their biological mother or father to persue their own selfish desires for homosexuality I find very offensive.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[RobbyS]

and who is muddy now? read your post again.

your lack of historic perspective is really nothing to brag about.

as i stated, there are exceptions, but the sweep of modern history is to proscribe civil rights on the right side, and to expand them on the left.

if you disagree, then explain why the left supports gay marriage, and the right opposes it.

the left trend is the steady expansion of the definition of civil rights. how can any thinking person disagree with that statement?

That’s funny. The left wants to restrict the free exercise of religion, of free speech, and freedom of assembly, and for that matter the petition of government. It was to restricts the right to bear arms. and of course many property rights, such as the right to decide who to do business with. Then we have the unspecified rights of the states and the people.

 

[RobbyS]

WHAT! you mean the biology and reason that a homosexual couple cannot have a child together? because they need hetrosexuality where the child will only be tied to one of the parents and the other parent will be permanantly removed from the childs life.

I THINK YOU ARE SEVERELY LACKING IN BIOLOGY AND REASON!

WORK OUT! WHAT! are you shitting me?

Yea they’ll work out around this problem alright, they’ll just remove the good or rights of children for the conveniance of adults, you think that homosexuals can have a child that is only biologically tied to one partner and remove the other biological parent from their lives?

I refrase that question right back at you, will you be force removing these children from their biological parents? and the answer is yes, so Lana Morgan you don’t have a leg to stand on when you try and debate with me about the children, as you are miles wrong, any other debate you could have had more sympathy for, but I find it hard to be sympathetic when people play the victim for homosexuals when it comes to children, because they are no where near victims, it’s the children who are the victims.

But it has to be inserted doesn’t it? and that kind of goes against the whole point of homosexuality.

A homosexual woman cannot have children, it is no longer homosexuality otherwise, no Im not going to take that child away INSTEAD IT’S YOU WHO WILL TAKE THE CHILD AWAY FROM THE FATHER!

I don’t mean to offend you, but I find your words to be very offensive, DON"T YOU DARE SPEAK ABOUT CRIPPLING CHILDREN BY INTENTIONALY REMOVING THEIR BILOGICAL FATHER OR MOTHER AND THAN PLAY OUT TO BE THE VICTIM.

Every child belongs biologically to a mother and a father, not just an individual, it’s not up to one individual to remove the other biological parent from a childs life and to intentionaly remove a childs biological parent from their lives is just so wrong, so yes i’ll do what ever I can to stand in the way of the horrors you speak of.

Thank you for reading
Josh

Case in point. A friend died recently of a heart attack. He had become a drunk when in the Army and this led to a divorce.He straightened his life out and tried to get back into the life of his daughter. The mother absolutely refused to let him have any contact, repulsing every effort by him to make contact. The daughter refused to see him. After he died, a friend went into his apartment to get things straight after this sudden death. There, in his neat apartment, hanging right above his TV set ,was a picture of his daughter.

 

[josh987654321]

I can understand the removal of a father or mother when it is to benefit a child, for example an abusive father or mother, but in regards to homosexuality, it has nothing to do with the wellbeing of a child, it has everything to do with selfishly depriving a child of their mother or father for their own personal benefit.

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.

It pisses me off more than anything else, when someone intentionaly sets an environment up for a child that is crippling, not because it will benefit the child, but because it will benefit themselves.

That’s why I speak out against equality when it comes to homosexuality and hetrosexuality in regards to children, because it’s just so wrong, having biological children defeats the whole point of homosexuality, every child has a mother and father, it should be set up that way when having children, to remove a mother or father from a childs life in order to benefit the child is okay, however to intentionaly remove a mother or father from a childs life in order to benefit themselves and not the child is an absolute disgrace, hardly love when it comes to homosexuality and trying to have their own biological children, through the use of a third party.

I can understand adoption, as long as it is not treated equally to hetrosexual unions, however when it comes to homosexual unions trying to have their own biological children that requires a third party, that is just so very wrong, and it offends me when they try to make out that they are the victim when we stand in the way of that, they don’t realise that it’s the children that are the victims through what they are trying to do.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[VanSensei]

As a Catholic, I’ve come to the conclusion that gay marriage cannot happen in this country. People simply aren’t ready for such a change.

 

[josh987654321]

As a Catholic, I’ve come to the conclusion that gay marriage cannot happen in this country. People simply aren’t ready for such a change.

Heaven help us the day society is ready for such a change.

It’s only right and just to embrace homosexuals, but it’s whole new level to try and embrace homosexuality, people no longer have any sexual morality when they advocate embracing the acts of homosexuality through things like same sex marriage.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Julianna]

It’s not republican, or democrat. Some are ‘true’ politicians. Some can be affected by their love for family members. As for ‘true’ intentions, only One can see those.

Exactly!

No politician is going to perfect as human beings Holly are imperfect. Add that elected officials “represent” many POV, not just yours.

 

[Julianna]

I can understand the removal of a father or mother when it is to benefit a child, for example an abusive father or mother, but in regards to homosexuality, it has nothing to do with the wellbeing of a child, it has everything to do with selfishly depriving a child of their mother or father for their own personal benefit.

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.

It pisses me off more than anything else, when someone intentionaly sets an environment up for a child that is crippling, not because it will benefit the child, but because it will benefit themselves.

That’s why I speak out against equality when it comes to homosexuality and hetrosexuality in regards to children, because it’s just so wrong, having biological children defeats the whole point of homosexuality, every child has a mother and father, it should be set up that way when having children, to remove a mother or father from a childs life in order to benefit the child is okay, however to intentionaly remove a mother or father from a childs life in order to benefit themselves and not the child is an absolute disgrace, hardly love when it comes to homosexuality and trying to have their own biological children, through the use of a third party.

I can understand adoption, as long as it is not treated equally to hetrosexual unions, however when it comes to homosexual unions trying to have their own biological children that requires a third party, that is just so very wrong, and it offends me when they try to make out that they are the victim when we stand in the way of that, they don’t realise that it’s the children that are the victims through what they are trying to do.

Thank you for reading
Josh

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.

 

[rlg94086]

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.

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.

The fact that two men with sexual perversions can raise a child better than a drug addicted mother is not a reason to change the definition of marriage. If a brother and sister in an incestual relationship had done the same, would you be arguing for incestual marriages?

 

[rossum]

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.

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

rossum

 

[rlg94086]

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

rossum

Correct…because homosexual unions aren’t, shouldn’t be and will never be equal.

 

[rossum]

Correct…because homosexual unions aren’t, shouldn’t be and will never be equal.

You have been badly misinformed. In civil law in many countries heterosexual civil marriages and homosexual civil marriages are equal.

Since we are discussing civil marriage, then your “never” is wrong.

rossum

 

[scipio337]

You have been badly misinformed. In civil law in many countries heterosexual civil marriages and homosexual civil marriages are equal.

Since we are discussing civil marriage, then your “never” is wrong.

rossum

If we can conflate race, national origin and hair color with sexual behavior, why not conflate “equality” with sameness?

Laws don’t guarantee “equal name”, but do “equal protection”.

See how the goalposts are moved?

 

[rlg94086]

You have been badly misinformed. In civil law in many countries heterosexual civil marriages and homosexual civil marriages are equal.

Since we are discussing civil marriage, then your “never” is wrong.

rossum

Marriage is marriage - civil or uncivil.

Catholics who try to separate their faith from society are in grave error. They have helped lead us to a society that pretends that two men or two women can marry.

 

[rlg94086]

If we can conflate race, national origin and hair color with sexual behavior, why not conflate “equality” with sameness?

Laws don’t guarantee “equal name”, but do “equal protection”.

See how the goalposts are moved?

Exactly.

 

[scipio337]

…No one is going to force the Church to do anything… enough with the paranoia.

You mean like provide same sex partner benefits at Catholic schools, hospitals, charities, etc? Force Catholic-based organizations to drop their public accomodation?

Perish the thought! Everyone knows this administration has a deep respect for people of faith and conscience.

 

[YosefYosep]

It’s easy for politicians to sway back and forth on issues depending on what is more “mainstream”. It can also be increasingly hard to have a family member who is gay and not support their decision. In order to be a good parent in Christ, one must be faithful to the Lord even when their family falls away. Relatives of mine have changed their opinions in a split second on things like abortion and gay marriage, because their children have done so. Being a parent isn’t just being the person on the sideline rooting and supporting your child for every decision even if it is wrong. Being a parent is to be a person who corrects and disciplines their child. If your son turns out gay yet you are a follower Christ then I would suggest you educate them on the issue and pray for them, rather than give in and abandon the Lord to please a single person when you know it is wrong.

 

[Julianna]

You mean like provide same sex partner benefits at Catholic schools, hospitals, charities, etc? Force Catholic-based organizations to drop their public accomodation?

Perish the thought! Everyone knows this administration has a deep respect for people of faith and conscience.

My grandmother (God rest her soul) was a Baptist to the core. Do you honestly think her Preacher would even consider offering benefits to a live in, same sex or not benefits? Really?

We had a teacher at the Catholic School where I worked who was living with a guy. She was told under no uncertain terms to stop immediately or lose her job. They were married within 6 months. The parents raised such a stink about it, as they should have. It is a faith based school and those hired should abide by those rules.

As long as Catholic or any faith based organization doesn’t take vouchers or federal loans, they are in the clear.

 

[scipio337]

My grandmother (God rest her soul) was a Baptist to the core. Do you honestly think her Preacher would even consider offering benefits to a live in, same sex or not benefits? Really?

We had a teacher at the Catholic School where I worked who was living with a guy. She was told under no uncertain terms to stop immediately or lose her job. They were married within 6 months. The parents raised such a stink about it, as they should have. It is a faith based school and those hired should abide by those rules.

As long as Catholic or any faith based organization doesn’t take vouchers or federal loans, they are in the clear.

Most Catholic charities receive some public funding for social services, and then, of course, there are those 503c statuses.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University_v._United_States