Same sex marriage. Impact begins

[Fiannan]

People who are homosexual are having children

Yes they are, well, to a degree, but you have to admit that if you placed 10,000 lesbians on an Island they would die out unless they had a few men, a refrigerator and a boat bringing a certain substance to them that they cannot manufacture to help them in reproducing. As for putting 10,000 gay guys on an island they would die out completely.

You mention women who go in for IVF treatment but leave out a huge number of lesbians who are raising children -- that being women who were married to men but at some point got turned off to men. Maybe they had an abusive husband or never really hit it off with males and then met a woman. Some may have 2, 3 or more kids and then get invlved with a woman and become lesbian.

Don't know how this fits into your views on biological predetermination but it happens all the time. In fact, in states that still award allimony I guess if I were a guy who divorced and my ex ran off with a woman I would be a strong proponent of gay marriage so she could get married and I would not have to pay allimony anymore. The one thing I would point out is that if children do turn out okay in these arrangements as well as IVF conceptions they do need significant male role models (uncles, grandfather, etc.).

I do not support gay marriage overall since I think we need to uphold certain traditions and marriage is too special to be tampering with. If a couple of women want to live together and raise kids then so be it -- they have two wombs at their disposal. I still do not believe that children who wind up orphans whould be adopted by gay parents unless the biological parent okayed such arrangements in a will.

[Elphaba]

We know from many studies and from much history that what is best for children is to be raised in a loving marriage of their biological father and their biological mother. Often there are attempts to justify something by saying it is better that something that is known to be bad. This kind of illogic or insanity would justify any treatment or abuse of children for being better than feeding them to crocodiles.

I never said children don’t fare well in loving homes with their parents. Stop twisting my words to mean something they don’t.

Additionally, children fare extremely well when other people love them as well, such as in a kubbitz. The more people who love the child, the better.

If we care about caring for children it is not about what adults want – especially if what the adults want is not really the “Best” for children.

I have never said otherwise. Again, stop twisting my words.

There are many reasons for the failure and destruction of loving biological families. But let us not lose sensibility and sanity and forget that loving biological families is what is best for children. That must and should always be the primary and first goal for every child.

I couldn’t agree more.

The second goal should be to maintain and keep intact the next best thingwhich is a marriage that is as close as possible to the loving biological family.

No, it shouldn’t be the second goal. It should be the first goal. And it is best for children who have a biologic parent who is gay, be taken care of by that parent.

Only the insane would argue against a loving biological family for children.

I agree. And sometimes that loving biological family includes a gay parent.

As we attempt to justify one thing or another or to put our personal feeling and “passions” above what is beneficial to society – let us be aware and diligent in recognizing the benefit that loving biological families have to the human society and that such a benefit is both needed and more important than any other possible fabrication of what can be called a family or use or exploration of children to fulfill adult desires over the best benefit of children.

I agree. And sometimes that loving family includes a child’s parent who happens to be gay. I’ve already provided statistics that prove this. What would be insane is to ignore those statistics, and to claim a person who is gay is not an ideal parent.

Many families in the traditional man and woman married, with children, are nightmares for the children. What about those children?

In fact, as I noted in my statistics, many of these children end up in foster homes or adoption. Guess who is stepping up to the plate?

What would be insane is to deny these children the loving, and healing, home a gay couple can provide.

What would be insane is to deny children the chance to live with their biologic parent because of ignorance and prejudice.

Let us not dilute the best marriages of society. Especially now and today – let us recognize the best possible and call that marriage and everything else, let us label as something less than the best. Let’s not put our personal wants, desires, passions and feelings above reason, sanity and what is the very best.

Yes. Let‘s not.

Let us reward and praise loving biological families joined in legal and beneficial marriages.

Yes, let’s.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Please feel free to go back and read and re read the OP. The issue is the start of "Gay Marriage"...not anatomy, not statistical propaganda as to why someone with 2 mommies or 2 daddies is better off than the rest of us.

Please feel free to go back and read Islander’s post, which is obviously what I was responding to.

Islander and others, including myself are concerned with the judicial activism of the California Supreme Court. We're worried about how the California Supreme Court on a split decision redefined the entire historical concept of marriage…

As is your right.

Now, discuss the radical redefinition of marriage by the Supreme Court...Not Homo adoption or IVF.

I will discuss what I choose to discuss. I chose to discuss Islander’s post.

Alas, your arguments are right out of the Homosexual Agenda Playbook.

Please provide me a copy of the official Homosexual Agenda Playbook.

Again, I will remind you that this is an "LDS" web site.

Again, I will remind you this is a site that welcomes non-LDS people to post their perspectives.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has repeatedly stated their views that marriage is an eternal act...between a man and a woman.

Has it?

I would think you'd be more interested in what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has repeatedly stated.

Many of us support and sustain not only the Proclimation on the Family, but we support and sustain our leaders in protecting the sanctity of marriage.

As is the Church’s and your right.

I know of no other society in the history of the world, where Men were allowed to marry men...or women allowed to marry women.

So what?

Even Augustus...during his reign as Emperor codified marriage between Men and Women. He had no problem with boys playing with boys...or girls just wanting to have fun. BUT...He recognized that marriage was an important institution between a man and a woman.

He also punished married couples who, for whatever reason, were childless. Should that be a tenent of the traditional family as well?

Now, you're a stickler for historical fact. Perhaps you know historically of a society which allowed Homosexuals to marry...if so, I'd enjoy reading the links you might be able to provide?

Find your own lapdog.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Yes they are, well, to a degree, but you have to admit that if you placed 10,000 lesbians on an Island they would die out unless they had a few men, a refrigerator and a boat bringing a certain substance to them that they cannot manufacture to help them in reproducing. As for putting 10,000 gay guys on an island they would die out completely.

You expect me to respond to this?

You mention women who go in for IVF treatment but leave out a huge number of lesbians who are raising children -- that being women who were married to men but at some point got turned off to men

One day I am going to catch on that you are never going to actually read my posts.

Yes, I did say this. I also said many other things you apparently couldn’t bother to read. This includes statistics that prove my point.

Maybe they had an abusive husband or never really hit it off with males and then met a woman. Some may have 2, 3 or more kids and then get invlved with a woman and become lesbian.

Abusive marriages do not make anyone a homosexual. If she later enters a gay relationship, she was gay all along.

It is very common for someone who is gay to enter into a heterosexual marriage and have children, only to acknowledge she was gay all along. It used to be, and probably still is, common for LDS parent to do this.

Don't know how this fits into your views on biological predetermination but it happens all the time. In fact, in states that still award allimony I guess if I were a guy who divorced and my ex ran off with a woman I would be a strong proponent of gay marriage so she could get married and I would not have to pay allimony anymore.

You need to quit drinking baby forumula--it's making you high.

The one thing I would point out is that if children do turn out okay in these arrangements as well as IVF conceptions they do need significant male role models (uncles, grandfather, etc.).

I couldn’t agree more.

I do not support gay marriage overall since I think we need to uphold certain traditions and marriage is too special to be tampering with.

Your argument is because it is tradition?

A child will thrive in a happy home, no matter if it is traditional or not, as long as she is well-loved. As I said before, I agree the child must be loved by both men and women. But being gay does not preclude someone from being a good parent.

I still do not believe that children who wind up orphans whould be adopted by gay parents unless the biological parent okayed such arrangements in a will.

When did anyone say otherwise? Of course the biologic parent would have to approve it.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

It's what I do. I could choose to not do it.

So when did you choose not to do it? Or, a better question would be when did you choose to be heterosexual?

Might be a little weird and disgusting for me at first, but people say the same thing about: wine/caviar/cigars/black coffee/black licorice/etc.

Black licorice? I LOVE black licorice.

Elphaba

[Islander]

I thought we were done with this. It is painfully obvious where the parties stand philosophically. Nobody is going to give up an inch. So, we should move on to something else where there might be, perhaps, if we are lucky and providence has its way, an original thought/idea!!!

Otherwise, Moderator, Moderator!!!!!.......LOL.....

[Guest User-Removed]

Please feel free to go back and read Islander’s post, which is obviously what I was responding to.

As is your right.

I will discuss what I choose to discuss. I chose to discuss Islander’s post.

Please provide me a copy of the official Homosexual Agenda Playbook.

Again, I will remind you this is a site that welcomes non-LDS people to post their perspectives.

Has it?

I would think you'd be more interested in what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has repeatedly stated.

As is the Church’s and your right.

So what?

He also punished married couples who, for whatever reason, were childless. Should that be a tenent of the traditional family as well?

Find your own lapdog.

Elphaba

Poor ...Poor...Elphaba...was last night a rough night for you????

Three things come to mind reading your responses to Traveler and myself...

First...You are right...as long as you are nice and respectful...anyone can come onto these threads and post. Your constant claims to civility remind me of someone in the Garden who was very nice, and polite to Mother Eve. He too sought knowledge and enlightment for God's Children.

Second...You're a very experience thread hijacker...face it, you only wish to discuss that which you care to discuss. When someone brings in fact, you politely flame all over them. Perhaps, you might find snow's thread on self righteousness more to your liking.

Third...to recycle your last line...Find your your lapdog.....

bwahahahahahahahahahaha

[Guest User-Removed]

I thought we were done with this. It is painfully obvious where the parties stand philosophically. Nobody is going to give up an inch. So, we should move on to something else where there might be, perhaps, if we are lucky and providence has its way, an original thought/idea!!!

Otherwise, Moderator, Moderator!!!!!.......LOL.....

Alas...we seem to have to suffer Madalyn Murrey O'Hair's pit chihuahua....bwahahahahahaha

Of course...I wonder if O'Hair is waiting for her visit in Spirit Prison from Jesus????

[Guest User-Removed]

Frankly...From where I'm sitting...It's time to lock this thread. It's been hijacked and has become a vehicle for bitter people to spend their time....

[Islander]

Frankly...From where I'm sitting...It's time to lock this thread. It's been hijacked and has become a vehicle for bitter people to spend their time....

Amen to that!!!

[Elphaba]

Frankly...From where I'm sitting...It's time to lock this thread. It's been hijacked and has become a vehicle for bitter people to. . .

. . . keep writing inane posts about how the thread should be closed--and then they write one more.

If you have nothing more to add, then don't.

The Chihuahua

[PapilioMemnon]

I feel that many of us, including myself, need to be careful not to fall into traps... Let's be wise! We, who profess to know, have a lot at stake!

3 Ne. 11: 29

29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of acontention is not of me, but is of the bdevil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.

We can state our points of view without contention; we can also leave when we sense contention.

[LDSpunkrocker]

A few days ago I posted a few times in response to a thread about how negligent the impact of same sex marriage was going to be. Some of the posters are from outside the US and ignore our court system and the activism that takes place in this country.

Here is an article from NPR just today. We will continue to hear many more just like this one. By legalizing homosexual marriage, the California court elevated those relationships to a right under the law. ANYONE that objects will be found liable in civil court and possibly face criminal charges for discrimination. It is the ultimate use of the arm of the government to compel speech and submission even over religious objection and freedom. We are not very far from the end or "religious based services" like schools, counseling, camps, etc.

A few cases: Yeshiva University was ordered to allow same-sex couples in its married dormitory. A Christian school has been sued for expelling two allegedly lesbian students. Catholic Charities abandoned its adoption service in Massachusetts after it was told to place children with same-sex couples. The same happened with a private company operating in California.

A psychologist in Mississippi who refused to counsel a lesbian couple lost her case, and legal experts believe that a doctor who refused to provide IVF services to a lesbian woman is about to lose his pending case before the California Supreme Court.

Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story : NPR

For those that are non-Christian, or if their own brand of Christianity allow for a liberal position on the issue above this should not be a surprise. For me at least is a frightful reminder that the plan is to make God irrelevant and ultimately the enemy of society. In a few years, the mere mentioning of God in public will be grounds for chastisement. Just watch.

things like this happening make me wonder if there will be a time where the church gives up its tax exempt status in order to oppose this and other government evils.

[abqfriend]

Hi-A Church can oppose same-sex marriages. Mine -Catholic-sure does.

When any agency accepts federal or state money-they come under the rules of the state or federal government.-that is a problem for some religious organizations.

A church can take moral sides on issues. They cannot take political ones that support by name or oppose by name any political party or candidate.

A Church losing Federal Tax exemption would mean that a portion of tithes and offerings of that church-would go right to the government.

Such Seperation of Church and State is a hallmark of our society-I would not like that lost.

-Carol

things like this happening make me wonder if there will be a time where the church gives up its tax exempt status in order to oppose this and other government evils.

[applepansy]

Nevermind. . .

Edited October 6, 2008 by applepansy

[wokie]

Here in The Australian Capital Territory (Canberra Australia) Same Sex Unions are legal.

Not a marriage as defind under the Marriage Act, but on the way to it I believe.

[symphonyofdissent]

Wanted to post this link which rebuts some of the main harms that are often talked about in reference to the same sex marriage status currently in place in California.

Six Big Lies the Freedom-Haters Are Spreading About Proposition 8 | Lavender Newswire

[ama49]

Father put in Jail for not Allowing Same-sex Marriage to be Taught to his Child at School Grace for Grace

[Moksha]

Canada has allowed gay marriages for about three years now and they are still building new Temples in Canada. Utah and the Church weathered the ending of interracial marriage laws just fine, even though we had been for them. We all are capable of adapting to change and making the best of it. We are a prophetic and resilient people.

[rameumptom]

The key for me is that historically marriage was instituted as a government sanctioned and recognized entity, because it gave benefit and value to society. Marriage between man and woman gave a foundation upon which society could promote and advance its views and structures to future generations. Marriage allowed for the raising of children in a standard way, based upon a natural foundation (children are formed by male/female relations).

Society has taken action against other similar forms that have attempted to receive equal status: polygamy and "living together." We've had issues about palimony in the past, where partners have sued each other when they break up. Courts have been divided on how to handle such events, except when children are involved.

The issue here is SSM provides a benefit and legitimacy to the SSM couple. But what benefit is provided to society? The only reason for society to regulate marriage is because society gains a clear benefit from supporting and legitimizing that relationship. I just do not see how SSM gives any benefit to me or others in society. If we begin to authorize/legitimize relationships on the basis that they benefit the individuals involved, and not necessarily any benefit for society, then we need to also legalize other relationships on that view: polygamy would be one. Should we stop charging teachers with molestation, if they show an actual relationship with the student? What about the old lady with her 50 cats: should they also get medical benefits because they are the closest thing to family she has?

The nuances are endless here. Which is why we have to get away from how this benefits the individual, and how it must benefit society.

[MarginOfError]

I agree with a large portion of that, ram. However, I can only think that if that's going to be the argument, then we should strip tax benefits away from married couples with no children.

[Hemidakota]

Again, anyone thinking this is about taxation think again. Go look at those states that already allow same gender marriages and problems that many are now facing. Margin, this statement is not condoning you.

[rameumptom]

We have no control over if a couple have children. All government can do is encourage the institution that ensures the survival of society. Yes, it also benefits government to have people with children. I guess that's why children are given an exemption on our taxes - as encouragement and support from the Government.

There's a difference between government supporting/encouraging an institution that benefits society, and government ordering/enforcing obedience to a law. Should we illegalize living together or homosexuality, simply because they do not benefit society? Or should we just encourage the organization that has for centuries held society together? Or both?

[Elgama]

Father put in Jail for not Allowing Same-sex Marriage to be Taught to his Child at School Grace for Grace

sadly this only appears to be on LDS websites, my best friend is homosexual and is our chosen guardian if something should happen to my husband and I because he will help them remain LDS and love them to bits -I just hope he never reads this because he may no longer be so friendly towards the church. By all means oppose things but do it with intelligence and love not lies, propaganda and whipping up hatred that to me is up there with the mob that attacked the church.

-Charley

Edited October 17, 2008 by Elgama