• Welcome!
    |
    ||
    Logout|My Dashboard

Absurd argument on gay marriage - The Galveston County Daily News : Letters To Editor

September 22, 2014

Absurd argument on gay marriage

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 2 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. AND PLEASE TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.

41 comments:

    You must be a subscribed user to comment on this story.

  • sverige1 posted at 11:47 am on Fri, Mar 7, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3391

    Thanks be to God.

    [smile]

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 11:28 am on Fri, Mar 7, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2275

    The Bible tells me so.The Word of the Lord.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 10:59 am on Fri, Mar 7, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3391

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 10:39 am on Fri, Mar 7, 2014:

    "Acting out homosexual tendencies will condemn you unless you ask for forgiveness."

    That is pure and plain poppycock. You don't know that at all.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 10:39 am on Fri, Mar 7, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2275

    "Yet, God never told us any of this as of date." Yes, he has. You need to read the Bible. I suggest the parable of the workers in the vineyard, Matthew 20: 1-16.

    As for the second person. Have you pondered the old saying "In for a penny, in for a pound"? It's like the woman saying she was just a "little" pregnant. You say the man made "some mistakes". Acting out homosexual tendencies will condemn you unless you ask for forgiveness. Jesus' Divine Mercy is there.
    "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

     
  • sverige1 posted at 9:35 am on Fri, Mar 7, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3391

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 7:34 am on Fri, Mar 7, 2014:

    Well, the process of repenting and asking for forgiveness has perplexed me, even more so as I get older. Reason I'm perplexed: Let's say a 90 year old individual spends his entire life sinning and being an all-around bad person. Including murder, cheating on his wife, and he was homosexual. It's March 2014, and he's on his deathbed and decides to "repent". According to your belief, he will be absolved from all his dastardly deeds he committed from childhood, youth, and into old age. He "goes to Heaven", as you and believers say. Yet, God never told us any of this as of date.

    Then, there's another 90 year old man who was a loving person, father, and grandfather. He gave to the poor, counseled his niece from her drug addictions, tutored his nephew when he went to college. He was like most of us, made some mistakes, and also happened to be homosexual - but "came out" when he was 69 years old. We can count on one hand how many times he went to church and did not choose to repent on his deathbed. According to your belief, this 2nd individual will not go to heaven b/c he didn't ask for "forgiveness" for his few venial mistakes. Sounds so hypocritical. This 2nd person was a better person in his living years.

    How can all this be explained?

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 7:34 am on Fri, Mar 7, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2275

    If unrepented, both will be punished equally. Ask for forgiveness through the Mercy of the Lord Jesus and all is forgiven. Lent is a good time to ask for forgiveness of sins. Lay your burden at the Cross of the Lord Jesus Christ who died for our sins. Repent and sin no more!

     
  • sverige1 posted at 6:52 am on Fri, Mar 7, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3391

    Will both the johns and the prostitutes be punished equally? I meant to say.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 6:51 am on Fri, Mar 7, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3391

    Well, let me clarify the previous post. I have problems with the "johns" who pay the soliciters/prostitutes. So, here's a question:

    Who sins more? The johns who pay for sex or the prostitutes who solicit? With both johns and prostitutes equally be punished by our punitive God?

     
  • sverige1 posted at 6:48 am on Fri, Mar 7, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3391

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 11:17 pm on Thu, Mar 6, 2014,
    Response to kevjlang posted at 10:04 pm on Thu, Mar 6, 2014,
    Response to Jbgood posted at 7:57 pm on Thu, Mar 6, 2014:

    I simply don't think that Jesus, God, or whoever is to be our ultimate "judge" bears more weight in the homosexual "sin" issue any more or less than other "sins" that folks commit daily.

    After all, wouldn't it be logical if one of us, who really had in our craw the numerous fat cat businesspersons who get caught embezzling and laundering? But, we rarely see Editorials or debates going on as to the extent of the ultimate judging that will happen to folks who take high dollars away from their companies. Here's a list of sins that I think we should campaign more against, and have more debates in reference:

    1. embezzlement, ponzi scheming, money laundering (as mentioned above),
    2. habitual phone silencers (folks, like my ex, who ignore loved ones' calls b/c they don't want to be bothered).
    3. interstate speeders, tailgaters, and folks who weave in lanes (they bother me much more every day than homosexuals)
    4. johns (who exploit prostitutes, yet I don't see too many editorials written about how detrimental johns are to our society). When was the last time we saw in the news or read an editorial regarding johns who solicit? Maybe on 20/20 a few years ago?

    So, someone tell me why the gays and lesbians have been so villified when we have a world of sinners who sin in many other areas?

     
  • kevjlang posted at 5:34 am on Fri, Mar 7, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2907

    If that's your concern, gay marriage still isn't your concern. Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't in reaction to people loving each other, but due to the depraved acts, and I think in there, behavior of heterosexuals was a bigger part of the problem than that of homosexuals. And, even if it is about the sexual activity, I have a news flash for you. The sexual acts are not limited to those that are married.

    I think that if you really get down to it, you'll find that heterosexuals commit more and greater sins in their attempts to prevent homosexuals from having sex than homosexuals commit within their sex lives. I think we're all far better off if we each try to follow the moral compass and let others reconcile their deviations with God when their time comes.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 11:17 pm on Thu, Mar 6, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2275

    " Explain how a gay couple, merely by their existence, becomes a violation of your freedom?"
    Sodom and Gomorrah come to mind.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 10:04 pm on Thu, Mar 6, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2907

    JBG, you may be right. However, that is the mission of the Church, not the State. According to our constitution, the state must allow us to observe our faith. However, our constitution does not allow the state to COMPEL us to observe a faith.

    If the only objections to gay marriage are due to it being a deplorable action within the Christian church, then enforcing the ban is equivalent to compelling people to a given religous doctrine--something the Constitution says can't happen.

    The Constitution, because it grants Freedom of Religion to all, cannot limit that freedom solely on the merits that someone's exercise of freedom happens to bother someone else. Explain how a gay couple, merely by their existence, becomes a violation of your freedom?

     
  • Jake Buckner posted at 9:51 pm on Thu, Mar 6, 2014.

    Jake Buckner Posts: 1580

    "I imagine Church's Fried Chicken has no problem with same-sex marriages also."

    Possibly. I wonder if this would this enhance their competitive position with respect to Chick-Fil-A, or diminish it...

    I guess enhance it in California, diminish it in Texas.

    [smile]

     
  • Jbgood posted at 9:04 pm on Thu, Mar 6, 2014.

    Jbgood Posts: 1955

    I see you struggling Mr. "B." See you will never understand because you can't hear.
    The very smart and learned Pharisees were the same way! "MY WAY AND I DON"T CARE!" One day you will. You will have to find somebody else to argue with you, I don't have time.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 9:03 pm on Thu, Mar 6, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2275

    sverige, I kept looking for the emoticon revealing you were just joking on SOS. Ponder the following: "In for a penny, in for a pound".

     
  • sverige1 posted at 8:45 pm on Thu, Mar 6, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3391

    Response to Jbgood posted at 1:50 pm on Thu, Mar 6, 2014,
    Response to carlosrponce posted at 12:23 pm on Thu, Mar 6, 2014:

    It's so entertaining to hear the oft-used line, "I won't judge, but God will." I think God needs to be more user-friendly and create a Scale of Sins (SOS) - ranging from 1 to 5, where He or She tells us to which sins we commit will preclude us from Heaven's pearly gates.

    Our loving (yet punitive) God could make a "1" and maybe "2" sins that are acceptable, and still allow us to enter that wonderful land "on high". Number "3" sins could be the kind of sins that either "make it or break it". Even if you didn't worship nor go to church, yet you atone for your sins on your deathbed, then the #3s might move you over to the good side. With #4s and 5s - forget about it, you're doomed. Here's the scale:
    1. white lies, and one to two lifetime indescretions (as long as you were indescreet with the opposite sex)....you still go to Heaven, but only if you're a christian.
    2. You'll probably be a #2 sinner if you ever fell upon the ungodly sins of more than 3 or so rolls in the hay before the sanctity of marriage. Again, you must have made these indescretions in the "straight" world - opposite sex.
    4. This is supporting homosexuals and bisexuals, but not being guilty of the sin. Also, #4s didn't go to church enough and didn't atone for their sinful lives on their deathbeds, and did not ask for forgiveness. #4s very seldom prayed. The #4s spend a day or two in purgatory because the #5s are so numerous, and the #5s meet the Devil first and foremost. Which leads us to.....[drum roll] . . . . ratta tat -
    5. #5 are bonafide gays and lesbians who are not christian, had the audacity to go to the J. of the peace and cement such ungodly union. 5s didn't go to church, don't atone at the deathbed, and voted for Obama. They go straight to hell without review.

     
  • Jbgood posted at 7:57 pm on Thu, Mar 6, 2014.

    Jbgood Posts: 1955

    Every man born on this earth is ordained and has a calling to follow GOD! All are called but few will accept that call, Matthew 22:14 )..and God will allow any man to be hard-headed and do his own thing,..but that does not mean that man has gotten away with anything. See Ecclesiastes 8:11.....
    -
    "Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil."
    -
    See also Hebrews 9:27.......
    -
    "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment."
    -
    See also Acts 4:19......
    -
    "But Peter and John answered them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you ( MEN) rather than to God, you ( MEN) must judge."
    -
    So,..there it is, anyone who name themselves as children of GOD is obligated to follow HIM and practice doing what He says! Actually every man is obligated weather he owns up to it or not,....however, ( John 12:48 )
    says: "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." It all hinges on what a man does while he lives and breathe,...after that IT IS OVER! NO MORE CHOICES AND RIGHTS!!!!!
    -
    Now since I don't argue, I'll let you believe and say what you want, but you can never say you were never told,..it is now a matter of heavenly records, you have heard the truth,...the gospel.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 7:47 pm on Thu, Mar 6, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3391

    Response to kevjlang posted at 6:35 pm on Thu, Mar 6, 2014:
    That's the main thing I cannot comprehend in regards to the straight persons' objection to gay/lesbian marriage. I would think that the "pool" of competitors would be lessened if gay unions were encouraged. After all, if 10 percent of the population is gay, then if I was at a nightclub with 100 men and 100 women, there would be a fair and statistical possibility of 10 of those men that would not approach nor "move in" on that hot young woman that I am getting the gumption to pursue. Ipso facto, the women have 10% of their competition out of the playing field.

    Our society has benefited from the increased acceptance of gay/lesbian unions. In the decades to come, there will very likely be quite a bit of older adults "coming out" since our young adult population does not have the stigma attached to being gay, like in the old days. One can be true to him/herself, and not make the mistake of adhering to conventional society's demand that boys pursue girls and girls pursue boys. Most marriages, gay and straight, will be more meaningful and true to form, in the sanctity sense.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 7:33 pm on Thu, Mar 6, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2275

    We love everyone. No one is banned from the House of the Lord. No one except Jesus is without sin. If we banned the non-celibate transgendered we would have to ban everyone from the church since no one is without sin; no priest, no deacon, no song leader, no choir member, no lay minister, no altar server, no church lady, no church man, and no parishioner. We are only saved through the Grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ. We must ask for forgiveness for our sins.
    If someone were to approach me to receive communion and sin is in their heart, I would not deny them since I cannot know what is in their hearts. But the burden is on them: "Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. . " 1 Corinthians 11:27- 29

     
  • kevjlang posted at 6:35 pm on Thu, Mar 6, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2907

    Please explain. If the State of Texas were to say that Judy and Linda were married within the civil laws of the State of Texas, and that Claude and Humphrey, too, were married according to Texas's civil statutes, just exactly what is that taking away from you? Does that mean that you don't love your wife as much? Does it no longer mean that you no longer want to spend the rest of your life with her? Is that equivalent to the State saying that you and your wife no longer comply with the civil statutes? Is the state decreeing that your Church and your God no longer have license to claim that you are married and that they must recognize same sex marriages instead?

    If the State of Texas were to say that we could have 50 wives, and I only had one, it would not alter the value that I place on my monogamous marriage. Even if my church were to allow it, it still means nothing regarding the sacrament held by me, my wife, and God.

    Sorry, but what God has united cannot be broken by what anyone external to the union might do.

    Tell me what gay marriage takes away from my marriage? If their marriage is not endorsed by God, then by calling their union a marriage, they have little more than what they had before we legalized their union. If God does endorse it, then I still haven't lost anything, unless there's a limit on the number of marital unions that God can hold together.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 2:22 pm on Thu, Mar 6, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2275

    "Ye shall know the truth and the truth will set ye free."
    And the Bible preaches against being unequally yoked. 2 Cor. 6:14
    I will not judge but warn them. God judges, God alone.
    Prayer, my friend, Prayer will get you to the truth.
    1 Corinthians 6:9-12
    Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

     
  • Jbgood posted at 1:50 pm on Thu, Mar 6, 2014.

    Jbgood Posts: 1955

    Mr. Ponce BIGJIM is right, there are many institutions going around using the mantel of being part of the Church Of The Lord, especially in these latter days. Jesus said Himself, you can tell who is really mine, by how they line up with my Word, and What they do, concerning it! Nuff said!
    -
    I would quote scriptures and verses but it is not necessary,..people are going to believe what they want and do what they can get away with until that last breath of air flows through their lungs, then .....well then it will be accountability time.

     
  • Bigjim posted at 1:22 pm on Thu, Mar 6, 2014.

    Bigjim Posts: 442

    “I will not judge them” kind of sounds like you did.
    “I imagine Church's Fried Chicken has no problem with same-sex marriages also“. I guess you went to left field , what does Church's Fried Chicken have to do with Churches were people worship?
    The people that believe what the following churches teach do not count because they do not think as your church teaches? United Church of Christ,
    Reform Judaism,Quaker,Unitarian Universalist, Unity Church, because only your Church knows the truth?.

    Do you believe in religious mixed marriages? I'm guessing you know what a
    religious mixed marriages is.


     
  • sverige1 posted at 12:52 pm on Thu, Mar 6, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3391

    If a transgendered individual promises to be celibate, then that person is admitting that he/she has made a mistake or is substandard.

    What an oppressive way to live. Here's questions: Tammy Faye Bakker was a genuinely open person, and she accepted these kinds of individuals. Isn't there room for Christianity to love and nurture transgenders?

    Other question: If a transgender comes to your church to worship, but he/she says he/she won't be celebite, will your church ban this person from worshipping in your house of the Lord?

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 12:27 pm on Thu, Mar 6, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2275

    If that person truly follows Jesus, the transgendered will follow a life of celibacy. That is our church teaching.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 12:23 pm on Thu, Mar 6, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2275

    I will not judge them but the Bible clearly points out that homosexual acts are an abomination. The Bible also points out there will be some who will say they followed Jesus who will in turn say "I don't know you." One day the churches you mention will all know the truth. I imagine Church's Fried Chicken has no problem with same-sex marriages also. You left them off your list![beam]

     
  • Bigjim posted at 11:12 am on Thu, Mar 6, 2014.

    Bigjim Posts: 442

    Carlosrponce
    The church you attend may not allow same sex marriage, but here are some that do. You said “Calling a homosexual union a "marriage" would undermine that definition and the traditions that go with it” would not apply to the faiths listed below. Also listed are some that don’t allow same sex marriages."Yes, the times are changing".
    “Faiths Allowing Same-Sex Marriages
    United Church of Christ: The United Church of Christ was the first mainstream Christian church to fully support same-sex marriage and perform marriage ceremonies.
    Jewish: Reform Judaism embraces same-sex marriage and rabbis can perform ceremonies. Some conservative and re-constructionist synagogues do as well.
    Quaker: The willingness to perform gay marriages varies by meetinghouse, but there is some acceptance and performance of same-sex marriages among Quakers.
    Metropolitan Community Church
    Unitarian Universalist
    Unity Church

    Faiths Allowing Limited Same-Sex Marriage
    Episcopal: In the Episcopal Church, priests are authorized to bless same-sex wedding ceremonies but not declare the marriage official or sign the marriage license. Certain dioceses can perform full marriage ceremonies.
    Lutheran: Lutheran churches can decide, on a church-by-church basis, whether or not to perform same-sex marriage.

    Faiths Disallowing Same-Sex Marriages
    Baptists: Southern Baptist and Conservative Baptist churches will not conduct same-sex marriages, nor will they allow them to be held in their churches. Some American Baptist churches are open and inclusive.
    Methodist
    Catholic
    Presbyterian (some will bless ceremonies)”

     
  • sverige1 posted at 9:00 am on Thu, Mar 6, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3391

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 7:40 am on Thu, Mar 6, 2014:

    How about an instance of a Jesus-following transgender individual who, by our standards, is not classified as either male or female? If this transgendered individual wants to marry another individual, where does the "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife" fall into the civil union?

    There exist civil unions that involve the transgender community. Now, whether you or I personally find that odd or repulsive is beside the point. In the eyes of the law, you and I have to put aside our personal misgivings. Bottom line is there are marriages in this country that do not represent the "one man/one woman" doctrinization.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 8:33 am on Thu, Mar 6, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2275

    Calling a homosexual union a "marriage" would undermine that definition and the traditions that go with it. Suppose they were to take something near and dear to you, call something else by the same name, something you do not believe in, would that not upset you? Of course if you have no traditions, no tenets, nothing sacred to you, then you would not know what I am talking about.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 7:58 am on Thu, Mar 6, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2907

    The state has no right to act in God's name. The state is not ordained by God. There is no requirement for a JP to be a minister. In a civil ceremony, you are entering into a civil contract. The Church is under no obligation to observe the results of a civil ceremony. By convention, they have been. Your congregation is certainly free to not respect the marriages of Judy and Linda or Humphrey and Claude.

    Church Weddings and Civil Ceremony are two different things. As things stand today, the state does let ministers act as civil agents at the same time as they're performing the religious ceremony. They have powers vested in them by both God and the state.

    So, if Judy and Linda or Claude and Humphrey enter into a civil contract, how, exactly, is that an attack on your sacramental marriage, or even your civil contract?

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 7:40 am on Thu, Mar 6, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2275

    I've never been to a wedding, civil or religious, where the word "love" was not used. Now to me the terms "gay marriage" and "lesbian marriage" are oxymorons. The definition of marriage is the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law. You can refer, however, to gay and lesbian unions or ties. Yes, the times are changing but "But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord," Joshua 24:15

     
  • sverige1 posted at 6:53 am on Thu, Mar 6, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3391

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 8:53 pm on Wed, Mar 5, 2014:

    Any civil marriage conducted by, let's say, a Justice of the Peace can contain any elements within the ceremony. The word "love" does not have to be in there, and definitely not "honor" nor "obey". Ipso facto, our country is now realizing (to the second/third/fourth power) that since many people don't adhere to a religion and don't want to be caught up in a traditional religious ceremony, many also realize they can have a civil union with anyone. That "anyone" can be a man, woman, transgender. And the civil union can contain any wording within reason.

    We also need to understand that since "love" doesn't have to be in the civil unions, we have to be realistic (and we already know it) that some of these ceremonies are for an "arrangement". That is, when one of the spouses dies, the other surviving spouse easily receives the inheritance, trust fund, or whatever. And, let's not leave out the many instances where a friendship or acquaintance through friends is established, and a union is performed so that one of the people getting "married" can become a legal resident of the U.S.

    In short, times are a changin'. The antiquated notion of one man and one woman having a flowered ceremony at a church, with the requisite "god" and "honor" verbages, and with lovely bridesmaids and a cute little ringmaster tyke is now becoming more of an exception than the rule. I don't know about the rest of you, but I've never been to a gay or lesbian marriage ceremony. I bet it would be a blast. I wonder who "gives" the bride or groom away, if they choose to do so? One of the moms or one of the dads? Someones cool and hip uncle?

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 8:53 pm on Wed, Mar 5, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2275

    Traditional Justice of the Peace wedding Vows: "I, groom's name, in the presence of these witnesses, do take you, bride's name, to be my lawful wedded wife to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part." And ditto for the brides vows.
    Although you can make-up your vows, the traditional vows in a civil ceremony do have the word "love".
    All church weddings include the word "love".
    I never heard marriage vows civil or religious without the word "love" in it. To me if said before a JP it takes the form of an oath and is legally binding unless there is a civil divorce decree.
    So I do not understand your statement, "There's no state-mandated presumption that I love her." If you married her we all presume (state included because it is in the vow) that you at that moment love her.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 8:15 pm on Wed, Mar 5, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2907

    I'm still trying to find something in the state and federal statutes that supports the sanctity of a marriage between one man and one woman. I won't go so far as to say that I got married despite the state and federal laws surrounding marriage, but I can honestly say I didn't get married because of any legal statutes. There's no state-mandated presumption that I love her, nor that I love only her, nor that I give anything of myself to the relationship, or anything along those lines.

    I just can't think of anything in state or federal law that defines or supports the sanctity of marriage. From a secular standpoint, the only thing that marriage gives us is stuff around inheritance of posessions and the ability to be informed and provide some consent regarding medical and end-of-life decisions.

    At the state and federal level, marriage is nothing but a form of legal contract. In the religious realm, it's up to God to decide whether a marriage is sanctioned, not Man. Unless another man is also married to your wife, there's nothing about someone else's marriage that can have any impact on the sanctity of yours. The sacrament of marriage, by definition, can only be damaged by the 2 people and God. If your marriage is under attack, then put a mirror on your ceiling, look straight up, and stare at the the two people responsible for the attack. Judy and Linda, nor Humphrey and Claude have anything to do with your perceived attack.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 7:05 pm on Wed, Mar 5, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2275

    The fact that their conclusions do not match the data tells me that the people conducting the study were afraid of offending anyone. Political correctness affects the scientific community just like everyone else. The data speaks for itself. And of course you cannot draw generalities from any study. There are exceptions to every rule. That's just common sense. Not every single parent child turns into a Charles Manson or an Adolph Hitler. Being born and raised in a traditional Italian-American family did not stop Al Capone from becoming a gangster.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 5:51 pm on Wed, Mar 5, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3391

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 1:52 pm on Wed, Mar 5, 2014:

    Well, if the Conclusion statements aren't consistent with the data, then you know that it was a Mickey Mouse type of study. What you're describing (conclusion not matching graph data) sounds like the kind of thing testing evaluation experts would put forth in a test composition class. That is, when making a test, what's evaluated (concluding statements) need to coincide with what was presented (the teaching and demonstration part, i.e. - graph data).

    I doubt very seriously that a child that comes from two loving and attentive mothers or from two loving fathers is going to come out with all those problems you described. I would imagine a child who is a product of a lesbian or gay parentship has learned to navigate through adverse situations, and very likely developed good coping skills.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 1:52 pm on Wed, Mar 5, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2275

    Check out
    http://www.familystructurestudies.com/outcomes/
    Interesting, interactive graphs. Their conclusions do not coincide with the data presented, however. The graphs show a child with a gay father or lesbian mother has more marijuana use, more liable to smoke, to be arrested, to plead guilty to a non-minor offense, to require public assistance, to be unemployed as adults, to be less safe, to have a higher suicide rate, to require therapy, to be depressed, to be touched sexually, to be forced to have sex, to have a sexually transmitted illness, lower rate of quality romantic relationships (only slightly lower though), more relationship troubles, more affairs, achieve less education-wise(again only slightly lower), and a lower percentage of them will identify themselves as heterosexual when compared to intact families. Click on the list on the left to see each graph. Their written conclusion although is "not much difference".

     
  • sverige1 posted at 12:58 pm on Wed, Mar 5, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3391

    I don't see how the opposer in this anti-gay marriage letter feels that children of gays/lesbians don't "get support". Quite the contrary. There are many observations that conclude that most children of gay/lesbian parents thrive when they come of age, and adjust well during the process.

    Article link

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/06/07/lesbian.children.adjustment/

    Of interest is this quote from the article:

    "Children from lesbian families rated higher in social, academic and total competence. They also showed lower rates in social, rule-breaking, aggressive problem behavior."

     
  • IHOG posted at 10:28 am on Wed, Mar 5, 2014.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    Our U.S. Constitution treats all indivduals equally. It doesn't offer special rules for any group.
    Social conservatives can't accept that idea and are responcible for same sex marrige spreading across America. They passed laws(?) that do not treat everyone equally.
    Gays wanted domestic partnerships which offered all the same advantages as marrige. Some hetrosexuals would prefere domestic partnerships.
    Social Conservatives said no.
    Now the courts are enforcing the constitution and correcting social conservative conduct.
    Secular conservatives vote for the best choice or direction.
    Social conservatives "stand on principle" and only vote for the perfect choice or direction. The perfect choice died on the cross 2,100 years ago.
    IF they ever unite with secular conservatives and learn to vote for a better choice America wlll rid itself of liberals.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 7:21 am on Wed, Mar 5, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3391

    Well, my 1st reaction to this erroneous penned opinion is that I was thinking of an article I read that children from lesbian unions grow up very well-adjusted and happy. So, to say the children turn out badly...

    The children who are products of a gay/lesbian union are not "compromised", "main victims", nor do the children end up damaged due to being products of gay/lesbian unions. Here's the article to "debunk" this poor letter: "Children of Lesbian Parents May Do Better Than Their Peers" -

    http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html

     
  • Island Runner posted at 7:08 am on Wed, Mar 5, 2014.

    Island Runner Posts: 401

    Seems to me that gay marriage is just ads strength to marriage. Now all people can get married to the one they love and then divorce them when they discover they can't stand them. Same as hetro marriage.