Justice Kennedy needs a reminder about his own fear of harm from gay marriage

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
How? Because i recognize that humans are sinful as a whole?

You pick and choose the universal behavior you're willing to admit to. And as a personal favor stop with the whole "God does and doesn't approve of" shtick. It doesn't work on me and makes you look incredibly arrogant.
 

GFR7

New member
The purpose of marriage is to produce Godly offspring.

Matthew 19:4 He answered, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?

Malachai 2:15 But did He not make them one,
Having a remnant of the Spirit?
And why one?
He seeks godly offspring.
Therefore take heed to your spirit,
And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth.


(Which can be done via adoption and even if one doesn't have physical children, by leading by example (production of spiritual children by pointing to relationship to God)

Also the purpose and function of the reproductive system doesn't change just because it might work correctly or one chooses not to use it as intended.

The marriage is a living picture of our relationship with God.
This is something that used to be almost universally understood (even outside religion, such was considered "natural").

Now, it is extremely hard to convince people that sperm/egg donation, IVF, surrogacy, is detrimental conception.
 

Angel4Truth

New member
Hall of Fame
You pick and choose the universal behavior you're willing to admit to. And as a personal favor stop with the whole "God does and doesn't approve of" shtick. It doesn't work on me and makes you look incredibly arrogant.

Its picking and choosing to say all people are sinful? Ok.
 

GFR7

New member
that is the purpose of sex

look how many are born outside of marriage

keeping mommy and daddy together is the best way to protect them

protecting the child
is
the purpose of marriage
Yes, it is. It is not about the whims or ego-wishes or pleasure of adults.
 

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Gay 'parents' do it too

Gay Connecticut couple accused of raping adopted children will face trial

Being an abuser is not a 'heterosexual' thing, its a sick human thing.

I didn't say it was ... however, the originator of this thread is using heterosexuality as the basis of what constitutes good parenting.

As long as you have known me, there shouldn't be any doubt in your mind that when it comes to protecting children, the abuser's sexual orientation is not a consideration.

I don't see a rational connection between being able to biologically produce children as opposed to not being able to.

I also don't assume (as Chrys does) that couples only marry for the purpose of having children.

The point is that there should be more concern given to abused children CURRENTLY living with their parents as compared to the sexuality of a foster or adoptive parent because the former has absolutely no restrictions while the latter does.

Fingerprints. Background checks. Interviews. That is done for the security and well being of the child. However, what of all those children who are born "naturally" into abusive homes?
 

GFR7

New member
I didn't say it was ... however, the originator of this thread is using heterosexuality as the basis of what constitutes good parenting.

As long as you have known me, there shouldn't be any doubt in your mind that when it comes to protecting children, the abuser's sexual orientation is not a consideration.

I don't see a rational connection between being able to biologically produce children as opposed to not being able to.

I also don't assume (as Chrys does) that couples only marry for the purpose of having children.

The point is that there should be more concern given to abused children CURRENTLY living with their parents as compared to the sexuality of a foster or adoptive parent because the former has absolutely no restrictions while the latter does.

Fingerprints. Background checks. Interviews. That is done for the security and well being of the child. However, what of all those children who are born "naturally" into abusive homes?
They do infact conduct extensive background checks, (at least when suspicions arise) and still it doesn't always detect the true abusers (just think of Jonbenet Ramsey case, if you believe, as I do, that her parents did abuse and kill her).

And there are many cases (as in the Truong-Newton case) of gay males adopting purposely to sexually abuse.
 

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
that is the purpose of sex

look how many are born outside of marriage

keeping mommy and daddy together is the best way to protect them

protecting the child
is
the purpose of marriage

So women and men who are past the age of creating biological children should not be allowed to marry, correct?

Those who are younger but unable to create children, same standard right. No marriage.
 

GFR7

New member
So women and men who are past the age of creating biological children should not be allowed to marry, correct?

Those who are younger but unable to create children, same standard right. No marriage.
Oy, vey............ :nono: .....:sigh:
 

Angel4Truth

New member
Hall of Fame
I didn't say it was ... however, the originator of this thread is using heterosexuality as the basis of what constitutes good parenting.

As a believer he should be believing that heterosexual parents are better parents since they are following Gods model. To believe otherwise, would be outside of his faith.

As long as you have known me, there shouldn't be any doubt in your mind that when it comes to protecting children, the abuser's sexual orientation is not a consideration.

There isnt.

I don't see a rational connection between being able to biologically produce children as opposed to not being able to.

Me either, since Godly children can be produced without having to physically sire them as explained in the page before this one by me.

I also don't assume (as Chrys does) that couples only marry for the purpose of having children.

Me either

The point is that there should be more concern given to abused children CURRENTLY living with their parents as compared to the sexuality of a foster or adoptive parent because the former has absolutely no restrictions while the latter does.

I think gay adoptions are abusive.

Fingerprints. Background checks. Interviews. That is done for the security and well being of the child. However, what of all those children who are born "naturally" into abusive homes?

Do you think biological parents to be should apply to have a child?
 

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
They do infact conduct extensive background checks, (at least when suspicions arise) and still it doesn't always detect the true abusers (just think of Jonbenet Ramsey case, if you believe, as I do, that her parents did abuse and kill her).

And there are many cases (as in the Truong-Newton case) of gay males adopting purposely to sexually abuse.

Background checks only on those wishing to adopt and be foster parents. I already stated that. I am not stating they shouldn't.

The point is that biological parents are required no such checks. Your own example of Jonbenet is evidence of this point.
 

Angel4Truth

New member
Hall of Fame
that is the purpose of sex

look how many are born outside of marriage

keeping mommy and daddy together is the best way to protect them

protecting the child
is
the purpose of marriage

Spiritual children can be created without sex. I quoted relevant scripture as to the purpose of marriage, if you dont want to read them, ask your priest about them.
 

Angel4Truth

New member
Hall of Fame
What the world are you talking about? Oh, and "spiritual babies" now? Which one of us is blue-skyin' it here, exactly?:noway:

Leading by example. Thats how. Following the plan God created - showing example to others.

Man and woman - example of relationship of the church and Christ

Man and Man - example of relationship of the church and the world.
 

WizardofOz

New member
well at least you finally admit it

:plain: Sarcasm goes over your head perhaps...

I doubt you read as it's all fluff and nondsense.
Tracerbullet said:
but I'm not to lazy to use a spell checker
:rotfl:
Save yourself further embarrassment and stop posturing. I was quoting you. You're not to honest to admit when you're clearly full of it, perhaps.

Or was your spell checker broken that day?

yes yes yes the brief trots out the "5 percent reduction in heterosexual marriage rates" multiple times with much hand wringing and chest beating. However when you track down the source of the claim you find that the study they are taking the 5% figure from says something a little different. Specifically this 5% reduction in heterosexual marriage rates in the Netherlands only exists among women age 18-22. this reduction is short term in that the reduction disapears entirely for women by the age of 27. The study also goes on to note that this reduction while coincidental to the legalization of same gendered marriage it cannot be declared causative noting both the trend for marrying later rather than earlier and the introduction of Netherlands registered partnership (a civil union alternative to marriage.)

"It is impossible to attribute the decline in the marriage rate after
2001 to either the long-term effect of the registered partnership law or to the short-term effect of the same-sex marriage law." M. Trandafir The effect of same-sex marriage laws on different-sex marriage: Evidence from the Netherlands 2009

Your half-hearted rebuttal is quite transparent. The brief cited data from Spain, Canada, Belgium, early SSM states Vermont, Massacheusetts, Connecticut, Iowa as well as the Netherlands.

Your omission of rebuttal of all data other than that of the Netherlands is telling. No mention of the higher rates of abortion, either.

Here is the entire 2009 study from Mircea Trandafir

"Legalizing same-sex marriage leads to a fall in the opposite-sex marriage rate"

Telling indeed.
 
Top