Reader: Traditional marriage is the foundation of society - Sen...

[Mrs Shrute]

Christiandadx6 wrote:

In a biblical sense, God create a man and a woman to procreate. That is right from Genesis. No where in the bible does it discuss the same-sex relationship as acceptable. Or even as an alternative. There honestly may not be anough charectors allowing in a single post to past all the scripture references pertaining to the marraige covenamt made of God being between a man and a woman. The bible speaks of man and wife through the two testements and as far as I know does not refer to the parties in a marraige as anything but husband and wife. Never as party 1 and part 2.
I believe that marriage is a sacred convenant between the husband and wife and God himself. It is a weave of three strands that can not be broken. Since it was not God's intention to have marriages between the same sex, a convenant can not be made with God to bless that marriage.
Now again, I am speaking from my Christian belief system knowing full well you may disagree with me. But even though you may disagree, I hope we can discuss this issue in a civil manner.

I appreciate your civility more than you know, Christiandadx6.:-)

The problem here is that not everyone is in your religion. I can understand your church/religion not wanting certain people to marry.

I am agnostic. I am not religious in any way but I respect anyone who wants to practice any religion. The only time I have a problem is when people think that the "religious rules" have to fall on everyone.

Correct me if I am wrong but from what you say, you believe that if I marry someone (I am straight, so it would be a man) but we are not religious so we have no relationship with any god - it is not actually a marriage?

[Christiandadx6]

UnbelievableFL wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, children are the usual and natural result of a sexual act between an opposite-sex fertile couple not using birth control correctly. Whether or not that couple is married is irrelevant. Chidlren can result either way.

Thanks for the input. You are right of course. But I would hope that having children is not just a physical act between lusting adults. Though in reality that does happen more frequently than not in todays day of moral relativism. I also know of one sure fire way of birth control that works, abstinance.

The bible speaks about the soul ties that are created when an unmarried couple has sex. It is a tie that stays with the individuals for the rest of their lives unless they turn to God and ask for him to break it and for forgiveness of their sin.

Too many young girls and woman are becoming preganant not realizing the consequence of the sexual act they committed 9 months earlier. To cure this sin, society has develop abortion and the "morning after pill" so that there is no consequence for having sex at a younger age and with disregard of the outcome.

I must revert back to the premise that God abhors sin, and premarital sex (Fornication) is a sin. This does not mean children can't come out that relationship. It also does not mean that God won't bless the child. God loves all His children whether regardless of the method of arrival. But unfortuantely, with the selfishness of many in todays society, anything goes as longs it it feels good for them.

[Christiandadx6]

Mrs Shrute wrote:

<quoted text>
I appreciate your civility more than you know, Christiandadx6.:-)
The problem here is that not everyone is in your religion. I can understand your church/religion not wanting certain people to marry.
I am agnostic. I am not religious in any way but I respect anyone who wants to practice any religion. The only time I have a problem is when people think that the "religious rules" have to fall on everyone.
Correct me if I am wrong but from what you say, you believe that if I marry someone (I am straight, so it would be a man) but we are not religious so we have no relationship with any god - it is not actually a marriage?

That is where I make the distinction. I am a Christian who has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. What I follow is not a "religion". I have a spirtual relationship with Christ and attend a church of like minded individuals. I try my best to live my life they way the bible teaches (boy I do fail at times) not by a set of rules that a "religion" has set down. I do not argue about the doctorine of "religions" as long as they fall within the true meaning of God's word.

Regardless if you belong to a "religous" sect or not, God blesses the covenant union between man and woman because He ordained marraige as between a woman and a man.

So to answer your question, my belief is that your marriage would be a marriage in God's eyes.

[z3ncat]

Christiandadx6 wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank you for your post. To answer you directly, a marriage is real between a man and a woman even when no children come from it. But with that said, they have the possiblity to have childre, of course except for those medically unable to. I also believe that children are the usual and natural result of marraige.

So the willingly childfree should never be allowed to marry? Couples should divorce if they've decided not to have any more kids?
Marriage is about much more than the ability to procreate. And, of course, you're deliberately overlooking the fact that plenty of same-sex couples can and DO have children - or better yet, can and do adopt otherwise unwanted children.

[UnbelievableFL]

Christiandadx6 wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks for the input. You are right of course. But I would hope that having children is not just a physical act between lusting adults. Though in reality that does happen more frequently than not in todays day of moral relativism. I also know of one sure fire way of birth control that works, abstinance..

I also would hope that having children is not just an accident. That's why I think it's ridiculous to say that it's wrong for homosexual couples to be married and raise children. Gay couples don't have children by accident like heterosexual couples too often do. If they choose to have children, they really want them and have to plan for them. Why shouldn't they receive all the same benefits and legal protections available to a straight couple?

Christiandadx6 wrote:

<quoted text>The bible speaks about the soul ties that are created when an unmarried couple has sex. It is a tie that stays with the individuals for the rest of their lives unless they turn to God and ask for him to break it and for forgiveness of their sin..

I have that tie with my partner. I don't think God gave it to me, but I know what you are talking about.

Christiandadx6 wrote:

<quoted text>Too many young girls and woman are becoming preganant not realizing the consequence of the sexual act they committed 9 months earlier. To cure this sin, society has develop abortion and the "morning after pill" so that there is no consequence for having sex at a younger age and with disregard of the outcome..

Agreed, but that really has nothing to do with giving same-sex couples the legal recognition of marriage.

Christiandadx6 wrote:

<quoted text>I must revert back to the premise that God abhors sin, and premarital sex (Fornication) is a sin. This does not mean children can't come out that relationship. It also does not mean that God won't bless the child. God loves all His children whether regardless of the method of arrival. But unfortuantely, with the selfishness of many in todays society, anything goes as longs it it feels good for them.

You are free to live your life by that belief, but understand in this country, people are free not to believe that. You can't legislate strictly based on a religious belief.

[Christiandadx6]

z3ncat wrote:

<quoted text>
So the willingly childfree should never be allowed to marry? Couples should divorce if they've decided not to have any more kids?
Marriage is about much more than the ability to procreate. And, of course, you're deliberately overlooking the fact that plenty of same-sex couples can and DO have children - or better yet, can and do adopt otherwise unwanted children.

I need to ask you if you read my post. I did say marriage did not always produce children. I am not even going to get into same-sex couples having or adopting children and the issues that come up about that. I was adopted and I purposely stay away from that issue.

[1noteasilyfooled]

Christiandadx6 wrote:

<quoted text>
I need to ask you if you read my post. I did say marriage did not always produce children. I am not even going to get into same-sex couples having or adopting children and the issues that come up about that. I was adopted and I purposely stay away from that issue.

Oh? and why is that? do we have "issues" about your birth parents (the christians they were/are)?

[Fitchburger]

Christiandadx6

"I also know of one sure fire way of birth control that works, abstinance.."

How'd that whole virgin and abstinence thing work out for Mary?

[Christiandadx6]

UnbelievableFL wrote:

<quoted text>
You are free to live your life by that belief, but understand in this country, people are free not to believe that. You can't legislate strictly based on a religious belief.

I agree with you but I am constantly being burraged by those who belive in same-sex marraige. By activist legislators and judges, I am having the gay lobby's beliefs forced on me.
I have been called a biggot, homophobe, and intolerant for my beliefs. There are other terms people use towards me also. I am willing to endure it but I would hope those that are radically pushing the same-sex agend would have some respect for my beliefs.

When ever ther has been a vote of the citizenry, the majority has spoken against it. For those who want to equate this with the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's that is fine. But even many of those who were involved in that historic time, not only do not believe it is the same, but are offended by the comparison. The effected group in the 60's did not choose to be born black, but as more and more research is being done, it is being proven that homosexuality is not a DNA issue but a choice. i know people do not want to hear that, but it is self eveident with the number of bi-sexual and homosexual individuals that leave the lifestyle and become straight and the backlash from the homsexual lobby against them.

[Christiandadx6]

Fitchburger wrote:

Christiandadx6
"I also know of one sure fire way of birth control that works, abstinance.."
How'd that whole virgin and abstinence thing work out for Mary?

You know something, I can take just about any criticism direct towards me but please, if all you can do is blaspheme my God, it would be better you said nothing. I would be more than willing to debate the issue of abstinance with you in an inttelegent manner. But comments like the one you posted does nothing but inflame people. It has no useful purpose in the discussion at hand.

[Dooley]

Christiandadx6 wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree with you but I am constantly being burraged by those who belive in same-sex marraige. By activist legislators and judges, I am having the gay lobby's beliefs forced on me.
I have been called a biggot, homophobe, and intolerant for my beliefs. There are other terms people use towards me also. I am willing to endure it but I would hope those that are radically pushing the same-sex agend would have some respect for my beliefs.
When ever ther has been a vote of the citizenry, the majority has spoken against it. For those who want to equate this with the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's that is fine. But even many of those who were involved in that historic time, not only do not believe it is the same, but are offended by the comparison. The effected group in the 60's did not choose to be born black, but as more and more research is being done, it is being proven that homosexuality is not a DNA issue but a choice. i know people do not want to hear that, but it is self eveident with the number of bi-sexual and homosexual individuals that leave the lifestyle and become straight and the backlash from the homsexual lobby against them.

Good for you brother!

We've got to stop this thing. Why, if they start letting queers get married, next think it'll be retards, and whites and colored's wanting to.

[Dooley]

Fitchburger wrote:

Christiandadx6
"I also know of one sure fire way of birth control that works, abstinance.."
How'd that whole virgin and abstinence thing work out for Mary?

She was raped.

[Da Bulls]

Dooley wrote:

<quoted text>
Good for you brother!
We've got to stop this thing. Why, if they start letting queers get married, next think it'll be retards, and whites and colored's wanting to.

Don't worry. This has precious little to do with anyone "marrying." The ridiculous political charade of homosexual "marriage" remains exposed as the fraud that it is.

No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that permits the oxymoron.

Homosexuals are NOT the same as other people. They seldom form longterm exclusive
relationships, often completely obsess on perversion, and have much elevated rates of many diseases and social ills. THIS is the reality.
No homosexual "marriage" is recognized by the US Government. We have a democratically established national definition of marriage as solely between one man and one woman.

No law could ever make even one homosexual relationship into a real marriage. It is of course ludicrous to claim that "equal rights" are involved in trying to disenfranchise others on the legal definition of marriage.

Homosexual "marriage" is a complete FRAUD.
Two unequals will NEVER be equal.

No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage, and the two are VERY different.

No homosexual relationships is the "equal" of a real marriage.

Marriage is indeed very different from any homosexual relationship:

Here are some MAJOR differences between real marriage and any sort of homosexual relationship, especially regarding any governmental involvement:
Like it or not, marriage and family are the basic building block of American Society.

No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that allows the contrived oxymoron and only about 1.6% of the US population claims to be "GLBT" anyway, so homosexual "marriage" fails on this one!
Children are the usual and natural result of real marriage. No child will EVER be born as a direct result of a homosexual relationship, so homomarriage fails on this one, too!

Having both a mother and father in the home is one of the best statistical predictors of a child's future success in life. No homosexual relationship can provide this.

Marriage is recognized as moral and necessary by nearly all Americans. Americans overwhelmingly reject homosexual "marriage" and most find homosexual acts to be immoral and damaging.

[Christiandadx6]

1noteasilyfooled wrote:

<quoted text>Oh? and why is that? do we have "issues" about your birth parents (the christians they were/are)?

Again, let's resort to personal attacks. I was put up for adoption by a mother who could not support me and my twin brother. We were put into a awesome home and brought up in a loving heterosexual family. My fear would be that as an infant today, they could be placed in a homosexual home and I would have missed the experiance I had by having a mother and a father. Granted not all heterosexual relationships are wonderful. Some are very bad and abusive. But, we are just starting to learn the effects of children placed in homosexual homes. And many of the effects are not good at all. Children will always be missing one parent. A father or a mother in those circumsances. Granted another issue in society is fatherless homes. Fathers who are not taking responsibility for there children not giving them a good role models.

[ACLU-Tom]

You say that we're just starting to learn the effects of children raised by gay parents, and they're not good at all. Why do the published studies show exactly the opposite? Kids raised by gay parents are just as well adjusted as their counterparts raised by straight parents, with one exception, they tend to be more accepting of the differences between people. In other words, they're less likely to be discriminatory against other people.

Christiandadx6 wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, let's resort to personal attacks. I was put up for adoption by a mother who could not support me and my twin brother. We were put into a awesome home and brought up in a loving heterosexual family. My fear would be that as an infant today, they could be placed in a homosexual home and I would have missed the experiance I had by having a mother and a father. Granted not all heterosexual relationships are wonderful. Some are very bad and abusive. But, we are just starting to learn the effects of children placed in homosexual homes. And many of the effects are not good at all. Children will always be missing one parent. A father or a mother in those circumsances. Granted another issue in society is fatherless homes. Fathers who are not taking responsibility for there children not giving them a good role models.

[Rose T-H]

Christiandadx6 wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree with you but I am constantly being burraged by those who belive in same-sex marraige. By activist legislators and judges, I am having the gay lobby's beliefs forced on me.
I have been called a biggot, homophobe, and intolerant for my beliefs. There are other terms people use towards me also. I am willing to endure it but I would hope those that are radically pushing the same-sex agend would have some respect for my beliefs.
When ever ther has been a vote of the citizenry, the majority has spoken against it. For those who want to equate this with the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's that is fine. But even many of those who were involved in that historic time, not only do not believe it is the same, but are offended by the comparison. The effected group in the 60's did not choose to be born black, but as more and more research is being done, it is being proven that homosexuality is not a DNA issue but a choice. i know people do not want to hear that, but it is self eveident with the number of bi-sexual and homosexual individuals that leave the lifestyle and become straight and the backlash from the homsexual lobby against them.

Hey Christiandadx6,
I have read all of your conversation within this thread and I got to say that you are totally entitled to your faith and beliefs, however when you start telling gays and leabians that WHO THEY ARE IS NOTHING MORE THAN A CHOICE, this is where you upset the majority.
The only CHOICE that may be evident is whether the gay or leabian individual chooses to continue to live a lie or that they be true unto themselves.
There is probably more medical research out there that is proving everyday that being attracted to the same gender is no more a CHOICE, than being straight, having blue eyes etc.....
I am not one to judge you or your beliefs, however I do believe that EVERY U.S. CITIZEN is ENTITLED to Marriage.
Even if I was not GAY, I would still believe in Marriage Equality for ALL.
As far as comparing African-American civil rights struggles with civil rights for the GLBTQI, where are they not the same.
I guess that one could say that white gay/lesbians did not have to right in the back of the bus, enter through different doors or have different drinking fountain, this part is true. Where things become the same for all gays and lesbians regardless of color is being called names, getting beat up for NO real reason, having the police raid the place that were visited by gays and lesbians, being killed just because someone said you made a pass at them or being killed just because you wanted to dress a certain way. In the last 4 or 5 years young gay and lesbians have been killed just for these reasons. Here are a few of the names; Mathew Shepard, Tina Braddon, Gwen Araujo, and Barry Winchell.
So you see being gay can be compared to civil rights.
I may be seen as wrong, but fighting to end discrimination in my opinion will help form a more unified United States.

[z3ncat]

Christiandadx6 wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree with you but I am constantly being burraged by those who belive in same-sex marraige. By activist legislators and judges, I am having the gay lobby's beliefs forced on me.
I have been called a biggot,****, and intolerant for my beliefs. There are other terms people use towards me also. I am willing to endure it but I would hope those that are radically pushing the same-sex agend would have some respect for my beliefs.
When ever ther has been a vote of the citizenry, the majority has spoken against it. For those who want to equate this with the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's that is fine. But even many of those who were involved in that historic time, not only do not believe it is the same, but are offended by the comparison. The effected group in the 60's did not choose to be born black, but as more and more research is being done, it is being proven that homosexuality is not a DNA issue but a choice. i know people do not want to hear that, but it is self eveident with the number of bi-sexual and homosexual individuals that leave the lifestyle and become straight and the backlash from the homsexual lobby against them.

Really? What studies do you have to prove this? Non-biased ones, I'd hope.
The USA is not a mob-rule state. The will of the majority can NOT override the rights of the minority.

[z3ncat]

Christiandadx6 wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, let's resort to personal attacks. I was put up for adoption by a mother who could not support me and my twin brother. We were put into a awesome home and brought up in a loving heterosexual family. My fear would be that as an infant today, they could be placed in a homosexual home and I would have missed the experiance I had by having a mother and a father. Granted not all heterosexual relationships are wonderful. Some are very bad and abusive. But, we are just starting to learn the effects of children placed in homosexual homes. And many of the effects are not good at all. Children will always be missing one parent. A father or a mother in those circumsances. Granted another issue in society is fatherless homes. Fathers who are not taking responsibility for there children not giving them a good role models.

You're right, we are learning the effects - and all repudable studies have shown that there are NO ill effects at all.

Well, there is one. Children of same-sex parents are far more likely to face bigotry and homophobia than their counterparts raised by opposite-sex parents. But whose fault is that? Oh, yes, the parents raising their children to be intolerant.

[UnbelievableFL]

Christiandadx6 wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree with you but I am constantly being burraged by those who belive in same-sex marraige. By activist legislators and judges, I am having the gay lobby's beliefs forced on me...

Highly doubtful, unless you have run into people telling you you must become homosexual or marry someone of the same sex. Are you referring to people telling you that you have no right to impose your religious views on them? That's a fact. They are not imposing their views on you, they are rebelling because you are trying to force your views on them. The sooner you realize that, the better.

Christiandadx6 wrote:

<quoted text>I have been called a biggot, homophobe, and intolerant for my beliefs. There are other terms people use towards me also. I am willing to endure it but I would hope those that are radically pushing the same-sex agend would have some respect for my beliefs..

Stop trying to impose those beliefs on others and your problem will go away.

Christiandadx6 wrote:

<quoted text>When ever ther has been a vote of the citizenry, the majority has spoken against it...

How would you feel if your basic civil rights were put up to a majority vote? This country has a constitution which contains rights that are not supposed to be taken away by majority vote. That's why we have the courts, to interpret the constitutionality of laws. More and more courts are coming to the conclusion it is unconstitutional to deny a person rights based on their sexual orientation.

Christiandadx6 wrote:

<quoted text>For those who want to equate this with the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's that is fine. But even many of those who were involved in that historic time, not only do not believe it is the same, but are offended by the comparison. The effected group in the 60's did not choose to be born black, but as more and more research is being done, it is being proven that homosexuality is not a DNA issue but a choice. i know people do not want to hear that, but it is self eveident with the number of bi-sexual and homosexual individuals that leave the lifestyle and become straight and the backlash from the homsexual lobby against them.

Whether homosexuality is a choice or not is irrelevant. Religion is strictly a choice, not an innate characteristic, and yet one cannot be discriminated against based on their chosen religion.

Also, I'm not sure what research you are referring to. The studies I have seen indicate there is a biological component to one's sexual orientation, but again, it's irrelevant to deciding whether someone can be discriminated against based on that orientation.

[UnbelievableFL]

Christiandadx6 wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, let's resort to personal attacks. I was put up for adoption by a mother who could not support me and my twin brother. We were put into a awesome home and brought up in a loving heterosexual family. My fear would be that as an infant today, they could be placed in a homosexual home and I would have missed the experiance I had by having a mother and a father. Granted not all heterosexual relationships are wonderful. Some are very bad and abusive. But, we are just starting to learn the effects of children placed in homosexual homes. And many of the effects are not good at all. Children will always be missing one parent. A father or a mother in those circumsances. Granted another issue in society is fatherless homes. Fathers who are not taking responsibility for there children not giving them a good role models.

Please, all studies indicate that children raised by same-sex couples fare just as well as children raised by opposite-sex couples. If you have any legitimate studies to back up your claim that the "effects of children placed in homosexual homes...are not good at all", please provide links to those studies so their legitimacy can be determined.