[Synnen]

/sigh

DeMaria, I'm done arguing with you. I'd have to tear apart YOUR post the way you did mine, and frankly, I agree with others that it's long, annoying, whatever.

A couple of very loud thoughts, I had though:

If only "natural" parents could love a child unconditionally--are you saying that no adoptive parent (regardless sexual orientation) ever loved a child the way a birth parent does? Frankly, I'm incredulous that you'd think that, or that you'd think adoption was an "unnatural" way for a couple to have a child.

I never said "God" anywhere in the post I made. I said that marriage was, as a general rule, a commitment that you made to--among others--"your god". MY personal god has no problem with homosexuality, so a gay person of my religion would have no upset god/goddess because it was "unnatural" and "couldn't conceive children".

As far as kids not seeing any sexual behaviour--that's not a religious more on my part. That's common sense, the way I see it. Small children are not able to understand sexual behaviour as it exists in the adult world. Deliberately exposing them to sexual behaviour, of any sort, is a Very Bad Idea. But, hey! If YOU want to have sex in front of your kids, my religion isn't going to stop you. The STATE probably will, but that's kind of the point of this---the rights of the state to determine what constitutes a legal union over the religious right screaming that it's unnatural. As far as the media goes on this subject, well... I don't have kids. But *I* don't watch TV, seldom go to movies, and the worst media in my house is probably a Glamour magazine. Since I'm not exposing myself to that sort of media, I wouldn't be exposing any kids I would have to it. And in several posts over the last 1.5 years, I think I've made it clear what I think about the media driving the sexuality of this country---and what I think of parents who do not take the personal responsibility to shelter their kids from it, including and especially Disney movies---but that's another thread. I'm basically pointing out that personal responsibility trumps the media, and that as long as a lifestyle choice is not HARMING someone, then there should be no law against it.

For someone who accuses people on a regular basis of twisting your words, you sure did a great job twisting mine there.

Where is your evidence, then, that children are HARMED by growing up in a homosexual environment? Because what this still comes down to, for me, is that as long as it is not HARMING anyone, what is the problem with homosexual marriages?

[Tuscany]

To piggyback off what Synn says:

There is absolutely no concrete evidence that children with gay parents are no well adjusted or "turn gay." Besides- I would rather have a child in a loving same sex home then in a home where they are abused either physically or mentally.

[sassyT]

A gay man has the same right as any man has to marry a woman. His waiver of that actual right does not allow him to substitute another “right” he deems more suitable to his needs. Why should we be forced to accept a totally different and abnormal definition of family because a certain group of people choose to live their lives a certain way. It is not fair.

[NeedKarma]

It is not fair.

Not fair to who?
And I believe most gay couples adopting are lesbians.

[excon]

A gay man has the same right as any man has to marry a woman. His waiver of that actual right does not allow him to substitute another “right” he deems more suitable to his needs. Why should we be forced to accept a totaly different and abnormal definition of family because a certain group of people choose to live their lives a certain way. It is not fair.

Hello again, sassy:

You're right... But, most marriage statutes DON'T say one man and one woman. States are scrambling to make them say that as we speak. But, until they do, I agree with you. Anybody ought to be able to do what the law allows them to do - and that's get married.

excon

[Tuscany]

A gay man has the same right as any man has to marry a woman. His waiver of that actual right does not allow him to substitute another “right” he deems more suitable to his needs. Why should we be forced to accept a totaly different and abnormal definition of family because a certain group of people choose to live their lives a certain way. It is not fair.

Nobody said that you had to accept it, but how can you deny a group of people the right that others have? There you go again determining what is normal and what is not normal according to your standards.

[Synnen]

Well, Sassy, how about this?

A "normal" is a mommy, a daddy, and a child/children.

Since single parents don't have either the "mommy" or the "daddy" part, let's take those kids away and give them to a "normal" family so that no kid has to grow up in an "abnormal" family. Let's also ban divorces so that all kids have a "normal" family, with two heterosexual parents, even if those parents hate each other with a passion.

After reading the above, do you see how not only has our definition of "family" changed in the last 60 years, but so has our definition of "normal"?

Anyone can be a family, hon. All you need is love to make a family.

[retsoksirhc]

A gay man has the same right as any man has to marry a woman. His waiver of that actual right does not allow him to substitute another “right” he deems more suitable to his needs. Why should we be forced to accept a totaly different and abnormal definition of family because a certain group of people choose to live their lives a certain way. It is not fair.

Here we go with religion again.

Just because your religion only allows it to be one way, that doesn't mean everyone else has to follow it too.

Example: All of history. Let's see if I can just replace a few words in your post, and we can point it at a different issue, lets say, the Spanish Inquisition.

A [removed] man has the same right as any man has to [worship catholicism]. His waiver of that actual right does not allow him to substitute another “right” he deems more suitable to his needs. Why should we be forced to accept a totally different and abnormal definition of [faith] because a certain group of people choose to live their lives a certain way. It is not fair.


Hmm. Only had to change 3 words. That was easier that I thought.

Edit: By the way, that 'totally different and abnormal definition of faith,' in case you're unfamiliar, would be Protestants or Jews.

[Tuscany]

Here we go with religion again.

Just because your religion only allows it to be one way, that doesn't mean everyone else has to follow it too.

Example: All of history. Let's see if I can just replace a few words in your post, and we can point it at a different issue, lets say, the Spanish Inquisition.

A [removed] man has the same right as any man has to [worship catholicism]. His waiver of that actual right does not allow him to substitute another “right” he deems more suitable to his needs. Why should we be forced to accept a totaly different and abnormal definition of [faith] because a certain group of people choose to live their lives a certain way. It is not fair.


Hmm. Only had to change 3 words. That was easier that I thought.

Absolutely OUTSTANDING!!

[talaniman]

sassyT, A gay man has the same right as any man has to marry a woman.

Those are your interpretations of his right, and frankly its none of your business, nor any skin off your nose. If you want to live by the rules of ancient man... be my guest. But your opinion is not welcome, as mine probably isn't either.

His waiver of that actual right does not allow him to substitute another “right” he deems more suitable to his needs.

You are joking right, as if you care what his needs are.

Why should we be forced to accept a totally different and abnormal definition of family because a certain group of people choose to live their lives a certain way. It is not fair

You aren't forced to do anything but mind your own business. What's unfair is thinking you have a right to tell someone what's best for them.

I don't care what religion your into, doesn't matter, but your callous disregard and assumptive, behavior has you sounding like your way out of bounds.

Can't you let go, and let God for chrissake?

[talaniman]

Just because your religion only allows it to be one way, that doesn't mean everyone else has to follow it too.

Anyone can be a family, hon. All you need is love to make a family.

Very well said!

[talaniman]

Nobody said that you had to accept it, but how can you deny a group of people the right that others have? There you go again determining what is normal and what is not normal according to your standards.

How can they not see that for themselves?

[sassyT]

The State should not be forced to recognise such a Uninion period. The can have their ceromonies and commit to one another, I don't care but don't force the state to recognise it otherwise like I said, we may as well then give "rights" to a woman who wants to marry 25 of her male and female buddies or a man who want to marry a horse etc.

[Tuscany]

The State should not be forced to recognise such a Uninion period. The can have their ceromonies and commit to one another, i dont care but dont force the state to recognise it otherwise like i said, we may as well then give "rights" to a woman who wants to marry 25 of her male and female buddies or a man who want to marry a horse etc.

Separation of church and state... your church might not like it, but the state should recognize it.

[sassyT]

Separation of church and state...your church might not like it, but the state should recognize it.

No actually it is the States that don't like it, that is why it has not been widely accepted.
It has nothing to do with religion. Just common sense..

[excon]

No actually it is the States that dont like it, that is why it has not been widely accepted

Hello again, sassy:

Not widely accepted?? What?? Not widely accepted?? Did you say it's not WIDELY ACCEPTED?? It's the law of the land - has been for more than 200 years.. It's accepted EVERYWHERE. It's in the BILL OF RIGHTS. It's accepted by everybody except a few religious zealots like you.

I don't think you're paying attention, at all.

excon

[sassyT]

Hello again, sassy:

Not widely accepted???? What???? :mad: Not widely accepted??? Did you say it's not WIDELY ACCEPTED????? :mad: It's the law of the land - has been for more than 200 years.. It's accepted EVERYWHERE. :mad: It's in the BILL OF RIGHTS. It's accepted by everybody except a few religious zealots like you.

I don't think you're paying attention, at all.

excon

I didn't know gay marriage legalised in all states? Mmm.. I must have missed that news ;)

[Fr_Chuck]

Well actually no, there is no exact separation of Church and State. It does not exist, that phrase came from a Speech given by Thomas Jefferenson, to a Church about them being protected from the state.

In fact you will see all that is in the Constitution, is that there will be no NATIONAL religion, it actually does not say that a state could not have their own state religion, because remember at that time, the federal government did not have control over the states.

It also says that the government will not pass any laws restricting religion. Well we know that has not happened, and there are laws effecting practice of religion all the time.

But separation, no, it is a myth, does not exist anyone, please go and look, you can not find it, This myth has been pushed more and more, esp by the non religious as a method of attacking religions and trying to stop them from having any political voice.

Charters of Freedom - The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights

[De Maria]

That was the best part of your post. The rest was much too long with too many quotes too keep it interesting enough to follow.

:rolleyes:

I was addressing a long post. I like to be thorough.

[sassyT]

Well actually no, there is no exact seperation of Church and State. It does not exist, that phrase came from a Speech given by Thomas Jefferenson, to a Church about them being protected from the state.

In fact you will see all that is in the Constitution, is that there will be no NATIONAL religion, it actually does not say that a state could not have thier own state religion, because remember at that time, the federal government did not have control over the states.

It also says that the government will not pass any laws restricting religion. Well we know that has not happened, and there are laws effecting practice of religion all the time.

But seperation, no, it is a myth, does not exist anyone, please go and look, you can not find it, This myth has been pushed more and more, esp by the non religious as a method of attacking religions and trying to stop them from having any political voice.

Charters of Freedom - The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights

That's right.. when lies and myths are repeated for long enough people start believing they are true.