Defending Marriage, After Massachusetts: What the Court Did and How We Should Respond

National Catholic Register ^ | November 30 - December 6, 2003 | EVE TUSHNET

[breakem]

98 looks a lot like 96.

[BikerNYC]

How We Should Respond?

Our response should come within, to save our own marriages instead of denying others the right to get married.

We should respond by not getting divorced. Until heterosexuals stop getting divorces, we have no right to claim that others are destroying marriage.

[Kevin Curry]

So you can read. You just don't have a cluse and were hoping I'd let you off the hook?

[jwalsh07]

Your problem. You made a comment and I asked you what was behind your comment. If you made it off the cuff then just admit it.

From an admittedly biased observer, it appears that scripter is cleaning your clock. :-}

[breakem]

Apparently not, in fact during the wedding I don't think the police kicked down the door. In fact, I'm sure of it. Probably some governmental agency doesn't recognize it.

If there's no difference legally or benefit wise (BTW benefit has a wide meaning anywhere form personal, emotional to financial) then why do you care if they marry. Doesn't effect you?

[Kevin Curry]

Does the law prohibit them from being with "they one they love"?

[breakem]

weak reading on your part. Your bias has prevented you from realizing he can't even explain his first comment.

I usually clean my clocks at daylight savings time, but thanx anyway.

[breakem]

I am experience a phenonmenon on my computer where your questions show up before and after my answer. Is this happening on your computer?

[breakem]

experiencing also

[jwalsh07]

LOL, same ole same ole.

[breakem]

I always wondered how people defend their marriage. When they hear about a couple of homosexuals getting married, do they wisk the wife away to the mountains until the story is out of the papers or do they just board up the windows. Can't remember an attack on my marriage during 27 years, not even by homosexuals. It's odd that someone who wants to participate in something is attacking it.

[Kevin Curry]

Yes, it does affect me. It affects all citizens.

These people are grossly sick in the head. They are sexually promicuous (and even their hero Andrew Sullivan admits gay marriage would not slow down their promiscuity), wholly sterile and incapable of reproducing children (the underlying reason for marriage). If they want to bugger each other senseless and attend the gay church of their choice where they can be blessed by the Bishop of the Holy Condom as "spouse and spouse"--let them. That's my live and let live.

[breakem]

You got that right. Truth doesn't change, thank God.

[BikerNYC]

They defnd it by staying married and encouraging others to stay married.

Having more and more committed couples, gay or straight, exist in stable relationships outside of marriage does not help marriage. Rather, it provides an alternative to marriage that will gain yet further accetance. The way to save Marriage is to rope more people into it.

[scripter]

Your problem.

Your post was a little premature and I encourage you to keep reading, and you say it's my problem?

You made a comment and I asked you what was behind your comment. If you made it off the cuff then just admit it.

Here's my comment that appears to have bothered you so much:

It's late so I may not get this right, but I believe the APA recently (this year) stated pretty much the same thing DeCecco said. That is, adult/child sex may not be as harmful to children as first thought. After a public outcry, the APA responded and said something about how they didn't mean to endorse pedophilia. Still, damage was done and who knows what confused person is going to use that reasoning to molest a child.

From what I've read everything I said above is true. The APA published an article, a public and political outcry ensued, which included House Majority Whip Tom Delay and others, and the APA responded and stated they don't endorse child abuse.

Again, there are web sites who use exactly that justification to molest children. Actions have consequences. And while the APA is doing what they can to prevent something like this from happening again, actions have consequences.

[jwalsh07]

Why must the expansion of marriage be limited to same sex couples?

[breakem]

Kevin, Kevin, Kevin, sit down, take a deep breath.

Both of these women are fertile, so they are quite capable of having children. Now, here's the bad part for you. One of them has had a child. You've been here too long to not know thay many heterosexuals cannot have kids. Are they sick in the head too.

They are far from being sick in the head. In fact both of them seem to function outside the house, if profession, income, and respect from neighbors is an indication.

You are letting your sterotypic hatred for all persons homosexual blind you to the realities that there are some decent, smart people out their who have sex with people of the same gender.

No one is asking you to try it. My first proposal of marriage to you, was just a joke. My wife suggested it. Relax and let these people live their lives. They won't attack you, and if they do, us normal folks will rush to your defense. Promise.

[scripter]

LOL, same ole same ole.

That is so true.

[BikerNYC]

It need not be limited to anything a priori. What did you have in mind?

[breakem]

..........the APA responded and stated they don't endorse child abuse. Thanx, that wasn't so hard now was it.<

Don't be so paranoid. I was not "bothered" by that comment. I merely asked you to source it and connect it to your comment about the organization. The rest of the time you were twisting and turning because you assumed so much and did not just give a simple answer.

walsh, you were wrong again. Same ole, same ole.