Posted on 06/05/2004 8:14:53 PM PDT by asmith92008
Edited on 06/05/2004 9:16:39 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
A quarter of a century ago, our then-teenage daughter, the youngest of our three children, announced that she was gay. Her revelation came as a shock, but the intervening years have given me time to reflect on homosexuality. I have slowly gone from that initial shock to acceptance, along the way reaching some insights.
In our world, the word "stranger" calls forth fear. For two people to shift from strangers to friends to devoted lifetime companions is practically a miracle. Society should encourage such commitments, which not only sustain two people but provide a firm foundation for our society.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
A well-thought out and reasonable response. Thank you, and let me say that I must agree for the most part with what you say
Alas, you're quite wrong on that. I know gay people who are having children, both by adoption and surrogate parenthood. We are said to be in a "gayby boom". This is a frightening social experiment our country has embarked on. We already see the terrible results of single parenthood.
"Women can straddle the fence with relative ease, but men aren't wired that way"
I'm not going to discuss the validity of the argument, but merely the physical truth with literal straddling of fences.
That is a bizarre definition of "marriage." This has nothing to do with monogamy, per se, but what gay "marriage" means.
I ask you to rethink your position and reframe it in terms of being able to produce and create a proper foundation for progeny.
That has nothing to do with monogomy. In fact, gay monogomy is pretty much meaningless except for the fact they propogte AIDS (which is important but argumentationally nill).
You make an interesting point. I am acquainted with a couple who have been married for several years. They are sick of hearing questions from their friends and family about when they're going to have children and recently made a formal announcement that they are NEVER going to have kids because they don't believe they can live up to that responsibility. Well, why did they get married, then?
Good call! Despite overwhelming research that says kids are best brought up by a male and female, and that a truly monogamous marriage between those two compelentary sexual beings (whose combination is the only one can create a life unaided by significant artificial technology), the perverts (who are the new useful idiots) and the anti-Americans (who are gleefully watching as we destroy our fabric) are having a hayday!
The fact they are screwing up little kids permanently is just another unimportant data anomoloy in their milleu.
I can explain that. Marriage is ABOUT having kids. The entire institution, which is the fabric of our society, is designed to provide the legal and moral support structure necessary to bring up children in a wholesome environment that will result in good citizens. Sometimes, the couples can't or won't have children. This no less undermines marriage than (as I pointed out earlier) driving a car on the Interstate highway system.
A child-free couple does NOT challenge the underlying marriage definition: A man and a woman (unrelated).
As I said before -- if ANY aspect of Marriage is open, ALL are. Brother/sister, Mom/Son -- why not? They can adopt. Why two? Same question.
For that reason alone this exclusion to marriage should reside side by side to incest.
That's the point. Even if married people don't have kids, the institution should/MUST be orinted to that goal. Nothing other than one man and one woman can provide that.
concur
Any one who wants to can become a homosexual. Just anyone who wants to do it.
No it is actually an effort to redefine marriage as excluding children. The ABA published their model divorce code ("The Project") In it they specificly sought to make children and "accessory" to the breeding pair of humans and not a part of the contractual relationship of marriage. Also to deinstitutionalize marriage into a government contract and not an insitutional part of society.
The model code also envisioned third parties being able to claim visitation and even custody. Thus if "daddy" had a homosexual lover, the homosexual lover could claim (have standing) for visitation or even challenge for custody and inheritance even if the wife did not know.
Part of the reason I will not join the ABA. The disturbing part is that your and my ignorant legislators have access only to this model divorce code because NO OTHER EXISTS. Even the Mass SJC justice who wrote the homosexual marriage case used much of the logic in that model code.
there was a thread I had posted in the past about this divorce project.
Legally children should have ONE mother and ONE father. The law needs to see these children of being raised (destroyed) by homosexuals as being raised by ONE mother or father and the mother or father's recreational sex same-sex partner. It is how many homosexuals adopt, one "parent" adopts as mother or father and then bestows guardianship rights to the other.
Legally it is heather has a mommy and a legal guardian. One mother at law not two.
The homosexual lobby is all about destroying the institution of marriage, much as they did the Catholic Church. They do not want any judgement condemning them. First, get rid of parts of the Bible and make it "hate speech". They have succeeded to a great extent in that, unless the Church fights back.
Next, destroy the institution of marriage so indoctrination of children can be more thorough. If this marriage of gays passes, then they will be empowered even more to teach very young kids in schools that what they do is normal and good. When these children grow up they will be unjudgemental and embrace their lifestyle because teaching homosexuality is teaching moral relativism.
The media (trying hard to ruin the morality of the youth) is already glorifying and trying to make the "gay" life cute and attractive like in Will and Grace. That is because it is a learned activity IF learned EARLY enough! You hardly ever see gays in movies looking "icky"---except in Mel Gibson's Braveheart where one is thrown out the window!
.
Did he ever wonder who seduced her into the lifestyle?
If we follow the ILlogic of homosexuals 70% of all hard core criminals are homosexuals. In the prison population the number rumored to have participated in homosexual sex due to the confinement in a single sex population is 70% (rumored based on best information due to the absolute reluctance of officials to permit a proper study fearing cruel and and usual punishment appeals)
According to homosexuals one act makes the homosexual and those in prison engaged in at least one act. Thus the illogic would indicate that of the 2.7% of homosexuals in the general population 70% are going to become hard core criminals. (2.7% is from the lawrence brief of the homosexual advocate groups, the 10% is now officially abandoned.)
This also fits with the fact that a disproportionate number of child molesters are homosexuals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.