Marriage Can Be Expanded

LA Times ^ | June 5, 2004 | Sherman Stein

[tortoise]

I'm not going to discuss the validity of the argument, but merely the physical truth with literal straddling of fences.

LOL!

[longtermmemmory]

More parents need to ask that question and press criminal charges. Even if the child reached adulthood, there is no retroactive consent.

The age of sexual consent should be made 18 across the board. (even if it is not 18 and is lower, there are other criminal charges)

[Tax Government]

"Sexual behavior is the most addicting kind of activity possible; the brain is hardwired to do whatever it has done in the past successfully, to make it occur again."

That is one of the largest mouthful's of utter garbage phsycho-tripe, that anyone has, as yet, attempted to foist upon me to date!

I really take exception to your ad-hominem comment here. And I stand by it, of course. May I suggest a scientific test involving young rats as a first step to prove the statement.

[AmericanChef]

Homosexuals will be the first to say that marriage between sisters or brothers is "wrong" (but, to the real lunatics in the most radical sects of this lobby, they're just saying that so the public won't panic).

On what do they base "wrong" if those sisters or brothers can't conceive a child on their own, or any other couple for that matter? I'd like to hear their explanation of THAT.

[TheBattman]

Kind of blows the liberal mantra "it's for the children" right out of the water, doesn't it?!

[TheBattman]

Please clue me in - what "ABA" are you referring to? I know of a few organizations that go by "ABA"...

[tm22721]

Many stand behind their kids no matter what - even when that means coddling a murderer.

That doesn't make it right. In fact it makes it more suspect when your judgement is clouded by emotional sentiment.

BUMP

[megatherium]

m87339: 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.

You are of course correct. Marriage is sacred. Any legal recognition of same-sex unions should be much more limited, providing few special rights. (One right that comes to mind that I might be willing to argue for is the right to visitation when one partner is in the hospital. Regardless of what we feel about same-sex bonds, it is cruel when someone is barred from seeing their dying partner because they have no legal right to visit them in the hospital.) But generally, I am not in favor of any action by government that suggests approval of homosexuality; it would be far better for government to encourage abstinence or otherwise help people leave the gay lifestyle.

[William Terrell]

Neal Boortz, bless his heart, pounds on the same point. Says, why would people choose a lifestyle that gets them such rejection and infamy.

Well, maybe it isn't a conscious choice. Sufferers of any mental diseases like manic-depression and schizophrenia don't choose their illness, either, but by no means are their frailties to be celebrated and the spread thereof supported. At no time and in no manner should mental illness be a civil right to be protected and shared.

Any behavior disorder that is antithesis to the paradigm of creature design on Earth will always have to be forced on the people against their will and over their objections.

To change a basic societal institution to include its philosophical and foundational adversary is to eliminate it from society. -1+1=0.

[MissAmericanPie]

Marriage is an institution formed by God, no one is allowed to change it's rules but God. So until the sky splits with a booming voice relating differently, marriage is between a man and a woman. Separation of church and state cuts both ways, government is not allowed to define "marriage", it is outside their domain and remains in the domain between society and God.

I suppose a state could legalize unions, if the politician wishes to risk his seat in office, but state sanctioned unions cannot be defined as Holy Matrimony.

[justanotherday]

"If two people of the same sex can marry, then why not anyone, under any circumstances?"

You've nailed it.

[SuziQ]

(One right that comes to mind that I might be willing to argue for is the right to visitation when one partner is in the hospital. Regardless of what we feel about same-sex bonds, it is cruel when someone is barred from seeing their dying partner because they have no legal right to visit them in the hospital.)

This is one of the emotional arguments used by homosexual activists to sell the general public on the idea of homosexual 'marriage'. In truth, it is a legal matter that can be rectified with legal documents. The same thing can be done for everything the homosexual activists say they want. Most people don't hear this information, so they're swept up in the "It isn't fair" wave and go along with homosexual 'marriage' because they perceive that it has something to do with civil rights, and they don't want to be labeled as a bigot if they disagree.

[TeleStraightShooter]

Yes, it does.

The party that embraces the witchcraft of homosexuality & employs abortion as their unholy sacrament hijacked the issue of "for the children" an has converted it into a kamikaze flight....

[Gid_29]

My point with the interspecies relationships is that if they would be able to breed (as some closely related species are), the chromosome mismatches and similar problems would arise from any potential offspring, problems which would causes sterility at best, and death in the worst case.

[Quix]

YES AND NO.

I appreciate your perspective and am all for a 'scientific' [whatever that is] perspective asserting that no culture has ever been known to survive such a muddying of male/female roles or so much homosexuality.

However, God is God and always will be God. And in our era, He will be demonstrating more of His power, priorities, authority etc. than ever before in creation. I don't mind standing on His side and sounding like it. The enemy and oppostition trumpet their sources and idiocy quite over much. SOMEBODY brazen needs to stand up and be counted from a Biblical perspective. I will not be silenced in the public square until the take me to the guillotine [unless God says shut up for a reason and a season[.

Thanks for your kind post.

[asmith92008]

I'm not aware that humans can breed with any other species. Besides, why not just get the animal paramour sterilized?

[philetus]

The only people who actual believe homosexuality is "inherited" and not a deviation and mental illness are homosexuals and homoenablers."

Probably only the homoenablers.
The fags all know they didn't start feeling sexually attracted to the same sex until someone did something to them that "felt good".

[sarasmom]

"I really take exception to your ad-hominem comment here. And I stand by it, of course. May I suggest a scientific test involving young rats as a first step to prove the statement."

No as a matter of fact, you can't suggest a rat test to "prove the statement".

Humans are not rats (well except for hardcore liberals) and sexual ethics, as with all ethical concepts, can only be taught to "higher brain" functioning humans.

[Tax Government]

Your point of flaming my statement was what, now? To say that people with sexual addictions CAN'T cure them, even by substituting a different kind of activity?

I don't know what point you are trying to make. Except that you seem to have picked me as someone you intended to disagree with, even though at root we probably are in agreement.

Have a nice day.