You pick and choose the universal behavior you're willing to admit to. And as a personal favor stop with the whole "God does and doesn't approve of" shtick. It doesn't work on me and makes you look incredibly arrogant.
Justice Kennedy needs a reminder about his own fear of harm from gay marriage
- Thread starter GFR7
- Start date
You pick and choose the universal behavior you're willing to admit to. And as a personal favor stop with the whole "God does and doesn't approve of" shtick. It doesn't work on me and makes you look incredibly arrogant.
GFR7
New member
This is something that used to be almost universally understood (even outside religion, such was considered "natural").
Now, it is extremely hard to convince people that sperm/egg donation, IVF, surrogacy, is detrimental conception.
Its picking and choosing to say all people are sinful? Ok.
GFR7
New member
Yes, it is. It is not about the whims or ego-wishes or pleasure of adults.
I didn't say it was ... however, the originator of this thread is using heterosexuality as the basis of what constitutes good parenting.
As long as you have known me, there shouldn't be any doubt in your mind that when it comes to protecting children, the abuser's sexual orientation is not a consideration.
I don't see a rational connection between being able to biologically produce children as opposed to not being able to.
I also don't assume (as Chrys does) that couples only marry for the purpose of having children.
The point is that there should be more concern given to abused children CURRENTLY living with their parents as compared to the sexuality of a foster or adoptive parent because the former has absolutely no restrictions while the latter does.
Fingerprints. Background checks. Interviews. That is done for the security and well being of the child. However, what of all those children who are born "naturally" into abusive homes?
GFR7
New member
They do infact conduct extensive background checks, (at least when suspicions arise) and still it doesn't always detect the true abusers (just think of Jonbenet Ramsey case, if you believe, as I do, that her parents did abuse and kill her).
And there are many cases (as in the Truong-Newton case) of gay males adopting purposely to sexually abuse.
So women and men who are past the age of creating biological children should not be allowed to marry, correct?
Those who are younger but unable to create children, same standard right. No marriage.
GFR7
New member
Oy, vey............ :nono: .....:sigh:
As a believer he should be believing that heterosexual parents are better parents since they are following Gods model. To believe otherwise, would be outside of his faith.
There isnt.
Me either, since Godly children can be produced without having to physically sire them as explained in the page before this one by me.
Me either
I think gay adoptions are abusive.
Do you think biological parents to be should apply to have a child?
don't you wonder how she knows what I assume?
and
how does she know what I really mean when I post?
Background checks only on those wishing to adopt and be foster parents. I already stated that. I am not stating they shouldn't.
The point is that biological parents are required no such checks. Your own example of Jonbenet is evidence of this point.
Ignoring overlapping behavior most certainly is. Keeps things convenient.
All is a choice thing, is it now? Wow, a little desperate today, Granite?
Spiritual children can be created without sex. I quoted relevant scripture as to the purpose of marriage, if you dont want to read them, ask your priest about them.
how?
Read the bible. Ive explained all that to you before, seek the source.
What the world are you talking about? Oh, and "spiritual children" now? Which one of us is blue-skyin' it here, exactly?:noway:
Leading by example. Thats how. Following the plan God created - showing example to others.
Man and woman - example of relationship of the church and Christ
Man and Man - example of relationship of the church and the world.
WizardofOz
New member
lain: Sarcasm goes over your head perhaps...:rotfl:
Save yourself further embarrassment and stop posturing. I was quoting you. You're not to honest to admit when you're clearly full of it, perhaps.
Or was your spell checker broken that day?
Your half-hearted rebuttal is quite transparent. The brief cited data from Spain, Canada, Belgium, early SSM states Vermont, Massacheusetts, Connecticut, Iowa as well as the Netherlands.
Your omission of rebuttal of all data other than that of the Netherlands is telling. No mention of the higher rates of abortion, either.
Here is the entire 2009 study from Mircea Trandafir
"Legalizing same-sex marriage leads to a fall in the opposite-sex marriage rate"
Telling indeed.