[Golfingnut]

Originally Posted by ilovetv

And my bet is that 15.8 million of those children at least have two parents that are a male and a female who, flawed as they might be, are still prone to teach their kids--by either good or bad example--that it takes a man and a woman to conceive a child, NOT a woman and a physician administering the contents of a test tube.

One of the long-term effects we're concerned about is the teaching to children that a father is not needed, by way of teaching that artificial insemination is just as good as a known, loving, married/divorced, rich/poor, live-in/out father.

This teaching and role modeling of no need for a known, identifiable, present father is especially worrisome in light of the above-quoted poverty known to be closely linked with fatherlessness!

I read this twice, but don't see a legitimate point.

[Barefoot]

Originally Posted by ilovetv

One of the long-term effects we're concerned about is the teaching to children that a father is not needed, by way of teaching that artificial insemination is just as good as a father.

My mother told me the stork brought me, you mean she lied to me?

In my humble opinion, two loving parents are preferable to a single-parent family, whatever sex. Some women in heterosexual relationships have babies by surrogate or artificial insemination. It's the 21st Century. Things are changing!

[rubicon]

Calvin Coolidge wrote that the Declaration of Independence establishing our great union laid down some very important principles. regarding the nature of mankind and therefore government. "That all men are created equal, that they are endowed with inalienable rights, and that therefore the source of the just powers of government must be derived from the consent of the governed

A poll recently taken showed over 60% of those polled had a poor opinion of the Supreme Court

To those who keep making this personal or intimating that those opposed have some bias let me counter with you lost your argument because you have no argument. Most people don't care what people do in their personal lives

In the matter of the demand for same sex marriage vis a vis say civil union the story behind the story is that those who will accept nothing less than same sex marriage the rationale is clear. To their way of thinking same sex marriage equates to validating their orientation. consider what DOMA does. Now consider what happens once DOMA is struck down in its entirety and will be struck down.

I bring this up only because posters continue down that road. This topic is not about people's private lives or God's opinion...its about a Supreme court decision that leads one to believe that the once supreme court who was suppose to be a check against the executive and legislative branches now is demonstrating that it is also a legislative branch...so much for the will of the governed.

[Golfingnut]

Originally Posted by rubicon

Calvin Coolidge wrote that the Declaration of Independence establishing our great union laid down some very important principles. regarding the nature of mankind and therefore government. "That all men are created equal, that they are endowed with inalienable rights, and that therefore the source of the just powers of government must be derived from the consent of the governed

A poll recently taken showed over 60% of those polled had a poor opinion of the Supreme Court

To those who keep making this personal or intimating that those opposed have some bias let me counter with you lost your argument because you have no argument. Most people don't care what people do in their personal lives

In the matter of the demand for same sex marriage vis a vis say civil union the story behind the story is that those who will accept nothing less than same sex marriage the rationale is clear. To their way of thinking same sex marriage equates to validating their orientation. consider what DOMA does. Now consider what happens once DOMA is struck down in its entirety and will be struck down.

I bring this up only because posters continue down that road. This topic is not about people's private lives or God's opinion...its about a Supreme court decision that leads one to believe that the once supreme court who was suppose to be a check against the executive and legislative branches now is demonstrating that it is also a legislative branch...so much for the will of the governed.

Once again, I do not like what you say, but not only can I find no argument with your post , if fear you are right. Rubicon, you make it hard for me to be right.

[ilovetv]

Originally Posted by Barefoot

My mother told me the stork brought me, you mean she lied to me?

In my humble opinion, two loving parents are preferable to a single-parent family, whatever sex. Some women in heterosexual relationships have babies by surrogate or artificial insemination. It's the 21st Century. Things are changing!

Two loving parents seem preferable to a single-parent family, but if those two parents are "loving" and simultaneously teach their kids self-destructive behavior, the family gets destroyed too. And when families are destroyed so is society and nationhood.

As an example, China's one-child-only policy and the killing of female babies either before or shortly after birth has resulted in a society that is now lacking enough women for young Chinese men to marry, which results in societal upheaval and even chaos. ("The paper suggested that sex-selective abortion – banned in China but widely practised – was the main reason for a higher number of males. While noting that many nations have disproportionate sex ratios, it added: "In the era of the one-child policy the fact that the problem of excess males in China seems to outstrip that of all other countries is perhaps no surprise."
China's gender imbalance 'likely to get worse' | World news | guardian.co.uk

This issue of gay marriage has become a lot of "it's all about me and my family" when really, when it gets to the federal and constitutional law level, it is about what is good for the endurance and integrity of the nation, not just its individuals.

Exaggerated individualism (or selfishness) is one of the big problems this nation has and it's a big reason why so many "fathers" FLEE from their parental duties, to seek their own pleasures!

[Golfingnut]

Originally Posted by ilovetv

Two loving parents seem preferable to a single-parent family, but if those two parents are "loving" and simultaneously teach their kids self-destructive behavior, the family gets destroyed too. And when families are destroyed so is society and nationhood.

As an example, China's one-child-only policy and the killing of female babies either before or shortly after birth has resulted in a society that is now lacking enough women for young Chinese men to marry, which results in societal upheaval and even chaos. ("The paper suggested that sex-selective abortion – banned in China but widely practised – was the main reason for a higher number of males. While noting that many nations have disproportionate sex ratios, it added: "In the era of the one-child policy the fact that the problem of excess males in China seems to outstrip that of all other countries is perhaps no surprise."
China's gender imbalance 'likely to get worse' | World news | guardian.co.uk

This issue of gay marriage has become a lot of "it's all about me and my family" when really, when it gets to the federal and constitutional law level, it is about what is good for the endurance and integrity of the nation, not just its individuals.

Exaggerated individualism (or selfishness) is one of the big problems this nation has and it's a big reason why so many "fathers" FLEE from their parental duties, to seek their own pleasures!

I try, but I do not get where you get your beliefs from. Sorry, keep posting and I will read with Full attention and I will try to understand your meaning, but right now, you confuse me a lot. I see selfishness and very little compassion.

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by Golfingnut

Once again, I do not like what you say, but not only can I find no argument with your post , if fear you are right. Rubicon, you make it hard for me to be right.

Golfingnut" I have never been much on being right but I have strived in my personal and business life to do the right thing. It is my way of saying the important issue and focus has always been the process and not the egos involved. In both personal and business the net result is that you gain a buy-in This belief of mine is the reason I negatively view the Supreme court's decision.

Personal Best Regards:

[Golfingnut]

Originally Posted by rubicon

Golfingnut" I have never been much on being right but I have strived in my personal and business life to do the right thing. It is my way of saying the important issue and focus has always been the process and not the egos involved. In both personal and business the net result is that you gain a buy-in This belief of mine is the reason I negatively view the Supreme court's decision.

Personal Best Regards:

I have started on my third beer so I am no longer in your league. I will look at is thread in the morninig before additional comment.

[dotti105]

ilovetv,
just don't get polygamy mixed up with the LDS (Mormon) church. It was banned by the church and made a crime over a hundred years ago! There are lots of small and not so small polygamist cults through out the west and into Mx and Canada but they are in no way related to the Mormon church. As active Mormons, we always get asked about polygamy.....we just laugh! My hubby has a hard enough time handling his one wife!! (me) Haha!

[kagney123]

Originally Posted by Golfingnut

I think that used to be the case, but now everyone digs their heals in and we are left with little room for compromise. We need to stop looking at compromise as defeat. Does that make me a compromise fanatic?

I wanna be friends with a compromise fanatic......

[billethkid]

compromise is nothing other than the main ingredient of negotiations. If one is not willing to compromise they are not negotiating.

Unfortunately in today's environment compromise is misused all too frequently. The most often erroneous representation is that a compromise means if one side or the other is not willing to give up their position in favor of the others....it is mis-labeled and not compromising!!!!

btk

[skyc6]

Originally Posted by ilovetv

"Primitive" beliefs? Well, if heterosexual marriage and its reproductive ability to keep the human race from extinction were "primitive", unnecessary and obsolete......nobody would have been born to produce us in this generation.

I think, respectfully, that if heterosexual marriage were primitive, unecessary and obsolete, heterosexuals would still be there and they would still be producing offspring as a result of relations, which would take place regardless of whether "marriage" existed or not.

[skyc6]

Originally Posted by Villageshooter

God said Adam & Eve.. not adam & steve

I don't believe this is to be taken literally. I have been asked by students who Cain and Abel married. The old testament is filled with stories that give examples of moral values we should consider. There was no reporter there to tell us what went on back then, but to expect that there were 2 people suddenly in a garden alone seems not to be a complete story of human beginnings.

[skyc6]

Originally Posted by billethkid

No issue(s) with marriage, married or not or adoptive parenting or same sex anything.

My point was/is the simple fact of life that it takes a male and a female to make a child......hardly a hang of any sort.

Btk

While it does indeed take a male and a female to make a child, it does not take a marriage, Either heterosexual or same sex.

[skyc6]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

Last night I was listening to a program on NPR about all the lawsuits that are coming about because of religious people refusing to provide services to gays and lesbians who are getting married. For example, a baker refused to provied a wedding cake with two women on top. He said it would be against his religion. Sorry I don't remember all the different circumstances. Another one was a limo service.

It has been said on this thread, in favor of gay marriage, that people should "live and let live". Where is that attitude on the gay side? Instead of suing someone because the person happens to have strong religious convictions, why don't they just say "live and let live"? They could say, "thanks for your honesty, we'll find another baker". Or, "we'll find another limo".

"Live and let live" should be a two way street.

However, it is illegal for someone to say they will not sell their real estate to someone of a certain race. In fact, it is illegal to deny any business to someone because of race, so how can you deny based on sexual orientation?