***In order to avoid the usual USELESS "Gather" arguments, let us first agree that in EVERYTHING, there are always exceptions. I speak here of the NORMATIVE; and of IDEALS, that we owe Our Children, and Our Society. If we can agree, please read on.
Many here insist that Love is the ONLY issue of matter between "committed" Human Beings; and that they cannot even FATHOM the harm and damage that the "normalisation" of perverse behaviours could have on Children, and Our Society. Well, um, wow...
As certainly as there are absolutes in the Physical Universe, so too are there absolutes in the Moral Universe. Just as surely as Newton described the "victimhood" of the Apple, there are also absolute consequences that come with the ignorance and DISREGARD of the Moral Universe. If you cannot understand this, I cannot help you.
The sexuality, and the sexual identity of a Child, is the business of the Parents of that Child, and the Child. No-one else. Not the Government; NOT the School Teacher. If you cannot see that the indoctrination of Children in the Schools with regard to sexual "identity" at an early age would be harmful to most, and that this is STRICTLY the domain of the Parents, I cannot help you.
***See above
At what AGE a Child is "sexualized," is the business of the Parents, and that Child; no-one else. If you cannot see that the agenda of the Radical homosexual is to implement the indoctrination of Children in the Schools to further their cause; and, if you cannot understand that the attempt to "normalise" homosexuality for Children will have an adverse EFFECT on Children, then I cannot help you.
***See above
In GENERAL terms, homosexuality is NOT a "fixed condition." Argue with the absolutes of the Universe, but NOT with me. Society plays an integral role in the behaviours of its Members; of its People. Therefore, it is SOCIETY, as a whole, that make the Laws. As surely as Murder is not an accepted Societal behaviour, MOST People do not "mature" to be Murderers. As surely as "Pedophilia" is NOT an accepted Societal behaviour, and is therefore unlawful, most People do not grow up to be "Pedophiles." If you cannot foresee the devastating effects that Societal "normalisation" of a perverse sexual behaviour would have on Children, I cannot help you.
***See above.
If you cannot see that the INTRODUCTION (of the perversion of homosexuality) to Children, at an early age, would certainly result in sexual and Mental CONFUSION, then I cannot help you.
***See above
If you cannot see the devastating effects that an entire sexually- and Morally-confused Generation would have on Society, then I cannot help you. Further, if you cannot see the longer-term effects, Generation after Generation, then I CERTAINLY cannot help you.
***See above
There is a UNIQUE contribution that a Man affords a Child that cannot be contributed by a Woman, and there is a UNIQUE contribution that a Woman affords a Child that cannot be afforded by a Man. If you cannot see that to deprive a Child of one or the other would have detrimental, if not devastating effects, on the Mental Health and Well-Being of a Child; and, if you cannot see that the IDEAL, which the Child DESERVES, is to benefit from the CONTRIBUTION of both a Mother AND a Father, then I cannot help you.
***See above
Another absolute in the Physical Universe; Men and Women are DIFFERENT. If you cannot see that there are but TWO "types" of Humans, Male, and Female; and that they have Genitalia UNIQUELY THEIR OWN, and that, MIRACULOUSLY, these Genitalia PERFECTLY COMPLIMENT EACH OTHER; and even MORE miraculously, that the conjoining of these genitalia often result in the MIRACLE of Creation, and therefore the further propagation of Our "species," then I cannot POSSIBLY help you.
***See above
Therefore, if you cannot see that the ATTEMPTED "coupling" of two members of the same sex is un-natural, abnormal, and further, un-productive... then I cannot help you.
Many are confused, and believe that LOVE is the ONLY and FINAL arbiter of what should be considered normal, and acceptable; that to "love" something," is to "normalise" it. However, if you cannot see that one is capable of Loving MANY People, both Male and Female, Child, Cousin, Aunt or Sister, then I cannot help you.
If you cannot see that the homosexual, and his proponent, places his Values ABOVE MINE, while accusing me of doing the same, then I cannot help you. If this were NOT True, then I should be allowed to take TWO Wives, or Six or Seven; have sex with and "Marry" my sibling; YOUR Child; your Mother; my Cousin.
*Of course, the homosexual CANNOT admit this; nor can his supporters...because it then eliminates the politically-correct refuge of his position...victimhood.--
If you cannot see that Society creates the Laws, and that homosexuals have the SAME rights that I do; I am free to marry ANY ONE person of my choosing, of the opposite sex, AND OF LEGAL AGE; YOU are free to marry any one person of YOUR choosing, of the opposite sex, AND OF LEGAL AGE; then I cannot help you.
If you cannot see that the desire of the homosexual is not to gain certain rights, but to RE-DEFINE Marriage; and you cannot see that ANY Two, or Three, or Ten consenting Adults may enter into ANY type of Legal Agreement that they choose (including visitation, access to accounts, wills, estates... ad infinitum) then I cannot help you.
***See above
If the "union" of homosexuals were to be "normalized" by Our Society, members of the Clergy, who retain deeply-held beliefs with regard to their Morals and Values, would then be FORCED to perform "ceremonies" that are anathema to their deeply-held convictions; and if you cannot see that there would be Government MANDATES placed upon the Clergy to perform these ceremonies, and if you cannot see the devastating effect this would have on the Clergy, I cannot help you.
If you ACTUALLY believe that "marriage" will be the ONLY DEMAND of the homosexual; that there is NO FURTHER AGENDA on the minds of Radical Homosexuals; that they will NOT insist ONLY on "marriage," but on ALL of the issue's that I've mentioned; and that, once "out of the bottle," their demands will NOT continue to expand, and MORE...then I CANNOT help you.
But then, if you Truly could not see the obvious harm to Society and Child, you didn't really want to know...
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 212
I am aware, and was (painfully) as I wrote, that I cannot change hearts, or minds. Nor was it my desire. It was quite an excercise in catharsis, in many ways, but was mostly to specifically express, for "posterity," that which so many have managed to indulge in as their deepest denial.
From here, one can no longer ask me "why I see it is damaging to Society or Child." At least not without much laughter on my part. For me, the Words have served their purpose.
Thank You, Sue. You've been VERY measured in your treatment of my Words, and I appreciate that.
Thank You, as well. I quite agree with you; to me, there is little that I could possibly find more disgusting than the rejection of a Child by ones' Parents. There is NO excuse for that sort of cruelty, and NO-ONE-- Parents, Society, or otherwise-- could justify such behaviour.
I DO care, "D," and I AM genuinely interested in the well-being of the Children. Thanks for the article; I'll give it a read.
But, no crisis HERE, folks...nothing to see...keep moving...everything is allright...
:)
If you indeed believe this to be true then why do you feel the need to write this article. It seems you wish to influence this which you have stated is no one else's business.
Because there is a small group of Fools trying to stick their noses into the personal business of the Family.
Does this mean you're not gay?
Sue, STOP already! :)
It seems that, by your own admission, you can't help me.
It's a good thing that I don't need your help. :-)
It seems that my world is a lot more safe and secure and happy than yours. I wish you well.
Leftists, homosexuals, and Fools continually badgered me with the "question," pretending that there couldn't POSSIBLY be "repercussions" to the homosexual Agenda.
It HAD to be said.
Second ~ the debate is regarding the "moral universe"? And, moral universe is defined as that which is right according to ...............?
I just posted something stating as society changes so do moral beliefs ~ interesting.
Your words:
"If you cannot see that Society creates the Law"
" As certainly as there are absolutes in the Physical Universe, so too are there absolutes in the Moral Universe."
*I agree 100%:
"sexual identity of a Child, is the business of the Parents of that Child, and the Child. No-one else"
I think it is an individual business ~ no business of the parents, and if this is so, then we have no argument/debate on the ethics of sexuality ~ but only of personal sexual tastes."
"Leftists, homosexuals, and Fools continually badgered me with the "question," pretending that there couldn't POSSIBLY be "repercussions" to the homosexual Agenda."
*what are the repurcussions?*
"If you cannot see that the desire of the homosexual is not to gain certain rights, but to RE-DEFINE Marriage; and you cannot see that ANY Two, or Three, or Ten consenting Adults may enter into ANY type of Legal Agreement that they choose (including visitation, access to accounts, wills, estates... ad infinitum) then I cannot help you."
*why is this wrong? ~ I have friends who I would trust with the legalities of my death due to their ethical (not sexual) backgrounds. ~ not a good argument against OR for hetero or homo sexuality ~ imho.
"Many are confused, and believe that LOVE is the ONLY and FINAL arbiter of what should be considered normal, and acceptable; that to "love" something," is to "normalise" it."
a good argument perse, but loving someone has nothing to do with society's rules, nor with personal rights ~ nor with ethical situations.
You are saying specifically ~~~~to fight AGAINST one's nature is to concur with nature as defined by the above undefined repurcussions?
therefore, one must address their personalities within a sociaties normalicies ~ to say YOU wouldn't feel this way is saying everyone is wrong (based on what?)~ but to impose generalized beliefs on others is right?
I am confused but open to debate ~j
In short BULL on the mud slinging
Whether one thinks homosexuality is normal or not, few would agree our educational system, which is failing to even do its basic job for far too many students, should try to branch out into social science such as this.
Can be so vocal about defending marriage. What ever happen to until death do us part?
But what do I know, I just write poems
The government cannot force any such mandates on the church. The church does what it wants to do as in this country there is separation of church and state.
Mark-John wrote -- "If you cannot see that the desire of the homosexual is not to gain certain rights, but to RE-DEFINE Marriage; and you cannot see that ANY Two, or Three, or Ten consenting Adults may enter into ANY type of Legal Agreement that they choose (including visitation, access to accounts, wills, estates... ad infinitum) then I cannot help you."
Jeans response -- *why is this wrong? ~ I have friends who I would trust with the legalities of my death due to their ethical (not sexual) backgrounds. ~ not a good argument against OR for hetero or homo sexuality ~ imho." -- Jean
Anyone care to take a STAB at what is humourous about this "thoughtful reply?"
Your other replies are equally as confused, but hey, one bit of "comprehensive confusion" at a time!
***see above.
Your density is also amusing!
However, you are incorrect about your statement at 12:35. If you are interested in doing the research, you'll find that this is already "in the works," and happening now.
I don't think you are any more the Joker than I am Batman.
"You, on the other hand, seem to be filled with knowledge, with certainty." -- Larry
Are you CERTAIN of that, Larry?
Sorry attempt.
"Divorce?"
John, might I suggest that you stick to Poetry.
Why not mention the religious agenda, the "healthcare" agenda, the corporate agenda, the political agenda, the welfare agenda, the drug agenda, the "mental health" agenda, the police agenda, ... and on and on.
What about the conservative agenda? What about the liberal agenda? The repercussions of both are felt by many on a daily basis. Long before your so called "homosexual agenda" became a catch phrase for the religious agenda. The religious and political agenda have already destroyed the family unit regardless of what name you want to call it.
I'm just another who doesn't need nor want your "help".
What ABOUT them?
"I'm just another who doesn't need nor want your "help"." -- D.B. D.
Then WHY are you here?
I was wrong in my thinking you would attempt enlighten others of your convictions. A well versed argument leaves room for debate, in which the author defends his or her views with more arguments. *See above* is not an argument/debate, nor do those two words incorporate ideal good writing.
If a reader doesn't understand your position, and is asking for clarity ~ to which the response is "sorry" ~ you have closed your debate without closing the argument.
And not closing the argument is not a sale of ideas ~
okay ~ again I was wrong about you. ~ j
And from what I hear is that alot of pastor's will be leaving california and going to different states. or over seas.
Prove that you have one sincere bone in your body, by posting MY use of the words "Crisis," and "Divorce." Then, we can dialogue.
Please answer this question: Where have I said anything about "dislike for anyone?"
Wake up and READ the piece...
Perhaps this is incontrovertible EVIDENCE that the "schools" are spending FAR TOO MUCH TIME on "Heather Has Two Mommies" ...
To protect my rights because you obviously believe your ideologies should be inflicted upon me and the rest of a free society. All of the religious and political agendas have already destroyed our marriages, children and families. If you can't see that you can't help anyone. Not even yourself.
I find it typical of "the usual USELESS "Gather" arguments" when one cannot support their perceived authority or opinion based upon either their religion or the law. The "homosexual agenda" has never petitioned the courts, congress or their states legislature to "re define marriage" those pushing their religious agenda have.
Wilma D. said it the best Those that scream the loudest...
So if you show me the one that screams loudest about..
... sexual immorality and I will show you someone who is sexually immoral.
... protecting me from terrorists and I will show you a terrorist.
... protecting my rights and I will show you someone usurping them.
... ending child exploitation and I'll show you someone who exploits children.
... being the most righteous and I will show you an unrighteous person.
... protecting society and I will show you someone destroying it.
... protecting marriage and the family and I will show you someone who destroys it.
I see you had nothing but a rude condescending remark about divorce. If you are so intent on protecting marriage that is obviously a topic that should be a concern for you being that more than 50% of all marriages end in divorce. It appears to me you are just showing us you have a selective agenda and don't really care about protecting the "definition of marriage" and are merely preventing someone else from making their own decisions in their life.
And Thank You. Two Children- Wonderful!
Well, if true, I applaud them! Unfortunately, (if true) the school that your children attend is becoming less "normative." Have you checked the Library? Many Public Schools, as do some Teachers, exceed their purview on this issue, citing "personal prerogative." Regardless of Board Policy.
Certainly, as one who tends to stand on ceremony, you HAVE taken note that I discuss some of the reasons that we SHOULDN'T redefine Marriage; and that this would surely change if the Institution of Marriage is RE-defined, correct?
Since homosexual "marriage" has been rejected in every state (with one exception) where the referendum is put to a vote, my article is based on what WILL happen, if Society should become so careless. Therefore, your citation leaves little to cheer about.
Thank You for your constructive and "measured" comments. I appreciate You, Aniko.
By the bye, what are your Childrens' names? What are their ages?
...but...what a perfectly SILLY thing for one to do, wouldn't You say?
Now, You DO realise that I will beg and demand and INSIST, incessantly, that You continue Your wonderful new series, which might be entitled, "My Wonderful New Series;" and that, further, You just might be able to use a little something from a certain LITTLE someone to kick it off?
don't ya just Love it...
WHY are you HERE?!
I was raised upper-income by educated parents. I perfer a common language because I want everyone to understand what I am saying
ANd I am saying we all, everyone of us have a right to live our lifes as WE see fit. Your beliefs in the large sceme of things means nothing to anyone but you
AFter all I am sure God himself did not give you the POWER to pass judgement on others. enough said BYE BYE
Forgive me? :)
Goom-bye...
~ and I'm surprised she did, even after her previous encounters ~ she opend her mind to the possiblity of trying once more to understand ~ gone for the night ~ night all ~j
The government cannot force any such mandates on the church. The church does what it wants to do as in this country there is separation of church and state.
Apryl Just Apryl, Jan 2, 2009, 12:35pm EST
MJ- I stand by this comment. I have searched the web and found nothing even remotely close to anything that states the government can, will or is trying to mandate clergy to hold these ceremonies. The church can and does refuse to preform marriage ceremonies for straight couples, therefore I cannot see how a gay couple would be any different. please provide a link or a site.