Six simple yes and no questions for those that claim they are “for marriage.”

Michael wrote: I never claimed that the “majority of homosexuals” are faithful partners and loving parents. I have only claimed that the gay couples in my congregation are.

======

If they aren’t the majority, they are a minority.

And so you have no reasons to criticize Pat for correctly describing how unethical, deformed, and dysfunctional the homosexuals he knows are.

His description is not a stereotype, it’s reality. You are the one who would be lying and applying your crude stereotype to all homosexuals if you said his friends were any different than what he described – given that you don’t even know the people in question.

I’m not sure if Pat thinks that all homosexuals are alike – he never said so. You’re the one claiming he thinks that way – but that’s a baseless claim.

“One doesn’t need data to prove that someone else is indulging in stereotypes.”

Because the truth and reality are irrelevant in your kind of thinking, I suppose.

How are you to know what all or the majority of homosexuals are like if you have no data?

Never mind, the “crude” homosexual stereotype you’re trading in here is the only thing that matters to you. Disregard all data, all reality, and continue with the empty claims.

It not only allows it, it compels Congress to set a uniform effect of state law when there are discrepancies, to make a more perfect union. States aren’t superior to federal authority on anything. They are useful jurisdictions for setting local policies that work well for the local situation, but since people can move freely from state to state, they are not suitable for making permanent legal judgements and acts and records that apply when people move to other states. When ever they think it’s appropriate, Congress can control how every state should handle a disputed legal judgement.

The Democrats provide incentives for this through direct financial support that enables groups of related women to live together without working. Indirect support is provided by their allies in the media who invent “alternative lifestyles” and push their acceptance. Conservatives are exercised by the advance of genderless marriage, but it is only an additional nail in the coffin.

A family headed by a mother and a father is the acknowledged best environment for raising children. Within such a family children learn trust, how to relate to others, and to accept limits. Fathers are particularly important in the process to both boys and girls.

As for the libertarian impulse – weak families mean a stronger state. If families are too strong, you get clans running everything, like in Afghanistan; if families are too weak, the government can dictate what size soda you can buy.

I hope that Republicans do not decide that the way to win elections is to become a carbon copy of the Democrats. First of all they would not be convincing and second of all we know appeasement doesn’t work. Churchill spent many years in the political wilderness in the 1930w and that is what Republicans must do now. They must find candidates who can better articulate conservative principles and how they apply to life and work. And begin to re-educate the public.

Please.

And the Lawrence v Texas ruling affirms that, at its essential core, marriage “is about the right to have sexual intercourse.” It’s about more than that of course, but the court affirmed that is the essential core meaning, and it should remain so. I am offended and reject the notion that unmarried couples have the same right to have sex and procreate that I demand my marriage has, or anyone’s marriage has. Utterly offensive. I don’t need fornication or adultery laws to be enforced to not be offended, but do not equate what a married couple does to fornication, one is a right and one is wrong, both religiously and socially/civilly. Marriage should always approve and allow the couple to conceive offspring together with their own genes, and same-sex couples (like siblings, children, and people married to someone else) should be prohibited from attempting that.

Hey, you don’t have an argument with me about a right to IVF: there isn’t one, by married or unmarried people, if you ask me. IVF is quite irrelevant to this conversation. Banning IVF would not effect the right of any married couple to conceive offspring or attempt to conceive offspring, it would only lower their chances. Banning creating a Human Being by any method other than joining a sperm of a man and an egg of a woman, which is what I am saying we should do, would affect every same-sex couple, who all would publicly be prohibited from conceiving offspring together.

I’m OK with homosexual couples that legally unite in the form of Civil Unions defined as “marriage minus conception rights” and/or have intimate relations together. I’m not OK with SSM even if we enact an Egg and Sperm law because it would strip conception rights from everyone’s marriage, by legally saying that it is acceptable for a married couple to be prohibited from using their own genes to conceive offspring together, it would be saying that marriage does not approve and allow the couple to conceive offspring together. Do not equate my right to have children with my wife to a same-sex couple!

The Full Faith and Credit clause: “the legislature shall, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings, shall be proved, and the effect which judgments, obtained in one state, shall have in another.” Congress should pass that law to stop states from stripping conception rights from marriage by declaring couples that are prohibited from procreating married or denying any married couple the approval to attempt to conceive children together.

Really? Please cite the legal document and associated language that establishes this right for married couples but not unmarried couples.

I don’t know if any states ever had laws against IVF, so I don’t think there were ever any court cases brought by married couples asserting a right to use IVF. I think the laws were headed off pre-emptively by clinics claiming that married couples have a right to use IVF.

In other words if there were any proposed laws they lost in public opinion rather than were overturned because they would violate a right. Simply because a lobbyist for an IVF clinic may have said (you can’t even recall for sure!) there’s a right to IVF Clinic services, that hardly establishes a right let alone a selective one that applies to married but not unmarried couples!

Why should “someone of the same sex” be added to the list of prohibited relationships? Because procreation would be unethical, and after we pass a federal Egg and Sperm law, would be prohibited.

So you’re ok with a homosexual couple that legally marries and has a sex life. Just not ok with them using any yet to be invented cloning or genetic engineering techniques to procreate.

And after a federal general law stating the Effect of marriage is to approve and allow the couple to conceive offspring together using their own unmodified genes

Why should the Federal gov’t pass such a law? Where in the Constitution does it even have the authority to pass laws arguing philosophical points about marriage?

I don’t know if any states ever had laws against IVF, so I don’t think there were ever any court cases brought by married couples asserting a right to use IVF. I think the laws were headed off pre-emptively by clinics claiming that married couples have a right to use IVF. Then twenty years later they started offering it to single women in some states, and now courts in some states do say that single women and lesbians have a right to IVF too.

Why should “someone of the same sex” be added to the list of prohibited relationships? Because procreation would be unethical, and after we pass a federal Egg and Sperm law, would be prohibited. And after a federal general law stating the Effect of marriage is to approve and allow the couple to conceive offspring together using their own unmodified genes, state’s wouldn’t be allowed to strip that approval from any marriages, or offer marriages to any couples that are prohibited from procreating, as same-sex couples would be. So states should add “someone of the same sex” to their list mainly for clarity, because it would be true, and leaving it out would be confusing. If a state didn’t update that law after the Compromise was enacted, a city clerk might go by that law and get the state in trouble by issuing a marriage license to a couple that is prohibited from procreating.