McCain's wife, daughter back gay marriage movement

[Chyke4real]

Since when does adopting children within a marriage have anything to do with procreating within a marriage? Seems like you don't quite understand what the word "procreate" means.

Children are they not products of procreation?
What moral rights do gay people have to desire or adopt the products of procreation which they have vehemently refused by their matrimonial status.
In saner environments, adoption can only be achieved by ONLY normal couples.

 

[a_nony_mous]

Children are they not products of procreation?
What moral rights do gay people have to desire or adopt the products of procreation which they have vehemently refused by their matrimonial status.
In saner environments, adoption can only be achieved by ONLY normal couples.

And who are you to say what "normal couples" are? Also, are you against infertile couples choosing to adopt?

Also, you do realize that gays can procreate, in the exact same ways that infertile couples can procreate, don't you? Read up on this: Infertility: Treatments and drugs - MayoClinic.com So if you're against gays simply because they can't procreate naturally, then you'd better be against infertile couples for that same reason.

BTW, how come you haven't replied to my PM yet?

 

[AutomaticJack]

Children are they not products of procreation?
What moral rights do gay people have to desire or adopt the products of procreation which they have vehemently refused by their matrimonial status.
In saner environments, adoption can only be achieved by ONLY normal couples.

Your arguments are completely incoherent. What is a "normal" couple? When does the definition stop changing? A normal heterosexual relationship from 200 years ago would bear almost no resemblance to my marriage today. 100 years ago it wouldn't have been "normal" for a woman to have a job. Or vote. Do you understand that things change with time?

Marriage has changed just as much. The bible is FULL of polygamous marriages to barely pubescent girls. The virgin Mary herself would have been around 12 or 13 when she gave birth, because that was normal back in those days. Totally normal to barely be a teenager and already have a child. Yet, that isn't normal today, is it?

No scientific study has shown children raised in same-sex households to have any problems that aren't equally present in heterosexual households. The kids in these houses aren't homosexual at a higher rate than any other group (between 5 and 10%).

So what's your argument again? Something about "god" and "morals", but not everyone seems to agree on these things, so I don't see how we can have a just legal system if we only take your point of view in to account.

 

[Chyke4real]

Defend nothing which is not worthwhile.
Fight no battle which you cannot win
The forces behind heterosexuality in humanity is too strong
It lies in the foundations of the earth and in the beginning of mankind,
In pure love was it created and in love it is sustained.
Let them hear and understand that anything otherwise, is an effort in futility.

 

[a_nony_mous]

Defend nothing which is not worthwhile.
Fight no battle which you cannot win
The forces behind heterosexuality in humanity is too strong
It lies in the foundations of the earth and in the beginning of mankind,
In pure love was it created and in love it is sustained.
Let them hear and understand that anything otherwise, is an effort in futility.

Homosexual relationships are created in pure love, too, you know. Also, is there a reason why you didn't even try to answer any of the questions I asked you in post #62?

 

[keith99]

There are other benefits conferred by marriage besides tax. Can you name a few?

This thought got dropped with few responces. So I'll give the one I (and many gays) consider the most important:

Establishing kinship as relating to visitation when one is sick or injured.

 

[clarksided]

Eh, I have become disillusioned with the politics, but the drama this has created is pretty cool.

 

[Saving Hawaii]

What moral rights do gay people have to adopt children. You can't just eat your cake and have it back. If Gay people can argue that marriage ain't all about procreation, then why do they(gay) seek to adopt children? This whole thing sounds so disgusting, issues that common sense can never accept. As long as God lives and as long as they are still right thinking men and women in existence, the sanctity of marriage will be preserved. May God protect all children of the world from the corrupt influence of few misguided people.

Infertile straight couples have to argue that marriage ain't all about procreation either, because they can't. Yet we consider infertile straight couples to be prime candidates for adoption.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

I think it's good she being honest about her view on gay and lesbian marriage.

Very artistic to me.

 

[Saving Hawaii]

Meghan made her way onto the Colbert Report last spring. Funny interview between her and Stephen discussing her social views.

Meghan McCain | May 18, 2009 | ColbertNation.com

Just a heads-up, it's a little PG-13.

 

[Dracil]

Do I call for the execution of homosexuals? Never have. Quote me on that if you can. You say I'm picking and choosing to treat adultery and homosexuality differently- you cannot find one post I have made to support that claim.

That just furthers my point you're picking and choosing. You're willing to quote from the OT, but not willing to follow through with it. On both adultery and homosexuality.

 

[Dracil]

Only because the basis of the New Testament condemnation lies in the Old Testament. Read Acts and you will understand more about the Old Testament Laws that were carried over to become New Testament laws. If you have a basic understanding of the Bible and Christian theology then you understand why many of the Old Testament laws are no longer applicable... but some remain.
Sexual immorality, to include homosexuality and adultery, are condemned in the New Testament as well as the Old, where the your silly argument about linens and shellfish or whatever is not.

Which is fine, except you never addressed the second part of the post. Why are the other sins mentioned alongside homosexuality not treated with nearly as much fervor? Where are the laws banning people from getting drunk or being greedy?

 

[Dracil]

My dog is always trying to hump my cat. I've seen animals try to mount people on farms. Happens all the time in nature. There are all kinds of abnormal behaviors that happen naturally in nature. It doesn't mean it should be normalized.

If they happen naturally in nature. Here's a hint. It's natural. A specific word used by the person I was replying to claimed homosexuality wasn't.

 

[Dracil]

A gay man, his partner, and their adopted child move next door to you. They mow the lawn. They play basketball with their kid. They wash the car in the driveway. They are not having hedonistic orgies in the back yard, or dancing up and down the street in shiny thongs.

How does this family harm you?

Since we have separation of church and state in this country, what is your legal rationale for denying gays marriage rights?

Homosexuality exists in nature. It is demonstrably not a choice. But, if you're going to claim that homosexuality is a choice, then you will have to concoct a motive for someone in middle or high school to make a life-defining choice that will make them an outcast and second class citizen. I'm pretty creative, but I can't figure out a reason why a teenager would make a choice that makes being a teenager EVEN HARDER than it already is. So why would anyone do that?

Of course, the answer is no one would. And that bigotry and fear are the only reasons any of you oppose gay marriage.

Still haven't managed to list one way that gay marriage harms anyone. And the government not respecting your religious beliefs doesn't count, because the government is not supposed to respect people's religion. It is supposed to ignore people's religion.

Until you can find a way gay marriage harms you, you have no case. The end.

Limed for truth. The whole problem with the position that sexual orientation is a choice thing is: Why in the world would anyone ever choose to be gay given all the stigma, hate crimes, and other problems that go with it? Don't you think they'd choose the easy straight life if they actually could?

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Yet these laws are all jumbled together with no form of coding or divisions among them. So in the end you are picking and choosing what OT laws to follow and what to ignore you simply are going to the trouble of labeling those you want to inflict on others as “moral” laws and separating you don’t wish to follow and claiming they only applied to the Israelites.

Not at all. There's a clear difference between what God defines as moral, and what is defined as a punishment for breaking a rule. Having the two in the same passage or verse doens't mean they are inseperable.

I've already pointed out why those laws setting Israel apart from the gentiles no longer apply, or why the sacrificial laws no longer apply. It's not picking, it's obvious.

But lets have it your way for a moment. Given the following verse, what you appear to be saying is that we don't put people to death for adultery, therefore Christians are picking and choosing and adultery should be OK

Leviticus 20:10 (New International Version)

10 " 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

Doesn't sound right - does it?

 

[AutomaticJack]

The whole problem with the position that sexual orientation is a choice thing is: Why in the world would anyone ever choose to be gay given all the stigma, hate crimes, and other problems that go with it? Don't you think they'd choose the easy straight life if they actually could?

My brother in law, when confronted with that same question, came up with some incoherent rambling sort of like, "I imagine that, if you feel strongly about something, it must be easy to live as a persecuted minority. Like christians 2000 years ago!" Which, of course, ignores the fact that emotionally fragile teenagers are making these decisions. And it ignores the fact that homosexuality occurs in nature. And it ignores the fact that teenagers just want to be accepted.

But then, christians are very good at ignoring facts when it comes to homosexuality.

 

[Fantine]

One of the endearing things about John McCain is that he is man enough not to be threatened by the strong women in his life.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Meghan made her way onto the Colbert Report last spring. Funny interview between her and Stephen discussing her social views.

Meghan McCain | May 18, 2009 | ColbertNation.com

Just a heads-up, it's a little PG-13.

I agree with her,Not thinking worthy of PG-13 rating though,But thats just me.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Not at all. There's a clear difference between what God defines as moral, and what is defined as a punishment for breaking a rule. Having the two in the same passage or verse doens't mean they are inseperable.

I've already pointed out why those laws setting Israel apart from the gentiles no longer apply, or why the sacrificial laws no longer apply. It's not picking, it's obvious.

If it is that obvious how the laws of the Old Testament are divided into categories then it should be no problem to cite the chapter and verse of Leviticus that details what laws are “moral” laws and what laws fall into other categories

But lets have it your way for a moment. Given the following verse, what you appear to be saying is that we don't put people to death for adultery, therefore Christians are picking and choosing and adultery should be OK



Doesn't sound right - does it?

No it is rather clear given that adultery is something can only take place with a married woman.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

If it is that obvious how the laws of the Old Testament are divided into categories then it should be no problem to cite the chapter and verse of Leviticus that details what laws are “moral” laws and what laws fall into other categories.

So you're saying that you can't see the difference between, for example, laws governing sacrifices designed to atone for sin, and laws governing the morals of the Israelites?

So do you believe that any law mentioned in the OT has no place now - regardless of the reason?

Taking the following passage

17 " 'Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.
18 " 'Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.
19 " 'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.
20 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor's wife and defile yourself with her.
21 " 'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

which of these do you think should NOT apply today, and for what reason?