Catholic Teachings on Homosexuality: Roman Catholic (and OP only please)

[thirst2]

Does it really, now?

"I am the life", said Jesus.

Catholics rejoice in te fecundity of the sacrament of marriage. No doubt, children are the special gift of that sacrament, and the marriage itself provides the child wiht the sufficient environment to prosper.

But nuns for example, in chosing chasity, in choosing to betroth themselves to Christ Himself, experience Life to the purest, to the fullest, and in a form infinitley complete.

Mary herself was a ever-virgin, and Life does not depend on procreation to enter into this world.

So, therefore, since homosexuality cuts off the gift of life, as does chastity does for nuns, they both have the same effect and you still fail to prove how one is better than the other.

 

[thirst2]

The social sciences are based on statistics. Your story is anecdotal evidence that in no way disproves the norm.

Anecdotally though, are you saying that you would trade your mother for another father, or vice-versa?
Do you consider that your life would be richer f you had been raised by two men, rather than a mother and a father?

Would you consider it a better for you personally if you will raise your own children with another man, rather than letting a woman such as your mother into their lives?

Yes, it defies the norm and as we all know the norm isn't always consistant through all time. At one point in time it was concidered normal for men to have long hair and wear high heels. Therefore, we cannot say that this statistic is true for all people at all times. And yes, I'd rather two men or two women in place of the destructive childhood my parents set up. A homosexual couple could probably give far more comfort than my parents could ever hope to achieve. To add to that, at least I'd have parents who'd agree with my beliefs rather than persecuting me for them.

 

[SolomonVII]

O' my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fire of hell, lead
all souls to heaven, especially those most in need of Your mercy.

 

[thirst2]

Fine, if you don't want to accept even the possibility while I give you clear evidence for otherwise, fine.

 

[SolomonVII]

http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/marriage/ssuap/

 

[SolomonVII]

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet7.html

 

[SolomonVII]

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet7.html

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Facts About Homosexual Marriage [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Fact #1: Homosexual marriages are short lived. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]When one examines homosexual behavior patterns, it becomes clear that the plea for legal homosexual marriage is less about marriage than the push for legitimacy. Most gays and lesbians are not in monogamous relationships, and in fact often live alone by preference. [/FONT]

• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In a study (1) of 2,000 U.S. and European gays in the 1960s, researchers found that "living by oneself is probably the chief residential pattern for male homosexuals. It provides the freedom to pursue whatever style of homosexual life one chooses, whether it be furtive encounters in parks or immersion in the homosexual subculture. In addition, homosexual relationships are fragile enough to make this residential pattern common whether deliberate or not." [/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A 1970 study in San Francisco (2) found that approximately 61% of gays and 37% of lesbians were living alone. [/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In 1977, the Spada Report (3) noted that only 8% of the gays in its sample claimed to have a monogamous relationship with a live-in lover. [/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The same year (4) over 5,000 gays and lesbians were asked: "Do you consider or have you considered yourself 'married' to another [homosexual]?" Only 40% of lesbians and 25% of gays said "yes." The authors noted that with "gay male couples, it is hard to even suggest that there are norms of behavior. [One] might expect to find a clear pattern of 'categories' emerging from the answers to the questions about lovers, boy friends, and relationships. In fact, no such pattern emerged." [/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In the early 1980s, a large non-random sample (5) of almost 8,000 heterosexual and homosexual couples responded to advertisements in alternative newspapers. The average number of years together was 9.8 for the married, 1.7, for cohabiting heterosexuals, 3.5 for the gay couples, and 2.2 for the lesbian couples. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Variety Over Monogamy [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Although gay activists often argue that legalizing homosexual marriage would help make such relationships more permanent, the reality is that most gays desire variety in their sex partners, not the monogamy of traditional marriage. [/FONT]

• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In 1987, only 23% of gays in London (6) reported sexual exclusivity "in the month before interview." [/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In 1990, only 12% of gays in Toronto, Canada (7) said that they were in monogamous relationships. [/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In 1991, in the midst of the AIDS crisis, Australian gays (8) were monitored to see whether they had changed their sexual habits. There was essentially no change in 5 years: 23% reported a monogamous relationship, 35% a non-monogamous relationship, and 29% only "casual sex." The authors reported that "there were almost as many men moving into monogamy as out of it, and out of casual-only partnerships as into them." [/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In 1993, a study (9) of 428 gays in San Francisco found that only 14% reported just a single sexual partner in the previous year. The vast majority had multiple sex partners. [/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In 1994, the largest national gay magazine'° reported that only 17% of its sample of 2,500 gays claimed to live together in a monogamous relationship. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Even gays who do have long-term partners do not play by the typical 'rules.' Only 69% of Dutch gays" with a marriage-type 'partner' actually lived together. The average number of "outside partners" per year of 'marriage' was 7.1 and increased from 2.5 in the first year of the relationship to 11 in the 6th year. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Why are homosexual marriages shorter and less committed than traditional marriages? [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]At any given time, less than a third of gays and approximately half of lesbians are living with a lover. Because the relationships are so short, the average homosexual can anticipate many, many 'divorces.' [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]At any instant, about 10% of gays live together in monogamous relationships. Their monogamy seldom lasts beyond a year. Perhaps half of lesbians live together in monogamous relationships. These typically dissolve in one to three years. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]These same patterns appear in the scientific literature over the last 50 years, both long before and during the AIDS epidemic. This consistency suggests a reality associated with the practice of homosexuality, one unlikely to be affected by changes in marriage laws. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Danish Experience [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In Denmark, a form of homosexual marriage has been legal since 1989. Through 1995, less than 5% of Danish homosexuals had gotten married, and 28% of these marriages had already ended in divorce or death. (12) [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Danish experience provides no evidence that gay 'marriage' is beneficial. Men who married men were three times more apt to be widowers before the age of 55 than men who married women! Similarly, a woman who married a woman was three times more apt to be a widow than a woman who married a man. [/FONT]

 

[SolomonVII]

http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/imapp.demandforssm.pdf

Executive Summary
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]What proportion of gay and lesbian[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]people choose to marry, when the option is[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]legally available?[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]This research report offers estimates of[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]gay and lesbian marriage rates based on the[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]best available data. The highest estimate to[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]date of the proportion of gays and lesbians[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]who have married in any jurisdiction where[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]it is available is 16.7% (Massachusetts).[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]More typically, our survey of marriage[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]statistics from various countries that legally[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]recognize same-sex unions suggests that[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]today between 1% and 5% of gays and[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]lesbians have entered into a same-sex[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]marriage. In the Netherlands, which has had[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]same-sex marriage as a legal option for the[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]longest period, between 2% and 6% of gays[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]and lesbians have entered marriages in the[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]first five years.[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Trend data is extremely limited, but the[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]available data suggest that the number of[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]gay marriages tends to decrease after an[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]initial burst (reflecting pent up demand).[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic][/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic][/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic][/FONT][/FONT]

 

[SolomonVII]

This begs the question. Is the drive behind same sex marriage only designed to satisfy the desires of maybe 5% of the 2% of the poulation that is gay?
http://www.lcc.gc.ca/research_project/cpra-en.asp



commented on here:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTVjMzA5NzNkZmU0YWMxMjQ4NDk1YjFkZGQ4YjQ5NzQ

and further:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp


"Beyond Conjugality" contains three basic recommendations. First, judges are directed to concentrate on whether the individuals before are "functionally interdependent," regardless of their actual marital status. On that theory, a household consisting of an adult child still living with his mother might be treated as the functional equivalent of a married couple. In so disregarding marital status, "Beyond Conjugality" is clearly drawing on the work of Minow, whose writings are listed in the bibliography.
"Beyond Conjugality"'s second key recommendation is that a legal structure be established allowing people to register their personal relationships with the government. Not only could heterosexual couples register as official partners, so could gay couples, adult children living with parents, and siblings or friends sharing a house. Although the authors of "Beyond Conjugality" are politic enough to relegate the point to footnotes, they state that they see no reason, in principle, to limit registered partnerships to two people.
The final recommendation of "Beyond Conjugality"--legalization of same-sex marriage--drew the most publicity when the report was released. Yet for the Law Commission of Canada, same-sex marriage is clearly just one part of the larger project of doing away with marriage itself. "Beyond Conjugality" stops short of recommending the abolition of legal marriage. The authors glumly note that, for the moment, the public is unlikely to accept such a step. The text of "Beyond Conjugality," its bibliography, and the Law Commission of Canada's other publications unmistakably reveal the influence of the radical theorists who now dominate the discipline of family law. While Canada's parliament has postponed action on "Beyond Conjugality," the report has already begun to shape the culture. Scoffing The decision by the Canadian government in June 2003 not to contest court rulings legalizing gay marriage is only the beginning of the changes that Canada's judges and legal bureaucrats have in mind. The simultaneity of the many reforms is striking. Gay marriage is being pressed, but in tandem with a registration system that will sanction polyamorous unions, and eventually replace marriage itself. Empirically, the radicals' hopes are being validated. Gay marriage is not strengthening marriage but has instead become part of a larger unraveling of traditional marriage laws.

 

[thirst2]

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet7.html

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Facts About Homosexual Marriage [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Fact #1: Homosexual marriages are short lived. [/FONT]

Short lived? And how high has non-[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]monogamous relationships soared for heterosexuals in the past years? Might I add that STDs aren't only spread by gays and that they aren't the only ones having sex. Also, gays are a minority, as you mention below in another post[/FONT], so who's spreading the mojority of the deseases? And who's leaving all the single mothers and children? Certainly not gays.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]

• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In a study (1) of 2,000 U.S. and European gays in the 1960s, researchers found that "living by oneself is probably the chief residential pattern for male homosexuals. It provides the freedom to pursue whatever style of homosexual life one chooses, whether it be furtive encounters in parks or immersion in the homosexual subculture. In addition, homosexual relationships are fragile enough to make this residential pattern common whether deliberate or not." [/FONT]

And heteros do not? Are you telling me that there aren't heterosexual males who chose to live single? Besides, I've heard plenty of people preach how if heteros like that had God they wouldn't commit those actions. Why don't we try asking Christian gays how they choose their relationships rather than looking at athiests.

 

[thirst2]

This begs the question. Is the drive behind same sex marriage only designed to satisfy the desires of maybe 5% of the 2% of the poulation that is gay?

So what you're asserting is that because they are a minority we shouldn't have legal laws for them. So why don't we take the minority races that are extremely scarse throughout this country and take away protection laws from them. After all, they're only 2 to 5%.

 

[SolomonVII]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/494pqobc.asp

....News of the Dutch three-way wedding filtered into the United States through a September 26 report by Paul Belien, on his Brussels Journal website. The story spread through the conservative side of the Internet like wildfire, raising a chorus of "I told you so's" from bloggers who'd long warned of a slippery slope from gay marriage to polygamy.
Meanwhile, gay marriage advocates scrambled to put out the fire. M.V. Lee Badgett, an economist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and research director of the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, told a sympathetic website, "This [Brussels Journal] article is ridiculous. Don't be fooled--Dutch law does not allow polygamy." Badgett suggested that Paul Belien had deliberately mistranslated the Dutch word for "cohabitation contract" as "civil union," or even "marriage," so as to leave the false impression that the triple union had more legal weight than it did. Prominent gay-marriage advocate Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, offered up a detailed legal account of Dutch cohabitation contracts, treating them as a matter of minor significance, in no way comparable to state-recognized registered partnerships.
In short, while the Dutch triple wedding set the conservative blogosphere ablaze with warnings, same-sex marriage advocates dismissed the story as a silly stunt with absolutely no implications for the gay marriage debate. And how did America's mainstream media adjudicate the radically different responses of same-sex marriage advocates and opponents to events in the Netherlands? By ignoring the entire affair.

Yet there is a story here. And it's bigger than even those chortling conservative websites claim. While Victor, Bianca, and Mirjam are joined by a private cohabitation contract rather than a state-registered partnership or a full-fledged marriage, their union has already made serious legal, political, and cultural waves in the Netherlands. To observers on both sides of the Dutch gay marriage debate, the De Bruijns' triple wedding is an unmistakable step down the road to legalized group marriage.

More important, the De Bruijn wedding reveals a heretofore hidden dimension of the gay marriage phenomenon. The De Bruijns' triple marriage is a bisexual marriage. And, increasingly, bisexuality is emerging as a reason why legalized gay marriage is likely to result in legalized group marriage. If every sexual orientation has a right to construct its own form of marriage, then more changes are surely due. For what gay marriage is to homosexuality, group marriage is to bisexuality. The De Bruijn trio is the tip-off to the fact that a connection between bisexuality and the drive for multipartner marriage has been developing for some time.

AS AMERICAN GAY-MARRIAGE ADVOCATES were quick to point out, the cohabitation contract that joined Victor, Bianca, and Mirjam carries fewer legal implications and less status than either a registered partnership or a marriage--and Dutch trios are still barred from the latter two forms of union. Yet the use of a cohabitation contract for a triple wedding is a step in the direction of group marriage. The conservative and religious Dutch paper Reformatorisch Dagblad reports that this was the first known occurrence in the Netherlands of a cohabitation contract between a married couple and their common girlfriend.
This is important because the Dutch campaign for same-sex marriage was famously premised on a "small step" strategy, with each small increment of recognition creating an impetus for further steps. As Israeli legal scholar Yuval Merin tells it in his 2002 book Equality for Same-Sex Couples, the popularity of cohabitation contracts among Dutch gays var gnEbMinZIndex = 10000;var gfEbInIframe = false;var gEbBAd = new Object();gEbBAd.nFlightID = 112730;gEbBAd.nWidth = 300;gEbBAd.nHeight = 250;var gstrEbRandnum = new String(Math.random());gstrEbRandnum = gstrEbRandnum.substring(gstrEbRandnum.indexOf(".")+1 , gstrEbRandnum.length);gEbBAd.strNonSupported = "http://bs.serving-sys.com/BurstingPipe/NonSupportedBanner.asp?FlightID=112730&Page=&PluID=0&Width=300&Height=250&Pos=" + gstrEbRandnum;


in the 1980s helped create laws in the early 1990s forbidding employer discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation--including discrimination between married and unmarried couples in the granting of benefits.
So the use of cohabitation contracts was an important step along the road to same-sex marriage in the Netherlands. And the link between gay marriage and the De Bruijns' triple contract was immediately recognized by the Dutch. The story in Reformatorisch Dagblad quoted J.W.A. van Dommelen, an attorney opposed to the De Bruijn union, who warned that the path from same-sex cohabitation contracts to same-sex marriage was about to be retraced in the matter of group marriage.
Van Dommelen also noted that legal complications would flow from the overlap between a two-party marriage and a three-party cohabitation contract. The rights and obligations that exist in Dutch marriages and Dutch cohabitation contracts are not identical, and it's unclear which arrangement would take precedence in case of a conflict. "The structure is completely gone," said Van Dommelen, as he called on the Dutch minister of justice to set up a working group to reconcile the conflicting claims of dual marriages and multipartner cohabitation contracts. Of course, simply by harmonizing the conflicting claims of dual marriages and triple cohabitation contracts, that working group would be taking yet another "small step" along the road to legal recognition for group marriage in the Netherlands.
The slippery-slope implications of the triple cohabitation contract were immediately evident to the SGP, a small religious party that played a leading role in the failed battle to preserve the traditional definition of marriage in the Netherlands. SGP member of parliament Kees van der Staaij noted the substantial overlap between marriage rights and the rights embodied in cohabitation contracts. Calling the triple cohabitation contract a back-door route to legalized polygamy, Van der Staaij sent a series of formal queries to Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner, asking him to dissolve the De Bruijn contract and to bar more than two persons from entering into cohabitation contracts in the future.

 

[SolomonVII]

More broadly, the worldwide campaign for gay marriage seems to have stirred up an active bisexual movement in its wake. Bisexuals have traditionally been one of the least visible components of the GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered) alliance. After a flurry of publicity in the 1970s, at the height of the sexual revolution, bisexuality faded from public view. Yet the 1990s brought new attention, with articles in Time and Newsweek touting the emergence of bisexuality as a distinctive and politically tinged identity (and linking bisexuality to nonmonogamous marriage). In recent years, websites, books, and academic studies devoted to bisexuality have proliferated, culminating in 2001 in the founding of one of the movement's key organs, the Journal of Bisexuality.
One of the first issues of the Journal of Bisexuality featured an account of a Dutch man's discovery of his own bisexuality. The story is presented as a model for public acceptance of bisexuality, the twist being that the narrative doubles as a political brief for polyamory. Married with two children, Koen Brand declared his bisexuality in 1999, at the height of the gay marriage debate in the Netherlands. Brand then joined the Dutch National Network for Bisexuality and took part in movement activities. Brand also met another married bisexual man. While both men remained married, the two wives agreed to allow their husbands to establish a public and steady sexual relationship. Friends, family, and coworkers also accepted the arrangement. So the two marriages were thus effectively merged into a larger entity, with the men serving as pivots in two overlapping polyamorous V's.
One of the wives remains uncomfortable with this arrangement, while Brand's own wife is at least open to Brand's wish to form a threesome with his male partner. So the story ends with at least the prospect of one marriage breaking up, while the second converts to a polyamorous bisexual triad, as happened when Victor and Bianca de Bruijn met Mirjam Geven and her then husband.
None of this is to gainsay the power of Brand's narrative. On the contrary, precisely because the personal challenges confronting bisexuals are profound, the emerging bisexual call for polyamorous marriage is going to take on formidable legal force. In a world fully accepting of gay marriage, it will be difficult to withhold equal standing from another organized sexual minority.

 

[SolomonVII]

http://peaceseeds.elysiumgates.com/parents.html




http://peaceseeds.elysiumgates.com/largeparenttitle.jpg

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"Show honor to your parents and pay homage to them. This will cause blessings to descend upon you from the clouds of the bounty of your Lord, the Exalted, the Great."[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Baha'i Faith[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Baha'u'llah[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]in the Family Life compilation, pp. 386-38[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Those who wish to be born in [the Pure Land] of Buddha... should act filially towards their parents and support them, and should serve and respect their teachers and elders.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Buddhism[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Meditation on Buddha Amitayus 27[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the Lord your God[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]gives you.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Christianity & Judaism[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Exodus 20.12[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The gentleman works upon the trunk. When that is firmly set up, the Way grows. And surely proper[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]behavior towards parents and elder brothers is the trunk of Goodness.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Confucianism[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Analects 1.2[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Now filial piety is the root of all virtue, and the stem out of which grows all moral teaching... Our bodies--to every hair and bit of skin--are received by us from our parents, and we must not presume to injure or wound them: this is the beginning of filial piety. When we have established our character by the practice of the filial course, so as to make our name famous in future ages, and thereby glorify our parents: this is the end of filial piety. It commences with the service of parents; it proceeds to the service of the ruler; it is completed by the establishment of [good] character.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Confucianism[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Confucianism. Classic on Filial Piety 1[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Do not neglect the works due to the gods and the fathers! Let your mother be to you like unto a god! Let your father be to you like unto a god![/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Hinduism[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]aittiriyaka Upanishad 1.11.2[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Thy Lord has decreed... that you be kind to parents. Whether one or both of them attain old age in your lifetime, do not say to them a word of contempt, nor repel them, but address them in terms of honor. And, out of kindness, lower to them the wing of humility, and say, "My Lord! bestow on them Thy mercy even as they cherished me in childhood."[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Islam[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Qur'an 17.23[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]One companion asked, "O Apostle of God! Who is the person worthiest of my consideration?" He replied, "Your mother." He asked again, "And second to my mother?" The Prophet said, "Your mother." The companion insisted, "And then?" The Messenger of God said, "After your mother, your father."[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Islam[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Hadith of Bukhari and Muslim[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]There are three partners in man, God, father, and mother. When a man honors his father and mother, God says, "I regard it as though I had dwelt among them and they had honored me."[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Judaism[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Talmud, Kiddushin 30b[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Do not despise the breath of your fathers,[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]But draw it into your body.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]That our roads may reach to where the life-giving road of our sun father comes out,[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]That, clasping one another tight,[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Holding one another fast,[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]We may finish our roads together;[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]That this may be, I add to your breath now.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]To this end:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]May my father bless you with life;[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]May your road reach to Dawn Lake,[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]May your road be fulfilled.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Native American[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Zuni Prayer[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Attend strictly to the commands of your parents and the instructions of your teachers. Serve your leader with diligence; be upright of heart; eschew falsehood; and be diligent in study; that you may conform to the wishes of the heavenly spirit.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Shinto[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Oracle of Temmangu[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Son, why do you quarrel with your father,[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Due to him you have grown to this age?[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]It is a sin to argue with him.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Sikhism[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Adi Granth, Sarang, M.4, p. 1200[/FONT]





​

 

[thirst2]

What are you really trying to prove? Okay, some people have gone polygamy and they happen to be gay? I knew a story about a man who was on the news who had 23 wiives. I don't see him mentioned. Okay, bisexual, you like both sexes. Does that mean that you have to go to both? Are you saying they are incapable of being monogomous? "Son, why do you quarrel with your father,
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Due to him you have grown to this age?[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]It is a sin to argue with him." Who's really to say you are right? By saying that God is on your side is to be arrogant. And, for the record, that is something Jesus does not approve of. What if, for the sake of arguing, I happen to be right. Who's arguing with the father then? For a second just put behind the crap you've been able to drudge up on gays. Just see the good hearted ones who do what's right (yes, they do exist). Forget your statistics over both parents needed. Pretend that each person's personality and being isn't dependant on sex, sexuality, race, religion, etc. Forget for a moment our arguments and disagreements over the correct translation of scripture. Pretend for a moment they don't exist. Put that away for a second...then tell me what's wrong with them? Why they ought to be condemned.[/FONT]

 

[thirst2]

Might I also add that why homosexual parents aren't mentioned in the bible might be because they are a minority.

 

[SolomonVII]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTY0Mjk3NTY1OTBiOTE1OWE1ZWFiOThjM2UwZTNkN2U=

http://center.americanvalues.org/

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp

"Kari Moxnes, a feminist sociologist specializing in divorce, is one of the most prominent of Norway's newly emerging group of public social scientists. As a scholar who sees both marriage and at-home motherhood as inherently oppressive to women, Moxnes is a proponent of nonmarital cohabitation and parenthood. In 1993, as the Norwegian legislature was debating gay marriage, Moxnes published an article, "Det tomme ekteskap" ("Empty Marriage"), in the influential liberal paper Dagbladet. She argued that Norwegian gay marriage was a sign of marriage's growing emptiness, not its strength. Although Moxnes spoke in favor of gay marriage, she treated its creation as a (welcome) death knell for marriage itself. Moxnes identified homosexuals--with their experience in forging relationships unencumbered by children--as social pioneers in the separation of marriage from parenthood. In recognizing homosexual relationships, Moxnes said, society was ratifying the division of marriage from parenthood that had spurred the rise of out-of-wedlock births to begin with.
A frequent public presence, Moxnes enjoyed her big moment in 1999, when she was embroiled in a dispute with Valgerd Svarstad Haugland, minister of children and family affairs in Norway's Christian Democrat government. Moxnes had criticized Christian marriage classes for teaching children the importance of wedding vows. This brought a sharp public rebuke from Haugland. Responding to Haugland's criticisms, Moxnes invoked homosexual families as proof that "relationships" were now more important than institutional marriage.
This is not what proponents of the conservative case for gay marriage had in mind. In Norway, gay marriage has given ammunition to those who wish to put an end to marriage. And the steady rise of Norway's out-of-wedlock birthrate during the nineties proves that the opponents of marriage are succeeding. Nor is Kari Moxnes an isolated case..."

 

[SolomonVII]

Just as a comparison, just going by the numbers, as the numbers of marijuana users approached 50% in the 1970's, the response was the war on drugs, which nary a Democrat or a Republican since has wavered from. (Arguably, with deadlier legal drugs such as tobacco and alcohol, laws agaisnt marijuana are simiarily an affront to the rights of a very significantly larger minority).

How can we really make sense of it then, that same-sex laws have swept into so many countries in response to the needs of what is turning out to be a mere 2 % of the 5 % of the population that is gay, and actually desires marriage?

But the evidence demonstrates that gay marriage has very little to do with gay rights at all. The vast majority of homosexuals remain as indifferent to the sacrament of marriage as the do to all that is sacred.
"Why shouldn't we have these rights", is of course their almost universal response, but really, such a right is low on their agenda of what they either want or need.

No, not gay rights and gay rights activists, but the secularist's animosity to marriage itself is what has driven this agenda. Not the real needs of the people, but the political desires of a well-placed elite, is what has been behind this very sudden legal revolution.

The few homosexuals that actually do view their marriages as somehow sacred were really just the dupes of certain people in high places that have used them as a Trojan horse so to speak, to carry their assault on the institution of marriage itself.

The effect of this leftist/secularist drive to divorce sexuality from the procreative family, as the necessary means to strike a death blow against the traditional 'patriachal' marriage has really had negligible effect on promoting the greater good of society.

Rather, what it has mainly led to is the destruction of a meaningful level of procreation in society at all. Therefore, what we are witnessing is not a progress to equal rights at all, but a nihilism that is truly Satanic in its global proportions and effects.

 

[SolomonVII]

http://peaceseeds.elysiumgates.com/parents.html

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The gentleman works upon the trunk. When that is firmly set up, the Way grows. And surely proper[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]behavior towards parents and elder brothers is the trunk of Goodness.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Confucianism[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Analects 1.2[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Now filial piety is the root of all virtue, and the stem out of which grows all moral teaching... Our bodies--to every hair and bit of skin--are received by us from our parents, and we must not presume to injure or wound them: this is the beginning of filial piety. When we have established our character by the practice of the filial course, so as to make our name famous in future ages, and thereby glorify our parents: this is the end of filial piety. It commences with the service of parents; it proceeds to the service of the ruler; it is completed by the establishment of [good] character.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Confucianism[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Confucianism. Classic on Filial Piety 1[/FONT]​

​

http://ninecommentaries.com/


​

http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/4-12-23/25124.html



V. The Destruction of Family
We have no way to count how many people have been killed in the CCP's political campaigns. Among the people, there is no way to do a statistical survey because of information blocks and barriers among different regions, ethnic groups, and local dialects. The CCP government would never conduct this kind of survey, as that would be like digging its own grave. The CCP prefers to omit the details when writing its own history.
The number of families damaged by the CCP is even more difficult to know. In some cases, one person died and the family was broken. In other cases, the entire family died. Even when no one died, many were forced to divorce. Father and son, mother and daughter were forced to renounce their relationships. Some were disabled, some went crazy, and some died young because of serious illness caused by torture. The record of all these family tragedies is very incomplete.
The Japan-based Yomiuri News once reported that over half of the Chinese population has been persecuted by CCP. If that is the case, the number of families destroyed by the CCP is estimated to be over 100 million.
Zhang Zhixin [25] has become a household name due to the amount of reporting on her story. Many people know that she suffered physical torture, gang rape and mental torture. Finally, she was driven insane and shot to death after her tongue was cut. But many people may not know there is another cruel story behind this tragedy—even her family members had to attend a "study session for the families of death row inmates."



Zhang Zhixin's daughter Lin Lin recalled that in the early spring of 1975,

A person from Shenyang Court said loudly, "Your mother is a real die-hard counterrevolutionary. She refuses to accept reform, and is incorrigibly obstinate. She is against our great leader Chairman Mao, against the invincible Mao Zedong Thought, and against Chairman Mao's proletariat revolutionary direction. With one crime on top of another, our government is considering increasing the punishment. If she is executed, what is your attitude?" I was astonished, and did not know how to answer. My heart was broken. But I pretended to be calm, trying hard to keep my tears from falling. My father had told me that we could not cry in front of others, otherwise we had no way to renounce our relationship with my mother. Father answered for me, "If this is the case, the government is free to do what it deems necessary."
The person from court asked again, "Will you collect her body if she is executed? Will you collect her belongings in prison?" I lowered my head and said nothing. Father answered for me again, "We don't need anything."… Father held my brother and me by the hands and we walked out of the county motel. Staggering along, we walked home against the howling snow storm. We did not cook; father split the only coarse corn bun we had at home and gave it to my brother and me. He said, "Finish it and go to bed early." I lay on the clay bed quietly. Father sat on a stool and stared at the light in a daze. After a while, he looked at the bed and thought we were all asleep. He stood up, gently opened the suitcase we brought from our old home in Shenyang, and took out mother's photo. He looked at it and could not hold back his tears. I got up from bed, put my head into father's arms and started crying loudly. Father patted me and said, "Don't do that, we cannot let the neighbors hear it." My brother woke up after hearing me cry. Father held my brother and me tightly in his arms. This night we did not know how many tears we shed, but we could not cry freely. [26]



​

One university lecturer had a happy family, but his family encountered a disaster during the process of redressing the rightists. At the time of the anti-rightist movement, his wife was dating someone who was labeled a rightist. Her lover was later sent to a remote area and suffered greatly. Because she, as a young girl, could not go along, she gave her lover up and married the lecturer. When her beloved one finally came back to their hometown, she, now a mother of several children, had no other way to repent her betrayal in the past. She insisted on divorcing her husband in order to redeem her guilty conscience. By this time, the lecturer was over 50-years old; he could not accept the sudden change and went insane. He stripped off all his clothes and ran all over to look for a place to start a new life. Finally, his wife left him and their children. The painful separation decreed by the Party is a problem that can't be solved and an incurable social disease that could only replace one separation with another separation.
Family is the basic unit of the Chinese society. It is also the traditional culture's last defense against the Party culture. That is why damage to the family is the cruelest in the CCP's history of killing. Because the CCP monopolizes all social resources, when a person is classified as being on the opposing side of the dictatorship, he or she will immediately face a crisis in livelihood, be accused by everyone in society, and stripped of his or her dignity. Because they are treated unjustly, the family is the only safe haven for these innocent people to be consoled. But the CCP's policy of implication kept family members from comforting each other; otherwise, they too risked being labeled opponents of the dictatorship. Zhang Zhixin, for instance, was forced to divorce. For many people, family members' betrayal—reporting on, fighting, publicly criticizing, or denouncing them—is the last straw that breaks their spirit. Many people have committed suicide as a result.

 

[thirst2]

Solomon,
The words that you say about Homosexuals are false. The rate of Homosexuals' relationships to fail is lower than the Heterosexual. Divorce rates have been proven higher in Heterosexual relationships than in Homosexual. How would you know that the majority of Homosexuals don't want marriage? Have you gone around and asked them. A homosexual relationship is just as neurturing as a Heteroseual. How would you feel if a loved one (a wife) wounded up in the hospital. And you weren't allowed to see her due to fact that you are not bonded by marriage. See, you wouldn't like that at all. A Homosexual, though, has no choice. If their Significant Other fell ill and was in the hosptial they wouldn't be able to say after visiting hours like a normal Heterosexual couple. They would sometimes not even be allowed to visit them at all. As for all the Gay rights and Gay right Activists, They are trying to enlite you are correct about that. As for the "traditional family," there is no such thing. In each religion there is a "traditional family." It all depends on the view point. So realistically there is no such thing as a "traditional family." Solomon, Christianity does not rule the WORLD! I am a Christian myself. I feel that we do not rule the world. I have my opinion, and so do you. But no matter what you try to say I will ALWAYS believe that everyone has EQUAL RIGHTS.