A letter about gay marriage

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

From a child who might have a clue
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/02/14370/

I suspect this will not please some folks


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[MechAg94]

It’s about children.

I had to stop when I saw this.

When I saw the headline, I thought it was written by a kid, not an adult raised by a gay person. 

[makattak]

I had to stop when I saw this.

When I saw the headline, I thought it was written by a kid, not an adult raised by a gay person. 

She's exactly right. Her most poignant statement:

..the desires of the adults trump the rights of the child...

describes our society perfectly.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Yea. It's pretty damn well written I lots a couple SJW on Facebook after I posted it and that's always a good sign


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Strings]

because we are all humans created in the image of God.

And that's where you lose me. Whose God are we created in the image of?

Religion has no business guiding legislation

[Perd Hapley]

And that's where you lose me. Whose God are we created in the image of?

Religion has no business guiding legislation

  Legislation springs from moral beliefs (unless you want it to come from naked self-interest). Morality (for most people) springs from religion.

If you don't agree with her, then out-lobby her.

[White Horseradish]

From a child who might have a clue

Since when is a 38-year old a child?

If marriage is about children, why are people with vasectomies and people clearly past childbearing age allowed to marry? Shouldn't there be a fertility test for marriage if children are the primary goal?

If you don't agree with her, then out-lobby her.

That's pretty much a done deal. Gay marriage is here, and it isn't very likely to go away.

[Perd Hapley]

If marriage is about children, why are people with vasectomies and people clearly past childbearing age allowed to marry? Shouldn't there be a fertility test for marriage if children are the primary goal?

Didn't read the article, I take it.

That's pretty much a done deal. Gay marriage is here, and it isn't very likely to go away.

I was referring to religious influence on politics, in general, but whatever. Just to clarify, though, "gay marriage" can (and did) exist w/o the government's imprimatur. Reasonable (read: heterosexist) marriage laws never stopped homosexual couples from having ceremonies or living together. Oh teh noes! Government doesn't think my fake marriage is real!

[White Horseradish]

Didn't read the article, I take it.

I did. I does not address that.

[Perd Hapley]

I did. I does not address that.

My point exactly. Her article is about the harmful effects on a child, of being estranged from a parent. So, no, it doesn't address how childless marriages should be prohibited.

I would ask you why you would make such an absurd claim, but we've heard it all before.

[RevDisk]

*blink*

The letter would be equally valid in regards to outlawing divorce.

It honestly sounds like the author cares a hell of a lot less that her mother's new spouse was female than that one of her biological parents wasn't around or wasn't as fully involved.

"I am not saying that being same-sex attracted makes one incapable of parenting. My mother was an exceptional parent, and much of what I do well as a mother is a reflection of how she loved and nurtured me. This is about the missing parent."

[Hawkmoon]

Religion has no business guiding legislation

True. But "marriage" was a religious institution centuries before it became a civil function. Just as religion has no business guiding legislation, likewise legislation has no business interfering with religion. The gays and the lesbians have their civil unions -- that's what they are entitled to. Redefining "marriage" so that it includes same sex unions is an unjustified and unwarranted intrusion on religion.

From the letter:

We play complementary roles in their lives, and neither of us is disposable. In fact, we are both critical. It’s almost as if Mother Nature got this whole reproduction thing exactly right.

Yeah -- who'd a' thunk it?

I may be forced to surrender my commission as a Justice of the Peace. My term runs concurrent to presidential terms of office, so I was last sworn in in the January when Obama took office for his second term. At that time, our instructions from the state were that we were authorized to conduct same-sex marriages, but we did not have to do so.

Now, with a SJWs hot on the trail of unbelievers, it seems as if any JP who declines to marry gay couples is likely to get sued. I think that's just wrong. And I don't understand why a gay couple would even want to force a JP who doesn't approve of their so-called "marriage" to officiate. A wedding is supposed to be a day of celebration. Who in their right mind would want to be married by an officiant who disapproves of the entire event and is there only under duress?

I expect that the directive from the state will change soon, to require that all JPs perform same-sex marriages upon request. If that happens ... I'm out. I don't need to be a JP. As a retired minister I can perform weddings anywhere in the U.S. I can get a commission as a notary public to do pretty much everything else a JP can do.

[White Horseradish]

My point exactly. Her article is about the harmful effects on a child, of being estranged from a parent.

Which can be a consequence of a whole bunch of things, of which gay marriage is by far the least common.

So, no, it doesn't address how childless marriages should be prohibited.

I would ask you why you would make such an absurd claim, but we've heard it all before.

Well, paragraph 5 of the article is "It’s about children."

[Jamisjockey]

Yeah -- who'd a' thunk it?

I may be forced to surrender my commission as a Justice of the Peace. My term runs concurrent to presidential terms of office, so I was last sworn in in the January when Obama took office for his second term. At that time, our instructions from the state were that we were authorized to conduct same-sex marriages, but we did not have to do so.

Now, with a SJWs hot on the trail of unbelievers, it seems as if any JP who declines to marry gay couples is likely to get sued. I think that's just wrong. And I don't understand why a gay couple would even want to force a JP who doesn't approve of their so-called "marriage" to officiate. A wedding is supposed to be a day of celebration. Who in their right mind would want to be married by an officiant who disapproves of the entire event and is there only under duress?

I expect that the directive from the state will change soon, to require that all JPs perform same-sex marriages upon request. If that happens ... I'm out. I don't need to be a JP. As a retired minister I can perform weddings anywhere in the U.S. I can get a commission as a notary public to do pretty much everything else a JP can do.

Because tolerance is all about forcing you to be tolerant.  By force.

[Perd Hapley]

Which can be a consequence of a whole bunch of things, of which gay marriage is by far the least common.

Fine, but how do childless marriages cause children to be estranged from parents?

Well, paragraph 5 of the article is "It’s about children."

  So, what, the county clerk would administer fertility tests?  This much-repeated "argument" is at first appealing, but logic soon pimp-smacks it.

[White Horseradish]

So, what, the county clerk would administer fertility tests? 

I'm not the one who claims it's all about the children. Why ask me?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

In fact the letter writer points out that it's anything but
That in fact the children are props


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Perd Hapley]

I'm not the one who claims it's all about the children. Why ask me?

'Cause you're the one pushing phony arguments.