lmaopml wrote: » That's pretty similar to any couple who have a child and the parent involves a new partner in their life?
lmaopml wrote: » Could you be more personally specific? Links are nice but kind of tiresome depending on whether there is any comment or no? I'd like to know the problems - I have a gay brother in law who signed a civil partnership with his partner - I'm just wondering what he may be thinking that I haven't really considered, I'd like to know what I am missing?
aloyisious wrote: » I've labelled the CP'd couple as being a relationship, rather than as a family for context of this question only, as I'm unsure of how CP'd couples with children are actually viewed in Irish law, given how the constitution refer's to the family:Article 41.3. 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack. Being gay and a supporter of Civil Marriage being extended to LGBT couples, my personal view is that CP'd couples bringing up children are families.
NuMarvel wrote: » Just on that point, the Supreme Court has interpreted family, in the legal sense, as being a married couple with or without children. And the courts have also ruled that a unmarried couple with children aren't a family. Civil partners, with or without children, aren't a family in the legal sense, "]which is why the civil partnership act refers to the home as a shared home, instead of a family home, and so on". Of course, this is all in the legal sense. In everyday terms, I think we all refer to people with children as families, regardless of their marital or civil status.
NuMarvel wrote: » Just on that point, the Supreme Court has interpreted family, in the legal sense, as being a married couple with or without children. And the courts have also ruled that a unmarried couple with children aren't a family. Civil partners, with or without children, aren't a family in the legal sense, which is why the civil partnership act refers to the home as a shared home, instead of a family home, and so on. Of course, this is all in the legal sense. In everyday terms, I think we all refer to people with children as families, regardless of their marital or civil status.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Re: Part in bold. So as according to the State which defines a 'family' as a married couple regardless of whether they have children or not - may I ask those who oppose same-sex marriage on the grounds of 'what is best for children' what children have to do with Civil Marriage when the highest court in the land does not consider them to be necessary to be legally considered a 'family' i.e. Married?
aloyisious wrote: » I'm waiting for some-one to respond with a "children are not accessories, they're part of the whole deal" comment
JimiTime wrote: » A good Christian response to a college student who left the church because of his gay friends. The article also links to this college guys original blog.http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/39234-a-fathers-response-to-an-open-letter-to-the-church-from-my-generation
Zombrex wrote: » That seems to be just the same old same old. No one should be bullied but we shouldn't celebrate homosexuality either. God wants only man and woman to marry. Children need a mother and father. Its a slipper slope. If we change the definition of marriage we will regret it. Christians should find something better than being gay. Go read your Bible. None of these deals with the central point of the "Open Letter ...", that being the reality of the situation, of actually being close to and observing gay people, does not add up to what the Church teaches about them. It might as well be the church saying the world is flat and when this kid says in an open letter "Actually..." the good Christian response is to just say go read your Bible, it says the world is flat. If the Christian response is we don't care how it appears to be, the Bible says this, well you guys are just going to end up being this centuries Creationists.
JimiTime wrote: » Shame thats what you took out of it. Though it was meant for a Christian audience, so I don't think it matters much that you didn't get it.
VinLieger wrote: » So since its only meant for a christian audience other peoples opinions on it dont matter? Funny to see that argument coming from a religious person. Wonder what your reaction would be if someone said the same to you regarding gay people getting married? In that a gay person getting married has nothing to do with you therefore your opinion doesnt matter and shouldnt be taken into consideration?
Kiwi in IE wrote: » The above is entirely correct. Gay people getting married has nothing to do with anyone except gay people who want to get married. The opinions of others, Christian or otherwise, SHOULD be completely irrelevant.
Like many others "I have found something better than being gay". So I speak as an insider and this is my fight, in the culture war. By the unmerited favor of the Creator, I found a treasure hidden in a field, and I went and sold everything. Everything in my life. Even my homosexuality, that I might buy that field. Here is something missed by a lot of gay Christians, who refuse to give up the lifestyle. Because they have been misstaught "justification by faith" they never learn the fact that: Holiness is by Grace, through faith. The Spirit of Christ causes holiness. The cross is heavy, and the road is narrow, that follows Messiah away from the world and its worldliness. The new birth, causes by nature, a transformed life... and there comes a time when its time, as a believer to stop having your diapers changed, and to put away childish things. Maturity as a believer is an inevitability. Why? Because the same grace that justifies also transforms. You do not get one without the other. As I look at my only child, a 6 month old, I feel grave concern for the post-judeo-christian world he will grow up in. My wife, and I are in full agreement. We have no choice. For his spiritual welfare, we are going to home school. As I am a 38 year old, ex-homosexual male, I look at the effects of 60 years of "Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll" and I see the blood of 55 Million aborted Americans crying out for God's Justice, more drug-related criminals and their families destroyed by the rock (now rap) culture underpinned by the "do what thou wilt, is the whole of the law" philosophy of Satanist Alistair Crowley We live in a time when the entertainment teaches a corrupting immorality, Lady GAGA informs the listeners that "we are born this way" To be Gay is the same thing as being black or any other minority... I am a witness to the Power of God. I am not born again, THAT way. If this nation does not repent of iniquity, it will be destroyed. But no one is listening. To the truth. Our radios blare out "I kissed a girl and I likkked it" by Katy Perry and even Christians seem to like it, based on what I hear the men and women of the church saying after-hours, Monday through Saturday. The disciple Luke, wrote a two volume Gospel. Luke and Acts...Acts 15 makes it crystal clear that "abstaining from sexual immorality" is necessary to be saved. In the name of seeker friendly churches, we make the salt that gives light and life, less salty by sugar-coating the message, until its all sugary sweet death. The church needs to return to calling sin, sin... and sinners to repent, before the kingdom slips through peoples fingers. Because the schools won't be the means of God's grace revealed in Yeshua, the Messiah. We live in a time when young impressionable middle school student girls are being told to kiss other girl students, by adults in classrooms. 6, 7, and 8th graders... look up Linden Avenue Middle School in Red Hook, N.Y. 42^ 2|
robp wrote: » What are you suggesting the various churches teach? The impression I got is that as biologically children are impossible (as a rule so this does not apply to infertile heterosexual couples) there is inherent social reasons why this is the case but I guess that is just bigotry so it must not be discussed. Why use the flat earth myth as an analogous example when a flat earth wasn't even a real belief?
robp wrote: » What are you suggesting the various churches teach? The impression I got is that as biologically children are impossible (as a rule so this does not apply to infertile heterosexual couples) there is inherent social reasons why this is the case but I guess that is just bigotry so it must not be discussed.
lazygal wrote: » What's biologically impossible about gay people having children? Straight people pro create without having sex, don't they? Or do my friends with IVF babies have the wrong end of the stick?
MrPudding wrote: » Can you please explain why children are a biological impossibility for a same sex couple but not for an infertile couple? MrP
aloyisious wrote: » You have got the wrong impression if you think that Lesbians and Gay men cannot procreate. It's more that they have the inclination to fancy some-one of the same sex. I personally know people who, for the sake of Irish tradition and social pressure, married persons of the opposite sex and procreated within those marriages. Brian Finnegan, the editor of GCN, is an example of this and was on RTE today (playback of John Murray Show item) talking about how he came out to his son and worried if he would get bullied in school as a result.
robp wrote: » As I explained in brackets infertility is the exception rather then rule so its fundamentally different.
MrPudding wrote: » See, you can't just declare this beause it suits your purposes. If child bearing is such an important part of marriage the you need to explain why other people that can't or won't have children are still allowed to get married. Without some reasonable explanation for the difference in treatment it just seems like more bigotry and discrimination. MrP
MrPudding wrote: » Further, where did this idea that the primary purpose for marriage is pro-creation come from? What happened to good old fashioned love? It seems to me that this argument only really appeared once it was made clear that "my god(s) said so" was no longer sufficient reason for discrimination. MrP
robp wrote: » Well of course there are several issues and several arguments on each side on the debate. The claim for marriage is not the same as the claim to be treated as a couple for adoption purposes. For instance no one is arguing that gay people be excluded for adoption application as single parents. My post was examining religious opposition to gay marriage.
robp wrote: » Infertility is usually unknown but very often can be treated without IVF. I presume religious acceptance of infertile marriages revolve around the fact that infertility is a malfunction and not biologically intended. That is my guess.
robp wrote: » Well I am sure you could look at marriage from any number of ways legal, economic, evolutionary, religious etc. I don't think a law view really gives much depth on the matter but I would surmise that from a religious or indeed evolutionary perspective marriage has always centred around reproduction. Its hardly a recent argument. Anthropology is full of this notion. Sadly the idea of marriage just being about love is probably largely a recent thing.
