Deep Shame

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
In a word, no...Such a union is unhealthy for both individuals as it is indicative of an unhealthy family structure.

Who are you to define what is a healthy family structure. Many people also feel that having a man and a woman as formative roles in a childs's life are necessary for the formation of healthy relationships with both genders throughout life. But I guess you are right and they are wrong.

Secondly, such unions are most often a coerced...a form of abuse. Thirdly, the chances of birth defects in the issue of such a union rise tremendously.

Are you implying that marriages are primarily about reproduction? How backward?

From a purely reproductive standpoint, marriage serves as a barrier to such unions and promotes diversity within the gene-pool.

From a purely reproductive standpoing, homosexuals cannot even reproduce. It's only a threat to the gene pool in that it's a threat to the continuation of humanity.

Same gender couples pose no threat, beyond a psychological threat to those who fear such unions, to anyone. There is no objective reason to prohibit them.

I'm not opposing same gender couples. I'm opposed to the attempt of the left to deny and have it set in law that there is absolutely anything unique about a union between a man and a woman.

 

[jon_forward]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
I'm not opposing same gender couples. I'm opposed to the attempt of the left to deny and have it set in law that there is absolutely anything unique about a union between a man and a woman.

well put!!!!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by jon_forward
well put!!!!

Thanks, man. Sometimes you put stuff good too!

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Who are you to define what is a healthy family structure. Many people also feel that having a man and a woman as formative roles in a childs's life are necessary for the formation of healthy relationships with both genders throughout life. But I guess you are right and they are wrong.

Just the facts RWA, just the facts...

Are you implying that marriages are primarily about reproduction? How backward?

That's the religious right for ya...Keep th' wimmin barefoot and pregnant...missionary position only....for procreation only

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Just the facts RWA, just the facts...



That's the religious right for ya...Keep th' wimmin barefoot and pregnant...missionary position only....for procreation only

That's the left for ya, no good points whatsoever....

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
In a word, no...Such a union is unhealthy for both individuals as it is indicative of an unhealthy family structure.

In YOUR opinion. I bet the people who are in such relationships just consider it an alternative lifestyle.

 

[jimnyc]

California will reject altered marriage forms

The California state agency that records marriages said yesterday that forms that have been altered, which San Francisco has done on its homosexual "marriage" licenses, will not be registered.

California has a standard application form for marriage licenses, "and if it has been altered in any way, then it will not be registered and recorded. It will be sent back to the county of origin," said Nicole Evans, spokeswoman for Kim Belshe, the California Health and Human Services secretary.

The more than 2,600 homosexual couples who have been "married" since last week with the help of San Francisco city and county officials have been crossing out "groom" and "bride" as printed on the standard application and writing in phrases such as "Applicant #1" and "Applicant #2" or "spouses for life."

None of these forms will be accepted, Ms. Evans said yesterday.

"We have to follow the law when we process these forms. It's part of public statute, so we are following state law in the way we record and register marriages," she said, adding that, to her knowledge, the state agency hasn't received any same-sex "marriage" forms yet.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040219-123003-6956r.htm

 

[OCA]

HELL YEAH! Now if the courts will just fall in line we can deal them one hell of a death blow on this issue.

 

[jon_forward]

Ms.Evans has more balls then Arnold does..

 

[Moi]

Imagine all the money that's been wasted during this fiasco...no wonder the state of california has a fiscal crisis. If I was a taxpayer in that city/state, I'd personally sue the mayor and whomever was complicit in this for my money back.

 

[wonderwench]

Newsome at least has the guts to stick up for the proper role of government. The state's role is defining and enforcing the rights and obligation of a civil union - not the religious aspect.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wonderwench
Newsome at least has the guts to stick up for the proper role of government.

And the guts to break the law. They should work to fix the problem as they perceive it through proper means, not by breaking the law. He should be arrested.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by wonderwench
Newsome at least has the guts to stick up for the proper role of government. The state's role is defining and enforcing the rights and obligation of a civil union - not the religious aspect.

The problem is, he's not a member of the judicial branch. That is the only venue within which challenges to the constitutionality of laws is acceptable. No person, specifically charged with the enforcement of the law, can effectively decide which of those laws he will or will not defend.

He doesn't have to like the law ...all he has to do is enforce the law. Nothing would have prevented him from advocating for a CHANGE in the law in the appropriate fashion.

By usurping the authority, this mayor is no different from any criminal in the state. He did that which is strictly forbidden by law. That makes him a criminal. There is a reason that there is a separation of the three powers of government, whether they be state or federal.