Justice Kennedy: Gay Marriage. For the Children

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often referred to as the swing vote on the Supreme Court, said during the hearing on Prop 8 that he's worried about the children when it comes to the issue of gay marriage. But not in the way you might think.

Despite several studies indicating that the children of homosexual parents don't fare as well as children of heterosexual couples, Kennedy didn't seem to be taking that into account.

Yahoo News:
Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's conservative-leaning swing vote and the author of two major decisions in favor of gay rights, appeared to be on the fence in the controversial case. Early in the arguments, he suggested that the estimated 40,000 children being raised by same-sex couples in California might be harmed by their parents' inability to wed. "They want their parents to have full recognition and full status," Kennedy said, saying he worries about the "voice of the children" in the case.
My goodness, what leftist utopian legislation will ever be accomplished again without blaming the children?

The only good news is that Kennedy also did pose a question about the legal standing of those bringing the case against Prop 8.

Nobody has any clue whatsoever what the court will do. But the court has been pretty darn fickle and not all that into that whole Constitution thingie so my hopes aren't high. But don't worry, it'll be for the children so what could possibly go wrong?

*subhead*Put Your Blurb Here.*subhead*


  1. I'm horrified that 40,000 kids are being "raised" by sodomites in the state of CA alone!

  2. Actually, I think he questioned the legal standing of those DEFENDING prop 8. So... even the good news is not so good.

  3. Sigh. Once again the truth is twisted to suit an agenda. Justice Kennedy is right to be worried about the children, but not in the way he described. Redefining marriage and enshrining that redefinition into law means that that the Court and this government will infringe on the rights of MILLIONS of children (not just the 40,000 he claims to care about). Marriage is one man and one woman making themselves irreplaceable to each other and any children that result from that union. It's what it was thousands of years ago, and it's what it is today, and will continue to be irregardless of what the government purports to do to redefine it. Children have a right to know and be cared for by their mother and father. Yes, we know, no-fault divorce already did a number on marriage, but is the answer to keep chipping away at the only institution that unites children to their moms and dads? Or is the answer to edify marriage again and educate our children on why it is special? We have seen true examples of what happens when states redefine marriage, i.e., MA where mom and dad were prohibited by law from excluding their child in K/1st from being taught about same-sex couples, or in a state where a business was fined by the courts for not allowing a homosexual couple to use their facilities. For those who support redefining marriage to claim that redefining marriage in the law won't change anything is disingenous at best; at worst downright irresponsible manipulation of the facts. Marriage is not about religion, our faith deepens our understanding, but did not create it. Marriage has always been for the benefit of children and society, to make it adult-centric in law, is to do our country and future generations (what is left of them) a great disservice. Praying the Justices will seek truth and not attempt to edify agendas. Justice Kennedy severely disappointed me with Obamacare, but God moves moutains and even if there are only a few who defend truth, God will be there to keep the light on in the darkness.

  4. Two persons engaged in a homosexual relations ought not to be rearing children. Such persons cannot be the mother and father of children. They cannot be the children's parents so how would they come to be recognised as the children's parents by anyone, let alone a court of law? To call such persons the parents of children is a lie, and an abuse of the children. Persons engaged in such ongoing sexual relations ought not be permitted to adopt a child, or procure a child through "surrogacy" or other IVF process. It is intrinsically evil and intentionally depriving a child of its mother, father or both. This ought to be illegal as commodification and abuse of children, and involving deliberate deprivation of their mother, father or both. The law ought to protect children from such abuse, primarily by prevention. To use the evil of two persons engaged in homosexual relations pretending to raise a child as his or her parents, to justify giving the legal status of "marriage" to such persons' relations, would be wholly irrational and doing an evil on the basis of the existence of another evil. The response to the existing evil ought to be to outlaw it and eliminate it insofar as possible, not make that evil more acceptable and widespread, by giving public recognition and endorsement to such relations.

  5. How about a few basic logic questions for the absurd Justice Kennedy:

    How can you possibly claim to know what the children want, and what does it matter when an adult decision needs to be made based on what's hoped to be adult reasoning? Children may want candy all the time, etc.? Should that be taken into consideration by the highest court of the land to make sure the voice of the children is heard?

    Utter nonsense by Justice Kennedy, not only in the absurd claim to speak authoritatively on behalf of some X thousands of children, but to then claim that their immature voices and possible thinking need to be represented in a Supreme Court decision.

    God help us.


  6. And there is even a possibility then that the words HUSBAND and WIFE will be disallowed in the future? wha will it be - HusFe?

  7. Given that gay couples are already raising children (and according to some studies with better results than heterosexual couples) it is hard to make the case that treating gay couples the same under law as heterosexual couples harms anyone.

    Why should I, a happily married heterosexual man, feel diminished in any way by a gay couple finding happiness with each other?

    God loves us all. These are our brothers and sisters. They are not monsters.

    1. It harms everyone but especially children. A sexual relationship between two persons of the same sex is gravely and clearly disordered. It is against nature and damaging to those involved. Children ought not be "raised" by two such persons. They cannot be their parents and they ought not be given that recognition by society through the law - that is to deny the children the right to their real mother and father ( or a married adoptive couple in lieu) and to abandon them. You have been brainwashed by the constant lies of the propagandists that control the MSM.

  8. Just answer a basic legal question:
    Where do they get the estimate that 40,000 children are being raised by same-sex couples?
    The school district? 2 single parent moms raising their kids who join together to share housing and expenses (in the over-priced CA housing market - even after the RE bubble) does not necessarily a lesbian intimate relationship make. But, you can bet economics that even some heterosexuals might be sorely tempted to sign up for (unconsummated) same sex legal unions for tax, health insurance, immigration naturalization advantages, etc... Just saying...

  9. Lynda,

    Do you have a blog of your own? I'd like to be able to read your ridiculous rants on a more regular basis.

  10. The statements by Lynda contain well-reasoned arguments and facts. Accordingly, a person ill-equipped to deal with such insights refers to them as "ridiculuous rants."

    Keep up the good work, Lynda, and God Bless!

    Omnia Vincit Veritas

  11. Lynda,

    You have some strong opinions about where children "ought" to be raised.

    In almost all cases, we are talking about children who have a BIOLOGICAL parent in one of these same sex relationships.

    Who are you to say that these parent's may not raise their own children??? Forcibly taking children away from their parent -- when the parent is providing food, shelter and education -- sounds like something I would expect the Nazi's to do.

    I hope you will reconsider your position that children "ought not" be raised by their loving parent.

    I hope you would be more concerned with those parents who raise their children in an environment of bigotry.

    As I already pointed out, according to some studies, these children are doing better than are those raised by heterosexual parents.

    1. In other words, they have a mother or a father who refuses to permit their child to be reared by both his or her mother and father. And worse, foists another adult of the same sex as themselves (with whom they are engaged in a perverse sexual relationship) on the child as some unnatural second "mother" or "father". It is cruelty of the worst kind and we ought to be willing to do everything as a society to protect our innocent children from this abusive falsehood. A man and a woman make a child - they are mother and father. To provide for two women or two men to pretend to be a child's parents by experimenting with their very life is extreme cruelty. Every child deserves his mother and father to bring him up where possible. There is no excuse for creating a situation deliberately where a child is subjected to being "raised" by two persons of the same sex who are engaging in sexual relations with each other. If one isn't aggrieved by such maltreatment of innocent, helpless children, then one doesn't have a heart. If I would die rather than have my own child treated thus, then so must I care for any other child who doesn't have a mother or father who will protect them from this. I wish I could do more. As a society, we ought not to be permitting such intrinsically evil acts as trading in and making children in lab dishes for the gratification of adults who will not accept the laws of nature. God forgive us for allowing this evil to go on; in many cases endorsed and encouraged.

  12. Lynda,
    It certainly does take a mother and a father to make a baby. And in this case, God made one or both gay.

    Let go of your hate and be happy and let these people live out their lives in committed, loving relationships.

    These people will seek love, and find love. Refusing them the blessing of finding someone to share their life with is nothing more than cruelty.

    That's not what God wants for you.

  13. Lynda,
    One more thing. There are millions of adoptive parents who open their homes and open their hearts and make a child their's by adoption.

    Sometimes, one biological parent will marry someone else and their spouse will adopt her (or his) children.

    I hope you can see that these adoptive parents, and gay parents, love their children no less than you or I. That is what makes them the "true parents".

    Be well, Lynda. And remember God's message is love. Not hate.

  14. Hi, Walter:

    Let all of us know when the so-called gay gene is found to back up your false claim that God made people gay.

    With the kind of bogus reasoning that unfortunately afflicts you and others of like mind, you would have to allow a kleptomanic to freely steal all of your money...because "God made him/her that way." Or perhaps you will freely give an alcoholic as many drinks as he or she may want, because..."God made him/her that way."

    Or how about letting the compulsive perpetrator of violence physically harm anyone, because "God made him/her that way"?

    If true love is involved, then it must be unselfish love for the benefit of the spouses and children, and not just an emotion that one claims to be present. True love also does not insist on declaring things to be the same or even equivalent when they are objectively different.

    And true love prevents perversions even if "love" is involved. Otherwise, there would be no rightful condemnation of Sodom and Gomorrah. Didn't God make those people, too?

    Be well, Walter. And remember God's message of love is based on truth; not personal desires.

    Omnia Vincit Veritas

  15. An attempt to shed some light on a very dark canvas...
    ...a small brief on conceptual relationships according to "gay"?

    The evolution of "gay" from identity recognition, to rights, to social transformational relationships, to marriage and the chaos of the ever evolving, polymorphic, metrogenious family units may be summed up as......"Satans Second Rebellion"........

    Never in their wildest dreams did "gay" ever expect to achieve so much social dynamic change in the Judeo-Christian west in two generations???

    ...When social change began,....they DID NOT want the right to marry!.....that goal evolved only in last twenty years.....post AIDS and mortality.

    Leap frogging ahead...to the present ambiguous chaos.....anticipated recognition....in

    Re: Redefinement of Role Designations
    The ultimate control: Relationships established and based by right of whim and self indulgence on personal judgements, inference of tastes, values and design. NOT by present contemporary socially established mores, boundaries and constructs that would limit, repudiate or deny rights of access to.........

    Redefining human nature through physiologic change. Limitless access to transmorphic deconstruction or reconstruction, and reset of the human biological persona in regard to all phases of human growth and staged development from conception to adulthood.

    Unfettered authority to act out of need, desire or want.......I could go on and on and on....

    Anyone with half a brain can see, that a whole new CONSTITUTION would have to be drafted just for determining what the definition(s) of what IS/ARE familial relationships according to "gay" will be.

    I began to see the Pandora's Box opening with heterosexual, contemporary families using surrogates and test tube invitro fertilization....(who "are" my parents)...

    ....scaring anyone yet!!!!....this has been going on for a LONG TIME!!!!...where have y'all been!!!

  16. Dear Anonymous,

    Can you make someone gay by your will? Then I doubt you can make them heterosexual either. Do you suppose that Dick Cheney wanted this for his daughter? He did not. But could he accept her as a human being and one of God's creations? I dare say he does.

    That is what compassion looks like. That is what truth looks like. That is what Jesus teaches us.

  17. Dear Donna M,

    Please rest assured that we are not entering a dystopia where everyone can do anything to follow their desires. The good news is that, right now, gay Americans are getting up to go to work.

    They are paying off mortgages and student loans. Some are making extraordinary contributions in the corporate world. Others have very ordinary jobs like the rest of us.

    And when someone gets pulled over for speeding, the officer will write the ticket regardless of whether the driver was gay.

    You may find the recent polls very alarming. How can a majority of Americans accept that gays should be allowed to live their lives, find someone to love, and commit their lives to that person?

    Perhaps the answer is that when gays choose to take up marriage, they are agreeing to the social norms of monogamy and fidelity.

    Marriage is an act of unselfishness. When you marry someone you agree to devote your life to that person. Marriage is also an agreement to reject sex outside of that union.

    God bless.

    1. Thank You, WS for commentary in regard to marriage. I MOST CERTAINLY AGREE on premise and motive.

      My commentary was based on actual experience and knowledge.

      Let me give another dose of reality orientation.
      The stereotypical "poster couple" white collar, "stable" "gay" the the secular media continues to push couldn't be further from the truth!!!! I was born and raised in San Diego, "Ground Zero Suburbia!". These people still have serious unresolved issues. Psychosocial, "active "disease processes and on going treatment, they even have issues with each other! I can tell you they have infiltrated the SD UNIFIED SCHOOL SYSTEM! They are pushing their agenda at warp speed! They are themselves REAL HATERS AND BIGOTS! Can't go to a Target Store without being ambushed by the "perfect poster" attractive minions and their distorted facts and talking points.....but, I have as of yesterday noted a NEW TACTIC. Geater emphasis on "anti 'gay' bullying laws" targeting heterosexual kids in the high schools.

      Had a conversation yesterday with "JOSH"!!! Very enlightening!!!

      He chose "the let's not be haters agenda"....I knew this one!..YEH!!!....

      ...I was very patient and sincere. I LET HIM RANT AND SPEW AD LIB!!!.... my turn....When calling out his clinical data (of which WAS UNVERIFIABLE!! and blindly wanted me to except as fact) he started to get a little "frustrated"!

      You know you have STRUCK PAY DIRT when the default, kitchen sink issues are brought up....by them!....EVERYBODY INTO THE POOL!!!!

      "Hot button issues", prolife, pro choice, woman's rights.......it was....fun!....

      That episode was the reasoning for my commentary yesterday. He divulged alot of info.......and didn't realize someone was really listening.......Make no mistake!

      This guy was educated, young, attractive, and was well versed in their agenda.....and he didn't appear to be sick or ill........many are.

      By the way....WS....in charity,...the statistics you stated regarding children raised by gays being better is really the exception, not the rule..."PURE PROPAGANDA FODDER"!!!

      Secular statistics and algorithms are very unreliable. Data is usually distorted and doesn't accurately portray or reflect an authentic cross section of participants.


      Unfortunatly, I've seen too many......

      ....I have "SPIRITUALLY ADOPTED CHILDREN"!!!...I still pray to the BVM for them......and their are more to come.

      Please, keep praying!

  18. Mr Steurmer, You have failed to keep to the issue, and resorted very quickly to ad hominem accusations and slurs. It is not a matter of opinion or desires but objective facts. Marriage is an objective reality; it doesn't change because a certain number of people have been fooled or intimidated into saying it's something else. The same is true for motherhood and fatherhood. Love is acting for the objective good of the other - not feeling good. One does not love another by letting them do or have whatever gives them pleasure. Society has a duty to respect the truth about the objective nature of mankind and human relationships and not purport to legitimise that which can never be legitimate. No society may deny a person his mother or father or support or legitimise any acts which would deliberately do so. Every child has a mother and father. There are many reasons why a child may lose his mother or father, including through death, or the father may not have had any involvement with his child from the beginning. If a child is without his mother and father, grandparents, uncles and aunts may adopt the child. If no family is available, a married man and woman can give the child a mother and father that all children need. Children naturally come into being through sexual intercourse between a man and a woman and all things being well, the mother and father raise their child together. It is never right for two persons in a same-sex relationship (itself intrinsically evil) to pretend to be the parents of a child and have a child live with them and be subjected to this false, evil situation. This is long-term abuse of a child, and ought not to be permitted. We do not own our children; they are not commodities to be acquired according to a disordered desire. Two women cannot be mother and father, the same for two men. Sexual intercourse is not possible between two persons of the same sex and such unnatural relations can never create a child. A child comes into being through intercourse between a man and woman. Nature provides. There are many married couples who can become the mother and father to a child through adoption where a child cannot be raised by his natural mother or father.

  19. Lynda,

    Perhaps you could pause from your attacks on me and recognize the following:

    When gays choose to take up marriage, they are agreeing to the social norms of monogamy and fidelity.

    Marriage is an act of unselfishness. When you marry someone you agree to devote your life to that person. Marriage is also an agreement to reject sex outside of that union.

    When gays have children, even by technical means you disapprove, they have as much right to raise them as you have to raise your children.

    Are you seriously saying that these children would be better off if they had never been born?


    1. Must reply to gays "agreeing" to the social norms of monogamy and fidelity in marriage!!!.....HAHAHHHAAA!!!!...HAAAHAAHHHH!!!.....HAH!!...let me just wipe the tears from my eyes first!!!....

      The point BEING MADE IS THAT THE WHOLE ARGUEMENT IS A COUNTERFEIT AND A SHAM!!!...........They don't follow the rules!!!!!!!!!......especially in regards to kids!

  20. Dear Lynda,
    Also, "objective" doesn't mean what you think it does.

  21. Mr Steurmer, it is you who have made ad hominem slurs, not I. Keep to the issues. Marriage has an objective meaning, independent of what you or anyone else may want it to mean. Marriage is lifelong union between a man and a woman with preparedness to raise any children which may be the fruit of it. Marriage is the basis of all family, and society. It is a natural, necessary phenomenon prior to and independent of all states or man-made law.

  22. Lynda,

    I take it you agree with the following:

    1. When gays choose to take up marriage, they are agreeing to the social norms of monogamy and fidelity.

    2. Marriage is an act of unselfishness. When you marry someone you agree to devote your life to that person.

    3. Marriage is also an agreement to reject sex outside of that union.

    4. When gays have children, even by technical means you disapprove, they have as much right to raise them as you have to raise your children.

    Given that it is the right of a person in a gay relationship to raise their own children, I'm still unclear about whether you are saying that the children would be better off having never been born.

    Can you clear this up with me? Thank you.

    PS. If something can be measured by a robot with the appropriate instruments, then that would be an objective fact. Like the voltage on your car's battery.

    Regardless of disagreements between us, I am sure you can see the difference then between objective facts and opinions.

    1. I have been repeating myself, but because of this Holy Season, I will take these questions at face value, and then leave it. There is nothing I can do if you choose to deny objective truth. The truth is the truth whether I assert it or not. Opinions are irrelevant. There is not only material truth, e.g. biological, but moral and philosophical truth, involving the whole nature of man, marriage, etc.

      1. Two persons of the same sex cannot marry each other. That is an impossibility.

      2. Marriage is a lifelong exclusive union between a man and a woman with commitment to nurture together any children which result from that union. Clearly it involves love and sacrifice for the other.

      3. Marriage is exclusive - one man, one woman. Sexual intercourse is proper only to marriage. It is the marriage act.

      4. Two persons of the same sex cannot procreate. They must either procure a child, the offspring of another man or woman; or one of them only is the biological mother or father who uses another third person for their gametes to produce a child, but denies the child that mother or father. Both scenarios are objectively immoral, and deny the child his dignity. The child is innocent and sacred like all persons no matter whether they were conceived morally or not. A child ought not to be conceived in a laboratory or as a result of rape, but all children are precious however they were conceived. No person has a "right" to have a child. Noone ought to deliberately put a child in a home with two persons of same sex engaging in intrinsically immoral sex acts. If one is the natural mother or father to a child and one cannot or won't live with the other parent to raise the child, one must either cease to engage in homosexual relationships to raise one's child properly as his natural mother or father, or give the child to good married couple who will become his adoptive mother and father.

      I have been as patient as possible but there is no good in my saying more. It is for you to accept or reject the truth. Happy and blessed Easter.

  23. Response to Walter's red herrings, straw men, and failure to address the questions that poke holes in his positions.

    Walter writes:

    "Can you make someone gay by your will? Then I doubt you can make them heterosexual either. Do you suppose that Dick Cheney wanted this for his daughter? He did not. But could he accept her as a human being and one of God's creations? I dare say he does.

    That is what compassion looks like. That is what truth looks like. That is what Jesus teaches us."

    An objective analysis and study of the reality of homosexuality reveals that many people are recruited into the homosexual lifestyle. It is not by will that one person can make another homosexual, but one can be encouraged and persuaded to become one and engage in sinful homosexual actions, especially at the adolescent age when confusion about sexuality and so on may come into play. The homosexual community knows this, and so many of them engage in targeting adolescents for recruitment, and it also motivates many of them to seek to reduce the laws regarding the age of consent for sexual activity.

    The red herring comment about Dick Cheney and his daughter is simply a straw man as it has nothing to do with the reality that there is no such thing as a gay gene, which is necessary to prove that people are simply made that way. As for accepting people as God's creations, this is a given, but note how Walter purposely avoids the real issue here involving the behavior of people. It is because of love that sinful behavior must not be encouraged or promoted by people,...if we truly love them. Advocating that they engage in sinful activity is a lack of true love.

    Also note Walter's intellectual cowardice in not taking up the other challenges to his overridig claim that "God made them that way," so I repeat the challenges of an earlier post in the hopes that Walter (and others of similar mindset) will either rise to the challenge and answer them honestly and directly, or admit that his position is based on a false understanding of God's creation of people that would permit all kinds of sinful behavior under the silly notion that "God made them that way," which is indeed a denial of free will:

    1. If you believe that God simply makes people the way they are in terms of behavior or inclinations (which also is a denial of free will) will you freely allow and defend a kleptomanic's "right" to steal all of your money? Why or why not?

    2. Will you freely give an alcoholic as many drinks as he or she may want, because..."God made him/her that way"? Why or why not?

    3. Will you defend the "right" of a perpetrator of violence to physically harm anyone, because "God made him/her that way"? Why or why not?

    4. What about God's judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah? Clearly He made the people there as well. Why did He condemn them and their actions as he did? Did He not love them as well?

    To be sure, love without truth is simply emotion at best, and tolerance of Evil at worst. Tolerating and promoting the objectively evil actions of homosexual activity is not love; it's evil.

    By the bye, did St. Paul manifest a lack of love for people in his condemnation of homosexual actions?

    If you truly love, then do not promote sinful behavior in the name of "love."

    God Bless!

    Omnia Vincit Veritas

  24. Donna,

    Thank you for relating your unfortunate experience. I am sorry "Josh" said things that made you uncomfortable, and obviously I can't vouch for this person's opinions!

    I hope you found it valuable that I pointed out how gays seem to be fitting into at least some of the social norms that I am sure that we both share.

    As I am sure you are aware, gay people have revealed themselves ("come out") who are writers, architects, scientists, politicians (perhaps a bad mark!), teachers, engineers, artists and businessmen.

    Though you may not approve of their being gay, I hope at least you can appreciate that they have toughed it out to get through college, made something of themselves, and make contributions to society through their work.

    I hope then that you can see the wisdom of these same people choosing to commit themselves to monogamous relationships, devoting themselves to a person other than themselves, in sickness and in health. And to reject sex outside that union.

    An issue which I believe has been raised here is whether persons who are gay should be allowed to raise their own children.

    I would be skeptical indeed of any effort to refuse a parent this right, so long as that parent is providing food, shelter and education to their children.

    Would you like the government to come to your door and take your children away from you?

    I hope we can both agree would be intolerable.

    I am not myself gay, so I have nothing to gain from this, but I have always been moved by the parable of the good samaritan. It is in that light that I cannot stand by while others savagely attack this unpopular group.

  25. Dear Anonymous,

    Are you saying that Dick Cheney's daughter was coerced or bullied or corrupted into becoming gay? Of course I have no direct knowledge of what home life was like for the Cheney's but I find this assertion absurd.

    I am not gay, but I have heard persons who were respond to your taunts. They say: "You think I choose to be gay, with the bigotry gays have to face, and not uncommonly, violence?"

    I find their argument definitive. Again, your assertion is absurd.

    Would you want to be gay? Would you choose to be gay?

    Now, let's explore the world in which you are correct. That's not this world, but some hypothetical parallel world.

    In a world where some persons choose to be gay, they would still have the right to live their lives. They would still have the right to seek out someone to love.

    They would still have the right to commit themselves to a lifelong monogamous relationship to the person they love. And they would still have the right to raise their own children.

    Wishing you all the best.

  26. To Whom it may concern:

    Is there anyone here who disagrees with the following?

    1. When gays choose to take up marriage, they are agreeing to the social norms of monogamy and fidelity.

    2. Marriage is an act of unselfishness. When you marry someone you agree to devote your life to that person.

    3. Marriage is also an agreement to reject sex outside of that union.

    4. When gays have children, they have the right to raise them.

    I wish you all the best!

  27. Yes, I DO!

    Quit blowing soap bubbles!!!.....GOD could never abide with them!...IN A UNION AS "CO CREATORS OF LIFE"....just not in the DNA!!!......or did you forget that teeny, weeny little point???....

  28. Dear Donna M,
    I wish you could compose yourself, at least enough as to make your position clear.

    Your reply to my question "Do you agree... when gays choose to take up marriage, they are agreeing to the social norms of monogamy and fidelity?" is ha, ha, ha?

    Well that response must come in handy. When someone asks me if Donna is capable of abiding with monogamy and fidelity, I will just say "ha ha ha ha!"

    Your second response is even less clear. Is it in response to the assertion that marriage is an act of unselfishness?

    Or is it a response to the assertion that when you marry someone you agree to devote your life to that person?

    Is it a response to the assertion that marriage is also an agreement to reject sex outside of that union?

    Or is it a response to the assertion that when gays have children, they have the right to raise them?

    If you are rejecting assertion 4, you might be the monster here, not gays. At least they don't want to take your children away from you!

    You are scaring me here.

  29. Dear Lynda,

    It appears that you have objective truth and objective falsehood confused. There are many same sex married couples already.

    Same sex married couples exist just like homosexuals exist. The question then is what to do about them.

    I propose we treat them as human beings. As human beings, they have certain rights. And a right to find someone to love, and to commit themselves to that one person they love are among those rights.

    You cannot deny them that.

    Two persons of the same sex cannot procreate. However, one gay person can procreate with a willing partner of the opposite sex.

    A gay person who is also a child's mother or the child's father has as much right to raise that child as you do.

    You cannot deny them that.

    We know that gays exist and we know that they engage in sexual behaviors with one another. Surely, it is better for them, and better for the rest of us, that IF they choose to have such relations, that they conduct it in a monogamous relationship. Which is why they want to marry.

    Lynda, I fear your hatred will lead you to propose taking child from parent. I fear your hatred will destroy you.

    Find room in your heart to admit that gays are not monsters.

    Be well, Lynda.

  30. Greetings to Donna M and Lynda:

    I joined you in efforts to provide a better understanding of the truth to Walter and his fellow travelers, and perhaps others as well, but all of us have been treated to Walter's intentional and uncharitable mischaracterizations of our positions, purposely ignoring our direct questions (he never even tries to directly answer the ones I set forth), and his ongoing setting up of straw men arguments.

    It is indeed wise to no longer engage him since he intentionally avoids an honest conversation, all the while accusing us of having attitudes toward homosexual people as people that we simply do not have. Let us pray that Walter finds the spiritual courage to engage others honestly in pursuit of the truth, which is what our Lord declared about Himself as well.

    All the Best, God Bless, and Happy Easter.

    Omnia Vincit Veritas

  31. Dear Anonymous,

    You never told the truth here.
    Mendacium est gladius tuus.


Post a Comment