Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by james darby on June 9, 2012 at 3:00pm

Hi Rory, You say "Gay marriage is a natural progression after divorce and contraception become accepted." Contraception and divorce have nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuals wishing to marry themselves as man and wife. Despite many homosexuals still owning the genes that say "be a parent" and "reproduce" there is nothing that does not have a cost. Persons who have gone down the path of sodomy naturally want to feel normal and want acceptence for the continuance of their lifestyle choice. Anything such as marrying  helps them in their desire to feel normal. Suffer the little children. The very least that a society should do for the children is to protect them from a personal acceptence of a homosexual lifestyle being normal behaviour. Marriage is for husband and wife and the best thing to teach children is that "should you contemplate a homosexual lifestyle society will not allow you to adopt children. A child does not have a choice who their parents are and you have the choice about the course of your life. If you want to be a parent one day fall in love with a person of the opposite sex and marry."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rory Donnellan on June 9, 2012 at 10:26pm

Jan,

Your arguments with regard to divorce are beginning to sound similar to those of King Henry VIIIth!

Jan Courtney said:

Rory,  That's an extreme and, in my opinion, incorrect view.

It's better for a couple to divorce than destroy one another, and their children, by staying together if the marriage is unworkable.  People do make mistakes and marry the wrong person sometimes.  Doesn't mean they are homosexual.

Rory Donnellan said:

Gay marriage is a natural progression after divorce and contraception become accepted.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rory Donnellan on June 9, 2012 at 10:32pm

James,

Have you considered the fact that contracepting heterosexual couples are no more open to human life than same-sex partners?

james darby said:

Hi Rory, You say "Gay marriage is a natural progression after divorce and contraception become accepted." Contraception and divorce have nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuals wishing to marry themselves as man and wife. Despite many homosexuals still owning the genes that say "be a parent" and "reproduce" there is nothing that does not have a cost. Persons who have gone down the path of sodomy naturally want to feel normal and want acceptence for the continuance of their lifestyle choice. Anything such as marrying  helps them in their desire to feel normal. Suffer the little children. The very least that a society should do for the children is to protect them from a personal acceptence of a homosexual lifestyle being normal behaviour. Marriage is for husband and wife and the best thing to teach children is that "should you contemplate a homosexual lifestyle society will not allow you to adopt children. A child does not have a choice who their parents are and you have the choice about the course of your life. If you want to be a parent one day fall in love with a person of the opposite sex and marry."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rory Donnellan on June 10, 2012 at 12:23pm

Jan,

There's a common misconception that divorce and annulment are the same.

Divorce means that you were once married but that this is no longer the case.

Annulment means that you were NEVER married - regardless of what any civil office may have mistakenly decreed. The truth is that what God has joined together, no man (not even the pope) can cast asunder.

Do you know much about King Henry VIIIth and St Thomas More?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rory Donnellan on June 10, 2012 at 12:43pm

The party-line - no such thing as ex-gay...

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-party-line-no-such-thing-as-ex...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rae Billett on June 10, 2012 at 1:14pm

I have have no thoughts about gay marriage one way or another as far as adults are concerned. I am definitely not homophobic, but none of my gay friends would marry for a start and none want children in their relationship.  

 

What I do worry about is the children who are part of a same sex relationships/marriages and their long term psychological well being.

 

I hate the thought of poor little children having to face the peer pressures that will come with the relationship their same sex parents decided they must have. I am talking about little children who have no comprehension of the reasons they have either no mother or no father, small children with no say at all in what they will face in their future lives.

 

I have a very good friend whose wife died when the children were babies, one was 2 the other 6 months.  He has not remarried. The little girl "wants her Mum back" she says it all the time. She has two loving grandmothers, but she wants her Mum back because all the other kids have a Mum. It would be the same if it was their father, they would want their Dad back because other kids have a Dad. Even children with separated parents have as Dad or Mum. Kids need a mother and a father, no ifs or buts.   

 

To knowingly deprive a child of a real mother or father relationship when they are growing up just to fulfill their own sexual pleasures is an anathema to me and always will be. I call it selfish and these will be the people who will scream loudest and longest about how maladjusted their children have become in future life.   

 

Why do this to little children and expect them to be able to understand what led to them having two mothers or two fathers.....please spare me any of the platitudes. The kids know they are different.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Malcolm Fenton on June 10, 2012 at 1:57pm

Exactly so Rae.

Rae Billett said:

 

Why do this to little children and expect them to be able to understand what led to them having two mothers or two fathers.....please spare me any of the platitudes. The kids know they are different.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by james darby on June 10, 2012 at 2:31pm

Hi Rae, I love what you wrote. 

Hello Rory you wrote " James, Have you considered the fact that contracepting heterosexual couples are no more open to human life than same-sex partners? "  

No, I have not Rory, I  have not considered your suggestion at all until you asked me the question. I accept that same sex couples have not removed from their id the genetic desire to reproduce by having a same gender sexual partner. I do not accept the "contracepting" man and wife spouse are less open to human life no matter what form of contraception they choose and if they use any form of contraception or not. The very worst thing a couple can do is abstain. Intermacy and affection between spice are vital to keep the male alive. Men only die before women after their woman turns off the tap. I would go so far as to say that same gender persons who are partnering themselves in sexual activity are more likely to use contraceptive devices to protect themselves from AIDS than marrieds are to allay more children,, Homosexuals would  have done the children of the world a great service by remaining in the closet and thus ensuring that "homosexuality" had not  bi-jacked by the Collectivised who want to use the homosexuals as an excuse for attacking the dignity of marriage. All socialists know know know that "family" is the greatest bastion against socialism that there is and so anything that can be done to weaken the perfectness of marriage will be done by Greens type persons. Any person who does not defend marriage for man and wife and family and children is, whether they like it or not,  a socialist.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rae Billett on June 10, 2012 at 3:45pm

Thanks Jan, and I will not deviate from my thoughts on the matter at all, no matter how politically incorrect.

 

The other problem I have is that young children, very young children, are being taught in school to accept this situation as 'natural', it's not. Of course I like to think it is done with the best of intentions so the little ones within those relationships are not bullied as much. They will be nonetheless because people are notoriously cruel and it is fact of life and that won't change for male or female homosexuals no matter how hard they push their agenda.    

 

Same sex relationships are being pushed in this way is because of IVF and the readily availability for same sex couples to have children to order, if they pay enough. Is that okay? I know what I think. There was a woman in Victoria who was implanted with 4 embryos but she and her lesbian partner didn't want four so they sued....So that's okay? Tell me it's not all about them? She should not have been able to line up for IVF anyway.   And before anyone jumps up in horror, no I don't believe single women should have IVF either. If they want a child, they know how..... 

 

Nothing will convince me that these people are not selfish, self indulgent twats who don't care about anything or anyone but themselves. And I know...there is a prominent politician included in that lot. I don't care, it does not change my opinion on same sex couples having children, her included. If they want a same sex marriage or whatever it is they want, then DON'T HAVE CHILDREN!

Jan Courtney said:

Hmmmmm James,  from a woman's perspective you have some very interesting theories :

 

"Turn off the tap" ?????????

 

 

However Rae has nailed it completely. 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rae Billett on June 10, 2012 at 4:07pm

Yes Jan, 

Isn't it sad that the world wishes to deny these poor little children born into these relationships the right to know their heritage. That doesn't even come into the equation when homosexual marriage is discussed, it's all about the adult individuals, their rights and what they want.

 

I listened to a debate, more a discussion on the ABC Radio National last weekend I think and only one well known homosexual male said that marriage is not what most males in homosexual relationships really want because they don't stay in relationships long enough, they change partners all the time. He knew what he was talking about because all of his friends were homosexual and not one wanted to 'get married', neither of course did he.   

So is it lesbians who are pushing the debate? I don't know what difference it all makes in the long run, these relationship are accepted in common law now. But if they want to walk down the aisle who cares.. I think it is all a bit laughable apart from the children of these relationships, that is far from laughable.

 

Jan Courtney said:

Peter,  I prefer to keep it simple:

 

 

 

Same-sex marriage is NOT a “conscience issue” any more than considering the arbitrary removal of children from their biological parents could be considered a “conscience issue.”

Marriage protects a child’s fundamental right to know his/her brothers, sisters, grandparents, and medical history.

Marriage is the natural, compound, biological right:

-  of one man and one woman to marry; and then
-  to found a family, i.e. to have children in a manner that protects the fundamental right of children to know and be raised by their biological parents, to know their biological brothers and sisters, grandparents, ancestors and their family medical history.
In this way, marriage means the union of one man and one woman, as well as the right to form a family in a way that protects the rights of children.

Trying to redefine the word marriage would be like the Federal government passing a law to redefine the word vegetarian to include meat eaters, in order to avoid discrimination against meat eaters. Such a law doesn’t change the meaning of vegetarian, it destroys the meaning of “vegetarian”, a word that explains the difference between a person who doesn’t eat meat and a person who includes meat in their diet.

According to the Institute of Family Studies 73.6% of children are being reared by their biological mother and father. In this way, the biological rights of the great majority of Australian children are being respected.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rae Billett on June 10, 2012 at 5:23pm

I have been reading through some of the comments about IVF and I don't want to keep relating sad stories but you know what we are 'told' and what is in fact 'reality' in this day and age and in particularly in the medical disciplines is not all great and good.

 

I knew a women who attended the IVF Clinic in my area for many years, she was desperate to have children. They were going to give it all up because they was so tired of the process which as many would know is quite horrendous. But, they gave it another go and she fell pregnant with twins, two boys.

She bought them to work and they were just beautiful little boys. The last time I saw them they would have been about 18 months old. They both died before they were three.....the medical people involved said cot deaths. In fact they didn't know. It nearly killed the mother of these children. She couldn't work again. It basically ruined her life.

 

No, they certainly do not talk about the risks involved and the long term outlook for these children and of course the reason is because long term is still in the process becoming long term for many. And, as Jan pointed out, it is not 'natural'.

 

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rory Donnellan on June 11, 2012 at 12:19pm

Jan,

Most Catholics know there's an ongoing annulment scandal in many corrupt dioceses- almost as bad as the homosexual priest problem. Despite these abuses, your suggestion that the Catholic Church permits divorce is dishonest.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• …
• 15
• Next ›
• Page