I cannot hide my concern for the family, which is threatened, perhaps as never before, from within and without. Fundamental relationships are being called into question, as is the very basis of marriage and the family. I can only reiterate the importance and, above all, the richness and the beauty of family life.”source
The joint editorial was written by Hector Avalos, Robert R. Cargill and Kenneth Atkinson and published in the Des Moines Register on Sunday. The men teach at Iowa State University, University of Iowa and University of Northern Iowa, respectively.
"The debate about marriage equality often centers, however discretely, on an appeal to the Bible," the authors wrote. "Unfortunately, such appeals often reflect a lack of biblical literacy on the part of those who use that complex collection of texts as an authority to enact modern social policy."
The Bible's definition of marriage can be confusing and contradictory, noted the scholars. They stated in their column that a primary example of this is the religious book's stance on polygamy, a practice that was embraced by prominent biblical figures Abraham and David. Furthermore, Avalos, Cargill and Atkinson point out that various Bible passages mention not only traditional monogamy, but also self-induced castration and celibacy, as well as the practice of wedding rape victims to their rapists.
The statement, co-signed by Ritchie's representative, says the couple had not agreed to a settlement.
The Sun newspaper -- a British tabloid -- first reported Wednesday that the couple would announce the split imminently.
Sad
These images are from the new webmess, iProtect. Their goal is to educate young folks about gay marriage in hopes to stop it. They even have facts to help spread their cause.Marrying a same-sex lover isn't a civil right.
Prop. 8 isn't out to remove rights. In America, we all have the "right" to have a relationship. But what about the legal right to marry?
The question is, why stop there? If gays have a right to get married, then how can they say a man doesn't have the right to marry his daughter, or a minor, or three women?
The same-sex marriage movement has more to do with validation and social respect than legal rights. But the cost to the rest of society is far too much to pay.
Homosexual marriage degrades a time-honored institution
Homosexual marriage is an empty pretense that lacks the fundamental sexual complementariness of male and female. And like all counterfeits, it cheapens and degrades the real thing. The destructive effects may not be immediately apparent, but the cumulative damage is inescapable. The eminent Harvard sociologist, Pitirim Sorokin, analyzed cultures spanning several thousand years on several continents, and found that virtually no society has ceased to regulate sexuality within marriage as traditionally defined, and survived.
Homosexual marriage would radically redefine marriage to include virtually any sexual behavior.
Once marriage is no longer confined to a man and a woman, and the sole criterion becomes the presence of "love" and "mutual commitment," it is impossible to exclude virtually any "relationship" between two or more partners of either sex. To those who scoff at concerns that gay marriage could lead to the acceptance of other harmful and widely-rejected sexual behaviors, it should be pointed out that until very recent times the very suggestion that two women or two men could "marry" would have been greeted with scorn. The movement to redefine marriage has already found full expression in what is variously called "polyfidelity" or "polyamory," which seeks to replace traditional marriage with a bewildering array of sexual combinations among various groups of individuals.
Homosexual marriage is not a civil rights issue
Defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman would not deny homosexuals the basic civil rights accorded other citizens. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights or in any legislation proceeding from it are homosexuals excluded from the rights enjoyed by all
citizens--including the right to marry. However, no citizen has the unrestricted right to marry whomever they want. A person cannot marry a child, a close blood relative, two or more spouses, or the husband or wife of another person. Such restrictions are based upon the accumulated wisdom not only of Western civilization but also of societies and cultures around the world for millennia.
If victorious, the homosexual agenda will lead to the persecution of those who object on moral or religious groundsIf homosexual marriage becomes the law of the land, then children in public schools will be taught that homosexuality is a normative lifestyle, and that gay households are just another "variant" style of family. Those who object may find themselves on the wrong side of the law. Unbelievable? This Orwellian situation has occurred in Massachusetts , which legalized homosexual marriage in 2004. In April 2005, David Parker, the parent of a six-year-old boy, protested to the Lexington elementary school after his son was taught about homosexual "families" in his kindergarten class.
At a scheduled meeting at the school, when Parker refused to back down from his request that the school honor the Massachusetts parental notification statute, he was arrested for "trespassing," handcuffed, and put in jail overnight. The next morning Parker was led handcuffed into court for his arraignment, and over the next several months endured two subsequent court appearances before the school district backed down and decided to drop all charges against him. In 2007, Parker's lawsuit against the Lexington school officials was dismissed by a federal judge who refused to uphold his civil rights and to enforce the Massachusetts parental notification statute. Parker's shocking story will become commonplace in a society that forces the acceptance of homosexual marriage as normative.
Oh, Timmy shut up and get laid. For more go here
The Vermont study followed-up on a 2002 project that was the first to focus on legalized relationships of same-sex couples in the US, following establishment of civil unions in Vermont in 2000.
Sixty-five male and 138 female couples who entered into civil unions during the first year they were available were asked to provide information. They were compared to 23 male and 61 female couples not in civil unions and 55 heterosexual married couples who were related to the same-sex couples in civil unions.
Same-sex couples not in civil unions were more likely to have ended their relationship than same-sex couples in civil unions or heterosexual married couples in the study. This finding supports earlier research by Lawrence Kurdek at Wright State University and by Green, Bettinger, and Zacks at Alliant International University that compared same-sex unmarried and heterosexual married couples and found marriage was linked to longer lasting relationships.
This is very interesting info, but I wonder if legalized couples fair well in major cities...like Los Angeles, New York, or Boston. I'm curious to know more.
The Bachelor and shows like this takes the whole affair of courting and pound it into twelve 1 hour features. And if you watch this mess, none of the relationships last. Getting a fake prince charming to find a cheerleader of his dreams is borderline high school and silly.
This event puts arrogant young business boys with silly fashion girls in hopes to create their lasting love affair. So far, it's increased drunken one-night stands and stained dresses.
This is the quickest trip to divorce court. Sugardaddies.com claims that the classy and prettiest people come here, hoping to find that perfect person to complete their lost and lonely lives. Basically this foolishness only pushes the notions that women are gold diggers and men are...well, men.Among the networks overall, references to adultery outnumbered references to marital sex by 2 to 1. The "family hour" -- the first hour of prime-time TV, which draws the most young viewers -- contained the highest ratio of references to non-married vs. married sex, the study found.
So, I think it's safe to say we are not causing the increase in divorce. Our counterparts are doing a great job without us.
