| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
26 Oct 2005 12:31:44 AM |
| Object: |
Protect the sanctity of marriage |
Parker: Protect the sanctity of marriage
Gina Parker, Guest column
Robert Knight, director of the Culture & Family Institute, says, "[Marriage]
predates the law and the Constitution, and is an anthropological and
sociological reality, not primarily a legal one.
"No civilization can survive without it, and those societies that allowed it
to become irrelevant have faded into history."
On Nov. 8, Texans will have the power to amend our state constitution to
include a provision that clearly defines marriage as that between one man
and one woman.
The fruit of this amendment will protect our state from the unbridled power
of the judiciary to destroy the fabric of our nation, the foundation of the
family - marriage.
What many fail to understand is that without a constitutional amendment our
courts will have the authority to strike down any statute that protects
traditional marriage.
Currently, more than 60 lawsuits across the country seek to do just that -
overrule the voice of the people through a single judge.
By supporting Proposition 2 we are securing the future of our children and
sending a strong message to the rest of the states that in order to survive
as a nation built on the foundation of marriage, we must protect the
sanctity of marriage as that between a man and a woman.
No longer can we stand idly by and watch our nation fall under the guise of
"equal rights" for homosexuals; we must vote to protect marriage and to
protect our children's future.
As Guy Adams recently said in an article he wrote for Renew America,
"Outlawing gay marriage is no more discriminatory than it is to forbid
children to vote. It is not a 'civil rights' issue; it is simply not a good
idea."
By allowing gay marriage there will be no marriage, because its meaning will
be forever lost.
Texans have a history of low voter turnout for state constitutional
amendments. Please stop taking your right to vote for granted. Help to
ensure the future of our children by voting yes to Proposition 2. Your voice
must be heard on this foundationally challenging issue.
Gina Parker, a Waco attorney and business owner, is active in the state
Republican Party.
--
*****************************************
Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life.
.
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: Protect the sanctity of marriage |
27 Oct 2005 05:19:50 AM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
news:95CdnRlMDoS2iMLeRVn-iA@giganews.com:
Parker: Protect the sanctity of marriage
Gina Parker, Guest column
Robert Knight, director of the Culture & Family Institute, says,
"[Marriage] predates the law and the Constitution, and is an
anthropological and sociological reality, not primarily a legal one.
"No civilization can survive without it, and those societies that
allowed it to become irrelevant have faded into history."
On Nov. 8, Texans will have the power to amend our state constitution to
include a provision that clearly defines marriage as that between one
man and one woman.
The fruit of this amendment will protect our state from the unbridled
power of the judiciary to destroy the fabric of our nation, the
foundation of the family - marriage.
Since every statewide judge in Texas is a
Republican, where do you see this "unbridled
power of the judiciary"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Protect the sanctity of marriage |
27 Oct 2005 09:24:03 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 05:19:50 -0500, Mitchell Holman
<ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
news:95CdnRlMDoS2iMLeRVn-iA@giganews.com:
Parker: Protect the sanctity of marriage
Gina Parker, Guest column
Robert Knight, director of the Culture & Family Institute, says,
"[Marriage] predates the law and the Constitution, and is an
anthropological and sociological reality, not primarily a legal one.
"No civilization can survive without it, and those societies that
allowed it to become irrelevant have faded into history."
On Nov. 8, Texans will have the power to amend our state constitution to
include a provision that clearly defines marriage as that between one
man and one woman.
The fruit of this amendment will protect our state from the unbridled
power of the judiciary to destroy the fabric of our nation, the
foundation of the family - marriage.
Since every statewide judge in Texas is a
Republican, where do you see this "unbridled
power of the judiciary"?
The same place where all that persecution of Christians in America
comes from - Never-Never Land.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Protect the sanctity of marriage |
26 Oct 2005 08:04:07 AM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:95CdnRlMDoS2iMLeRVn-iA@giganews.com...
Parker: Protect the sanctity of marriage
Gina Parker, Guest column
Robert Knight, director of the Culture & Family Institute, says,
"[Marriage]
predates the law and the Constitution, and is an anthropological and
sociological reality, not primarily a legal one.
"No civilization can survive without it, and those societies that allowed
it
to become irrelevant have faded into history."
On Nov. 8, Texans will have the power to amend our state constitution to
include a provision that clearly defines marriage as that between one man
and one woman.
The fruit of this amendment will protect our state from the unbridled
power
of the judiciary to destroy the fabric of our nation, the foundation of
the
family - marriage.
They are already destroying it with divorce laws.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: Protect the sanctity of marriage |
26 Oct 2005 12:59:55 AM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:95CdnRlMDoS2iMLeRVn-iA@giganews.com...
Parker: Protect the sanctity of marriage
Intelligent people: marriage is in no danger.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: Protect the sanctity of marriage |
26 Oct 2005 08:31:15 AM |
|
|
"Joseph Welch" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130306396.6e31b47319f97a95cd28f8897f5fb1e8@meganetnews2...
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:95CdnRlMDoS2iMLeRVn-iA@giganews.com...
Parker: Protect the sanctity of marriage
Intelligent people: marriage is in no danger.
Psychoanalyst: the patient's irrational, neurotic fears about 'marriage'
being 'undermined' and the result being 'chaos' are actually produced by his
unconscious commitment to the desperate desire he himself had, in his
infancy, to break up his parents' marriage so he could posses his mother and
usurp his father.
Katt.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Protect the sanctity of marriage |
27 Oct 2005 09:42:35 AM |
|
|
Joseph Welch wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:95CdnRlMDoS2iMLeRVn-iA@giganews.com...
Parker: Protect the sanctity of marriage
Intelligent people: marriage is in no danger.
Leftist Spin Doctor: Naturally, we'll ignore statistical trends for
minorities and Scandinavia.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LeMod Pol" |
|
| Title: Re: Protect the sanctity of marriage |
27 Oct 2005 12:14:41 PM |
|
|
Al Smith wrote:
Joseph Welch wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:95CdnRlMDoS2iMLeRVn-iA@giganews.com...
Parker: Protect the sanctity of marriage
Intelligent people: marriage is in no danger.
Leftist Spin Doctor: Naturally, we'll ignore statistical trends for
minorities and Scandinavia.
Those who use X-NAY are unworthy of response.
--
LP
There are three types of people that
you_can_not_talk into behaving well.
The stupid, the religious fanatic, and
the evil.
1- the stupid
The stupid aren't smart enough to
follow the logic of what you say.
You have to tell them what is right
in very simple terms. If they don't
agree, then you'll never be able to
change their mind.
2- the religious fanatic
If what you say goes against their
religious belief, they will cling to
that religious belief even if it means
their death."
3- The evil
There is no way to convince the
terrorists, serial killers, pedophiles,
and predators to change their evil ways.
They knew what they were doing was
wrong, but that knowledge didn't stop
them. It only made them more careful in
how they went about performing their
evil acts.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Protect the sanctity of marriage |
27 Oct 2005 12:09:07 PM |
|
|
Al Smith wrote:
Joseph Welch wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:95CdnRlMDoS2iMLeRVn-iA@giganews.com...
Parker: Protect the sanctity of marriage
Intelligent people: marriage is in no danger.
Leftist Spin Doctor: Naturally, we'll ignore statistical trends for
minorities and Scandinavia.
Intelligent people: Naturally you can cite some recent, peer reviewed
scientific evidence to back up your assertions?
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Protect the sanctity of marriage |
27 Oct 2005 12:19:03 PM |
|
|
L. Michael Roberts wrote:
Al Smith wrote:
Joseph Welch wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:95CdnRlMDoS2iMLeRVn-iA@giganews.com...
Parker: Protect the sanctity of marriage
Intelligent people: marriage is in no danger.
Leftist Spin Doctor: Naturally, we'll ignore statistical trends for
minorities and Scandinavia.
Intelligent people: Naturally you can cite some recent, peer reviewed
scientific evidence to back up your assertions?
Itelligent people as defined by IQ: Already know the facts.
Socrates to thow who think they are intelligent: Put -
"scandinavian marriage rates"
and then
"black marriage rates"
into your search engine and read the article from the source you trust
the most.
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Protect the sanctity of marriage |
28 Oct 2005 08:10:01 AM |
|
|
wrote:
L. Michael Roberts wrote:
Al Smith wrote:
Joseph Welch wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:95CdnRlMDoS2iMLeRVn-iA@giganews.com...
Parker: Protect the sanctity of marriage
Intelligent people: marriage is in no danger.
Leftist Spin Doctor: Naturally, we'll ignore statistical trends for
minorities and Scandinavia.
Intelligent people: Naturally you can cite some recent, peer reviewed
scientific evidence to back up your assertions?
Itelligent people as defined by IQ: Already know the facts.
Socrates to thow who think they are intelligent: Put -
"scandinavian marriage rates"
and then
"black marriage rates"
into your search engine and read the article from the source you trust
the most.
Intelligent people: Just as we thought.... you have *NO* proof!
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Boy Toy" |
|
| Title: Re: Protect the sanctity of marriage |
27 Oct 2005 03:34:05 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:09:07 -0400, "L. Michael Roberts"
<L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote in message
<qbydndn7JrMslPzeRVn-3Q@golden.net>
Al Smith wrote:
Joseph Welch wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:95CdnRlMDoS2iMLeRVn-iA@giganews.com...
Parker: Protect the sanctity of marriage
Intelligent people: marriage is in no danger.
Leftist Spin Doctor: Naturally, we'll ignore statistical trends for
minorities and Scandinavia.
Intelligent people: Naturally you can cite some recent, peer reviewed
scientific evidence to back up your assertions?
Here's some recent peer reviewed evidence which shows he is full of
(ahem) fecal material:
Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with
Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies
Gregory S. Paul
Baltimore, Maryland
Journal of Religion and Society, vol 7 (2005)
"In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator
correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult
mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion ... None
of the strongly secularised, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing
high levels of measurable dysfunction." Within the US, "the strongly
theistic, anti-evolution south and midwest" have "markedly worse
homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related
problems than the north-east where ... secularisation, and acceptance
of evolution approach European norms".
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Protect the sanctity of marriage |
27 Oct 2005 04:05:07 PM |
|
|
Boy Toy wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:09:07 -0400, "L. Michael Roberts"
<L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote in message
<qbydndn7JrMslPzeRVn-3Q@golden.net>
Al Smith wrote:
Joseph Welch wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:95CdnRlMDoS2iMLeRVn-iA@giganews.com...
Parker: Protect the sanctity of marriage
Intelligent people: marriage is in no danger.
Leftist Spin Doctor: Naturally, we'll ignore statistical trends for
minorities and Scandinavia.
Intelligent people: Naturally you can cite some recent, peer reviewed
scientific evidence to back up your assertions?
Here's some recent peer reviewed evidence which shows he is full of
(ahem) fecal material:
Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with
Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies
Gregory S. Paul
Baltimore, Maryland
Journal of Religion and Society, vol 7 (2005)
"In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator
correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult
mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion ... None
of the strongly secularised, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing
high levels of measurable dysfunction." Within the US, "the strongly
theistic, anti-evolution south and midwest" have "markedly worse
homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related
problems than the north-east where ... secularisation, and acceptance
of evolution approach European norms".
Focus like a laser beam:
I'm saying that minorities and Scandanavians are not marrying at the
rates they used to and they continue in a downward trend.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Protect the sanctity of marriage |
27 Oct 2005 10:19:58 PM |
|
|
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1130447107.714107.223910@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Boy Toy wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:09:07 -0400, "L. Michael Roberts"
<L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote in message
<qbydndn7JrMslPzeRVn-3Q@golden.net>
Al Smith wrote:
Joseph Welch wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:95CdnRlMDoS2iMLeRVn-iA@giganews.com...
Parker: Protect the sanctity of marriage
Intelligent people: marriage is in no danger.
Leftist Spin Doctor: Naturally, we'll ignore statistical trends for
minorities and Scandinavia.
Intelligent people: Naturally you can cite some recent, peer reviewed
scientific evidence to back up your assertions?
Here's some recent peer reviewed evidence which shows he is full of
(ahem) fecal material:
Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with
Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies
Gregory S. Paul
Baltimore, Maryland
Journal of Religion and Society, vol 7 (2005)
"In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator
correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult
mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion ... None
of the strongly secularised, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing
high levels of measurable dysfunction." Within the US, "the strongly
theistic, anti-evolution south and midwest" have "markedly worse
homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related
problems than the north-east where ... secularisation, and acceptance
of evolution approach European norms".
Focus like a laser beam:
I'm saying that minorities and Scandanavians are not marrying at the
rates they used to and they continue in a downward trend.
Non causa pro causa.
Next.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Protect the sanctity of marriage |
29 Oct 2005 09:24:21 PM |
|
|
Dennis Kemmerer wrote:
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1130447107.714107.223910@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Boy Toy wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:09:07 -0400, "L. Michael Roberts"
<L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote in message
<qbydndn7JrMslPzeRVn-3Q@golden.net>
Al Smith wrote:
Joseph Welch wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:95CdnRlMDoS2iMLeRVn-iA@giganews.com...
Parker: Protect the sanctity of marriage
Intelligent people: marriage is in no danger.
Leftist Spin Doctor: Naturally, we'll ignore statistical trends for
minorities and Scandinavia.
Intelligent people: Naturally you can cite some recent, peer reviewed
scientific evidence to back up your assertions?
Here's some recent peer reviewed evidence which shows he is full of
(ahem) fecal material:
Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with
Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies
Gregory S. Paul
Baltimore, Maryland
Journal of Religion and Society, vol 7 (2005)
"In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator
correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult
mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion ... None
of the strongly secularised, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing
high levels of measurable dysfunction." Within the US, "the strongly
theistic, anti-evolution south and midwest" have "markedly worse
homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related
problems than the north-east where ... secularisation, and acceptance
of evolution approach European norms".
Focus like a laser beam:
I'm saying that minorities and Scandanavians are not marrying at the
rates they used to and they continue in a downward trend.
Non causa pro causa.
There is no logical assertions applied here, dumbass. You could squeal
about an "appeal to authority" because the stats are on the internet
for you to see.
Next.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Protect the sanctity of marriage |
29 Oct 2005 11:14:33 PM |
|
|
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1130639061.663803.197360@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dennis Kemmerer wrote:
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1130447107.714107.223910@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Boy Toy wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:09:07 -0400, "L. Michael Roberts"
<L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote in message
<qbydndn7JrMslPzeRVn-3Q@golden.net>
Al Smith wrote:
Joseph Welch wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:95CdnRlMDoS2iMLeRVn-iA@giganews.com...
Parker: Protect the sanctity of marriage
Intelligent people: marriage is in no danger.
Leftist Spin Doctor: Naturally, we'll ignore statistical trends for
minorities and Scandinavia.
Intelligent people: Naturally you can cite some recent, peer
reviewed
scientific evidence to back up your assertions?
Here's some recent peer reviewed evidence which shows he is full of
(ahem) fecal material:
Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with
Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies
Gregory S. Paul
Baltimore, Maryland
Journal of Religion and Society, vol 7 (2005)
"In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator
correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult
mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion ... None
of the strongly secularised, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing
high levels of measurable dysfunction." Within the US, "the strongly
theistic, anti-evolution south and midwest" have "markedly worse
homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related
problems than the north-east where ... secularisation, and acceptance
of evolution approach European norms".
Focus like a laser beam:
I'm saying that minorities and Scandanavians are not marrying at the
rates they used to and they continue in a downward trend.
Non causa pro causa.
There is no logical assertions applied here, dumbass. You could squeal
about an "appeal to authority" because the stats are on the internet
for you to see.
Ah, so you were just babbling.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Protect the sanctity of marriage |
29 Oct 2005 11:28:44 PM |
|
|
Dennis Kemmerer wrote:
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1130639061.663803.197360@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dennis Kemmerer wrote:
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1130447107.714107.223910@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Boy Toy wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:09:07 -0400, "L. Michael Roberts"
<L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote in message
<qbydndn7JrMslPzeRVn-3Q@golden.net>
Al Smith wrote:
Joseph Welch wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:95CdnRlMDoS2iMLeRVn-iA@giganews.com...
Parker: Protect the sanctity of marriage
Intelligent people: marriage is in no danger.
Leftist Spin Doctor: Naturally, we'll ignore statistical trends for
minorities and Scandinavia.
Intelligent people: Naturally you can cite some recent, peer
reviewed
scientific evidence to back up your assertions?
Here's some recent peer reviewed evidence which shows he is full of
(ahem) fecal material:
Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with
Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies
Gregory S. Paul
Baltimore, Maryland
Journal of Religion and Society, vol 7 (2005)
"In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator
correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult
mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion ... None
of the strongly secularised, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing
high levels of measurable dysfunction." Within the US, "the strongly
theistic, anti-evolution south and midwest" have "markedly worse
homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related
problems than the north-east where ... secularisation, and acceptance
of evolution approach European norms".
Focus like a laser beam:
I'm saying that minorities and Scandanavians are not marrying at the
rates they used to and they continue in a downward trend.
Non causa pro causa.
There is no logical assertions applied here, dumbass. You could squeal
about an "appeal to authority" because the stats are on the internet
for you to see.
Ah, so you were just babbling.
If you don't know what a logical fallacy is then yes, it does sound
like babble, to you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "torresD" |
|
| Title: Re: Protect the sanctity of marriage |
30 Oct 2005 12:00:43 AM |
|
|
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1601160,00.html
Fertility clinic in US gets
green light for sex selection trial
Ian Sample, science correspondent
Thursday October 27, 2005
The Guardian
A clinical trial into the effects of
allowing couples to choose the sex of
their babies has been given the go-ahead
at a US fertility clinic.
The controversial study was given
the green light by an ethics committee
after nine years of consultation.
The purpose of the study is to
find out how cultural notions,
family values and gender issues
feed into a couple's desire to
choose the gender of their child.
Fertility clinics already use a
technique called pre-implantation
genetic diagnosis to select healthy
embryos if a child has a high risk
of inheriting a genetic disease,
but the technique can also be used
to select the sex of embryos for
couples having IVF treatment.
In many countries,
including Britain,
using PGD for family
balancing is banned.
Fertility specialists at Baylor College
of Medicine in Texas have already received
50 inquiries from couples about joining
the trial,
according to the journal Nature today.
Only couples who have already had
one child and want another of the
opposite sex are eligible.
As well as assessing the factors
that contribute to a couple's decision
to select the sex of their next baby,
doctors will monitor the health of
the children and any social issues
that arise in their families as they
grow up.
This year the House of Commons science
and technology committee issued a report
suggesting sex selection should be made
available in Britain,
but several members of the committee
strongly disagreed and attacked the
final report for being too liberal.
Francoise Shenfield,
a member of the ethcis committee
of the European Society for Human
Reproduction and Embryology at
University College London Hospital,
said selecting sex for social
reasons should never be permitted.
"If you believe in equality as
enshrined in international human rights,
it's illogical to allow social sex selection.
It necessarily means that one sex
is preferable to the other for that
couple," Dr Shenfield said.
According to Paula Amato,
one of the doctors running the trial,
choosing sex to balance families is
less ethically problematic.
"Most of the ethical
arguments against sex selection,
for example sex discrimination,
are weakened when it is reserved
only for the purposes of gender
variety," she said.
.
|
|
|
| User: "torresD" |
|
| Title: PROOF THAT LIBERALS HATE AMERICA ==> Protect the sanctity of marriage |
30 Oct 2005 04:47:11 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 05:00:43 GMT, "torresD" <torresd30@hotmail.com>
wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1601160,00.html
Fertility clinic in US gets
green light for sex selection trial
Ian Sample, science correspondent
Thursday October 27, 2005
The Guardian
A clinical trial into the effects of
allowing couples to choose the sex of
their babies has been given the go-ahead
at a US fertility clinic.
The controversial study was given
the green light by an ethics committee
after nine years of consultation.
The purpose of the study is to
find out how cultural notions,
family values and gender issues
feed into a couple's desire to
choose the gender of their child.
Fertility clinics already use a
technique called pre-implantation
genetic diagnosis to select healthy
embryos if a child has a high risk
of inheriting a genetic disease,
but the technique can also be used
to select the sex of embryos for
couples having IVF treatment.
In many countries,
including Britain,
using PGD for family
balancing is banned.
Fertility specialists at Baylor College
of Medicine in Texas have already received
50 inquiries from couples about joining
the trial,
according to the journal Nature today.
Only couples who have already had
one child and want another of the
opposite sex are eligible.
As well as assessing the factors
that contribute to a couple's decision
to select the sex of their next baby,
doctors will monitor the health of
the children and any social issues
that arise in their families as they
grow up.
This year the House of Commons science
and technology committee issued a report
suggesting sex selection should be made
available in Britain,
but several members of the committee
strongly disagreed and attacked the
final report for being too liberal.
Francoise Shenfield,
a member of the ethcis committee
of the European Society for Human
Reproduction and Embryology at
University College London Hospital,
said selecting sex for social
reasons should never be permitted.
"If you believe in equality as
enshrined in international human rights,
it's illogical to allow social sex selection.
It necessarily means that one sex
is preferable to the other for that
couple," Dr Shenfield said.
According to Paula Amato,
one of the doctors running the trial,
choosing sex to balance families is
less ethically problematic.
"Most of the ethical
arguments against sex selection,
for example sex discrimination,
are weakened when it is reserved
only for the purposes of gender
variety," she said.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: Protect the sanctity of marriage |
07 Nov 2005 11:44:30 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Boy Toy wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:09:07 -0400, "L. Michael Roberts"
<L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote in message
<qbydndn7JrMslPzeRVn-3Q@golden.net>
Al Smith wrote:
Joseph Welch wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:95CdnRlMDoS2iMLeRVn-iA@giganews.com...
Parker: Protect the sanctity of marriage
Intelligent people: marriage is in no danger.
Leftist Spin Doctor: Naturally, we'll ignore statistical trends for
minorities and Scandinavia.
Intelligent people: Naturally you can cite some recent, peer reviewed
scientific evidence to back up your assertions?
Here's some recent peer reviewed evidence which shows he is full of
(ahem) fecal material:
Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with
Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies
Gregory S. Paul
Baltimore, Maryland
Journal of Religion and Society, vol 7 (2005)
"In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator
correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult
mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion ... None
of the strongly secularised, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing
high levels of measurable dysfunction." Within the US, "the strongly
theistic, anti-evolution south and midwest" have "markedly worse
homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related
problems than the north-east where ... secularisation, and acceptance
of evolution approach European norms".
Focus like a laser beam:
I'm saying that minorities and Scandanavians are not marrying at the
rates they used to and they continue in a downward trend.
Assuming this is true, how, exactly, does this support your assertions
concerning the institution of marriage, the "sanctity" of marriage
(whatever that is), or same-sex marriage?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: Protect the sanctity of marriage |
30 Oct 2005 02:06:13 PM |
|
|
On 2005-10-27 14:05:07 -0700, said:
I'm saying that minorities and Scandanavians are not marrying at the
rates they used to and they continue in a downward trend.
And the reason for bringing up this statistic (allowing contitionally
that it is accurate) in this thread is... what exactly?
--
GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825 --
"Genocide is used sparingly by God in only extreme circumstances." -Jim Spaza
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Protect the sanctity of marriage |
31 Oct 2005 09:51:57 PM |
|
|
655321 wrote:
On 2005-10-27 14:05:07 -0700, said:
I'm saying that minorities and Scandanavians are not marrying at the
rates they used to and they continue in a downward trend.
And the reason for bringing up this statistic (allowing contitionally
that it is accurate) in this thread is... what exactly?
Try reading the thread from the beginning.
.
|
|
|
| User: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: Protect the sanctity of marriage |
05 Nov 2005 12:38:45 PM |
|
|
On 2005-10-31 19:51:57 -0800, said:
655321 wrote:
On 2005-10-27 14:05:07 -0700, said:
I'm saying that minorities and Scandanavians are not marrying at the
rates they used to and they continue in a downward trend.
And the reason for bringing up this statistic (allowing contitionally
that it is accurate) in this thread is... what exactly?
Try reading the thread from the beginning.
I did, and still don't see the point. What's the connection between
these alleged "stats" and the topic of the thread?
--
GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825 --
I am not famous, I am notorious. And if I am rich, it is because I have
taken my wages in people.
- Quentin Crisp
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "michael james" |
|
| Title: Re: Protect the sanctity of marriage - in perspective |
31 Oct 2005 11:54:22 PM |
|
|
http://hnn.us/articles/4708.html
Today, when one out of every fifteen American marriages is interracial,
many people are surprised to learn that laws prohibiting interracial
marriage (otherwise known as miscegenation laws) were so deeply embedded
in U.S. history that they would have to be considered America's
longest-lasting form of legal race discrimination--they lasted far
longer than either slavery or school segregation. All told,
miscegenation laws were in effect for nearly three centuries, from 1664
until 1967, when the U.S. Supreme Court finally declared them
unconstitutional in the Loving decision.
The first law against interracial marriage was passed in the colony of
Maryland in 1664. It set a precedent that spread to the North as well as
the South: Massachusetts, for example, adopted a miscegenation law in
1705. After British colonies turned into American states, they
continued, one by one, to pass miscegenation laws, until, by the time of
the Civil War, they covered most of the south, much of the mid-West, and
were beginning to appear in western states, too. Before the Civil War,
there was only one significant challenge to this pattern of steady
expansion. In Massachusetts, in the 1830s, a remarkable group of radical
abolitionists went out on a limb to argue that the Massachusetts
miscegenation law contradicted the fundamental American principle of
civil equality. For more than a decade, abolitionists urged the
Massachusetts state legislature to repeal the law; finally, in 1843,
they succeeded.
Outside Massachusetts, however, laws against interracial marriage held
firm right through the Civil War--and beyond. One of the first things
defeated white Southerners did at the end of the Civil War was to pass
new, and stronger, miscegenation laws as part of their infamous black
codes. Determined to overcome Southern resistance, the federal
government built its Reconstruction program around the promise of
equality, then embedded this promise in the language of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees all citizens "equal
protection" of the law. During Reconstruction, the collision between the
power of the federal government and the resistance of white Southerners
was sharp enough to dislodge miscegenation laws in several Southern
states. In fact, during Reconstruction eight of the eleven formerly
Confederate states abandoned their laws against interracial marriage.
But it soon became apparent that Reconstruction would not survive long
enough to become a turning point in the history of miscegenation law. As
Reconstruction collapsed in the late 1870s, legislators, policymakers,
and, above all, judges began to marshal the arguments they needed to
justify the reinstatement--and subsequent expansion--of miscegenation law.
Here are four of the arguments they used:
1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the
states rather than the federal government.
2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships
(even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than
marriage.
3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's
will, and
4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage
was somehow "unnatural."
On this fourth point--the supposed "unnaturality" of interracial
marriage--judges formed a virtual chorus. Here, for example, is the
declaration that the Supreme Court of Virginia used to invalidate a
marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878:
The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and
physical development of both races….require that they should be kept
distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that
God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive
law, and be subject to no evasion.
The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation
law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that
interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the
Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws."
How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws
punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage,
they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is
usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state
supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme
Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: Protect the sanctity of marriage |
26 Oct 2005 06:53:02 AM |
|
|
*As Guy Adams recently said in an article he wrote for Renew America,
*"Outlawing gay marriage is no more discriminatory than it is to forbid
*children to vote. It is not a 'civil rights' issue; it is simply not a
good
*idea."
Wow! That's a great argument!!!! "not a good idea"!
Funny how fascist christians and nazi turds like J Young feel
threatened by gays. I'm not gay, I've been married for 18 years, I have
several gay friends, and yet, not one second do I feel the "sanctity"
of my marriage threatened by gays or "gay marriage". Actually, I
couldn't care less... Funny that these morons never say anything
about, say, Britney Spears and her 12 hours marriage... The day
american christians are put at their right place will be a great day...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Protect the sanctity of marriage |
26 Oct 2005 03:44:33 PM |
|
|
"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130327582.088479.243440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
*As Guy Adams recently said in an article he wrote for Renew America,
*"Outlawing gay marriage is no more discriminatory than it is to forbid
*children to vote. It is not a 'civil rights' issue; it is simply not a
good
*idea."
Wow! That's a great argument!!!! "not a good idea"!
Funny how fascist christians and nazi turds like J Young feel
threatened by gays. I'm not gay, I've been married for 18 years, I have
several gay friends, and yet, not one second do I feel the "sanctity"
of my marriage threatened by gays or "gay marriage". Actually, I
couldn't care less... Funny that these morons never say anything
about, say, Britney Spears and her 12 hours marriage...
Or their own abysmal 50% marriage failure rate.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Protect the sanctity of marriage |
27 Oct 2005 01:40:29 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:44:33 GMT, "Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote:
"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130327582.088479.243440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
*As Guy Adams recently said in an article he wrote for Renew America,
*"Outlawing gay marriage is no more discriminatory than it is to forbid
*children to vote. It is not a 'civil rights' issue; it is simply not a
good
*idea."
Wow! That's a great argument!!!! "not a good idea"!
Funny how fascist christians and nazi turds like J Young feel
threatened by gays. I'm not gay, I've been married for 18 years, I have
several gay friends, and yet, not one second do I feel the "sanctity"
of my marriage threatened by gays or "gay marriage". Actually, I
couldn't care less... Funny that these morons never say anything
about, say, Britney Spears and her 12 hours marriage...
Or their own abysmal 50% marriage failure rate.
I wonder if it is the statistics, that they fear.
Most of the gay couples that I know, have been in stable, long term
relationships, for as long as I have known them.
In a couple of cases, that is for over fifty years, and almost all of them are
over twenty five years.
OTOH, many of our heterosexual, married friends, have been through at least one
divorce. I would not, however, go so far as to suggest any great difference
between the divorce rates of our xtian, and our atheist friends.
Well just one small point: The most divorced of our friends, is an ex- "Baptist
minister"
It certainly puts the divorce/seperation rate, among our friends, much higher
for the "straight" couples, than for the gay couples.
Young gays, of both sexes, tend towards promiscuity, but then, the same is true
of young heteros of both sexes. So there is no ground there to differentiate
Whether this is the norm, or not, I would not like to guess, but if it is, it is
very understandable why the religious reich, don't want gays to marry.
The divorce stats would blow their holier than thou, marriage is sacred to
xtians, crap, right out of the water.
On more or less, the same subject.
I wonder how long it would take them to try and ban atheist marriage, if it
turned out that the atheist divorce rate was seriously lower than that of any
given xtian group. Say 15% atheist divorces, to perhaps 50% xtian. (:-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Boy Toy" |
|
| Title: Re: Protect the sanctity of marriage |
27 Oct 2005 03:35:48 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 18:40:29 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote in message <cj32m1lou2eab0eemhcearfedh87thsokn@4ax.com>
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:44:33 GMT, "Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote:
"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130327582.088479.243440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
*As Guy Adams recently said in an article he wrote for Renew America,
*"Outlawing gay marriage is no more discriminatory than it is to forbid
*children to vote. It is not a 'civil rights' issue; it is simply not a
good
*idea."
Wow! That's a great argument!!!! "not a good idea"!
Funny how fascist christians and nazi turds like J Young feel
threatened by gays. I'm not gay, I've been married for 18 years, I have
several gay friends, and yet, not one second do I feel the "sanctity"
of my marriage threatened by gays or "gay marriage". Actually, I
couldn't care less... Funny that these morons never say anything
about, say, Britney Spears and her 12 hours marriage...
Or their own abysmal 50% marriage failure rate.
I wonder if it is the statistics, that they fear.
Most of the gay couples that I know, have been in stable, long term
relationships, for as long as I have known them.
In a couple of cases, that is for over fifty years, and almost all of them are
over twenty five years.
OTOH, many of our heterosexual, married friends, have been through at least one
divorce. I would not, however, go so far as to suggest any great difference
between the divorce rates of our xtian, and our atheist friends.
Well just one small point: The most divorced of our friends, is an ex- "Baptist
minister"
It certainly puts the divorce/seperation rate, among our friends, much higher
for the "straight" couples, than for the gay couples.
Young gays, of both sexes, tend towards promiscuity, but then, the same is true
of young heteros of both sexes. So there is no ground there to differentiate
Whether this is the norm, or not, I would not like to guess, but if it is, it is
very understandable why the religious reich, don't want gays to marry.
The divorce stats would blow their holier than thou, marriage is sacred to
xtians, crap, right out of the water.
On more or less, the same subject.
I wonder how long it would take them to try and ban atheist marriage, if it
turned out that the atheist divorce rate was seriously lower than that of any
given xtian group. Say 15% atheist divorces, to perhaps 50% xtian. (:-)
This is from a *Jesuit* journal:
Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with
Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies
Gregory S. Paul
Baltimore, Maryland
Journal of Religion and Society, vol 7 (2005)
"In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator
correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult
mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion ... None
of the strongly secularised, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing
high levels of measurable dysfunction." Within the US, "the strongly
theistic, anti-evolution south and midwest" have "markedly worse
homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related
problems than the north-east where ... secularisation, and acceptance
of evolution approach European norms".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Protect the sanctity of marriage |
28 Oct 2005 04:07:49 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 20:35:48 GMT, Boy Toy <BoyToy@Toyz4Boyz.com> wrote:
This is from a *Jesuit* journal:
Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with
Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies
I wouldn't like to have to say that, after an hour or two, in the pub.
Gregory S. Paul
Baltimore, Maryland
Journal of Religion and Society, vol 7 (2005)
"In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator
correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult
mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion ... None
of the strongly secularised, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing
high levels of measurable dysfunction." Within the US, "the strongly
theistic, anti-evolution south and midwest" have "markedly worse
homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related
problems than the north-east where ... secularisation, and acceptance
of evolution approach European norms".
Oh Dear. Looks like xtians aint the little moral icons, they would have us
believe that are.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Boy Toy" |
|
| Title: Re: Protect the sanctity of marriage |
26 Oct 2005 04:00:37 PM |
|
|
On 26 Oct 2005 04:53:02 -0700, "Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com>
wrote in message
<1130327582.088479.243440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
*As Guy Adams recently said in an article he wrote for Renew America,
*"Outlawing gay marriage is no more discriminatory than it is to forbid
*children to vote. It is not a 'civil rights' issue; it is simply not a
good
*idea."
Wow! That's a great argument!!!! "not a good idea"!
Funny how fascist christians and nazi turds like J Young feel
threatened by gays. I'm not gay, I've been married for 18 years, I have
several gay friends, and yet, not one second do I feel the "sanctity"
of my marriage threatened by gays or "gay marriage". Actually, I
couldn't care less... Funny that these morons never say anything
about, say, Britney Spears and her 12 hours marriage... The day
american christians are put at their right place will be a great day...
Speaking of xtian "morality,"
Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with
Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies
Gregory S. Paul
Baltimore, Maryland
Journal of Religion and Society, vol 7 (2005)
"In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator
correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult
mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion ... None
of the strongly secularised, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing
high levels of measurable dysfunction." Within the US, "the strongly
theistic, anti-evolution south and midwest" have "markedly worse
homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related
problems than the north-east where ... secularisation, and acceptance
of evolution approach European norms".
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Godzilla Pimp" |
|
| Title: Re: Protect the sanctity of marriage |
26 Oct 2005 08:40:48 AM |
|
|
Abolish the Welfare State and marriage will come roaring back. All of a
sudden, women will get very picky about who they ***** and insist that the
guy marry them first and have a job.
The Jews told us they were going to destroy the family and have succeeded.
They spelled it all out in the Communist Manifesto which has now been nearly
entirely implemented in the West.
GP
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
