After reading the unadulterated hate that is constantly posted on this "Christian" site, I won't be back. I have taken steps, however, to let REAL CHRISTIANS know that they should avoid this site and condemn it as apostate and degenerate.

After reading the unadulterated hate that is constantly posted on this "Christian" site, I won't be back. I have taken steps, however, to let REAL CHRISTIANS know that they should avoid this site and condemn it as apostate and degenerate.

"And secondly, if legal rights and benefits are the real issue then once again that can be resolved without having to allow for same-sex marriage by passing domestic partnership laws that ensure these legal rights and benefits are guaranteed to any two consenting adults who are each others primary caregivers and sharing the same household regardless of their sexual orientations, genders, and/or se...more

"And secondly, if legal rights and benefits are the real issue then once again that can be resolved without having to allow for same-sex marriage by passing domestic partnership laws that ensure these legal rights and benefits are guaranteed to any two consenting adults who are each others primary caregivers and sharing the same household regardless of their sexual orientations, genders, and/or sexual intentions.."

Which continues to tell everyone that marriage is not really necessary as alternatives are equal. Many opposite sex couples continue to take advantage of these ersatz unions instead of marriage thanks to those who keep pushing it. Apparently the complete destruction of marriage is the goal.less

And marriage continues to decline Quaker group stops certifying marriages until gay marriage legal by Madeleine Baran, Minnesota Public Radio December 7, 2009 St. Paul, Minn. — A group of Twin Cities Quakers has decided to stop signing marriage certificates for opposite-sex couples until the state legalizes gay marriage. "We're simply trying to be consistent with the will of God as ...more

And marriage continues to decline


Quaker group stops certifying marriages until gay marriage legal
by Madeleine Baran, Minnesota Public Radio
December 7, 2009

St. Paul, Minn. — A group of Twin Cities Quakers has decided to stop signing marriage certificates for opposite-sex couples until the state legalizes gay marriage.

"We're simply trying to be consistent with the will of God as we perceive it," said Paul Landskroener, clerk of the Twin Cities Friends Meeting, in an interview with MPR's All Things Considered on Monday.

The congregation will continue to hold both opposite-sex and same-sex weddings at its meeting house, but will no longer sign the legal marriage certificate for opposite-sex couples. Instead, couples will need to have the certificate signed by a justice of the peace.

"Everything else proceeds as it normally has, except that we will not sign the marriage certificate," Landskroener said.

Unlike many churches, Quakers do not have ordained ministers. Couples are married by appearing before the congregation and speaking their vows to each other. Several witnesses then sign the marriage certificate to pronounce the couple legally married.

The Twin Cities Friends Meeting reached its decision in November after three years of discussion. The group plans to revisit the decision in three years.

"The simplest way to say it is we feel very strongly and very clearly led that in the present time we simply cannot continue to participate in what we believe to be an unjust and inconsistent with our religious testimonies legal marriage procedure," Landskroener said.

The congregation is one of a handful of Quaker Meetings nationwide to decide to stop signing marriage certificates.less

This continual battle will eventually destroy marriage once and for all. I hope all those who have fought to so hard "to preserve marriage" are happy now. Heterosexual Brooklyn couple wants to support gay marriage by annulling their own http://www.examiner.com/x-31526-Brooklyn-Headlines-Examiner~y2009m12d4-Heterosexual-Brooklyn-couple-supports-gay-marriage-by-annulling-their-own

The following information from "New Federalism: National Survey of America's Families" speaks to the importance of marriage where children are concerned. Beginning with the 1996 federal welfare reform bill, which included promoting marriage as a goal, and continuing with President G.W. Bush's declaration that, "my administration will give unprecedented support to strengthening marriages," using...more

The following information from "New Federalism: National Survey of America's Families" speaks to the importance of marriage where children are concerned.

Beginning with the 1996 federal welfare reform bill, which included promoting marriage as a goal, and continuing with President G.W. Bush's declaration that, "my administration will give unprecedented support to strengthening marriages," using government policies to actively promote marriage as a way to reduce poverty and improve the well-being of children and families has gained currency (Ooms 2002). Among the most logical targets for marriage promotion activities are cohabiting couples, especially those with children. Unlike unattached single parents, cohabitors already demonstrate a certain level of commitment to one another, and they and their children may benefit from the material and psychosocial advantages that married couple families accrue.

Previous research demonstrates that children living with cohabitors fare worse than children living with married parents, and in some cases no better than children living with single parents, on a host of outcome measures (Acs and Nelson 2002, 2003; Nelson, Clark, and Acs 2001; Manning and Brown 2003; Manning and Lichter 1996). Specifically, compared with children living with their married biological or adoptive parents, children living with cohabitors are more likely to experience material hardships such as poverty, food insecurity, and housing insecurity; more likely to exhibit behavioral problems or problems in school; and less likely to have positive interactions with their parents (such as being read to frequently).

It is time we put our children first and realized that they are our future.less

"real?, not even close, what I am looking at is ensuring that all children receive the same legal rights and benefits as every other child regardless of the type of household they are being raised in. The issue is not marriage the issue is the legal rights and benefits of every child! And once again the legalization of same-sex marriage is not necessary for that to happen!" Then you are saying ...more

"real?, not even close, what I am looking at is ensuring that all children receive the same legal rights and benefits as every other child regardless of the type of household they are being raised in. The issue is not marriage the issue is the legal rights and benefits of every child! And once again the legalization of same-sex marriage is not necessary for that to happen!"

Then you are saying that marriage is NOT important for child raising. Was it so hard to answer the question? By the way, I do not share your extreme interest in same sex marriage so that is irrelevant to the conversation. I am speaking about child welfare, which you seem to think can be handle in alternative ways. That is YOUR opinion but not mine. I believe that marriage is important and important to children. If you think that marriage provides no benefits or protections to children that can't be found elsewhere, then that is your opinion. Those of us from a more traditional background still put children first above other considerations.less

"real?, even though children being raised in the home of a married mother and father who love each other and their children and are willing to put the needs of others ahead of their own needs is the most beneficial environment a child can be raised in, the problem is that not all children will be raised in that type of environment and therefore everything must be done to ensure those children are ...more

"real?, even though children being raised in the home of a married mother and father who love each other and their children and are willing to put the needs of others ahead of their own needs is the most beneficial environment a child can be raised in, the problem is that not all children will be raised in that type of environment and therefore everything must be done to ensure those children are afforded the same legal rights and benefits of those children who are fortunate enough to be raised in that type of home because there is nothing that can be done to ensure they are raised in a home where every person loves the other and puts the needs of others ahead of their own. The legalizing of same-sex marriage is not necessary to make that happen nor does it guarantee that it will happen. But if as you continue to insist that children in same-sex households do not receive the same legal rights and benefits of those children being raised in married heterosexual homes, then this can be remedied by passing domestic partnership laws that ensure those legal rights and benefits are met!"

So you admit that you support alternatives to marriage in the case of child raising.

I quote" this can be remedied by passing domestic partnership laws that ensure those legal rights and benefits are met!" You believe that legal alternatives are equal to marriage.

You've made your point and many in this country agree which is why marriage is no longer considered important for child raising. More and more we see children in unmarried households according to the US Census. Some of us still feel that marriage is the only way to raise a child. While that is a traditional view, many people like you disagree as you continue to do.less

"real?, here is an example of your twisting of others views which is a form of lying, "your disdain for marriage". The only one who has a disdain for marriage are those who call for legalizing forms of marriage that willfully violate God's original and only design for marriage, one man and one woman for life!" Once again, calling other names is all you have in your defense. You make statements...more

"real?, here is an example of your twisting of others views which is a form of lying, "your disdain for marriage". The only one who has a disdain for marriage are those who call for legalizing forms of marriage that willfully violate God's original and only design for marriage, one man and one woman for life!"

Once again, calling other names is all you have in your defense. You make statements and then back pedal on them when the facts are shown. Do you or do you not believe that marriage is important for raising children. It's a simple question, answer it.less

In answer to another rude and ill-mannered post: "real?, you're really not to proficient at twisting the words of others, the latter being a form of lying!" Please show that anything I've said is a lie. It seems that people of your caliber resort to calling others liars when they have no response. " Your continual argument for allowing same-sex marriage is for the sake of the children in ...more

In answer to another rude and ill-mannered post:

"real?, you're really not to proficient at twisting the words of others, the latter being a form of lying!"

Please show that anything I've said is a lie. It seems that people of your caliber resort to calling others liars when they have no response.

" Your continual argument for allowing same-sex marriage is for the sake of the children in same-sex households and yet you still have provided no examples of what legal rights and benefits these children are being denied."

Your disdain for marriage is noted. However, a number of us feel that all children deserve the benefits and protections of marriage, even though people like you seem to think there aren't any.

"Then you say that anyone who is opposed to allowing for same-sex marriage is either opposed to marriage or sees marriage as no longer being important!"

Obviously, anyone who claims that alternatives for marriage are a viable option does not consider marriage important. I was talking solely about the case of child rearing but you have made it clear that alternatives which you fail to explain are just as good as marriage.

" As far as rudeness is concerned, you may have a point, that when people make false accusations of others and refuse to offer any solid substantiation to their claims, I tend to hold their feet to the fire which indeed may appear a little rude to some!!"

I have made NO false accusations. YOU have clearly said that there are alternatives to marriage for those who have children, yet you have provided none. It is clear that if you consider alternatives for marriage the equal of marriage then you have a disdain for marriage. You are the one making the statements, not me. Also, that is hardly an excuse for your bad behavior it is a reflection of the way you were brought up.

" But as the old saying goes, if you can't take the heat, then you might want to get out of the kitchen!!"

I would say that applies to you. You claim that alternatives to marriage are equal to marriage in the case of child raising. YOU said that, I did not. If YOU think alternatives are equal then YOU have devalued marriage to just one alternative. I find your whole attitude toward children appalling and I can see why marriage is declining in this country with the number of people who feel as you do.less

Since it seems that posters such as believer prefer to attack others who post comments here, I'll speak to this post piece by piece: "real?, nice lie" I fail to see where anything I've said was a lie. What are you referring to? "no one is saying traditional marriage is out, what we're saying is simply that God's original and only design for marriage is that of one man and one woman united...more

Since it seems that posters such as believer prefer to attack others who post comments here, I'll speak to this post piece by piece:

"real?, nice lie"

I fail to see where anything I've said was a lie. What are you referring to?

"no one is saying traditional marriage is out, what we're saying is simply that God's original and only design for marriage is that of one man and one woman united as one for life,"

I have never spoken about who should and should not get married. My point has been and still is, that one of main reasons for marriage was the raising and caring for children. That seems to be going by the wayside with the proposal of alternatives to marriage.

"He ordains no other form of marriage but that. You continue to make the false accusation that children in same-sex households are denied the same rights and benefits that children in heterosexual households and you have yet to state specifically what those denied rights and benefits are."

Where you get this from I have no idea. I have said that marriage provided benefits and protections to children. You are the one who proposes alternatives to marriage claiming that children will get the same benefits and protections with or without marriage, thus making marriage unnecessary for the raising of children. You fail to show what alternatives you support which will provide these same benefits and protections to these children.

" And once again if indeed what you say is true and your only concern is that, then as I said leave God's definition of marriage alone and pass laws that will ensure these children receive those rights and benefits that they are supposedly being denied."

Once again, you want alternatives to marriage to be provided by the state. Unfortunately when these alternatives are provided as in the case of domestic partnership and civil union, many people avail themselves of that rather than marriage. According to statistics from New York, three quarters of all those who have registered for domestic partnership are opposite sex couples, many with children. In this case, the domestic partnership does NOT provide all of the benefits of marriage to children.

"Plus, you make the assumption that all children who live in a same-sex home have parents who are homosexual which I know first-hand is not true."

Once again, I have no idea where you got that, because I never said that. I have said and will say again, that I believe all children should be entitiled to married parents. I am not concerned with gender or orientation of the parents, only the welfare of children which does not seem to be high on your list of priorities.

As a further note, I do not appreciate your obvious hostility and rudeness. I would suggest that you speak to people you don't know in a civil manner. Apparently in addition to your lack of support for marriage you have a lack of support for manners.less

"Marriage certainly can be for family and raising a family, but it also can be and is so much more" Please don't miscontrue my meaning and my intent. I have no argument that marriage is about many things to many people and no one single reason can be cited as its sole purpose. My intent is much narrower. For all of my life and many years before, on of the major reasons for marriage was the be...more

"Marriage certainly can be for family and raising a family, but it also can be and is so much more"

Please don't miscontrue my meaning and my intent. I have no argument that marriage is about many things to many people and no one single reason can be cited as its sole purpose. My intent is much narrower. For all of my life and many years before, on of the major reasons for marriage was the benefits and protections it afforded children of such unions, be they biological or adopted. Certainly no one can argue that the raising of children was a part of reason for marriage.

Unfortunately, that seems to be no longer true. We have a society where children are born all the time out of wedlock, adopted by single parents or just raise by an unmarried couple. Posters on this board such as believer, make the argument that "if indeed these rights and benefits are being denied you have not shown how stronger domestic partnership laws cannot remedy the problem" thus saying that other forms are equal to marriage such as domestic partnership. He like others no longer see marriage as a necessity for the raising of children and, in fact, site other systems that would work as well.

Believer and those many people like him, send a clear message to the new generation that the old tradition of marriage and children is outmoded and can be accomplished through any number of legal manipulations. Sadly, believer, may well be right. Surely the US Census has shown that the number of married households has decreased and continues to decrease year by year. The message is clear, marriage is old fashioned and with modern laws no longer necessary for the raising of children. Those of us who still believe that all children deserve a family with married parents seem to be the dinosaurs of today. I find that sad, but it is hard to argue with so many.less

"real?, and to this point you have provided no valid data to show how children in a same-sex household are denied any of the same rights and benefits of children in an opposite sex household. Plus, if indeed these rights and benefits are being denied you have not shown how stronger domestic partnership laws cannot remedy the problem as opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage." Then you agree wi...more

"real?, and to this point you have provided no valid data to show how children in a same-sex household are denied any of the same rights and benefits of children in an opposite sex household. Plus, if indeed these rights and benefits are being denied you have not shown how stronger domestic partnership laws cannot remedy the problem as opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage."

Then you agree with the others that marriage is NOT necessary for a family or for the raising of children. You are not alone either on these boards or in the US today. I personally disagree, but it seems I am rapidly becoming the minority. I still believe all children deserve married parents.less

"Why do children deserve "married" parents of the same sex? They'll have two parents with or without official sanction calling them married. They'll still have two parents of the same sex, so either a father or mother figure will be missing from their family. What difference would "marriage" make considering those circumstances? It changes nothing for the child in actuality because a young one is ...more

"Why do children deserve "married" parents of the same sex? They'll have two parents with or without official sanction calling them married. They'll still have two parents of the same sex, so either a father or mother figure will be missing from their family. What difference would "marriage" make considering those circumstances? It changes nothing for the child in actuality because a young one is unlikely to be much affected by the legal hairsplitting, but very likely to be affected by the circumstances of her upbringing."

In other words, you, along with many others, no longer see a need for marriage. Marriage affords stability in children's live that they might not have without it. I am always so appalled to see so many people on what portends to be a Christian board putting their own prejudices against the welfare of children. I know that marriage has fallen out of favor with the younger generation, the last US Census told us that. Though the concept continues to dwindle I still think it's important for the stability of children. Maybe you're right though and it is no longer necessary. I guess I'm just old school.less

Where is the support for all the children of same sex couples who deserve married parents. It is obvious that supporting marriage is NOT the issue with the Roman Catholic Church, only supporting marriages that they approve of regardless of the harm it may cause others.

wrhalver children can be Christian too. My point is persecution is wrong no matter who it is against, be it Christian or any other religion but persecution against children is worse especially when it is solely because of their parents.

wowie, once again, are you saying that you see no reason for marriage in relationship to children? If you have to ask what benefits and protections are provided by marriage than it is apparent that you don't see any or you wouldn't ask the question. You are not alone today, many people, especially younger people see no reason for marriage either.

Prophet is that why people who commit adultery or murder can't get married?

I hope that includes all the children who will never have married parents thanks to the voters of Maine. Persecution, no matter where it is, should be a thing of the past.

Prophet are you suggesting that all the children who have been denied the benefits and protections of married parents,who obviously aren't worthy of having married parents, should also thank God for those who have done this to them?