How sad that such an awesome and fantastic country as Australia would be putting out such a hateful and nasty video as this one. Warwick Marsh is a vicious bigot along the lines of the Ku Klux Klan followers that we used to have in the United States, or the current loathsome Fred Phelps Westboro Church Gang. It is to be hoped that all Australians will see through him and that they will reject his brand of anti-gay prejudice.
HATE GROUP : For several months, this group's facebook page carried a member's message agreeing with the idea of murdering homosexual people. When called upon to disassociate themselves from this statement, they did so with bad grace, saying that the member had "made some good points". It then took several months, and several requests, before the comment was finally removed. On the same day, they banned the member who had made the complaint. The member who had made the comment remains there.
This is so true! That is why we should out-law divorce, bastard children, and widowers....better for a child to grow up an orphan than to have two Daddy's. Besides, look how straight parents raise their kids, it never goes wrong...
During WWII, German citizens overwhelmingly supported the Holocaust. Does that mean it was the right thing to do? And not long ago, the majority of USA population opposed interracial marriage. Despite the public opinion, federal law NEVER prohibited IR marriage; in 1967, Supreme Court overruled state laws that did so. Gay marriage is no different, and laws prohibiting it (e.g., DOMA) are also unconstitutional. A policy is not ethically/legally appropriate simply because voters support it.
You should do some real research before you state falsehoods on YouTube that are not historically correct. The majority of Germans neither supported the Holocaust nor even knew about it. The Nazis deliberately downplayed their anti-Semitism when there were elections in Germany, before they took power, for they realized that, that policy lost them votes. In fact, the Nazis never did win a majority of the popular vote in Germany: Most Germans voted against them.
Ohh and btw he says we represent freedom. Clearly does freedom mean that gay people have the right to get married and make a family ? because according to freedom they do. So he is lying at what they represent
I believe that defining marriage as being between a man and a woman is correct, but incomplete. Marriage (and particularly parenting) should be between a LOVING man and woman - a mother and father who love each other, and love their child. This is the ideal environment for raising children - the difficulty is that it cannot be legislated.
This is so important and crucial. I am a Dad and I openly state that I cannot give my son all he needs. He needs his mother as well. I think this is even more important for a daughter. Let's not lose common sense marriage and consummation of such is only between a man and a woman. NOT same sex couples.
No amount of clamour by sinners can make any sin right or acceptable to God.
Those who fear God, appreciate the amazing grace of forgiveness that is available for all sinners through the death and shedding of blood by His Son Jesus on a cross. We pray that such clamour will cease, that sinners will be convicted and repent and that governments will hearken to the voice of God-fearing families and not legislate for evil purposes by pandering to such clamour.
In 1945 Karl Zimmerman (a University Professor of Sociology) published his book "Family and Civilization." The book is his very well documented study of the factors which caused the collapse of the great civilizations of the past. One of the major reasons these civilizations crumbled was their attempt to redefine the concepts of marriage and family. The concept of 'family' being a father and mother with their biologically conceived children is fundamental to the survival of any civilization.
Marriage was ordained for the protection of children. Conception of children requires a male and a female, a mother and a father. It is biologically impossible for two people of the same gender to conceive a child between them. Any 'redefining' of marriage that refuses to recognisne this basic biological fact must be treated with suspicion as to what the basic agenda really is
@Roger391000 You're right, that's why post menopausal women, sterile women, and people with Turner syndrom shouldn't be allowed to be married either. Oh and single parents shouldn't have the right to adopt.....and couples who don't plan on having children also shouldn't be allowed to marry! Marriage isn't about love or a life compatibility partnership...it is about procreating
Marriage has an eternal design. It's pattern was fashioned by Elohim.Anyone who thinks they know better than the creator of the universe reaps the consequences of their actions. It is sad that the homosexual lobby can't be creative enough within the framework of what the Australian government has already given them to get on with the lives they have chosen for themselves. Participating in the veneration of the sewer of the human body perhaps explains why this group could never appreciate the sa
To all you hetero-phobics out there. Yes, he does have nice family values. Normal family values. You're just getting sour because you can't have your own way. Boo hoo
To all you hetero-phobics out there, pls stop 'demanding' your so-called rights & have some thoughts about other people's rights. ME ME ME.... It's not all about you. Did you have a mummy and a daddy ??? (female & male)
To all you hetero-phobics out there, pls stop 'demanding' your s0-called rights & have some thoughts about other people's rights. ME ME ME.... It's not all about you. Did you have a mummy and a daddy ??? (female & male)
Marriage was ordained by God involving a man and a woman to create a loving relationship and a safe environment for the creation and nuturing of children. Children have the right to be born into a safe environment and have a father and mother. We go against God's instructions to our detriment.
@eelsmad This is so true! That is why we should out-law divorce, bastard children, and widowers....better for a child to grow up an orphan than to have two Daddy's. Besides, look how straight parents raise their kids, it never goes wrong...
Marriage redefined is marriage destroyed. The current Marriage Act stipulated between a man and a woman is for a very good reason. Because children need a mother AND a father. Destroy marriage and the nation will follow.
@familylawdirectory Mr Marsh can answer for himself. But if may daughter turned out lesbian I would expect her to understand that marriage is primarily about children, and as there is no ethical means for lesbian couples to produce children she would understand marriage is not for her.
If she wanted to help an orphaned child from Somalia she can do that in many ways that don't involved getting married.
Of course I would want my daughter to be happy, but only by doing what is ethical.
People are free to participate in or have religious beliefs because we as a society allow individual free choose - providing they are not causing harm. People with religious beliefs now seek to limited the free of choice of others. For example, same sex marriage. Ok. Fair enough. But the same rules apply should to everyone. How about we remove an individuals freedom to associate/participate in religious groups? Where do we sign up for that petition?
@familylawdirectory I'm sure there's a petition out there somewhere. Anti-Christian groups and totalitarianism seem to go hand in hand. I understand that being gay you've probably bought into the whole "it's all about me" culture. But really, marriage is primarily about children, it exists primarily for their benefit not the benefit of adults who can't produce children in any ethically valid way. As there is no ethical means for gays to produce children marriage has no relevance to them.
@Jerrymanda101 "I understand that being gay you're probably.." Incorrect assumption and I note you general disposition to bring sexuality into debate. I have a 6 year old daughter. Soory but you've got a really twisted and narrow view of marriage. But you know what - its right right to hold those views - but how bout you keep it to yourself? As for your version of 'family values' - you've got no credibility. Involving the grand daughter demonstrated that and proved - its all about YOU!
@Jerrymanda In any event, I don't like receiving lectures about 'ethics' from people that think involving a child in a political broadcast - to advance their own self interests - is 'ethical'. AND lectures about a 'childrens best interests' from people that think involving a child in a political broadcast - to advance their own self interests - is consistent with a 'child's best interests'.
@familylawdirectory You probably just don't like being exposed to the truth that Human Artificial Reproduction is unethical and that as such there is no place for gay marriage. You're confused - I don't have a granddaughter and I didn't make the above video. You also seem irrational - the debate is on gay marriage (which necessarily includes the issue of artificial reproduction) yet you're critical of me for bringing up the issue of sexuality. And why don't you answer the questions I've asked?
@Jerrymanda101 I don't see any connection between the issues of same sex marriage and artificial reproduction what-so-ever. It was was another poster that brought up reproduction (if not ). And don't play dumb with me. You used the word 'homosexual' repeatedly throughout your video - no direct mention of lesbian relationships at all - and deliberately designed to tap into anti-homosexual bigotry to recruit support against same sex marriage. You didn't make the video? So what?
@familylawdirectory In any event you allowed your grand daughter to be exploited for your gain. And you exploited anti-homosexual bigotry to advance your own cause. And you probably call yourself a good Christian, don't you. Welll this Christian is hearing you. And what I'm hearing from you is hateful ignorance!
@familylawdirectory Are you drunk or stoned? I didn't make the video and I'm not Mr Marsh. If you look at my original post (about 10th from the bottom) you'll see I was mildly critical of Mr Marsh's position. Also I was the one who brought up artificial reproduction. You say you can't see the connection between artificial reproduction and gay marriage! Marriage is primarily about children, as there are no ethical means for a gay couple to produce children marriage serves gay couples no purpose.
@Jerrymanda101 Drunk or Stoned? No. Nor am I gay. Marriage is about children', is it? Perhaps in your narrow view of the world. I know lots of people who are married and have chosen not to have children. But please, enlighten your holiness. Prey tell - what code of your morality or ethics are these people breaking?
@familylawdirectory Yes marriage is primarily about children. Why do adults who have no intention of reproducing need marriage, especially a secular marriage which is a type of contract that can be dissolved at any time for any reason with no penalty involved? What purpose does a deliberately sterile secular marriage have? You accuse me of having a narrow world view, but gay marriage supporters like yourself never expain why adults who can never produce children in an ethical way need marriage.
@Jerrymanda101 Gay marriage supporter? The PC term is same sex. Yes I am. But that support is base on the simple notion that people should be treated equally, every individual should have the same rights and be able to make the same choices as everyone else. Are you saying that 'straight couples' should be banned from marrying if they have no intention of having children?
@familylawdirectory Every person, from conception to natural death, has an intrinsic dignity that demands they be treated fairly. However, all people are not equal and neither are their circumstances in life equal, as such it is foolish to suggest that all people need to be treated the same. As I've already said, Gay couples can't reproduce in any ethical way, as such Gay marriage serves no purpose other then being a sign of shallow self indulgence. What parameters do you give for marriage?
@familylawdirectory Futhermore, you ask, "should straight couples be banned from marrying if they have no intention of having children?". That's a fair question. In the long history of marriage deliberate sterility is reletively new. Until recent times it was a given that straight couples would reproduce. But times have changed and as a matter of principle I think straight couples who have no intention of reproducing should be prohibited from marriage. Again what parameters do YOU give marriage?
@Jerrymanda101 Given the problems, my thoughts are that perhaps marriage should be banned in its entirety! And replaced with a legal 'civil union' that's is available to all peoples irrespective of religious affiliation or gender. And I don't accept that married couples not having children is a new phenomenon. I'm sure plenty of people over the millennia got married with the intention of having children but found out they couldn't reproduce.
@familylawdirectory You support Civil Unions! Why? What purpose would they serve other then to give official recognition to ones latest boyfriend/girlfriend? Is our culture so shallow that we've come to this level of adolescent stupidity? You give weight to my belief that supporters of Gay marriage are fairly shallow. Again, what parameters would you give civil unions and or marriage? How many people could join in a civil union?
@Jerrymanda101 I support the right of every citizen to have equal choice - irrespective of sexuality, gender or religious affiliation, etc. I don't believe individuals should enjoy privileges or have choices not available to them that others don't. This is a concept fundamental to democracy. How about you improve society by ensuring that your own relationships are in order and let everyone worry about theirs? Is your house in order?
@familylawdirectory Equal choice fundamental to democracy! err what? I know democracy is a fairly elastic concept but I've never heard that "equal choice" was one of its founding principles. By your reckoning child abuse would be okay provided all people were allowed the choice to abuse children. I would have thought ethical behaviour was more important than "choice". We have laws to help curtail those choices that are unethical or destructive to society. Tell me again why gays need to marry?
@Jerrymanda101 The issue is not 'why gays need to marry'. The issue is 'why shouldn't they be allowed to marry'. The rationale you've promoted here against same-sex marriage is weak and has very little merit, if any.
@familylawdirectory Maybe your problem is that you just don't listen to any opinion that doesn't match your own. Your continued refusal to describe the purpose of marriage and the necessary elements that should either make or prohibit marriage reveals how the Gay marriage lobby want to avoid at all cost any discussion on the principles of and reasons for marriage. The Gay marriage lobby can't argue their position so instead they dream up vacuous sound bites like "marriage equality".
If we legalise gay "marriage" we'll have to legalise polygamy, beastiality and I'm sure pedophiles will find a way to lower the age of consent.
Marriage needs to be reclaimed by specific religious institutions. Secularists should not get married, they should have civil unions instead. This includes gays as well.
Mr Nolan. I believe your grand-daughter - the one you're claim to be holding in your video - has the right not to be exploited by her grandfather in a video blog for political purposes! Especially in a video that in essence vilifies or seeks to promote the discrimination of a minor group on the basis of sexuality. It seems apparent Mr Nolan's that your version of 'family values' includes exploiting your own granddaughter to achieve your own personal goals.
Furthermnore It doesn't reflect well on your granddaughters parents in that they allowed this exploitation to occur. Nice 'family values' you're cultivating there, Mr Nolan. NOT!
@familylawdirectory So are we to presume you find it acceptable for adults (motivated purely by the desire to own a child) to deliberately conceive children that can never have a normal relationship with one or both of their natural parents? I think that fits the definition of child exploitation/abuse very well.
@Jerrymanda101 I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Keith Urban and Nicole Kidman had a daughter last month through IVF treatment and used a surrogate mother. Keith Urban and Nicole Kidman are the biological parents but not he 'natural' parent (mother). Are you saying that this is wrong? What about in the instance of a child from the Sudan being adopted and the same-sex partners provide the child with a better life? Is that wrong?
@familylawdirectory It's best if you don't try and play dumb. Most forms of Human Artificial Reproduction are unethical to a lesser or greater degree. Minimally they are an affront to human dignity, treating human beings similar to livestock. At worst they can be a form of child exploitation/abuse, as when donor ova/sperm are used to create children which will necessarily be denied a normal relationship with at least one natural parent. And of course abortion is a normal part of IVF.
@familylawdirectory Also, if Nicole Kidman is the biological mother of her daughter than she is also the child's natural mother, just as if Keith Urban is the biological father of his daughter than he is her natural father. But yes both IVF and surrogacy are unethical. Re the Sudan example - Adoption is not a form of Artificial Reproduction. If it is motivated by a desire to "rescue" a child from serious hardship it is to be praised. Adoption should be about a child's rights, not adult desires.
Marriage is primarily about children. If humans didn't reproduce sexually marriage would not exist. As there is no ethical means for a gay couple to conceive new life gay marriage is just plain silly. But when Mr Marsh says children need A mother and A father he implies any mother and father figure is good enough for a child. In reality a child has a right to love and be loved by their own natural mother and father. If you ban the use of donor sperm and ova the Gay marriage issue will go away.
@Jerrymanda101 really? its just that simple is it? so women who cannot conceive children - by your infantile logic - should be excluded from the institution of marriage as well?
@slh950 For the record I think Secular marriage is now meaningless. And yes I think it's pointless for infertile couples from marrying, unless of course they were intending to adopt a child in need of stable parents. I'm not sure what part of my logic you considered to be infantile. But I'm sure we can agree that a child's right to know, love, and be loved by their natural parents overrides an infertile person's desire to have a child using donor sperm/ova, regardless of sexual orientation.
@Jerrymanda101 yes, lets all skip down candy floss lane, where the fairies fly around the sunflowers and lolly-pops grow on candy-cane trees
here in fairy land, no fathers are ever drunk, or leave home, or abuse their children physically or psychologically. Every one is perfect here and nothing ever goes wrong, families are never dysfunctional at all.
GROW UP RETARD
and who the fuck are you to decide that infertile couples cant marry??? seriously? the Nazi's didnt even go that far!
@slh950 Is anybody saying fathers should get drunk, abandon their children or abuse them?... So let's get back to my earlier question. Do you agree with me that a child's right to know, love and be loved by their natural parents overrides an adult's (gay, straight, married, single) desire to possess a child created via donated sperm and/or ova?
@slh950 Try and stay focused slh950. I said, "a child has a right to know, love and be loved by their natural parents", only someone with some kind of mental retardation could translate that statement into one that supports child abuse. Unfortunately for the sub-culture to which you belong, such mental retardation seems to be common place.
@meanman1992 the really funny thing about you morons is that early Christianity allowed for same-sex marriage. In fact two of Christianity's early martyrs were two men married under the church - murdered not for being two men married but for being Christian.
grow up - drop the homophobia and learn about your own religion
@slh950 Just because Some factions in early Christianity compromised the bible teaching against homosexuality and same gender marriage doesn't make it right, 1 Corinthians 6,9 says this.
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, If you check out the term Abusers of themselves with mankind, you'll find the Greek meaning is Sodomite.
What'll it be next? Say Gay marriage was to be legalised. What are you going to go after next, when still unsatisfied?.... and you will be unsatisfied.
Grow up? From what?
You need to be consistent! You would like you're way and your view put forward, but are not willing to hear the view of others. This is call inconsistency.
If you would like to be respected, then you also need to pay respect.
@slh950 I fail to see anything in the bible that makes room for God's approval on homosexual marriage/relationships - so I'm not sure what 'Christianity' you are talking about.
How sad that such an awesome and fantastic country as Australia would be putting out such a hateful and nasty video as this one. Warwick Marsh is a vicious bigot along the lines of the Ku Klux Klan followers that we used to have in the United States, or the current loathsome Fred Phelps Westboro Church Gang. It is to be hoped that all Australians will see through him and that they will reject his brand of anti-gay prejudice.
RCSVirginia 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you have not seen them yet, make sure you watch the wonderful Australian YouTube videos:
It's Time by GetUpAustralia
-and-
"I Do" - Australian Marriage Equality [MEGA MOB] by RockYourBox
RCSVirginia 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HATE GROUP : For several months, this group's facebook page carried a member's message agreeing with the idea of murdering homosexual people. When called upon to disassociate themselves from this statement, they did so with bad grace, saying that the member had "made some good points". It then took several months, and several requests, before the comment was finally removed. On the same day, they banned the member who had made the complaint. The member who had made the comment remains there.
SimonTube999 5 months ago
This is so true! That is why we should out-law divorce, bastard children, and widowers....better for a child to grow up an orphan than to have two Daddy's. Besides, look how straight parents raise their kids, it never goes wrong...
HottieBobby22 6 months ago
During WWII, German citizens overwhelmingly supported the Holocaust. Does that mean it was the right thing to do? And not long ago, the majority of USA population opposed interracial marriage. Despite the public opinion, federal law NEVER prohibited IR marriage; in 1967, Supreme Court overruled state laws that did so. Gay marriage is no different, and laws prohibiting it (e.g., DOMA) are also unconstitutional. A policy is not ethically/legally appropriate simply because voters support it.
JBlue761982 7 months ago
@JBlue761982
You should do some real research before you state falsehoods on YouTube that are not historically correct. The majority of Germans neither supported the Holocaust nor even knew about it. The Nazis deliberately downplayed their anti-Semitism when there were elections in Germany, before they took power, for they realized that, that policy lost them votes. In fact, the Nazis never did win a majority of the popular vote in Germany: Most Germans voted against them.
RCSVirginia 1 week ago
Ohh and btw he says we represent freedom. Clearly does freedom mean that gay people have the right to get married and make a family ? because according to freedom they do. So he is lying at what they represent
whatsername109 8 months ago
Not sure where you get your information from...there is nothing in the Bible that would give strength to homosexual relationships.
patellavideo 1 year ago
I believe that defining marriage as being between a man and a woman is correct, but incomplete. Marriage (and particularly parenting) should be between a LOVING man and woman - a mother and father who love each other, and love their child. This is the ideal environment for raising children - the difficulty is that it cannot be legislated.
NewhamMatt 1 year ago
This is so important and crucial. I am a Dad and I openly state that I cannot give my son all he needs. He needs his mother as well. I think this is even more important for a daughter. Let's not lose common sense marriage and consummation of such is only between a man and a woman. NOT same sex couples.
markhelllen 1 year ago
No amount of clamour by sinners can make any sin right or acceptable to God.
Those who fear God, appreciate the amazing grace of forgiveness that is available for all sinners through the death and shedding of blood by His Son Jesus on a cross. We pray that such clamour will cease, that sinners will be convicted and repent and that governments will hearken to the voice of God-fearing families and not legislate for evil purposes by pandering to such clamour.
bakersconcern 1 year ago
In 1945 Karl Zimmerman (a University Professor of Sociology) published his book "Family and Civilization." The book is his very well documented study of the factors which caused the collapse of the great civilizations of the past. One of the major reasons these civilizations crumbled was their attempt to redefine the concepts of marriage and family. The concept of 'family' being a father and mother with their biologically conceived children is fundamental to the survival of any civilization.
Roger391000 1 year ago
Marriage was ordained for the protection of children. Conception of children requires a male and a female, a mother and a father. It is biologically impossible for two people of the same gender to conceive a child between them. Any 'redefining' of marriage that refuses to recognisne this basic biological fact must be treated with suspicion as to what the basic agenda really is
Roger391000 1 year ago 2
@Roger391000 You're right, that's why post menopausal women, sterile women, and people with Turner syndrom shouldn't be allowed to be married either. Oh and single parents shouldn't have the right to adopt.....and couples who don't plan on having children also shouldn't be allowed to marry! Marriage isn't about love or a life compatibility partnership...it is about procreating
HottieBobby22 6 months ago
Marriage has an eternal design. It's pattern was fashioned by Elohim.Anyone who thinks they know better than the creator of the universe reaps the consequences of their actions. It is sad that the homosexual lobby can't be creative enough within the framework of what the Australian government has already given them to get on with the lives they have chosen for themselves. Participating in the veneration of the sewer of the human body perhaps explains why this group could never appreciate the sa
Diastudio7 1 year ago
To all you hetero-phobics out there. Yes, he does have nice family values. Normal family values. You're just getting sour because you can't have your own way. Boo hoo
Heatherjc13 1 year ago
To all you hetero-phobics out there, pls stop 'demanding' your so-called rights & have some thoughts about other people's rights. ME ME ME.... It's not all about you. Did you have a mummy and a daddy ??? (female & male)
Heatherjc13 1 year ago
To all you hetero-phobics out there, pls stop 'demanding' your s0-called rights & have some thoughts about other people's rights. ME ME ME.... It's not all about you. Did you have a mummy and a daddy ??? (female & male)
Heatherjc13 1 year ago
The devil is an ArseHole, and you Christophobic Gay Hate Talkers are playing with that ArseHole and he is playing you!
You are no different to Nazi's:
You are militant, Christian Hating, Rainbow flag waving, Gyrating, Arse Plugging, Bible manipulating..... and crap at debating.
WE ARE TRYING TO SAVE YOUR LIVES, as you are "Hell Bent" on destroying ours.
Why don't you Gay Marriage pushers get real and start quoting from your real bible:
the scriptures of satan?
..... and STOP ANALising MARRIAGE!!
CrystalSeaTV 1 year ago
Marriage was ordained by God involving a man and a woman to create a loving relationship and a safe environment for the creation and nuturing of children. Children have the right to be born into a safe environment and have a father and mother. We go against God's instructions to our detriment.
eelsmad 1 year ago 2
@eelsmad This is so true! That is why we should out-law divorce, bastard children, and widowers....better for a child to grow up an orphan than to have two Daddy's. Besides, look how straight parents raise their kids, it never goes wrong...
HottieBobby22 6 months ago
Marriage redefined is marriage destroyed. The current Marriage Act stipulated between a man and a woman is for a very good reason. Because children need a mother AND a father. Destroy marriage and the nation will follow.
Viper01able 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
twoee999 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
thousands of real profiles real Latino women rockmycity.info
annajuikjuikol 1 year ago
What if Mr Marsh's grand daughter (the one in the video)
1. Turned out to be a lesbian, and
2. Her choice was to get married to her lesbian partner, and
3. Adopt an orphaned child from Somalia.
Does Mr Marsh believe his adult grand daughter has the 'right' to make these types of choices?
Would Mr Marsh be supportive of his Granddaughter's choices in this regard?
As a father of a daughter, I'd just want my daughter to be happy. What would Mr Marsh want for his granddaughter?
familylawdirectory 1 year ago
@familylawdirectory Mr Marsh can answer for himself. But if may daughter turned out lesbian I would expect her to understand that marriage is primarily about children, and as there is no ethical means for lesbian couples to produce children she would understand marriage is not for her.
If she wanted to help an orphaned child from Somalia she can do that in many ways that don't involved getting married.
Of course I would want my daughter to be happy, but only by doing what is ethical.
Jerrymanda101 1 year ago
People are free to participate in or have religious beliefs because we as a society allow individual free choose - providing they are not causing harm. People with religious beliefs now seek to limited the free of choice of others. For example, same sex marriage. Ok. Fair enough. But the same rules apply should to everyone. How about we remove an individuals freedom to associate/participate in religious groups? Where do we sign up for that petition?
familylawdirectory 1 year ago
@familylawdirectory I'm sure there's a petition out there somewhere. Anti-Christian groups and totalitarianism seem to go hand in hand. I understand that being gay you've probably bought into the whole "it's all about me" culture. But really, marriage is primarily about children, it exists primarily for their benefit not the benefit of adults who can't produce children in any ethically valid way. As there is no ethical means for gays to produce children marriage has no relevance to them.
Jerrymanda101 1 year ago
@Jerrymanda101 "I understand that being gay you're probably.." Incorrect assumption and I note you general disposition to bring sexuality into debate. I have a 6 year old daughter. Soory but you've got a really twisted and narrow view of marriage. But you know what - its right right to hold those views - but how bout you keep it to yourself? As for your version of 'family values' - you've got no credibility. Involving the grand daughter demonstrated that and proved - its all about YOU!
familylawdirectory 1 year ago
@Jerrymanda In any event, I don't like receiving lectures about 'ethics' from people that think involving a child in a political broadcast - to advance their own self interests - is 'ethical'. AND lectures about a 'childrens best interests' from people that think involving a child in a political broadcast - to advance their own self interests - is consistent with a 'child's best interests'.
familylawdirectory 1 year ago
@familylawdirectory You probably just don't like being exposed to the truth that Human Artificial Reproduction is unethical and that as such there is no place for gay marriage. You're confused - I don't have a granddaughter and I didn't make the above video. You also seem irrational - the debate is on gay marriage (which necessarily includes the issue of artificial reproduction) yet you're critical of me for bringing up the issue of sexuality. And why don't you answer the questions I've asked?
Jerrymanda101 1 year ago
@Jerrymanda101 I don't see any connection between the issues of same sex marriage and artificial reproduction what-so-ever. It was was another poster that brought up reproduction (if not ). And don't play dumb with me. You used the word 'homosexual' repeatedly throughout your video - no direct mention of lesbian relationships at all - and deliberately designed to tap into anti-homosexual bigotry to recruit support against same sex marriage. You didn't make the video? So what?
familylawdirectory 1 year ago
@familylawdirectory In any event you allowed your grand daughter to be exploited for your gain. And you exploited anti-homosexual bigotry to advance your own cause. And you probably call yourself a good Christian, don't you. Welll this Christian is hearing you. And what I'm hearing from you is hateful ignorance!
familylawdirectory 1 year ago
@familylawdirectory Are you drunk or stoned? I didn't make the video and I'm not Mr Marsh. If you look at my original post (about 10th from the bottom) you'll see I was mildly critical of Mr Marsh's position. Also I was the one who brought up artificial reproduction. You say you can't see the connection between artificial reproduction and gay marriage! Marriage is primarily about children, as there are no ethical means for a gay couple to produce children marriage serves gay couples no purpose.
Jerrymanda101 1 year ago
@Jerrymanda101 Drunk or Stoned? No. Nor am I gay. Marriage is about children', is it? Perhaps in your narrow view of the world. I know lots of people who are married and have chosen not to have children. But please, enlighten your holiness. Prey tell - what code of your morality or ethics are these people breaking?
familylawdirectory 1 year ago
@familylawdirectory Yes marriage is primarily about children. Why do adults who have no intention of reproducing need marriage, especially a secular marriage which is a type of contract that can be dissolved at any time for any reason with no penalty involved? What purpose does a deliberately sterile secular marriage have? You accuse me of having a narrow world view, but gay marriage supporters like yourself never expain why adults who can never produce children in an ethical way need marriage.
Jerrymanda101 1 year ago
@Jerrymanda101 Gay marriage supporter? The PC term is same sex. Yes I am. But that support is base on the simple notion that people should be treated equally, every individual should have the same rights and be able to make the same choices as everyone else. Are you saying that 'straight couples' should be banned from marrying if they have no intention of having children?
familylawdirectory 1 year ago
@familylawdirectory Every person, from conception to natural death, has an intrinsic dignity that demands they be treated fairly. However, all people are not equal and neither are their circumstances in life equal, as such it is foolish to suggest that all people need to be treated the same. As I've already said, Gay couples can't reproduce in any ethical way, as such Gay marriage serves no purpose other then being a sign of shallow self indulgence. What parameters do you give for marriage?
Jerrymanda101 1 year ago
@familylawdirectory Futhermore, you ask, "should straight couples be banned from marrying if they have no intention of having children?". That's a fair question. In the long history of marriage deliberate sterility is reletively new. Until recent times it was a given that straight couples would reproduce. But times have changed and as a matter of principle I think straight couples who have no intention of reproducing should be prohibited from marriage. Again what parameters do YOU give marriage?
Jerrymanda101 1 year ago
@Jerrymanda101 Given the problems, my thoughts are that perhaps marriage should be banned in its entirety! And replaced with a legal 'civil union' that's is available to all peoples irrespective of religious affiliation or gender. And I don't accept that married couples not having children is a new phenomenon. I'm sure plenty of people over the millennia got married with the intention of having children but found out they couldn't reproduce.
familylawdirectory 1 year ago
@familylawdirectory You support Civil Unions! Why? What purpose would they serve other then to give official recognition to ones latest boyfriend/girlfriend? Is our culture so shallow that we've come to this level of adolescent stupidity? You give weight to my belief that supporters of Gay marriage are fairly shallow. Again, what parameters would you give civil unions and or marriage? How many people could join in a civil union?
Jerrymanda101 1 year ago
@Jerrymanda101 I support the right of every citizen to have equal choice - irrespective of sexuality, gender or religious affiliation, etc. I don't believe individuals should enjoy privileges or have choices not available to them that others don't. This is a concept fundamental to democracy. How about you improve society by ensuring that your own relationships are in order and let everyone worry about theirs? Is your house in order?
familylawdirectory 1 year ago
@familylawdirectory Equal choice fundamental to democracy! err what? I know democracy is a fairly elastic concept but I've never heard that "equal choice" was one of its founding principles. By your reckoning child abuse would be okay provided all people were allowed the choice to abuse children. I would have thought ethical behaviour was more important than "choice". We have laws to help curtail those choices that are unethical or destructive to society. Tell me again why gays need to marry?
Jerrymanda101 1 year ago
@Jerrymanda101 The issue is not 'why gays need to marry'. The issue is 'why shouldn't they be allowed to marry'. The rationale you've promoted here against same-sex marriage is weak and has very little merit, if any.
familylawdirectory 1 year ago
@familylawdirectory Maybe your problem is that you just don't listen to any opinion that doesn't match your own. Your continued refusal to describe the purpose of marriage and the necessary elements that should either make or prohibit marriage reveals how the Gay marriage lobby want to avoid at all cost any discussion on the principles of and reasons for marriage. The Gay marriage lobby can't argue their position so instead they dream up vacuous sound bites like "marriage equality".
Jerrymanda101 1 year ago
If we legalise gay "marriage" we'll have to legalise polygamy, beastiality and I'm sure pedophiles will find a way to lower the age of consent.
Marriage needs to be reclaimed by specific religious institutions. Secularists should not get married, they should have civil unions instead. This includes gays as well.
Baadger 1 year ago
@Baadger you are a true moron
"specific religious institutions" ALLOW polygamy (many religions allow it in Arabia and America for example)
many pedophiles are Bible or koran thumpers: being religious brought them into proximity of children
as for beastiality ... maybe you ought to visit a therapist?
If anything you stupid moron secularists should be the ONLY people allowed to marry
religious nuts can masturbate over their "Bedouin book of fairytales" and leave the normal people alone!
slh950 1 year ago
@slh950 "you are a moron"
are you sure about that? re-read your post out loud a few times
Baadger 1 year ago
@Baadger wow ... I know you are but what am I
slh950 1 year ago
Mr Nolan. I believe your grand-daughter - the one you're claim to be holding in your video - has the right not to be exploited by her grandfather in a video blog for political purposes! Especially in a video that in essence vilifies or seeks to promote the discrimination of a minor group on the basis of sexuality. It seems apparent Mr Nolan's that your version of 'family values' includes exploiting your own granddaughter to achieve your own personal goals.
familylawdirectory 1 year ago 2
Furthermnore It doesn't reflect well on your granddaughters parents in that they allowed this exploitation to occur. Nice 'family values' you're cultivating there, Mr Nolan. NOT!
familylawdirectory 1 year ago 2
@familylawdirectory So are we to presume you find it acceptable for adults (motivated purely by the desire to own a child) to deliberately conceive children that can never have a normal relationship with one or both of their natural parents? I think that fits the definition of child exploitation/abuse very well.
Jerrymanda101 1 year ago
@Jerrymanda101 I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Keith Urban and Nicole Kidman had a daughter last month through IVF treatment and used a surrogate mother. Keith Urban and Nicole Kidman are the biological parents but not he 'natural' parent (mother). Are you saying that this is wrong? What about in the instance of a child from the Sudan being adopted and the same-sex partners provide the child with a better life? Is that wrong?
familylawdirectory 1 year ago
@familylawdirectory It's best if you don't try and play dumb. Most forms of Human Artificial Reproduction are unethical to a lesser or greater degree. Minimally they are an affront to human dignity, treating human beings similar to livestock. At worst they can be a form of child exploitation/abuse, as when donor ova/sperm are used to create children which will necessarily be denied a normal relationship with at least one natural parent. And of course abortion is a normal part of IVF.
Jerrymanda101 1 year ago
@familylawdirectory Also, if Nicole Kidman is the biological mother of her daughter than she is also the child's natural mother, just as if Keith Urban is the biological father of his daughter than he is her natural father. But yes both IVF and surrogacy are unethical. Re the Sudan example - Adoption is not a form of Artificial Reproduction. If it is motivated by a desire to "rescue" a child from serious hardship it is to be praised. Adoption should be about a child's rights, not adult desires.
Jerrymanda101 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Protect your children on the internet:
watch this video:
youtube.com/watch?v=aYICOhKYA1Q
Need your feedback,
Look for us on Facebook ("Snipeslider)
snipeslider,com
aweinsto 1 year ago
What about child molesters who live their lives as wholesome as possible so they can slip under the radar and abuse kids.
You think that doesn't happen you stupid idiot?? Half of the world's molesters have a bible in their hand because its a shield.
crawl back into the swamp you emerged from you idiot hick - leave the true reasoning to the adults
slh950 1 year ago
Marriage is primarily about children. If humans didn't reproduce sexually marriage would not exist. As there is no ethical means for a gay couple to conceive new life gay marriage is just plain silly. But when Mr Marsh says children need A mother and A father he implies any mother and father figure is good enough for a child. In reality a child has a right to love and be loved by their own natural mother and father. If you ban the use of donor sperm and ova the Gay marriage issue will go away.
Jerrymanda101 1 year ago
@Jerrymanda101 really? its just that simple is it? so women who cannot conceive children - by your infantile logic - should be excluded from the institution of marriage as well?
slh950 1 year ago
@slh950 For the record I think Secular marriage is now meaningless. And yes I think it's pointless for infertile couples from marrying, unless of course they were intending to adopt a child in need of stable parents. I'm not sure what part of my logic you considered to be infantile. But I'm sure we can agree that a child's right to know, love, and be loved by their natural parents overrides an infertile person's desire to have a child using donor sperm/ova, regardless of sexual orientation.
Jerrymanda101 1 year ago
@Jerrymanda101 yes, lets all skip down candy floss lane, where the fairies fly around the sunflowers and lolly-pops grow on candy-cane trees
here in fairy land, no fathers are ever drunk, or leave home, or abuse their children physically or psychologically. Every one is perfect here and nothing ever goes wrong, families are never dysfunctional at all.
GROW UP RETARD
and who the fuck are you to decide that infertile couples cant marry??? seriously? the Nazi's didnt even go that far!
slh950 1 year ago 2
@slh950 Is anybody saying fathers should get drunk, abandon their children or abuse them?... So let's get back to my earlier question. Do you agree with me that a child's right to know, love and be loved by their natural parents overrides an adult's (gay, straight, married, single) desire to possess a child created via donated sperm and/or ova?
Jerrymanda101 1 year ago
@Jerrymanda101 so you think a child has the right to be bashed, tortured and sometimes even murdered so long as the parents are married?
don't give me a stupid question because sometimes natural birth parents can do terrible things. its not a cure-all
slh950 1 year ago
@slh950 Try and stay focused slh950. I said, "a child has a right to know, love and be loved by their natural parents", only someone with some kind of mental retardation could translate that statement into one that supports child abuse. Unfortunately for the sub-culture to which you belong, such mental retardation seems to be common place.
Jerrymanda101 1 year ago
you stupid, ignorant, ugly loser
love is love, and thats something you don't get freak
why don't you perform a "homosexual act" on yourself with a pineapple
slh950 1 year ago 2
@slh950 ur emotive and insulting reply obviously shows ur lack of self control and lack of a decent argument
and he never said that love wasn't love just that marriage should be kept for a man and women
meanman1992 1 year ago
@meanman1992 the really funny thing about you morons is that early Christianity allowed for same-sex marriage. In fact two of Christianity's early martyrs were two men married under the church - murdered not for being two men married but for being Christian.
grow up - drop the homophobia and learn about your own religion
slh950 1 year ago 2
@slh950 What?
Baadger 1 year ago
@slh950 Just because Some factions in early Christianity compromised the bible teaching against homosexuality and same gender marriage doesn't make it right, 1 Corinthians 6,9 says this.
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, If you check out the term Abusers of themselves with mankind, you'll find the Greek meaning is Sodomite.
Gobsmack8 1 year ago
@slh950
What'll it be next? Say Gay marriage was to be legalised. What are you going to go after next, when still unsatisfied?.... and you will be unsatisfied.
Grow up? From what?
You need to be consistent! You would like you're way and your view put forward, but are not willing to hear the view of others. This is call inconsistency.
If you would like to be respected, then you also need to pay respect.
Manipulation is not the answer either.
huttonma2000 1 year ago
@slh950 I fail to see anything in the bible that makes room for God's approval on homosexual marriage/relationships - so I'm not sure what 'Christianity' you are talking about.
Desertburrower 1 year ago
@slh950
Why do you feel the need to resort to name calling? If you are confident and satisfied with your view, then name calling would not be necessary.
In the reference you make to love, what love are you referring to? What is love?
huttonma2000 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Learn how to meet women naneedj.info
kalaninadira 1 year ago