Yesterday, Fri. 25Feb2011, I received the following notice:
"President Barack Obama informed the nation that his administration will no longer defend the institution of natural marriage - or the law that protects it.
The following is a letter I sent to my Congressman, Jason Chaffitz:
Public Displays of Affection should just be kept at a minimum by all people in our society for the reason cited.
Marriage, however, is different from mere attraction and "getting together". Marriage is a long term agreement, a sacred contract. It should be an Holy Covenant between two people to Love, Help and Support the other from the time of the Covenant onward until the stated end of the term, normally " Until death do us part." In some religious teachings the Covenant is for Time and all Eternity! Now that's a long term contract!
Marriage STATES long term union. Marriage IS where two individuals become one new unit called a Family. Marriage IMPLIES building and growing together as one Family, not just two individuals living together.
In our society a part of that building and growing together implies the increase in the number of people within the family unit by bringing children into the world. You know one of the natural outcome of making Love is conceiving children. This is how our society and nation grows and most of us want that growth. Here is where the major difficulty of the "gay" lifestyle emerges.
How is it possible for two of the same gender to create a baby? It is impossible.
Obviously, two "gay" people could obtain someone else's baby, whom they may want to adopt to raise. So now a potential orphan has two parents. Good?
No. There is still a problem. How is it possible for two of the same gender to teach that child about how to live joyfully with another of the opposite gender to their own? Two women raising one girl, for example. Should the girl not turn out to be homosexual and want to have children with a man, how will the homosexual (HS) women teach the girl about living with a man? Men are so different from women by nature. How will the two HS women accurately teach the girl about husbands?
Perhaps HS women should only adopt boys so they could teach about living with a wife?
Should HS men only adopt girls for the same reason? I can just hear the hue and cry from society about the danger of that situation: one teenage girl in a house of HS men! "She's safe because they are only attracted to men," right? Whewee! I don't think so.
No, this man's opinion is that each child has rights to receive her or his due from the parents, namely, love, food, shelter, protection, and education. It is also the considered opinion of this man that one of the Providential Rights of every child is to have a loving, supporting male Father and a loving, supporting female Mother. I believe the reasons to be obvious. If not, I'll briefly explain:
An important part of every child's education is how to properly communicate with, love, protect and support a member of the opposite sex in no matter what type of association and particularly in such close association as in marriage. How does one communicate with, work with and support a member of the opposite sex, who is naturally so very different from self, while raising a new generation, some of whom are of the opposite sex? You, dear reader, know the troubles YOU have in this matter. Be assured others have similar, perhaps greater troubles, because of the inherent differences between genders and the training, good or bad, received from parents (or no parents, perhaps?) while growing up. Life ain't easy. Now throw a man (or woman) into the mix! Right?
It boggles my mind to think of two men, who love each other to the exclusion of living with and dealing with women in a marriage situation, trying to teach a girl about womanly matters, or two women similarly trying to teach a girl about how appreciate and support a man as a husband.
Because of, in my opinion, this God-given Right of each child to have a loving, supporting male Father and a loving, supporting female Mother, adoption of a child by an HS couple should be disallowed by law, again, to protect the rights of the child. The LAW must protect the child's rights if the parents will not. This has nothing to do with the HS couple being good, kind, honest, loving or whatever. It has solely to do with inherent personal gender characteristics and the Providential RIGHTS of the child.
Again, I have nothing against the HS people themselves. They are good people, I'm sure, loving and caring for each other as so many of them do declare. I do not have anything against their living with each other if they choose to. If they want to privately sexually please each other, it is none of my business.
Protection and defense of my society and my nation IS a part of my business, as it should be of everyone in every society. If HS people want to alter the legal definition of the term "Marriage" to include their union, I believe there will be some major troubles BECAUSE OF THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILDREN that would likely be abridged or even overridden completely.
This has nothing to do with how we worship God. It has everything to do with the rights of the children and the effect denial of those rights will have upon them and my great-grandchildren's society and the nation. It takes about two generations for today's decisions to be fully manifested in a society unless those decisions are forcibly backed up as in the Nazi regime preceding WWII in the 1930's and '40's.
Now, I haven't studied every society in the history of the world, but from what I have read I've noticed that, historically, it seems that homosexuality has been a large factor in the downfall of every HS-supporting nation because the children become instilled with "I am looking out for #1 - ME!" characteristics instead of the normal hetrosexual marriage mind-set of "I am looking out for #1 - MY FAMILY, namely my spouse and my children and my parents, my siblings, etc."
The latter mindset is considered a Providential characteristic which supports and protects the Providential rights of all other people starting with one's immediate family. Check the old records, not the newly re-written histories, and you'll see the events that show that hetrosexual families build nations, homosexual unions do not and governments that change laws to promote HS unions fall. They don't fall specifically because of HS support but they still fall. This is what I have seen.
Marriage is a sacred institution because of those reasons. Such a marriage can only be, in my considered opinion, between a man and a woman who are hopefully individually Providentially minded and who are individually committed to living up to his and her promises/covenants.
With this kind of marriage our nation will continue to strengthen. Without it, our nation will fall apart.
"President Barack Obama informed the nation that his administration will no longer defend the institution of natural marriage - or the law that protects it.
DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) was passed in 1996 with significant bi-partisan majorities in both houses of Congress, and was signed into law by President Clinton. DOMA defines marriage in federal law as the union of one man and one woman.
The president said yesterday that he has instructed his attorney general not to defend this law in court, where it is currently being challenged." http://www.capwiz.com/afanet/issues/alert/?alertid=30650501&type=CO The following is a letter I sent to my Congressman, Jason Chaffitz:
I am distressed to hear that President Obama has made a decision that his administration will no longer defend the institution of natural marriage, and will allow the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to go undefended in court, where it is currently being challenged.
DOMA was passed with significant bi-partisan majorities in both houses of Congress in 1996. President Bill Clinton signed it into law. It correctly defines marriage in federal law as the union of one man and one woman.
The institution of man-woman marriage, the covenant of LOVE between man and woman, is the FOUNDATION upon which ALL SOCIETY is built. It MUST BE DEFENDED RIGOROUSLY AT ALL COST.
DOMA was passed with significant bi-partisan majorities in both houses of Congress in 1996. President Bill Clinton signed it into law. It correctly defines marriage in federal law as the union of one man and one woman.
The institution of man-woman marriage, the covenant of LOVE between man and woman, is the FOUNDATION upon which ALL SOCIETY is built. It MUST BE DEFENDED RIGOROUSLY AT ALL COST.
Without natural marriage children end up having no parents upon which they can rely. Orphan children become uneducated, unskilled men and women who CANNOT build a thriving economy, knowing nothing but how to live from hand to mouth. ALL FROM THE LOSS LOVING EDUCATED PARENTS.
PLEASE URGE Speaker John Boehner to use all the resources at his disposal to VIGOROUSLY DEFEND the Defense Of Marriage Act. Our nation deserves no less.. Our nation needs that foundation.
In addition, PLEASE CALL THE PRESIDENT and urge him to support DOMA and natural man/woman marriage by which he, himself, has had his own children. REMIND HIM THAT WITHOUT NATURAL MARRIAGE ALL SOCIETIES HAVE FALLEN APART.
I haven't personally known very many "gay" people. Those I've known have been very nice people, good at their work, normally loving to their families and friendly to neighbors and strangers. I have no beef with "gay" people having the same human rights as any other people. All people deserve the rights defined by our Founding Documents here in the USA (may they be defended and preserved in perpetuity) and personal protection under just Laws. If "gay" people want to kiss and love other people of their own gender, please do it without a lot of PDA (Public Displays of Affection), just as "straight" couples should keep PDA to a minimum because so many people find it somewhat offensive. You've heard the call, "GET A ROOM!"PLEASE URGE Speaker John Boehner to use all the resources at his disposal to VIGOROUSLY DEFEND the Defense Of Marriage Act. Our nation deserves no less.. Our nation needs that foundation.
In addition, PLEASE CALL THE PRESIDENT and urge him to support DOMA and natural man/woman marriage by which he, himself, has had his own children. REMIND HIM THAT WITHOUT NATURAL MARRIAGE ALL SOCIETIES HAVE FALLEN APART.
Public Displays of Affection should just be kept at a minimum by all people in our society for the reason cited.
Marriage, however, is different from mere attraction and "getting together". Marriage is a long term agreement, a sacred contract. It should be an Holy Covenant between two people to Love, Help and Support the other from the time of the Covenant onward until the stated end of the term, normally " Until death do us part." In some religious teachings the Covenant is for Time and all Eternity! Now that's a long term contract!
Marriage STATES long term union. Marriage IS where two individuals become one new unit called a Family. Marriage IMPLIES building and growing together as one Family, not just two individuals living together.
In our society a part of that building and growing together implies the increase in the number of people within the family unit by bringing children into the world. You know one of the natural outcome of making Love is conceiving children. This is how our society and nation grows and most of us want that growth. Here is where the major difficulty of the "gay" lifestyle emerges.
How is it possible for two of the same gender to create a baby? It is impossible.
Obviously, two "gay" people could obtain someone else's baby, whom they may want to adopt to raise. So now a potential orphan has two parents. Good?
No. There is still a problem. How is it possible for two of the same gender to teach that child about how to live joyfully with another of the opposite gender to their own? Two women raising one girl, for example. Should the girl not turn out to be homosexual and want to have children with a man, how will the homosexual (HS) women teach the girl about living with a man? Men are so different from women by nature. How will the two HS women accurately teach the girl about husbands?
Perhaps HS women should only adopt boys so they could teach about living with a wife?
Should HS men only adopt girls for the same reason? I can just hear the hue and cry from society about the danger of that situation: one teenage girl in a house of HS men! "She's safe because they are only attracted to men," right? Whewee! I don't think so.
No, this man's opinion is that each child has rights to receive her or his due from the parents, namely, love, food, shelter, protection, and education. It is also the considered opinion of this man that one of the Providential Rights of every child is to have a loving, supporting male Father and a loving, supporting female Mother. I believe the reasons to be obvious. If not, I'll briefly explain:
An important part of every child's education is how to properly communicate with, love, protect and support a member of the opposite sex in no matter what type of association and particularly in such close association as in marriage. How does one communicate with, work with and support a member of the opposite sex, who is naturally so very different from self, while raising a new generation, some of whom are of the opposite sex? You, dear reader, know the troubles YOU have in this matter. Be assured others have similar, perhaps greater troubles, because of the inherent differences between genders and the training, good or bad, received from parents (or no parents, perhaps?) while growing up. Life ain't easy. Now throw a man (or woman) into the mix! Right?
It boggles my mind to think of two men, who love each other to the exclusion of living with and dealing with women in a marriage situation, trying to teach a girl about womanly matters, or two women similarly trying to teach a girl about how appreciate and support a man as a husband.
Because of, in my opinion, this God-given Right of each child to have a loving, supporting male Father and a loving, supporting female Mother, adoption of a child by an HS couple should be disallowed by law, again, to protect the rights of the child. The LAW must protect the child's rights if the parents will not. This has nothing to do with the HS couple being good, kind, honest, loving or whatever. It has solely to do with inherent personal gender characteristics and the Providential RIGHTS of the child.
Again, I have nothing against the HS people themselves. They are good people, I'm sure, loving and caring for each other as so many of them do declare. I do not have anything against their living with each other if they choose to. If they want to privately sexually please each other, it is none of my business.
Protection and defense of my society and my nation IS a part of my business, as it should be of everyone in every society. If HS people want to alter the legal definition of the term "Marriage" to include their union, I believe there will be some major troubles BECAUSE OF THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILDREN that would likely be abridged or even overridden completely.
This has nothing to do with how we worship God. It has everything to do with the rights of the children and the effect denial of those rights will have upon them and my great-grandchildren's society and the nation. It takes about two generations for today's decisions to be fully manifested in a society unless those decisions are forcibly backed up as in the Nazi regime preceding WWII in the 1930's and '40's.
Now, I haven't studied every society in the history of the world, but from what I have read I've noticed that, historically, it seems that homosexuality has been a large factor in the downfall of every HS-supporting nation because the children become instilled with "I am looking out for #1 - ME!" characteristics instead of the normal hetrosexual marriage mind-set of "I am looking out for #1 - MY FAMILY, namely my spouse and my children and my parents, my siblings, etc."
The latter mindset is considered a Providential characteristic which supports and protects the Providential rights of all other people starting with one's immediate family. Check the old records, not the newly re-written histories, and you'll see the events that show that hetrosexual families build nations, homosexual unions do not and governments that change laws to promote HS unions fall. They don't fall specifically because of HS support but they still fall. This is what I have seen.
Marriage is a sacred institution because of those reasons. Such a marriage can only be, in my considered opinion, between a man and a woman who are hopefully individually Providentially minded and who are individually committed to living up to his and her promises/covenants.
With this kind of marriage our nation will continue to strengthen. Without it, our nation will fall apart.
