Comments for Love Welcomes All http://lovewelcomesall.com a gay marriage blog Fri, 21 Nov 2008 02:46:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU hourly 1 Comment on Vote NO on Proposition 8!!! by David http://lovewelcomesall.com/2008/08/26/vote-no-on-proposition-8/#comment-52 David Thu, 16 Oct 2008 22:12:41 +0000 http://lovewelcomesall.wordpress.com/?p=96#comment-52 Interesting, and the no advocates don't miss lead by saying your unamerican if you disaggree with gay marrage. I guess its like the pot calling the kettle black. So by the definition of rights. Everyone has rights as long as they agree with gay rights. Sorry we are all equal to vote as we wish and disaggree when we wish. And not be called names by the ones who disaggree with us. So good luck. Interesting, and the no advocates don’t miss lead by saying your unamerican if you disaggree with gay marrage. I guess its like the pot calling the kettle black. So by the definition of rights. Everyone has rights as long as they agree with gay rights. Sorry we are all equal to vote as we wish and disaggree when we wish. And not be called names by the ones who disaggree with us. So good luck.

]]> Comment on Ellen D. takes another stand by Mike Martinez http://lovewelcomesall.com/2008/10/15/ellen-d-takes-another-stand/#comment-51 Mike Martinez Thu, 16 Oct 2008 05:15:58 +0000 http://lovewelcomesall.wordpress.com/?p=165#comment-51 Paul. Here is where you completely miss the boat. Sex and marriage has mutiple meanings and significance in society. Marriage (and really what you are talking about is SEX, but the terms are interchangeable in your narrow interpretation of the institution) is not only for biological reproduction. Marriage has evolved into a social institution that is used to discriminate and oppress a large segment of society, a segment that are citizens too. Back in the days of Adam and Eve, biological reproduction was at a premium. Please get out of the Stone Ages already! Marriage for all, gays and lesbians included, is about EQUALITY. Please keep your thinking, and your comments, in the 21st century! VOTE YES FOR EQUALITY AND VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 8!!! Paul. Here is where you completely miss the boat. Sex and marriage has mutiple meanings and significance in society. Marriage (and really what you are talking about is SEX, but the terms are interchangeable in your narrow interpretation of the institution) is not only for biological reproduction. Marriage has evolved into a social institution that is used to discriminate and oppress a large segment of society, a segment that are citizens too. Back in the days of Adam and Eve, biological reproduction was at a premium. Please get out of the Stone Ages already! Marriage for all, gays and lesbians included, is about EQUALITY. Please keep your thinking, and your comments, in the 21st century! VOTE YES FOR EQUALITY AND VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 8!!!

]]> Comment on Ellen D. takes another stand by Paul http://lovewelcomesall.com/2008/10/15/ellen-d-takes-another-stand/#comment-50 Paul Thu, 16 Oct 2008 02:32:44 +0000 http://lovewelcomesall.wordpress.com/?p=165#comment-50 By taking a quick glance across the animal kingdom, it may be surprising to some to note that several species live in monogamous relationships. This phenomenon is observed in both the greater and lesser species. Surely there must be some benefit to living such a monogamous lifestyle or it would not exist. Such monogamous relationships, or marriages if you will, seem to naturally exist as if some underlying advantage could result. Evolutionary biology provides an answer to the quandary. The goal of every species is survival. The key to survival is passing on your “genes.” In order to accomplish this, a species must maximize its reproduction and maximize their offspring’s survival. Turns out, for some species the best way to accomplish this is by the father sticking around and helping the mother. Each gender of the species provides essentials of survival and thus a marriage is formed. Thus marriage can yield an evolutionary advantage. So, biologically speaking, much prior to governments issuing licenses, marriages existed to bear children and assure that genes proliferated. This type of marriage could only exist between a man and a woman. As languages evolved, English was born. The word marriage was used to define such relationships between one man and one woman. Surely, other relationships exist, many of which are full of love, but these would not be called marriage. Marriage has always described the coming together of a man and a woman to unite in love and initiate the bearing of children. Marriage is the gateway of the family. Biologically speaking, there is only one way to create offspring – this requires both a MALE and a FEMALE gamete. The implications of marriage go far beyond love. Defining marriage isn’t a task to be left to social experts, political activists or judges – The definition has been provided by nature itself and dates back to the beginning of life. By taking a quick glance across the animal kingdom, it may be surprising to some to note that several species live in monogamous relationships. This phenomenon is observed in both the greater and lesser species. Surely there must be some benefit to living such a monogamous lifestyle or it would not exist. Such monogamous relationships, or marriages if you will, seem to naturally exist as if some underlying advantage could result. Evolutionary biology provides an answer to the quandary. The goal of every species is survival. The key to survival is passing on your “genes.” In order to accomplish this, a species must maximize its reproduction and maximize their offspring’s survival. Turns out, for some species the best way to accomplish this is by the father sticking around and helping the mother. Each gender of the species provides essentials of survival and thus a marriage is formed. Thus marriage can yield an evolutionary advantage. So, biologically speaking, much prior to governments issuing licenses, marriages existed to bear children and assure that genes proliferated. This type of marriage could only exist between a man and a woman. As languages evolved, English was born. The word marriage was used to define such relationships between one man and one woman. Surely, other relationships exist, many of which are full of love, but these would not be called marriage. Marriage has always described the coming together of a man and a woman to unite in love and initiate the bearing of children. Marriage is the gateway of the family. Biologically speaking, there is only one way to create offspring – this requires both a MALE and a FEMALE gamete. The implications of marriage go far beyond love. Defining marriage isn’t a task to be left to social experts, political activists or judges – The definition has been provided by nature itself and dates back to the beginning of life.

]]> Comment on “Saul, Saul, Why Are You Persecuting Me?” Acts 9:4 by Mike Martinez http://lovewelcomesall.com/2008/10/06/saul-saul-why-are-you-persecuting-me-acts-94/#comment-46 Mike Martinez Tue, 07 Oct 2008 05:55:21 +0000 http://lovewelcomesall.wordpress.com/?p=158#comment-46 What an excellent blog. It is well written, superbly articulate, and most importantly, the gospel TRUTH. Kudos. :-) What an excellent blog. It is well written, superbly articulate, and most importantly, the gospel TRUTH. Kudos. :-)

]]> Comment on essay by Shane http://lovewelcomesall.com/2008/09/22/essay/#comment-45 Shane Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:54:10 +0000 http://lovewelcomesall.wordpress.com/?p=132#comment-45 why not? i'll get it posted in the next day or so. why not? i’ll get it posted in the next day or so.

]]> Comment on essay by Mike Martinez http://lovewelcomesall.com/2008/09/22/essay/#comment-44 Mike Martinez Sun, 28 Sep 2008 04:49:04 +0000 http://lovewelcomesall.wordpress.com/?p=132#comment-44 So do we get to read the essay or are you just teasing us??? Lol. So do we get to read the essay or are you just teasing us??? Lol.

]]> Comment on Definitely No by Shane http://lovewelcomesall.com/2008/08/26/definitely-no/#comment-39 Shane Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:36:37 +0000 http://lovewelcomesall.wordpress.com/?p=100#comment-39 So I was hanging out with some friends of mine (who all happen to be straight as well, but are of the same viewpoint as myself) and I brought up the phone conversation I had with the pollster. Well my friend Adrie said she got a call from them as well, explaining that once the lady she was talking to finished describing the prop and asked the inevitable of Adrie's stance was, Adrie of course said absolutely no...well, this pollster, who I'm pretty sure is supposed to be neutral, got really defensive and asked if Adrie was sure she knew or understood what the prop is about. Adrie, being a fiery one herself, sternly informed her that she understood completely and would not be convinced otherwise and said goodbye. I want everyone to know that there are a good number of straight people here on your side and just as adamant about prop 8 going down! So I was hanging out with some friends of mine (who all happen to be straight as well, but are of the same viewpoint as myself) and I brought up the phone conversation I had with the pollster. Well my friend Adrie said she got a call from them as well, explaining that once the lady she was talking to finished describing the prop and asked the inevitable of Adrie’s stance was, Adrie of course said absolutely no…well, this pollster, who I’m pretty sure is supposed to be neutral, got really defensive and asked if Adrie was sure she knew or understood what the prop is about. Adrie, being a fiery one herself, sternly informed her that she understood completely and would not be convinced otherwise and said goodbye. I want everyone to know that there are a good number of straight people here on your side and just as adamant about prop 8 going down!

]]> Comment on Vote NO on Proposition 8!!! by Mike http://lovewelcomesall.com/2008/08/26/vote-no-on-proposition-8/#comment-38 Mike Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:26:20 +0000 http://lovewelcomesall.wordpress.com/?p=96#comment-38 Jonolan...you could not be more wrong. Although the state of California does offer the most comprehensive domestic partnerships of anywhere in the country, they don't afford 100% of the same benefits. They offer a lot, but not all. Also, if there is anything that the civil rights era taught us it's this: seperate is NOT equal. Labeling the same institution as something else and expecting the marginalized group of society to somehow be "satisfied" with that is discriminatory at best. To your point, if we're already getting most the same benefits then why not call it what it is? M-A-R-R-I-A-G-E! Jonolan…you could not be more wrong. Although the state of California does offer the most comprehensive domestic partnerships of anywhere in the country, they don’t afford 100% of the same benefits. They offer a lot, but not all. Also, if there is anything that the civil rights era taught us it’s this: seperate is NOT equal. Labeling the same institution as something else and expecting the marginalized group of society to somehow be “satisfied” with that is discriminatory at best. To your point, if we’re already getting most the same benefits then why not call it what it is? M-A-R-R-I-A-G-E!

]]> Comment on Vote NO on Proposition 8!!! by jonolan http://lovewelcomesall.com/2008/08/26/vote-no-on-proposition-8/#comment-36 jonolan Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:52:19 +0000 http://lovewelcomesall.wordpress.com/?p=96#comment-36 Correct me if I'm wrong but California affords domestic partnerships all of the same rights and responsibilities as marriages under state law (California Family Code §297.5. That being the case, why do gays <i>need</i> to be "married" when they can enter into a civil union that grants all the same rights as marriage <i>under the laws of the State</i> without offending the sensibilities of the religious faithful? Sounds to me like you're wanting the legislature to enforce acceptance, not legal equality. That's something that is outside both the government's purview and capability. Correct me if I’m wrong but California affords domestic partnerships all of the same rights and responsibilities as marriages under state law (California Family Code §297.5. That being the case, why do gays need to be “married” when they can enter into a civil union that grants all the same rights as marriage under the laws of the State without offending the sensibilities of the religious faithful?

Sounds to me like you’re wanting the legislature to enforce acceptance, not legal equality. That’s something that is outside both the government’s purview and capability.

]]> Comment on Apparently you need to go to Canada to get the real news in America by Loud Steve http://lovewelcomesall.com/2008/06/21/apparently-you-need-to-go-to-canada-to-get-the-real-news/#comment-34 Loud Steve Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:20:08 +0000 http://lovewelcomesall.wordpress.com/?p=60#comment-34 Some people are just ignorant. In the dark ages, the DSM described homosexuality as a pathology. Now, it's not even mentioned. (I think, should double check that before making such assertive statements, really. Just what I heard.) Some people are just ignorant. In the dark ages, the DSM described homosexuality as a pathology. Now, it’s not even mentioned. (I think, should double check that before making such assertive statements, really. Just what I heard.)

]]>