First Civil-Union Couple Parting Ways

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote]A lesbian couple who entered into the nation's first same-sex civil union are splitting up amid allegations of violent behavior. Carolyn Conrad, 35, asked a court in October to end her relationship with Kathleen Peterson, 46.

"All I want to say is that the civil union was a big source of pride for me, and now it's not," Peterson said.
[/quote]
[url="http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/15/D8EGT8A80.html"]story HERE[/url]

[MC Just]

lol

ahh the fruits of liberalism. nice and ROTTEN.

[Cow of Shame]

The fact that it broke up isn't surprising. The violence in the relationship was unexpected, however.

[scardella]

I guess you'd have to call it an "uncivil union"

[crazymaine catholic]

gotta love how people assume that gay unions of any sort will never ever go foul. ah, silly people. :

[Snarf]

Doesn't this just prove that they're as normal as the what, 30% of marriages that end in divorce anyways?

[Guest Rick777]

violence? i wonder what happened?

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Dec 16 2005, 12:30 AM']Doesn't this just prove that they're as normal as the what, 30% of marriages that end in divorce anyways?
[right][snapback]827750[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
because same sex, sex is normal... right?

[StMichael]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Dec 15 2005, 11:30 PM']Doesn't this just prove that they're as normal as the what, 30% of marriages that end in divorce anyways?
[right][snapback]827750[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Their "union" is not of love, but twisted lust.

Marriage is of love and there are fruits that come, they are called children.

There is no comparision to be made between the 2.

[Ash Wednesday]

Ruh roh.

[MC Just]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Dec 16 2005, 03:06 AM']Ruh roh.
[right][snapback]827846[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

scooby dooby doo!!!

[Snarf]

I love my close friends, male or female, in a platonic manner. I love my neighbor as best as I can. Obviously, same-sex attraction is grounded in mental orientation centered around copulation. But to assume that two people of the same sex who commit to each other just for "lust" is offensive and immature.

I oppose gay marriage, and I think that homosexuality is a mental disorder. But if people are going to sin, there's no reason one should detain them from enjoying their lives as best as possible by living in a civil union.

And yes, when 10% of the general population either inherits or acquires by social internalization same-sex orientation, it's fair enough to call the resultant acts "normal". You can call them "immoral" and I would agree with you. But you know what? Sin itself is normal. It shouldn't be encouraged, but that's what we inherit from Adam. And no, that's not a contradiction, because people aren't going to suddenly turn into homosexuals just because it's legal to have a civil union.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

Moving to the Debate Table - 'cause that's where this is leading to....

[Socrates]

I'm sorry, but I've been on Phatmass a long time, and this is perhaps the most illogical and contradictory post I have ever seen here!
[quote name='Snarf' date='Dec 16 2005, 05:55 AM']Obviously, same-sex attraction is grounded in mental orientation centered around copulation.  But to assume that two people of the same sex who commit to each other just for "lust" is offensive and immature.[/quote]
"Copulating" with someone of the same sex is a sin, and is by definition lustful.

[quote]I oppose gay marriage, and I think that homosexuality is a mental disorder.  But if people are going to sin, there's no reason one should detain them from enjoying their lives as best as possible by living in a civil union.[/quote]
This statement is nonsensical and contradictory to the extreme. Why should society give benefits and official recognition to sinful and mentally disordered actions?
"I oppose drunkeness, and I think that alcoholism is a mental disorder. But if people are going to get drunk, there's no reason one should detain them from enjoying their lives as best as possible by rewarding them a life-long government pension to buy booze."
See my point?

[quote]And yes, when 10% of the general population either inherits or acquires by social internalization same-sex orientation, it's fair enough to call the resultant acts "normal".  You can call them "immoral" and I would agree with you.  But you know what?  Sin itself is normal.  It shouldn't be encouraged, but that's what we inherit from Adam.  And no, that's not a contradiction, because people aren't going to suddenly turn into homosexuals just because it's legal to have a civil union.
[right][snapback]827861[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
First of all, the "10%" figure came from the fraudulent methods of Alfred Kinsey's infamous "study." Subsequent studies have thoroughly debunked this myth, and show the number of homosexuals to be closer to 1% of the population.
But that is really irrelevant. Homosexual "civil unions" would be wrong even if homosexuals made up 60% of the population. Is the "normalcy" of an act, or whether it should be allowed or encouraged by law, dependent on how many people do it?
If 10% or more of the population were murderers, thieves, or rapists, would that mean the law or society would be required to accept these things as "normal" and give them legal benefits accordingly?

And this has nothing to do with whether "civil unions" make people "turn into homosexuals." That is an absurd red-herring.

Law, properly understood, should reward virtue and discourage vice.
If law and society give benifits and encouragement to vice, that is a perversion of law, and should be opposed by Christian citizens.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Dec 16 2005, 06:55 AM']I love my close friends, male or female, in a platonic manner.  I love my neighbor as best as I can.  Obviously, same-sex attraction is grounded in mental orientation centered around copulation.  But to assume that two people of the same sex who commit to each other just for "lust" is offensive and immature.

I oppose gay marriage, and I think that homosexuality is a mental disorder.  But if people are going to sin, there's no reason one should detain them from enjoying their lives as best as possible by living in a civil union.

And yes, when 10% of the general population either inherits or acquires by social internalization same-sex orientation, it's fair enough to call the resultant acts "normal".  You can call them "immoral" and I would agree with you.  But you know what?  Sin itself is normal.  It shouldn't be encouraged, but that's what we inherit from Adam.  And no, that's not a contradiction, because people aren't going to suddenly turn into homosexuals just because it's legal to have a civil union.
[right][snapback]827861[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

im not sure i disagree with you on this
im not suprised they broke up because thier relationship was so blatantly a slap in the face of what marriage is .... they had a relationship that was un-natural
and i see a lot of marriage fail with my own eyes, that we can see it comming before they get married, because - as you site - 30% ... they are relationships built on sand
im sure that 30% doesnt understand love, marriage, sex, children= a lasting family
and gay couples wanting union, or marriage or whatever ... sure as heck do not understand that

i hate calling that 30% "normal" because it shouldnt be the norm