Comentarii "Petitie catre Adunarea Parlamentara a Consiliului Europei / Petition to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe", pagina 9
- Citeste petitia
- |
- Monitorizare petitie
- |
- Semnaturi (10.350)
- |
- Semneaza petitia
- |
- Comentarii (255)
- |
- Stiri (1)
Daca doriti ca si alte persoane sa afle despre aceasta petitie, le puteti trimite urmatorul link:
Promoveaza petitia! Semneaza petitia!
Comentarii, discutii libere despre petitie:
|
9000 de semnaturi [AFR] 9.000 de semnaturi Am ajuns la peste 9.000 de semnaturi si AFR multumeste tuturor semnatarilor. Va rugam insa sa continuati sa semnati si sa difuzati petitia. Vocea noastra comuna incepe sa fie auzita. Aveti credinta si perseverati. Semnaturile vor fi inaintate Consiliului Europei saptamina viitoare, iar comunicatul de presa care va anunta evenimentul va fi postat si aici. Intr-o alta ordine de idei, si in cadrul Uniunii Europene au fost incepute, anul acesta, lucrari preparatorii cu scopul de a impune casatorii unisex in statele membre. AFR deja a initiat o actiune de opozitie si va vom tine la curent la vremea potrivita. Continuati sa ne sprijiniti cu semnaturi, difuzarea petitie la altii, si cu rugaciuni. In functie de numarul de semnaturi care vor mai fi date in sprijinul acestei petitii, vom inainta periodic Consiliului Europei semnaturile aditionale. Vesti bune: un proiect de lege a fost tocmai initiat in Camera Deputatilor pentru a declara mai 15 Ziua Nationala a Familiei in Romania. Este un inceput bun. Vesti rele: in Anglia, in numele combaterii “homofobiei,” o comisie guvernamentala de expertiza tocmai a emis un raport in care sugereaza indoctrinarea copiilor in placerea sexului homosexual incepind de la virsta de 5 ani. Daca nu sintem cu bagare de seama si Romania poate ajunge in situatia aceasta. Perseverati in protejarea familiilor si copiilor nostri. Articolul de mai jos e din ziarul londonez The Mail Teach 'the pleasure of gay sex' to children as young as five, say researchers By Steve Doughty Last updated at 8:27 AM on 16th September 2008 Children as young as five should be taught to understand the pleasures of gay sex, according to leaders of a taxpayer-funded education project. Heads of the project have set themselves a goal of 'creating primary classrooms where queer sexualities are affirmed and celebrated'. The ambition was revealed in documents prepared for the No Outsiders project run by researchers from universities and backed with £600,000 of public money provided by the Economic and Social Research Council. Children as young as five should be taught about gay sex, an education project has said (file picture) The stated purpose of the project - which is operating in 14 primary schools - is to stop bullying and prejudice aimed at homosexuals. However, at a seminar at Exeter University tomorrow, supporters of the group will go beyond the anti-bullying agenda and discuss 'pleasure and desire in educational contexts'. A document prepared for the seminar and couched in convoluted academic jargon says: 'The team is concerned to interrogate the desexualisation of children's bodies, the negation of pleasure and desire in educational contexts, and the tendency to shy away from discussion of (sexual) bodily activity in No Outsiders project work. 'The danger of accusations of the corruption of innocent children has led team members to make repeated claims that this project is not about sex or desire - and that it is therefore not about bodies. 'Yet, at a very significant level, that is exactly what it is about and to deny this may have significant negative implications for children and young people.' No Outsiders is led by researchers from Sunderland University and also involves academics at the Institute of Education and Exeter University. Books, puppet shows and plays are used to teach children about same-sex relationships. During the project, the seminar paper says, its members have 'challenged each other to go beyond imagined possibilities into queer practice'. The seminar will 'question the taken-for-granted of the supposedly sexless, bodiless and desire-less primary classroom' and examine 'the place of the research team members' own bodies, desires and pleasures in this research'. The discussions provoked a furious reaction from critics of the homosexual rights agenda. Simon Calvert of the Christian Institute said: 'When an adult who is working in a primary school suggests that children should explore their sexuality, that should result in a complaint to the police.' Patricia Morgan, author of studies of family life and gay adoption, said: 'The proposal is that primary school classrooms should be turned into gay saunas. This is about homosexual practice in junior schools. The idiots who repealed Section 28 should consider that this is where it has got them.' Project leader Dr Elizabeth Atkinson said the seminar had no connection with No Outsiders work in classrooms. 'The seminar is part of a long-standing academic debate and has nothing to do with schools,' she said. 'It has no connection with sex education.' Section 28, the law which banned the promotion of homosexuality in state schools, was repealed five years ago. Current guidance on sex education says it should not promote sexual orientation or sexual activity. [19/09/2008 22:40] |
|
Casatoriile unisex dauneaza copiilor [AFR (articol din Los Angels Times)] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-blankenhorn19-2008sep 19,0,6866555.story From the Los Angeles Times Opinion Protecting marriage to protect children Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving. But in all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. By David Blankenhorn September 19, 2008 I'm a liberal Democrat. And I do not favor same-sex marriage. Do those positions sound contradictory? To me, they fit together. Many seem to believe that marriage is simply a private love relationship between two people. They accept this view, in part, because Americans have increasingly emphasized and come to value the intimate, emotional side of marriage, and in part because almost all opinion leaders today, from journalists to judges, strongly embrace this position. That's certainly the idea that underpinned the California Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage. But I spent a year studying the history and anthropology of marriage, and I've come to a different conclusion. Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving, and many of its features vary across groups and cultures. But there is one constant. In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children. In this sense, marriage is a gift that society bestows on its next generation. Marriage (and only marriage) unites the three core dimensions of parenthood -- biological, social and legal -- into one pro-child form: the married couple. Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. Marriage says to society as a whole: For every child born, there is a recognized mother and a father, accountable to the child and to each other. These days, because of the gay marriage debate, one can be sent to bed without supper for saying such things. But until very recently, almost no one denied this core fact about marriage. Summing up the cross-cultural evidence, the anthropologist Helen Fisher in 1992 put it simply: "People wed primarily to reproduce." The philosopher and Nobel laureate Bertrand Russell, certainly no friend of conventional sexual morality, was only repeating the obvious a few decades earlier when he concluded that "it is through children alone that sexual relations become important to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution." Marriage is society's most pro-child institution. In 2002 -- just moments before it became highly unfashionable to say so -- a team of researchers from Child Trends, a nonpartisan research center, reported that "family structure clearly matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage." All our scholarly instruments seem to agree: For healthy development, what a child needs more than anything else is the mother and father who together made the child, who love the child and love each other. For these reasons, children have the right, insofar as society can make it possible, to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought them into this world. The foundational human rights document in the world today regarding children, the 1989 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, specifically guarantees children this right. The last time I checked, liberals like me were supposed to be in favor of internationally recognized human rights, particularly concerning children, who are typically society's most voiceless and vulnerable group. Or have I now said something I shouldn't? Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his birthright to both parents who made him. Every single one. Moreover, losing that right will not be a consequence of something that at least most of us view as tragic, such as a marriage that didn't last, or an unexpected pregnancy where the father-to-be has no intention of sticking around. On the contrary, in the case of same-sex marriage and the children of those unions, it will be explained to everyone, including the children, that something wonderful has happened! For me, what we are encouraged or permitted to say, or not say, to one another about what our society owes its children is crucially important in the debate over initiatives like California's Proposition 8, which would reinstate marriage's customary man-woman form. Do you think that every child deserves his mother and father, with adoption available for those children whose natural parents cannot care for them? Do you suspect that fathers and mothers are different from one another? Do you imagine that biological ties matter to children? How many parents per child is best? Do you think that "two" is a better answer than one, three, four or whatever? If you do, be careful. In making the case for same-sex marriage, more than a few grown-ups will be quite willing to question your integrity and goodwill. Children, of course, are rarely consulted. The liberal philosopher Isaiah Berlin famously argued that, in many cases, the real conflict we face is not good versus bad but good versus good. Reducing homophobia is good. Protecting the birthright of the child is good. How should we reason together as a society when these two good things conflict? Here is my reasoning. I reject homophobia and believe in the equal dignity of gay and lesbian love. Because I also believe with all my heart in the right of the child to the mother and father who made her, I believe that we as a society should seek to maintain and to strengthen the only human institution -- marriage -- that is specifically intended to safeguard that right and make it real for our children. Legalized same-sex marriage almost certainly benefits those same-sex couples who choose to marry, as well as the children being raised in those homes. But changing the meaning of marriage to accommodate homosexual orientation further and perhaps definitively undermines for all of us the very thing -- the gift, the birthright -- that is marriage's most distinctive contribution to human society. That's a change that, in the final analysis, I cannot support. David Blankenhorn is president of the New York-based Institute for American Values and the author of "The Future of Marriage." [20/09/2008 21:30] |
|
comunicat de presa AFR [petre costea] Dragi semnatari: AFR va anunta ca ieri 24 septembrie am inaintat Consiliului Europei 12.000 de semnaturi, din care 9.000 obtinute online de la voi, iar restul semnaturi manuale obtinue de uni dintre voi din Botosani, Arad, Ialomita, Chicago, etc. Va multumim. Va informa ca proiectul rezolutiei impotriva careia ati semnat este la ora actuala in dezbatare in comisia juridica a Consiliului Europei. Va vom tine la curent. Pe de alta parte, un proiect similar e in faze incipiente si in Uniunea Europeana. AFR se va impotrivi si in cadrul Uniunii Europene si va vom reprezenta valorile si obiectivele cu entuziasm si loialitate. Aveti credinta si perseverati. Redam mai jos comunicatul de presa care AFR l-a emis ier privind inregistrarea semnaturilor. Fie ca Dumnezeu sa binecuvinteze Romania. Petre Costea, AFR ============================================= Mii de romani protesteaza impotriva presiunilor 'europene' de legalizare a 'casatoriilor' homosexuale 24 septembrie 2008 - Alianta Familiilor din Romania (AFR) a remis, astazi, Secretariatului Adunarii Parlamentare a Consiliului Europei (APCE) o scrisoare si o petitie cu peste 12.000 de semnaturi, intr-o actiune civica de protest impotriva anuntatei intentii a APCE de a discuta o rezolutie prin care statelor membre li s-ar "recomanda" sa legalizeze casatoriile intre homosexuali. Aceeasi scrisoare a fost remisa si membrilor delegatiei romane la Strasbourg, acestora solicitandu- li-se sa voteze impotriva adoptarii rezolutiei. "Prin aceasta actiune ne exprimam profunda ingrijorare fata de incercarile Consiliului Europei de a aproba o rezolutie cu privire la recunoasterea casatoriei intre persoane de acelasi sex in toate cele 47 de state membre ale Consiliului Europei", declara presedintele AFR, Petre Costea. "Credem ca APCE isi depaseste atributiile si stabileste un precedent periculos, alarmant si ingrijorator. Familia si casatoria trebuie protejate, intrucat sunt institutii concepute a asigura supravietuirea societatii si perpetuarea speciei umane prin procreere si prin cresterea si educarea copiilor. Relatiile homosexuale, uniunile civile sau casatoriile homosexuale nu indeplinesc nici una din aceste nevoi si prin natura lor sunt incapabile a satisface aceste obiective", declara Petre Costea. AFR considera procesul prin care APCE cauta sa impuna casatoriile homosexuale statelor membre ca fiind nedemocratic. Conventia Europeana a Drepturilor Omului este categorica in ceea ce priveste dreptul la casatorie, mentionand ca aceasta este o chestiune care tine de suveranitatea nationala si nu de presiunea internationala. Cetatenii Romaniei nu si-au cedat suveranitatea in fata nici unui organism international pentru a-i defini, dicta si elabora valorile si normele. Dimpotriva, in decembrie 2006, la initiativa AFR, 650.000 de cetateni adulti ai Romaniei au adresat o petitie guvernului, solicitand definirea casatoriei prin lege ca fiind uniunea dintre un barbat si o femeie. Directorul AFR, Bogdan Mateciuc, adauga: "Ne afirmam drepturile de cetateni ai tarilor membre ale Consiliului Europei precum si ai Uniunii Europene si solicitam ca APCE, impreuna cu Consiliul Europei, sa inceteze emiterea rezolutiilor destinate impunerii casatoriei homosexuale sau a relatiilor homosexuale in Statele Membre. Nu in ultimul rand, facem apel la toti cetatenii statelor membre care impartasesc aceste convingeri, sa se alature actiunii noastre de protest", se incheie mesajul Aliantei Familiilor din Romania. Pentru mai multe amanunte si pentru textul complet al scrisorii adresate APCE, vizitati http://www.protejar ea-familiei. com/noutati. html . Alianta Familiilor din Romania ( http://www.protejar ea-familiei. com ) este o organizatie a societatii civile, dedicata valorilor familiale traditionale. Scopul sau este acela de a promova si apara principiile social-culturale care au stat la baza dezvoltarii societatii: familia si morala crestina, aplicata in relatiile interumane si in viata sociala. In 2006-2007, Alianta a inceput prima initiativa legislativa cetateneasca pentru modificarea Constitutiei, obtinand sprijinul a peste 650.000 de cetateni romani cu drept de vot. [25/09/2008 04:01] |
|
Va multumim!!! [andreea] Va multumim pentru acest demers! Daca mai aveti nevoie de semnaturi, contactati-ma va rog pe adresa de mail andreeaflp@yahoo.com.( Daca acum, dupa ce le-ati inaintat deja pe cele obtinute, mai conteaza) Va multumesc pentru tot! [25/09/2008 22:29] |
|
|
|
inca 2.000 de semnaturi [AFR, Petre Costea] multumim celor care continuati sa dati semnaturi. Va anuntam ca simbata 27 septembrie AFR a mai primit inca 2.000 de semnaturi manuale date de cetateni din judetele neamt, suceava, si botosani. Si aceste semnaturi vor fi inaintate Consiliului Europei curind. [29/09/2008 19:40] |
|
comentariu Break Point [AFR] un blog recent recomandat de AFR cititorilor nostri pe tema confuziei care dusmanii casatoriei o injecteaza in dezbaterea privind valoarea casatoriei. Punctul important: uniunile unisex devalorizeaza casatoria ======================================== BreakPoint Commentaries Friends with Benefits By Mark Earley 9/30/2008 Related Audio/Video Downloads The Logical Result of Domestic Partnerships Note: This commentary was delivered by PFM President Mark Earley. The Boston Globe recently reported that “a number of scholars are seeking to shore up friendship in a surprising way: by granting it legal recognition.” The article posits a couple of different ways this could be done. One is “on a case-by-case basis—eligibility to take time off to care for a sick friend under an equivalent of the Family and Medical Leave Act, for example.” Yet another might be “an official legal arrangement between two friends, designating a bundle of mutual rights and privileges.” The article points out that such arrangements are already permitted in Hawaii. In any case, the idea would be that friends could get the kind of rights and benefits traditionally granted to married couples. As our writers at The Point commented about this story, this was bound to happen. You see, the relentless push for benefits for same-sex partners has eroded the status of marriage in our society. Instead of being honored as the bedrock of healthy families and civilization, marriage has come to be seen as just one more relationship, no different than any other, with no particular benefits, and no more deserving of privileges than any other. So if a same-sex couple can have benefits, why can’t two friends? Why couldn’t a whole group of friends? Already this line of thinking has created some ludicrous situations. A couple of years ago, University of Florida employees wanting to qualify for domestic partner health benefits had to pledge that they were actually having sexual relations with their partner! The irony is hard to miss. The same people that have clamored for years for the authorities to stay out of their bedrooms; and they’re now creating situations where employers are forced to intrude. The University of Florida situation was ridiculous—but it was the logical result of employers realizing how much they’d have to shell out if domestic partnerships became widespread. How else could they be fair and politically correct and not go bankrupt? Of course, there’s even more to worry about here than companies bearing a heavier financial burden, or being forced to pry into their employees’ most intimate lives. As the Globe puts it, “Skeptics hold that friendship should stay outside the law for its own sake—do we really want friends with red tape?” Advocates of friendship benefits contend that friendships are increasingly important and beneficial in our modern society, where so many other ties seem to be weakening. And they have a point. But not every important relationship in our lives needs government involvement to show its importance. And such involvement would be likely to lead to major headaches and entanglements for the participants themselves. Law professor Laura Rosenbury told the Globe, “There is a danger that the state could go from recognizing to regulating friendship.” Well, you can bet on that. All of this shows just how clueless we’ve become about the true nature of marriage. Instead of a divinely ordained institution that forms the foundation of a healthy society, marriage has simply become a government-subsidized arrangement. And in the name of tolerance and fairness, that arrangement and its legal benefits might one day be extended to all kinds of human relationships. The result would be not to make friendship stronger, but to continue to make marriage—and all of society—weaker. And, not to mention, government far larger than we could tolerate. [01/10/2008 03:47] |
|
biserica catolica respinge casatoriile unisex in california [AFR] California Catholic Daily [Return to Article] This printable article is taken from www.calcatholic.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Published: September 26, 2008 “At least five members of the audience walked out” Bishop Soto stuns national homosexual ministries conference (Editor’s Note: For the complete text of the bishop’s speech, see related story in today’s edition, “It is sinful.”) When two Catholics from Southern California learned that Sacramento Coadjutor Bishop Jaime Soto was to be the keynote speaker at the National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries conference in Long Beach on Sept. 18, they decided to attend themselves to see and hear the talk in person. They say what they witnessed was a bishop who “courageously but gently” gave a clear presentation of Church teaching on sexuality. [[Soto092608.jpg]]After California Catholic Daily reported on Bishop Soto’s plans to attend and speak at the conference (“Birds of a feather?” Sept. 15, 2008), many readers expressed disapproval or worry over how to interpret the soon-to-be Bishop of Sacramento’s decision. Bishop Soto will take over the diocese from retiring Bishop William Weigand on Nov. 30. The National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries, based in Berkeley, is a network of local ministries that has the reputation of taking, at best, an ambiguous stance on the moral character of homosexuality and homosexual acts. But there was noting ambiguous about Bishop Soto’s remarks to the group. “Sexual relations between people of the same sex can be alluring for homosexuals, but it deviates from the true meaning of the act and distracts them from the true nature of love to which God has called us all,” Bishop Soto said. “For this reason, it is sinful. Married love is a beautiful, heroic expression of faithful, life-giving, life-creating love. It should not be accommodated and manipulated for those who would believe that they can and have a right to mimic its unique expression." At least five members of the audience walked out during the bishop’s address. When he finished speaking, there was general silence -- with only a very small number applauding. The chairman of the conference then announced that the bishop would answer questions at a reception that would be held in another room. That led to widespread expressions of disapproval from members of the audience, who said they wanted to be able to express their responses immediately. It was agreed that those who wanted to speak would line up. The bishop was told twice by the chairman that he was free to leave if he wanted -- or to stay and listen. Bishop Soto stayed and sat quietly listening to every response. A series of about eight speakers came to the microphone to express their unhappiness with what the bishop had said -- and what they felt he had not said. One woman said, in essence, "We know what the Church says. What we wanted you to talk about is the value of our lived experience as lesbian women and gay men." Two speakers -- one man and one woman -- thanked the bishop for his address and voiced their agreement with what he had to say. While the audience members were responding to the bishop’s remarks, a board member of the National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries came up to one of the tables in the room and said, "On behalf of the board, I apologize. We had no idea Bishop Soto was going to say what he said." © California Catholic Daily 2008. All Rights Reserved. ----------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- Article URL: http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=cbbf34a9-d1cd-49a4-ab61-4cf7 7f14e121 [01/10/2008 04:10] |
|
luptati-va lupta cea buna pentru familie [AFR] Marriage: Wedge Issue or Prelude to Disaster? Harry R. Jackson, Jr. Monday, October 06, 2008 The last few weeks have been filled with political drama. The economic bailout, discussions about Sarah Palin, and the vice presidential debate have kept millions of Americans occupied with their own debates about America’s future. While all this excitement is taking place nationally, there is a quiet tragedy brewing that can have just as much impact as the financial crisis. It is the battle to protect marriage. Three states have marriage amendments on the ballot this November - Arizona, California, and Florida. The California battle is especially significant because judges have made same sex marriage into law in that state. These battles have been relegated to the back pages of the national papers and hardly covered at all on national television because the protection of marriage is often called a “wedge issue.” Due to the lack of media coverage, many people are unaware of how much is at stake in this battle. Same sex marriage could become the law of the land in three years or less. The only speed bump that could slow this process down (or derail it) is passing a constitutional amendment in these three states. The problem with redefining marriage is that it is more than a civil rights issue concerning how gay people are treated. It has the potentially unintended effect of hastening the decline of traditional heterosexual marriage. It also may blur the lines of morality and sexual behavior for centuries to come. Studies have shown that in the nations that have legalized same sex marriage or other forms of “faux” marriage, the change has devalued the institution of marriage as a whole. This devaluation has resulted in heterosexuals waiting longer to marry, increases in single parent households, and an overall alienation of many children from their birth fathers. Let me explain these findings in a different way. Once we redefine marriage, we automatically redefine the family. After the family is redefined, we must redefine how kids are educated and trained in our “brave new world.” For example, in the second grade in the State of Massachusetts, students in public schools are required to read books like The Prince and the Prince. This book lays out the romance and courtship of two gay men who become “the King and the King” and live happily ever after. As appalling as it is to me that an 8-year-old is exposed to this process, it actually begins earlier. The dangers of primary school “re-education” of children are illustrated by the true story of David Parker who was outraged when he opened up the book Who's in a Family? This book was given to his 5-year-old son in 2005 at the Joseph Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington, Mass. Parker deemed that both the message and the method of the book were highly inappropriate. The book depicted different kinds of families, including same-sex couples raising children. As innocent as the title Who’s in a Family? may sound, it is the beginning of announcing an insidious change in the nature of families and marriage. By the time Massachusetts’ kids reach the 8th grade in some classrooms, they are hearing lessons about gay and lesbian sex complete with diagrams and charts. These negatives of same sex marriage are not the only alarming trends. As an African-American preacher, I am convinced that traditional marriage in the black community is on the verge of becoming extinct. Let’s take a look at a snapshot of the condition of black families. Over 50%+ of black marriages currently end in divorce. In addition, over 70% of black babies are born out of wedlock today. Moreover, as high as 40% of young black woman will never get married, if current trends continue. With marriage left in this kind of freefall, we could quickly reach a time when most black adults will grow up without the stabilizing influence of a father in the home. It is no secret that fatherless homes contribute to increased poverty, educational underachievement, juvenile delinquency, and a host of other social problems. National legalization of same sex marriage will undoubtedly accelerate the decline of black families. Therefore, many leading pastors are speaking out about the need to protect the definition and legal status of marriage. In conclusion, black and white Christians alike must recognize the slippery slope upon which we stand. Where the black community is today, the white community will be in just a few years. Let’s remember that our battle to reclaim biblical marriage has to consist of more than preventing the redefinition of marriage. It has to include American churches doing a better job of equipping our members to develop and maintain strong marriages. The truth is…the battle begins with you and me. If we do not safeguard our own marriages and teach our children to do the same, we will not be able to argue against gay marriage with any authority. Let’s get help or counseling when we need it for our own marriages, let’s be advocates for family support within our communities and churches, and let’s draw a line in the sand and let our representatives know that we will not allow our families to erode from the inside out or the outside in. This battle is worth the fight! [08/10/2008 04:48] |
|
DREPTUL LA REPLICA! [www.paintball-mania.ro] Am vazut cum ati respins oameni cu un unghi mai putin obtuz pe considerente de genul:"Nu ai citit Sfanta Scriptura!". Provoc pe oricare dintre voi la un catehism! Totusi nu cred ca va veti lumina mai tare. Ma mahneste URA pe care o aveti in voi... E frica omului prost care NU INTELEGE, care nu are capacitatea de a asimila si de a se ADAPTA! Vad mandrie gratuita ca si in cruciade cand in numele Mantuitorului au fost pradate popoare si ucisi milioane de oameni. Acum cateva secole inchizitia era la moda... ca si incultura... Vad ca revin ambele. Sa-mi caut pantalonii evazati prin pod? Nu inteleg esenta crestinismului din voi can Iisus spune:"Iarta si vei fi iertat!" Cum poate sa spuna in Psalmi: "Tu nu ma cunosi dar eu te cunosc mai bine decat crezi'... Voi chiar nu ganditi? Chiar nu vedeti evidenta? Sunteti niste pui de oligofreni cu ambitii ieftine de a carmui si orandui societatea insa, prietenii mei, sunteti mult prea mici (la minte) pentru o lume atat de mare. Ati ramas in Evul Mediu, dragii mei... Sunteti mandri caati gasit 11000 de oameni sa semneze petitia. Probabilca sunt cei mai prosti crestini si probabil cei mai indoctrinati si inculti. Cum poti oare sa marginalizezi un OM pentru ca are, nu din vina lui, o alta orientare sexuala. Nu uitati: majoritatea inseamna gloata, prostime, atribute pe care nu prea le cauta nimeni. Sunteti cei manipulati pana la plictis, sunteti cei care nu aveti minte sau curajul de a va trai propria viata si traiti vietile unor morti de prin povestile lui Constantin (nu sfantul). Sunteti atat de orbi incat nu vedeti ca sarbatoriti cu mare fast si emotie crestina sarbatori pagane de milenii. In numele unor povesti si semizei condamnati oameni, ii ardeti pe rug... Cu siguranta JIAHDUL ar trebui sa invete din CRUCIADE caci mult mai sangeroase au fost acestea. Propovaduiti cuvantul Domnului cu gurile voastre spurcate iar in intunericul mintilor voastre va faceti smeriti cruce crezand ca ati facut un lucru bun, crestinesc... Nu m-ar surprinde sa gasesc printre voi membri ai Ku Klux Klan-ului, iar daca asemuirea nu va cinsteste aflati ca nu e nicio diferenta intre voi. Ca sa va scutesc de replici inutile: 1: CUNOSC RELIGIILE MAI BINE DECAT VOI TOTI LA UN LOC. 2: SUNT BOTEZAT CRESTIN ORTODOX DAR SUNT GNOSTIC. 3: SUNT HETEROSEXUAL SI SUNT CASATORIT. Post scriptum: Incercati sa vedeti mizeria din sufletele voastre si nu mai cautati gunoaie in ochii celorlalti. [17/10/2008 23:21] |
|
Replica: in sfirsit bun simt [Sarah] Renuntasem la comentarii pentru ca ma amarise obtuzitatea si habotnicia semidoctilor de aici care se cred corifeii crestinismului. Revin doar sa-ti multumesc pentru replica. Oricum petitia asta va ajunge unde ii e locul: in sertarele cu imbecilitati ale Parlamentului European. Trista e constatarea ca vorba lui Motoc e actuala: 'prosti dar multi". Din fericire nu suficienti, raportat la 20 milione de locuitori. [18/10/2008 10:12] |
|
lui intelectualu si lui Sarah (cu "h") ca vezi Doamne nu mai suntem romani [pentru sara] Lui intelectualu si lui Sarah (cu “h”) (ca vezi Doamne nu mai suntem romani) La voi doi care va credeti mai destepti ca restul lumii - din partea “prostilor:” cititi The Marketing of Evil de David Kupelian (2005) (daca stiti engleza, evident) si mai discutam. Intelectualu care zice ca stie multe dar habar nu are, si lui Sara care nu cunoaste diferenta dintre sertarele “Parlamentului European” si al Consiliului Europei. Nu vezi ca petitia are de a face cu Consiliul Europei? [18/10/2008 18:44] |
|
casatoriile unisex nu au utilitate sociala [AFR] un editorial din National Review Online (Octombrie 16, 2008) remarca lipsa de utilitate sociala a casatoriilor unisex. Oare si editorii astia or fi "prosti" ca cei 9.300 de semnatari ai acestei petitii si doar Sarah si paintaball "destepti?" ======================================== National Review Online October 16, 2008, 4:00 a.m. The Courts vs. Marriage By the Editors In 2005, Connecticut enacted “civil unions,” designed to be marriage in everything but name for same-sex couples. We are not sure what good purpose is served by such laws. The reason governments recognize marriage in the first place is to promote the well-being of children in the setting most conducive to their flourishing. There may or may not be great value in other types of relationships: those between friends, or heterosexual lovers, or relatives who take care of each other. But why should the government grant recognition to one subset of those non-marital relationships — those between people of the same sex who are sexually involved? What goal does such recognition serve? Other, that is, than the legitimization of homosexual conduct? But Connecticut, at least, decided the matter democratically. Those people who objected could try to persuade their fellow citizens to repeal the law. Now Connecticut’s supreme court has decided that marriage in all but name is not good enough, and imposed same-sex marriage on the state. Like other courts, the Connecticut court treated the legislature’s attempt to meet gay activists halfway as a reason to throw out the compromise and hand the activists a victory. If the legislature was willing to recognize same-sex unions as though they were marriages, the court reasoned, why not call them marriages too? Opponents of same-sex “marriage” should be warned: Thanks to the courts, compromise is now folly. The courts have so far imposed same-sex marriage on Massachusetts, Connecticut, and California. The next step will be to force other states to recognize same-sex unions solemnized in those jurisdictions. The Defense of Marriage Act protects states that wish to maintain their marriage laws as they are. Senator Obama wants to repeal that act, however, and the Democratic platform comes out for repeal — a position to the left of any previous Democratic presidential candidate. When Obama says that he opposes same-sex marriage, his words mean nothing. A pity, then, that Senator McCain has not raised the issue. In the vice-presidential debate, Governor Palin even suggested that the tickets agree on same-sex marriage. We are on track to have same-sex marriage from sea to shining sea, without the people ever authorizing the idea. The public will be consulted as little as possible, and only after the fact. [18/10/2008 19:15] |
|
|
|
Cu si fara Dumnezeu [Dorin] Bre, cu si fara Dumnezeu, casatoriile si relatiile intre homosexuali tot sunt o aberatie. De ce spun asta? Pentru ca exista notiunea de firesc, exista un simt al firescului si al naturalului, iar voi, daca vi l-ati pierdut, sunteti jalnici si sunteti ca niste handicapati carora li s-a facut lobotomie. Veniti-va in fire si nu mai debitati idiotenii filosofice despre "orientari sexuale" si "drepturile omului". [18/10/2008 22:37] |
|
homosexualii pierd in california [AFR] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-marriage23-2008sep23,0,2835282.story From the Los Angeles Times Backers of California same-sex marriage ban are out-fundraising opponents The Yes on Prop. 8 campaign has raised $17.8 million, compared to its opponents' $12.4 million. By Dan Morain and Jessica Garrison Los Angeles Times Staff Writers September 23, 2008 SACRAMENTO — The campaigns for and against Proposition 8 have raised a combined $30 million, with donations given in support of the proposed ban on gay marriage running considerably ahead of those to the opposition. So far, the main group promoting the Constitutional amendment, which would overturn a recent California Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage, has raised $17.8 million. The main No-on-8 campaign has raised $12.4 million. But the anti-Proposition 8 forces have announced high-profile donations in recent days. The entertainment industry is becoming more heavily involved, with director-producer Steven Spielberg and his wife, actress Kate Capshaw, announcing Monday that they were giving $100,000 to the No-on-8 effort. Their donation matched the $100,000 donated by actor Brad Pitt last week. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, whose 2004 decision to allow gays to marry in his city prompted the Supreme Court review that led to same-sex marriage becoming legal, is traveling to Manhattan on Thursday for a $5,000-per-person fundraiser cohosted by New York Gov. David Paterson. Foes of Proposition 8 also announced Monday that they have started airing their first television ad, which will be shown in markets across the state from now until election day. The weekly cost of a statewide television campaign intended to ensure that typical California viewers would see a spot seven to 10 times is about $3.5 million to $5 million. Backers of Proposition 8 expect to start airing ads next week. The overall cost of the Proposition 8 campaign won't come close to setting a record for initiative spending in California. The priciest measures focus on issues with economic consequences -- energy, taxation, gambling. The most costly to date was a 2006 measure that would have imposed an oil tax to pay for alternative energy projects. Advocates for and against the measure spent $154 million. But Proposition 8 could be the most expensive measure focused on a social issue, said Robert Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies and an expert on initiatives. The proposition has taken on a national profile, with both sides raising millions from outside the state. The current law is almost certain to have national implications, since same-sex couples from around the country can come here to marry, and then mount challenges in their home states to have their marriages recognized. In any race, the first ad is believed to be significant because commercials can start defining the issues for voters. The anti-Proposition 8 spot could become particularly prominent because it is airing in a week when many new television shows are premiering. It also will air later this week around the time of the first presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain, said campaign strategist Maggie Linden. The ad features a gray-haired heterosexual couple who are making an appeal to fairness. Sam and Julia Thoron say in the ad that they've been married 46 years and have three adult children, one of whom is a lesbian. Soft music plays and a Thoron family picture appears. "My wife and I never treated our children different, we never loved them any differently and the law shouldn't treat them differently either," Mr. Thoron, 69, says. "If Proposition 8 passes, our gay daughter and thousands of our fellow Californians will lose the right to marry," Mrs. Thoron, 68,says. Steve Smith, campaign manager for the No-on-8 campaign said the spot is designed to "frame the central issue in the campaign . . . [whether] Californians want to eliminate the fundamental right of marriage for same-sex couples." He called the Thorons "the perfect couple to talk to California voters" about it. Frank Schubert, managing the Yes-on-8 campaign, called the ad "a blatant appeal to sympathy and emotion." "I'm not surprised that they're using a heterosexual couple," Schubert said. "I don't think they want to show gay couples. I think they want to make gay marriage as, quote, normal, as possible. They want people to think gay marriage is completely normal, when it was created out of whole cloth by four judges." Linden said future No-on-8 ads "most probably" will feature same-sex couples. Proposition 8 would create a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and woman. It seeks to reverse a California Supreme Court decision issued earlier this year that overturned a 2000 initiative that had created a statute banning gay marriage. dan.morain@latimes.com jessica.garrison@latimes.com Times Staff Writer Tina Daunt contributed to this report [18/10/2008 23:52] |
|
homosexualii pierd in florida [AFR] Posted on Wed, Oct. 08, 2008 Poll: Florida gay-marriage ban likely to pass BY MARC CAPUTO Florida voters look close to passing a gay-marriage ban and rejecting a community college tax and are largely undecided about a handful of property-tax issues, according to a new statewide poll concerning the state's proposed constitutional amendments. Regardless of the topic, there's a common theme in voters' preferences: Simplicity, said Brad Coker, pollster for Mason-Dixon Polling & Research. Voters have clear opinions about those amendments that are relatively easy to understand or that have simple titles or buzzwords. So the ''Florida Marriage Protection Amendment'' garners wide support -- 55 percent in support; 34 percent opposed. And the amendment that would allow local communities to raise the sales tax to help pay for community college is losing by a 37 to 40 percent margin. 'In Florida, `tax' is no longer a three letter word,'' said Coker. ``It's a four letter word.'' Yet the poll shows that the electorate doesn't seem to have a strong preference for the amendments that would actually give homeowners or businesses a potential property tax cut. And that's because of the complexity of the amendments, Coker said. Consider: • The amendment to prohibit tax assessment increases for someone who adds hurricane shutters or solar panels is leading by a 29 to 26 percent margin. Undecided: 45 percent. • The amendment to give a tax break to those who agree to set aside conservation lands is leading by 37 to 19 percent. Undecided: 44 percent. • The amendment to help shield marina owners from big tax-assessment increases leads 33 to 20 percent. Undecided: 47 percent. However, because it takes a 60 percent vote to approve a constitutional amendment, the property-tax plans could pass if the undecided voters don't cast a ballot on thoseissues and if support continues to outpace opposition by a ratio of 3 to 2. Coker, though, said he expected undecided voters will likely cast a ballot in favor of the gay-marriage amendment, thereby supplying it with the additional 5 percentage points it needs to pass. ''The undecideds always seem to break more strongly toward sort of the more anti-gay side of the issue,'' Coker said. But not if Florida Red & Blue can help it. The group plans to run an ad painting the amendment as ''vague'' and a threat to domestic-partner benefits, even for heterosexual seniors. Supporters of Amendment 2 say that's a scare tactic. Gov. Charlie Crist said he supports defining marriage ''between one man and one woman.'' Yet Crist said he's staying out of all the amendment fights because ``I've got my hands pretty full as it is.'' ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- © 2008 Miami Herald Media Company. All Rights Reserved. http://www.miamiherald.com [19/10/2008 00:18] |
|
toleranta sau prostie? mai degraba prostie [AFR] Odd News / First-graders attend lesbian wedding Odd NewsView archive | RSS Feed First-graders attend lesbian wedding Published: Oct. 11, 2008 at 3:07 PMOrder reprints | Print Story | Email to a Friend | Post a Comment SAN FRANCISCO, Oct. 11 (UPI) -- A group of San Francisco first-graders took a field trip to City Hall to attend the marriage of their lesbian teacher. The students from the18 Creative Arts Charter School students took a city bus to City Hall to toss rose petals and blow bubbles on their just-married teacher Erin Carder and her wife Kerri McCoy, the San Francisco Chronicle reported Saturday. The newspaper reported that a parent came up with the idea for the field trip, which was a surprise for the teacher. The school's interim director Liz Jaroflow said the field trip was educational. "It really is what we call a teachable moment," Jaroflow said. The class junket drew criticism from proponents of Proposition 8, which would outlaw same-sex marriage in California. "It's just utterly unreasonable that a public school field trip would be to a same-sex wedding," said Chip White, spokesman for the Yes on 8 campaign. "This is overt indoctrination of children who are too young to have an understanding of its purpose." © 2008 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. [19/10/2008 00:43] |
|
impactul devastant al casatoriilor unisex asupra societatii - exemplu Massachusetts USA [AFR] What same-sex "marriage" has done to Massachusetts It's far worse than most people realize October 20, 2008 by Brian Camenker Anyone who thinks that same-sex “marriage” is a benign eccentricity which won’t affect the average person should consider what it has done in Massachusetts. It’s become a hammer to force the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality on everyone. And this train is moving fast. What has happened so far is only the beginning. On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court announced its Goodridge opinion, ruling that it was unconstitutional not to allow same-sex “marriage.” Six months later, homosexual marriages began to be performed. The public schools The homosexual “marriage” onslaught in public schools across the state started soon after the November 2003, court decision. At my own children's high school there was a school-wide assembly to celebrate same-sex “marriage” in early December, 2003. It featured an array of speakers, including teachers at the school who announced that they would be “marrying” their same-sex partners and starting families either through adoption or artificial insemination. Literature on same-sex marriage – how it is now a normal part of society – was handed out to the students. Within months it was brought into the middle schools. In September, 2004, an 8th-grade teacher in Brookline, MA, told National Public Radio that the marriage ruling had opened up the floodgates for teaching homosexuality. “In my mind, I know that, `OK, this is legal now.' If somebody wants to challenge me, I'll say, `Give me a break. It's legal now,'” she told NPR. She added that she now discusses gay sex with her students as explicitly as she desires. For example, she said she tells the kids that lesbians can have vaginal intercourse using sex toys. By the following year it was in elementary school curricula. Kindergartners were given picture books telling them that same-sex couples are just another kind of family, like their own parents. In 2005, when David Parker of Lexington, MA – a parent of a kindergartner – strongly insisted on being notified when teachers were discussing homosexuality or transgenderism with his son, the school had him arrested and put in jail overnight. Second graders at the same school were read a book, “King and King”, about two men who have a romance and marry each other, with a picture of them kissing. When parents Rob and Robin Wirthlin complained, they were told that the school had no obligation to notify them or allow them to opt-out their child. In 2006 the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case. The judges ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children! Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good citizenship! Think about that: Because same-sex marriage is “legal”, a federal judge has ruled that the schools now have a duty to portray homosexual relationships as normal to children, despite what parents think or believe! In 2006, in the elementary school where my daughter went to Kindergarten, the parents of a third-grader were forced to take their child out of school because a man undergoing a sex-change operation and cross-dressing was being brought into class to teach the children that there are now “different kinds of families.” School officials told the mother that her complaints to the principal were considered “inappropriate behavior.” Libraries have also radically changed. School libraries across the state, from elementary school to high school, now have shelves of books to normalize homosexual behavior and the lifestyle in the minds of kids, some of them quite explicit and even pornographic. Parents complaints are ignored or met with hostility. Over the past year, homosexual groups have been using taxpayer money to distribute a large, slick hardcover book celebrating homosexual marriage titled “Courting Equality” into every school library in the state. It’s become commonplace in Massachusetts schools for teachers to prominently display photos of their same-sex “spouses” and occasionally bring them to school functions. Both high schools in my own town now have principals who are “married” to their same-sex partners, whom they bring to school and introduce to the students. “Gay days” in schools are considered necessary to fight “intolerance” which may exist against same-sex relationships. Hundreds of high schools and even middle schools across the state now hold “gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender appreciation days”. They “celebrate” homosexual marriage and move forward to other behaviors such as cross-dressing and transsexuality. In my own town, a school committee member recently announced that combating “homophobia” is now a top priority. Once homosexuality has been normalized, all boundaries will come down. The schools are already moving on to normalizing transgenderism (including cross-dressing and sex changes). The state-funded Commission on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth includes leaders who are transsexuals. Public health The Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health is “married” to another man. In 2007 he told a crowd of kids at a state-sponsored youth event that it’s “wonderful being gay” and he wants to make sure there’s enough HIV testing available for all of them. Since homosexual marriage became “legal” the rates of HIV / AIDS have gone up considerably in Massachusetts. This year public funding to deal with HIV/AIDS has risen by $500,000. Citing “the right to marry” as one of the “important challenges” in a place where “it’s a great time to be gay”, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health helped produce The Little Black Book, Queer in the 21st Century, a hideous work of obscene pornography which was given to kids at Brookline High School on April 30, 2005. Among other things, it gives “tips” to boys on how to perform oral sex on other males, masturbate other males, and how to “safely” have someone urinate on you for sexual pleasure. It also included a directory of bars in Boston where young men meet for anonymous sex. Domestic violence Given the extreme dysfunctional nature of homosexual relationships, the Massachusetts Legislature has felt the need to spend more money every year to deal with skyrocketing homosexual domestic violence. This year $350,000 was budgeted, up $100,000 from last year. Business All insurance in Massachusetts must now recognize same-sex “married” couples in their coverage. This includes auto insurance, health insurance, life insurance, etc. Businesses must recognize same-sex “married” couples in all their benefits, activities, etc., regarding both employees and customers. The wedding industry is required serve the homosexual community if requested. Wedding photographers, halls, caterers, etc., must do same-sex marriages or be arrested for discrimination. Businesses are often “tested” for tolerance by homosexual activists. Groups of homosexual activists often go into restaurants or bars and publicly kiss and fondle each other to test whether the establishment demonstrates sufficient “equality” — now that homosexual marriage is “legal”. In fact, more and more overt displays of homosexual affection are seen in public places across the state to reinforce "marriage equality". Legal profession The Massachusetts Bar Exam now tests lawyers on their knowledge of same-sex "marriage" issues. In 2007, a Boston man, Stephen Dunne, failed the Massachusetts bar exam because he refused to answer the questions in it about homosexual marriage. Issues regarding homosexual “families” are now firmly entrenched in the Massachusetts legal system. In many firms, lawyers in Massachusetts practicing family law must now attend seminars on homosexual "marriage". There are also now several homosexual judges overseeing the Massachusetts family courts. Adoption of children to homosexual “married” couples Homosexual “married” couples can now demand to be able to adopt children the same as normal couples. Catholic Charities decided to abandon handling adoptions rather submit to regulations requiring them to allow homosexuals to adopt the children in their care. In 2006 the Massachusetts Department of Social Services (DSS) honored two men “married” to each other as their “Parents of the Year”. The men already adopted a baby through DSS (against the wishes of the baby’s birth parents). According to news reports, the day after that adoption was final DSS approached the men about adopting a second child. Homosexuals now appear to be put in line for adopting children ahead of heterosexual parents by state agencies in Massachusetts. Government mandates In 2004, Governor Mitt Romney ordered Justices of the Peace to perform homosexual marriages when requested or be fired. At least one Justice of the Peace decided to resign. Also thanks to Gov. Romney, marriage licenses in Massachusetts now have “Party A and Party B” instead of “husband and wife.” Romney did not have a legal requirement to do this; he did it on his own. (See more on this below.) Since homosexual relationships are now officially “normal”, the Legislature now gives enormous tax money to homosexual activist groups. In particular, the Massachusetts Commission on Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth is made up of the most radical and militant homosexual groups which target children in the schools. This year they are getting $700,000 of taxpayer money to go into the public schools. In 2008 Massachusetts changed the state Medicare laws to include homosexual “married” couples in the coverage. The public square Since gay “marriage”, annual gay pride parades have become more prominent. There are more politicians and corporations participating, and even police organizations take part. And the envelope gets pushed further and further. There is now a profane “Dyke March” through downtown Boston, and recently a “transgender” parade in Northampton that included bare-chested women who have had their breasts surgically removed so they could “become” men. Governor Patrick even marched with his “out lesbian” 17-year old daughter in the 2008 Boston Pride event, right behind a “leather” group brandishing a black & blue flag, whips and chains! The media Boston media, particularly the Boston Globe newspaper, regularly does feature stories and news stories portraying homosexual “married” couples where regular married couples would normally be used. It’s “equal”, they insist, so there must be no difference in the coverage. Also, the newspaper advice columns now deal with homosexual "marriage" issues, and how to properly accept it. A growing number of news reporters and TV anchors are openly “married” homosexuals who march in the “gay pride” parades. Is gay marriage actually legal in Massachusetts? Like everywhere else in America, the imposition of same-sex marriage on the people of Massachusetts was a combination of radical, arrogant judges and pitifully cowardly politicians. The Goodridge ruling resulted in a complete cave-in by politicians of both parties on this issue. Same-sex “marriage” is still illegal in Massachusetts. On November 18, 2003 the court merely ruled that it was unconstitutional not to allow it, and gave the Legislature six months to “take such action as it may deem appropriate.” Note that the Massachusetts Constitution strongly denies courts the power to make or change laws, or from ordering the other branches to take any action. The constitution effectively bans “judicial review” – a court changing or nullifying a law. Thus, the court did not order anything to happen; it simply rendered an opinion on that specific case. And the Legislature did nothing. The marriage statutes were never changed. However, against the advice of many, Gov. Romney took it upon himself to alter the state's marriage licenses to say "Party A and Party B" and order officials to perform same-sex "weddings" if asked, though he had no legal obligation to do so. Technically, same-sex marriages are still illegal in Massachusetts. Nevertheless, we are having to live with it. And furthermore, this abdication of their proper constitutional roles by the Legislature and Governor has caused a domino effect as "copycat" rulings have been issued in California and Connecticut, with other states fearful it will happen there. In conclusion Homosexual “marriage” hangs over society like a hammer with the force of law. And it’s only just begun. It’s pretty clear that the homosexual movement’s obsession with marriage is not because large numbers of them actually want to marry each other. Research shows that homosexual relationships are fundamentally dysfunctional on many levels, and “marriage” as we know it isn’t something they can achieve, or even desire. (In fact, over the last three months, the Sunday Boston Globe’s marriage section hasn’t had any photos of homosexual marriages. In the beginning it was full of them.) This is about putting the legal stamp of approval on homosexuality and imposing it with force throughout the various social and political institutions of a society that would never accept it otherwise. To the rest of America: You've been forewarned. Top [23/10/2008 04:15] |
|
FARA CALDURA [elise] in apartamentele din iasi romanianu s a dat caldura nici la aceasta data mor batranii si copiii de frig AJUTOR [03/11/2008 22:04] |
|
homosexualii au pierdut in California, Arizona, si Florida [AFR] Gay activists jarred by California marriage defeat By DAVID CRARY and LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writers David Crary And Lisa Leff, Associated Press Writers 12 mins ago (November 5, 2008) LOS ANGELES – In a heartbreaking defeat for the gay-rights movement, California voters put a stop to gay marriage, creating uncertainty about the legal status of 18,000 same-sex couples who tied the knot during a four-month window of opportunity opened by the state's highest court. Passage of a constitutional amendment against gay marriage — in a state so often at the forefront of liberal social change — elated religious conservatives who had little else to cheer about in Tuesday's elections. Gay activists were disappointed and began looking for battlegrounds elsewhere in the back-and-forth fight to allow gays to wed. "There's something deeply wrong with putting the rights of a minority up to a majority vote," said Evan Wolfson, a gay-rights lawyer who heads a group called Freedom to Marry. "If this were being done to almost any other minority, people would see how un-American this is." Legal skirmishing began immediately, with gay-rights groups challenging the newly passed ban in court Wednesday and vowing to resist any effort to invalidate the same-sex marriages that took place following the state Supreme Court decision in May. The amendment, which passed with 52 percent of the vote, overrides that court ruling by defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Thirty states now have adopted such measures, but the California vote marks the first time a state took away gay marriage after it had been legalized. Gay-marriage bans also passed on Tuesday in Arizona and Florida, with 57 percent and 62 percent support, respectively, while Arkansas voters approved a measure aimed at gays that bars unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents. Massachusetts and Connecticut are now the only states to allow same-sex marriage. Even as the last votes were being counted in California, the American Civil Liberties Union and other opponents of the ban filed a challenge with the state Supreme Court. They contended that California's ballot cannot be used to undermine one group's access to rights enjoyed by other citizens. The measure's passage casts a shadow of uncertainty over the marriages performed in the past four months. California State Attorney General Jerry Brown has said existing gay marriages will remain valid, but other legal experts said challenges are likely. Amid the uncertainty, some gay couples continued applying for marriage licenses Wednesday. They succeeded in some jurisdictions and not others. Jake Rowe, 27, and James Eslick, 29, were in the midst of getting their marriage license at Sacramento City Hall when someone from the clerk's office stopped the wedding Wednesday morning. "I'm thoroughly surprised," Rowe said. "I thought Californians had come to the point where they realized discrimination wasn't right." Some newlyweds took a positive approach. "I'm really OK," said Diana Correia of Berkeley, who married her partner of 18 years, Cynthia Correia, on Sunday in front of their two children and 80 relatives and friends. "I hope the marriage holds, but we are already married in our hearts, so nobody can take that away." Proposition 8 became the focus of the most expensive social-issues campaign in U.S. history, with the rival sides raising a combined $74 million. Religious groups, including the Mormon church and the Roman Catholic Church, played pivotal roles in pushing for the ban. "People believe in the institution of marriage," said Frank Schubert, co-manager of the Yes on 8 campaign. "It's one institution that crosses ethnic divides, that crosses partisan divides." Exit polls revealed dramatic demographic gaps in the gay-marriage vote. While about six in 10 voters under 30 opposed the ban, about the same proportion of those 65 and older supported it. There were sharp racial discrepancies as well. Even as black voters overwhelmingly backed Barack Obama — a gay-rights supporter — in the presidential race, about seven in 10 of them voted against gay marriage, compared with about half of white voters. Denise Fernandez, a 57-year-old black woman from Sacramento, said she voted for Obama and Proposition 8. "I believe a Christian is held accountable," she said. Obama had a nuanced position on the issue, saying he opposes gay marriage while also speaking out against Proposition 8. Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, did not directly criticize Obama, but said: "We'd hope for a day when candidates who are supportive of same-sex marriage are unafraid to clearly state that to the voters." Gay-marriage proponents say New York, where the Democrats now control both the Legislature and the governor's office for the first time in 35 years, may be a promising battleground. New Jersey also is considered a gay-marriage prospect. "We pick ourselves up and trudge on," said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "There has been enormous movement in favor of full equality in eight short years. That is the direction this is heading, and if it's not today or it's not tomorrow, it will be soon." EDITOR'S NOTE: Lisa Leff reported from Los Angeles and David Crary from New York. Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. Copyright © 2008 Yahoo! Inc. All rights r [06/11/2008 03:09] |
|
pro si contra (oare are vreun rost? [Emanuel Iancu] Fiecare din noi gandim diferit, si suntem influentati in gandire de ceea ce am invatat sau am acumulat ca urmare a contextului in care ne-am nascut si am crescut. Eu cred ca degeaba incercam sa lamurim pe unii sau pe altii de un fapt pe care unii nu-l pot pricepe. Asa cum nu poti explica unui prunc nenascut cat de frumoasa este natura, cat de bun este la gust un fruct sau cat de minunata este atingerea mainii de mama, pana cand el insusi nu vede sau nu simte, asa nu pot pricepe cei ce nu au o minte inoita de Dumnezeu de ce ar fi o problema homosexualitatea. Pavel spune de fapt in romani 1 ca ei nu numai ca fac asemenea lucruri, dar si gasesc de buni pe cei ce le fac. Pentru asemenea oameni care au fost lasati de Dumnezeu in voia mintii lor blestemate, nu ne ramane decat sa asteptam sa primeasca in ei insisi plate cuvenita pentru nelegiuirea lor. Stim cu totii de bolile grave pe care si le transmit, si lupta launtrica pe care unii au curajul sa o destainuie. Ce pedeapsa mai mare le-ar trebui? Acum ca si fii ai lu Dumnezeu ni se cere un lucru: "Să nu fie nicio curvă din fetele lui Israel, şi să nu fie niciun sodomit din fiii lui Israel." (Deuteronomul 23:7). Este important pentru noi ca biserica sa ne pastram curati si in momentul cand se va legifera pacatull acesta, sa nu permitem ca acesti oameni sa se cunune in biserica. Cred ca Biserica este acum Israelul lui Dumnezeu si va trebui sa ne pastram curati in interior si preotii, pastorii sau orice alti lideri religiosi, sa nu permita, cu orice sacrificiu, ca cineva sa oficieze o asemenea casatorie intr-un loc sfant. Pana la urma sunt convins ca Dumnezeu nu va lega o asemenea casatorie, deci chiar daca legal s-ar permite, aceasta nu va influenta legea divina. Pentru ca lumea in care traim acum este infectata in gandire si traire de Satan, nu-i vom putea opri sa fie ceea ce vor sa fie, dar putem sa-i ajutam pe cei ce vor sa se schmbe. Personal cred ca orice om poate deveni normal. De aceea daca doreste cineva un ajutor in a schimba ceva in viata lui, sunt dispus sa ajut si imi poate scrie privat pe adresa dorema4@yahoo.com Asa sa ne ajute Dumnezeu! [03/12/2008 14:24] |
|
Ortodox [Citizen X] trebuie sa clarificam ca e vorba de casatorie civila si nu de cea religioasa. ca sa nu se inflameze bizonii ultra ortodoxii cel mai bine ii ziceti uniune civila. [05/01/2009 21:18] |
|
SALVATI RESPECTUL FATA DE VIATA!!! [VERBICEANU V. LUCIAN] ESTE ANORMAL CA DOUA PERSOANE DE ACELASI SEX SA ISI UNEASCA DESTINELE PRIN SFANTA TAINA A TAINELOR - CASATORIA. CONSIDER, CA UNA DIN CAUZELE A MULTOR NENOROCIRI DIVINE ESTE SODOMIA. ESTE DE NECONCEPUT SA ACCEPTAM O ASEMENEA ANOMALIE SA SE LEGIFEREZE. MAI MULT ATENTEAZA IMPOTRIVA NATURII UMANE SI A TOT CEEA CE INSEAMNA INTRUCHIPAREA NORMALULUI SI A SENTIMENTULUI DE RESPECT FATA DE VIATA. CUM SE MAI POATE ASISTA LA PERPETUAREA SPECIEI UMANE SI IN CAZUL UNUI CUPLU DE HOMOSEXUALI CARE ADOPTA UN COPIL, ACESTA CUI II VA SPUNE MAMA SI RESPECTIV TATA. DACA VA FI APROBATA ACEASTA LEGE INSEAMNA CA VOM ASISTA IN MOD LEGAL LA DENIGRAREA FIINTEI UMANE. HAIDE-TI SA NU NE BATEM JOC NE NOI INSINE SI SA NU LASAM CA ACEASTA LEGE SA FIE ADOPTATA, CHIAR DACA "REPREZINTA UN DREPT FUNDAMENTAL DE INTEGRARE AL MINORITATILOR SEXUALE" [10/01/2009 23:02] |
|
Conform Religiei........ [hetero convins] Cred in Dumnezeu si in Legile Acestuia, sunt hetero in mod clar, dar nu pot fi de acord cu voi, atita timp cit negati cu vehementa DREPTUL FIECARUI INDIVID LA AUTODETERMINARE. Daca tot invocati religia , biserica , etc, va intreb eu pe voi ; religia va permite alt gen de acte sexuale decit cel unic si firesc, cum ar fi pervesiunile, la care toate sau aproape toate familiile hetero apeleaza dar nu o recunosc niciodata? [22/01/2009 16:08] |
|
va simtiti mai interesanti facand asa ceva ? [Patras Patricia] Aceasta problema este demna de o petitie de o asemenea amploare ? Atunci sa nu ne mai miram de nimic... daca aceasta este una dintre problemele majore ale societatii de astazi;nu pot spune decat ca imi este rusine sa fac parte din generatia/era aceasta [23/01/2009 00:24] |
|
propun sa-i adunam in 2 orase [Cristina] propun sa adunam in 2 orase toti homosexualii si lesbienele, apoi vin ingerii Domnului si-si fac treaba cum s-a mai intimplat de altfel in trecut; odata ajunsi la cazane nu au decit sa legifereze ce vor ei pe acolo [23/01/2009 11:27] |
Adauga comentariu:
- campurile marcate cu * sunt obligatorii