<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Same-Sex Marriage: Not in the Best Interest of Children</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ruthblog.org/2009/10/15/same-sex-marriage-not-in-the-best-interest-of-children/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2009/10/15/same-sex-marriage-not-in-the-best-interest-of-children/</link>
	<description>An intellectual climate favorable to marriage</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 03:15:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jennifer Roback Morse</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2009/10/15/same-sex-marriage-not-in-the-best-interest-of-children/comment-page-1/#comment-722</link>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Roback Morse</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:56:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=330#comment-722</guid>
		<description>Tim, Tim! Are you trying to tell us that ALL gay people are wise and well-adjusted? You are arguing yourself into a corner here. All I have to do is find a single counter-example, that is, one gay person who is not wise and well-adjusted, to disprove your generalization. 
All gay people are awesome parents?? What about that guy from Duke university who sold the sexual services of his adopted son to gay men? There is one counter-example for you. 
Please, Tim, Calm yourself. Dr. Hansen has been reading statistical literature as the basis for the claims she made in her article. She cites the sources. She is not saying that all gay people have the problems she discusses. She is just saying they are statistically more likely. that is all. you dont&#039; have to defend every action of every gay person, as far as i&#039;m concerned. the arguments about redefining marriage are serious arguments. the statistics are a part, but not the whole of that argument. (you notice i don&#039;t usually make those types of arguments myself. but i do think they are relevant, and should be discussed.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tim, Tim! Are you trying to tell us that ALL gay people are wise and well-adjusted? You are arguing yourself into a corner here. All I have to do is find a single counter-example, that is, one gay person who is not wise and well-adjusted, to disprove your generalization.<br />
All gay people are awesome parents?? What about that guy from Duke university who sold the sexual services of his adopted son to gay men? There is one counter-example for you.<br />
Please, Tim, Calm yourself. Dr. Hansen has been reading statistical literature as the basis for the claims she made in her article. She cites the sources. She is not saying that all gay people have the problems she discusses. She is just saying they are statistically more likely. that is all. you dont&#8217; have to defend every action of every gay person, as far as i&#8217;m concerned. the arguments about redefining marriage are serious arguments. the statistics are a part, but not the whole of that argument. (you notice i don&#8217;t usually make those types of arguments myself. but i do think they are relevant, and should be discussed.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jennifer Roback Morse</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2009/10/15/same-sex-marriage-not-in-the-best-interest-of-children/comment-page-1/#comment-721</link>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Roback Morse</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:39:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=330#comment-721</guid>
		<description>Hello Brad, This article makes many points, so you are going overboard a bit in saying that all these organizations disagree with everyting in the article. Just to give one example, relevant to the previous comment: there is no longer any consensus about the origins of homosexual orientation. Here is a recent statement from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;American Psychological Association: &lt;/a&gt;


&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?&lt;/strong&gt;
There are numerous theories about the origins of a person&#039;s sexual orientation. Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person&#039;s sexuality.

It&#039;s important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person&#039;s sexual orientation, and the reasons may be different for different people.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
In another place, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx#&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;APA makes an even stronger statement:&lt;/a&gt; 


&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;strong&gt;There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. &lt;/strong&gt;Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

So, chill, you guys. The APA is on your side enough, as it is. There is no need to exaggerate their actual position!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello Brad, This article makes many points, so you are going overboard a bit in saying that all these organizations disagree with everyting in the article. Just to give one example, relevant to the previous comment: there is no longer any consensus about the origins of homosexual orientation. Here is a recent statement from the <a href="http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx" rel="nofollow">American Psychological Association: </a></p>
<blockquote><p><strong>What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?</strong><br />
There are numerous theories about the origins of a person&#8217;s sexual orientation. Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person&#8217;s sexuality.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person&#8217;s sexual orientation, and the reasons may be different for different people.</p></blockquote>
<p>In another place, the <a href="http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx#" rel="nofollow">APA makes an even stronger statement:</a> </p>
<blockquote><p><strong>There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. </strong>Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.</p></blockquote>
<p>So, chill, you guys. The APA is on your side enough, as it is. There is no need to exaggerate their actual position!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2009/10/15/same-sex-marriage-not-in-the-best-interest-of-children/comment-page-1/#comment-715</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jan 2010 09:00:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=330#comment-715</guid>
		<description>Thats because  they are wise and well ajusted! When are you people going to understand that! They are awsome parents as well. Please leave them alone and live your own life.Gay people are picking up the pieces where Heterosexuals screw things up, by mentoring our children when the father is off doing drugs and sleeping with other childrens mothers.Open your eyes and mind and you just might learn that gay people do not hurt anyone.You people are doing a lot of damage! More damage than you can possibly understand. Count my words, someday you all will have to get on your knees and beg for forgiveness from the same God that is going to judge you just as you are judging them.God IS NOT going to judge you for having compassion for your fellowhuman beings! If you are real Christians you would understand that!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thats because  they are wise and well ajusted! When are you people going to understand that! They are awsome parents as well. Please leave them alone and live your own life.Gay people are picking up the pieces where Heterosexuals screw things up, by mentoring our children when the father is off doing drugs and sleeping with other childrens mothers.Open your eyes and mind and you just might learn that gay people do not hurt anyone.You people are doing a lot of damage! More damage than you can possibly understand. Count my words, someday you all will have to get on your knees and beg for forgiveness from the same God that is going to judge you just as you are judging them.God IS NOT going to judge you for having compassion for your fellowhuman beings! If you are real Christians you would understand that!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brad</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2009/10/15/same-sex-marriage-not-in-the-best-interest-of-children/comment-page-1/#comment-710</link>
		<dc:creator>Brad</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jan 2010 01:16:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=330#comment-710</guid>
		<description>The AMA, APA, APedA and ALL other similar mainstream organizations in this country disagree with this article.  Across the board, their research and studies have shown conclusively that children raised in same sex families grow up to be as &#039;normal&#039; as in traditional families. Think about how many children can be helped. A gay couple who are friends of mine were contacted by the county child support services. They has a baby who was taken from his mother on a raid of a crack house. The mother was a crack addict and they were unsure of how much the baby had been affected.  The service was overwhelmed with available children and could not place this baby because of the possible side effects. My friends took Ryan regardless. Thankfully, ryan had minimal side effects from his mother&#039;s addiction. He is growing up in a healthy, loving home as a well-adjusted young boy who is e tremely happy and full of smiles--except when he&#039;s hungry or has dirty pants. The social worker visits regularly and LwYs comments on what a wonderful thing my friends are doing for Ryan. They are giving him a life. If most of the visitors to this website had their way, Ryan would be sentenced to a life of Zero opportunity with his mother or in a county-run home. But, thankfully, he will have every opportunity to have a blessed life because of this gay couple.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The AMA, APA, APedA and ALL other similar mainstream organizations in this country disagree with this article.  Across the board, their research and studies have shown conclusively that children raised in same sex families grow up to be as &#8216;normal&#8217; as in traditional families. Think about how many children can be helped. A gay couple who are friends of mine were contacted by the county child support services. They has a baby who was taken from his mother on a raid of a crack house. The mother was a crack addict and they were unsure of how much the baby had been affected.  The service was overwhelmed with available children and could not place this baby because of the possible side effects. My friends took Ryan regardless. Thankfully, ryan had minimal side effects from his mother&#8217;s addiction. He is growing up in a healthy, loving home as a well-adjusted young boy who is e tremely happy and full of smiles&#8211;except when he&#8217;s hungry or has dirty pants. The social worker visits regularly and LwYs comments on what a wonderful thing my friends are doing for Ryan. They are giving him a life. If most of the visitors to this website had their way, Ryan would be sentenced to a life of Zero opportunity with his mother or in a county-run home. But, thankfully, he will have every opportunity to have a blessed life because of this gay couple.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tuesday bonus: The Secular case against abortion and homosexuality. &#124; Reason To Stand</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2009/10/15/same-sex-marriage-not-in-the-best-interest-of-children/comment-page-1/#comment-353</link>
		<dc:creator>Tuesday bonus: The Secular case against abortion and homosexuality. &#124; Reason To Stand</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=330#comment-353</guid>
		<description>[...] unwanted children (a product of a highly feminized culture I might add) is a nice sentiment, the reality is that selfishness does not produce the sacrificial environment required for the rearing of children. homosexuality, [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] unwanted children (a product of a highly feminized culture I might add) is a nice sentiment, the reality is that selfishness does not produce the sacrificial environment required for the rearing of children. homosexuality, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Betsy</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2009/10/15/same-sex-marriage-not-in-the-best-interest-of-children/comment-page-1/#comment-223</link>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:25:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=330#comment-223</guid>
		<description>So, Jake, where DO you live then? You&#039;ve piqued our curiosity with that set-up.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So, Jake, where DO you live then? You&#8217;ve piqued our curiosity with that set-up.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jake</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2009/10/15/same-sex-marriage-not-in-the-best-interest-of-children/comment-page-1/#comment-221</link>
		<dc:creator>Jake</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:15:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=330#comment-221</guid>
		<description>Get out of America. I&#039;m an American who lives abroad, and it&#039;s great for me and my family. In the country I live in, people expect me to be Christian because of my nationality. Shows how much they know, but whatever keeps you and your family safe. Leave the United States of America, and do not go to Europe. That place is worse than the States.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Get out of America. I&#8217;m an American who lives abroad, and it&#8217;s great for me and my family. In the country I live in, people expect me to be Christian because of my nationality. Shows how much they know, but whatever keeps you and your family safe. Leave the United States of America, and do not go to Europe. That place is worse than the States.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Susan Wilson</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2009/10/15/same-sex-marriage-not-in-the-best-interest-of-children/comment-page-1/#comment-73</link>
		<dc:creator>Susan Wilson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Oct 2009 01:52:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=330#comment-73</guid>
		<description>The recent passing of the &quot;hate crimes&quot; legislation makes me wonder if parents will be prosecuted for teaching their children about the differences between heterosexual and gay marriage.  Once the child repeats these views at school, who knows what will happen???</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The recent passing of the &#8220;hate crimes&#8221; legislation makes me wonder if parents will be prosecuted for teaching their children about the differences between heterosexual and gay marriage.  Once the child repeats these views at school, who knows what will happen???</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lake Effect</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2009/10/15/same-sex-marriage-not-in-the-best-interest-of-children/comment-page-1/#comment-64</link>
		<dc:creator>Lake Effect</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:56:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=330#comment-64</guid>
		<description>The outcome of legalizing gay marriage would mean the overthrow of the U.S. Constitution.  It would also mean the total destruction of marriage and the family as it has stood for over 5,000 years.

If gay marriage is sanctioned by the State, then anyone opposing it will be punished.  They will be silenced by loss of job, fines imposed, or jail time.  Church leaders will be punished for preaching against homosexuality, and churches will lose their tax-free status, so that they can be taxed out of existence.  We have already seen some of this in certain countries.  So much for freedom of religion or conscience, free speech, right of association, security in your papers, and so forth.

I don&#039;t recall any teachings about hetersexual marriage throughout my education in U.S. schools.  But upon the sanction of gay marriage by the government, it is gay marriage that will be taught to children in all the schools, and promoted as an acceptable institution.  Children will be encouraged to tell what is being taught to them at home, so that parents who speak against homosexuality can be declared unfit and not in compliance with the law, followed by the children being removed from the home.  So much for parental rights.  We&#039;ve seen it happening.  If gay marriage is sanctioned, ONLY gays will have rights.  As things currently stand, everyone in our country already has the same rights.  Why change that?

Traditional marriage is a product of religion.  Indeed, it IS religion.  Marriage is ordained of God for the benefit of mankind.  Governments have almost always protected it for obvious reasons:  for freedom of religion or conscience, for the perpetuation of the race, and for the protection of women and children.  Gay marriage is a product of the State.  It has nothing to do with conscience.  But it will become the &quot;state religion,&quot; except that it will not be called by that name; and it threatens to supplant and replace all other religions as it is forced upon us, contrary to our free will.

You can NOT have it both ways.  You cannot sanction traditional marriage and gay marriage at the same time.  It won&#039;t work.  The one will supplant the other.  It is like trying to mix oil and water.  You cannot do it.  If the selfish indulgence of homosexuality is sanctioned, then the rights that go with religion and traditional marriage will be utterly destroyed in time.  What is at stake here is the freedom of all nations.  And the attack against it is authored by anti-Christ.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The outcome of legalizing gay marriage would mean the overthrow of the U.S. Constitution.  It would also mean the total destruction of marriage and the family as it has stood for over 5,000 years.</p>
<p>If gay marriage is sanctioned by the State, then anyone opposing it will be punished.  They will be silenced by loss of job, fines imposed, or jail time.  Church leaders will be punished for preaching against homosexuality, and churches will lose their tax-free status, so that they can be taxed out of existence.  We have already seen some of this in certain countries.  So much for freedom of religion or conscience, free speech, right of association, security in your papers, and so forth.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t recall any teachings about hetersexual marriage throughout my education in U.S. schools.  But upon the sanction of gay marriage by the government, it is gay marriage that will be taught to children in all the schools, and promoted as an acceptable institution.  Children will be encouraged to tell what is being taught to them at home, so that parents who speak against homosexuality can be declared unfit and not in compliance with the law, followed by the children being removed from the home.  So much for parental rights.  We&#8217;ve seen it happening.  If gay marriage is sanctioned, ONLY gays will have rights.  As things currently stand, everyone in our country already has the same rights.  Why change that?</p>
<p>Traditional marriage is a product of religion.  Indeed, it IS religion.  Marriage is ordained of God for the benefit of mankind.  Governments have almost always protected it for obvious reasons:  for freedom of religion or conscience, for the perpetuation of the race, and for the protection of women and children.  Gay marriage is a product of the State.  It has nothing to do with conscience.  But it will become the &#8220;state religion,&#8221; except that it will not be called by that name; and it threatens to supplant and replace all other religions as it is forced upon us, contrary to our free will.</p>
<p>You can NOT have it both ways.  You cannot sanction traditional marriage and gay marriage at the same time.  It won&#8217;t work.  The one will supplant the other.  It is like trying to mix oil and water.  You cannot do it.  If the selfish indulgence of homosexuality is sanctioned, then the rights that go with religion and traditional marriage will be utterly destroyed in time.  What is at stake here is the freedom of all nations.  And the attack against it is authored by anti-Christ.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MUST-READ: Which family configuration is best for raising children? &#171; Wintery Knight</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2009/10/15/same-sex-marriage-not-in-the-best-interest-of-children/comment-page-1/#comment-58</link>
		<dc:creator>MUST-READ: Which family configuration is best for raising children? &#171; Wintery Knight</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:02:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=330#comment-58</guid>
		<description>[...] MUST-READ: Which family configuration is best for raising&#160;children?  Looks like Dr. J&#8217;s stylish new blog is featuring guests posts by scholars. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] MUST-READ: Which family configuration is best for raising&nbsp;children?  Looks like Dr. J&#8217;s stylish new blog is featuring guests posts by scholars. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard K Munro</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2009/10/15/same-sex-marriage-not-in-the-best-interest-of-children/comment-page-1/#comment-57</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard K Munro</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 03:35:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=330#comment-57</guid>
		<description>I agree that we should be wary of just accepting so-called &quot;Gay-Marriage&quot; as interchangeable with traditional mother-father families.  I have never opposed Gay persons adopting children because I know that Gay persons can be loving and excellent guardians. Grandparents also can be loving and excellent guardians of children. But to me both of these cases are EMERGENCY LAST RESORTS only.  It is far better for the children&#039;s parents or legal guardians to raise the children.   I believe adoption agencies should have the right to give preference to younger guardians and to mother-father traditional marriage situations.   History and much research has shown that young children need a father figure and a mother figure for their full phychological and mental development.  Men and women compliment each other in a way same sex couples do not.  And no one is denying anyone a &quot;civl right.&quot;  Every Gay person I know has the same right as I do to marry someone of the opposite sex but they choose not to.  What they want is a very special right: the right to marry the opposite sex AND the right to marry the same sex.  I do not have the right now nor do I think I should have that right.  Same sex marriage is a pandora&#039;s box. No one knows what effect it will have on marriage, monogamy or on children.  We do know it would be a special right for an ultra minority of individuals without any proven benefit for society or children (the common good).  To me the whole Gay marriage movement is just an excercise in egotism and selfishness.   If they want to play act at marriage I have no problem with that. But undermining our already weakend marriage bond would be a fatal mistake for California and American society.  If necessary we should move to have a Constituional amendment to protect marriage.  I am convinced it would pass 40 states or more.  Every state which has put marriage on the ballot has won. The progress made elsewhere has been by activist judges or secular elites in unresponsibe legislatures.  The American people, however, have much more sense than to embrace this untried and unneccary act of pure narcissism.   If America embraces Gay Marriage it will be a very sad day for children above all.  So-called Gay Marriage does not respect the marriage bond. It ridicules and disrespects it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree that we should be wary of just accepting so-called &#8220;Gay-Marriage&#8221; as interchangeable with traditional mother-father families.  I have never opposed Gay persons adopting children because I know that Gay persons can be loving and excellent guardians. Grandparents also can be loving and excellent guardians of children. But to me both of these cases are EMERGENCY LAST RESORTS only.  It is far better for the children&#8217;s parents or legal guardians to raise the children.   I believe adoption agencies should have the right to give preference to younger guardians and to mother-father traditional marriage situations.   History and much research has shown that young children need a father figure and a mother figure for their full phychological and mental development.  Men and women compliment each other in a way same sex couples do not.  And no one is denying anyone a &#8220;civl right.&#8221;  Every Gay person I know has the same right as I do to marry someone of the opposite sex but they choose not to.  What they want is a very special right: the right to marry the opposite sex AND the right to marry the same sex.  I do not have the right now nor do I think I should have that right.  Same sex marriage is a pandora&#8217;s box. No one knows what effect it will have on marriage, monogamy or on children.  We do know it would be a special right for an ultra minority of individuals without any proven benefit for society or children (the common good).  To me the whole Gay marriage movement is just an excercise in egotism and selfishness.   If they want to play act at marriage I have no problem with that. But undermining our already weakend marriage bond would be a fatal mistake for California and American society.  If necessary we should move to have a Constituional amendment to protect marriage.  I am convinced it would pass 40 states or more.  Every state which has put marriage on the ballot has won. The progress made elsewhere has been by activist judges or secular elites in unresponsibe legislatures.  The American people, however, have much more sense than to embrace this untried and unneccary act of pure narcissism.   If America embraces Gay Marriage it will be a very sad day for children above all.  So-called Gay Marriage does not respect the marriage bond. It ridicules and disrespects it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard K  Munro</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2009/10/15/same-sex-marriage-not-in-the-best-interest-of-children/comment-page-1/#comment-55</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard K  Munro</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 03:22:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=330#comment-55</guid>
		<description>Yes, the issue is not whether homosexuals are capable of loving and raising children (I believe they are).  I have never opposed, for example, &quot;Gay&quot; (homosexual) persons adopting children.  It might be better for a child to be in that situation than to be an orphan or bounce around foster homes.  But that having been said, I know grandparents who also raise children</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, the issue is not whether homosexuals are capable of loving and raising children (I believe they are).  I have never opposed, for example, &#8220;Gay&#8221; (homosexual) persons adopting children.  It might be better for a child to be in that situation than to be an orphan or bounce around foster homes.  But that having been said, I know grandparents who also raise children</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Kraai</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2009/10/15/same-sex-marriage-not-in-the-best-interest-of-children/comment-page-1/#comment-52</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Kraai</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:14:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=330#comment-52</guid>
		<description>Have you noticed that many prime time TV show seem to have extremely wise and well adjusted gay characters. Whatever happened to the traditional family and values?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Have you noticed that many prime time TV show seem to have extremely wise and well adjusted gay characters. Whatever happened to the traditional family and values?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Kraai</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2009/10/15/same-sex-marriage-not-in-the-best-interest-of-children/comment-page-1/#comment-51</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Kraai</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:12:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=330#comment-51</guid>
		<description>Have you noticed that every prime time TV show seems to have extremely wise and well adjusted gay characters.  Whatever happened to the traditional family?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Have you noticed that every prime time TV show seems to have extremely wise and well adjusted gay characters.  Whatever happened to the traditional family?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steynian 391 &#171; Free Canuckistan!</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2009/10/15/same-sex-marriage-not-in-the-best-interest-of-children/comment-page-1/#comment-50</link>
		<dc:creator>Steynian 391 &#171; Free Canuckistan!</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:57:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=330#comment-50</guid>
		<description>[...] ~ ITEM: Same-Sex Marriage: Not in the Best Interest of Children [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] ~ ITEM: Same-Sex Marriage: Not in the Best Interest of Children [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kristi Richman</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2009/10/15/same-sex-marriage-not-in-the-best-interest-of-children/comment-page-1/#comment-49</link>
		<dc:creator>Kristi Richman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:23:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=330#comment-49</guid>
		<description>A very thought provoking article.  Where is the outcry amongst the public against further allowing this sector of our society free reign which results in children&#039;s lives and emotions being damaged and  confused values?   I think more people need to know the facts about the permanent harm that is inflicted on innocent children&#039;s lives because of these people&#039;s  lifestyle choices.  Even then, could they conclude they are hurting and not helping the children in our society by the raising of children in same sex married couples&#039; homes and admit their error?   I wonder.  This information was helpful and I plan on sharing it.   Thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A very thought provoking article.  Where is the outcry amongst the public against further allowing this sector of our society free reign which results in children&#8217;s lives and emotions being damaged and  confused values?   I think more people need to know the facts about the permanent harm that is inflicted on innocent children&#8217;s lives because of these people&#8217;s  lifestyle choices.  Even then, could they conclude they are hurting and not helping the children in our society by the raising of children in same sex married couples&#8217; homes and admit their error?   I wonder.  This information was helpful and I plan on sharing it.   Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sean McLaughlin</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2009/10/15/same-sex-marriage-not-in-the-best-interest-of-children/comment-page-1/#comment-48</link>
		<dc:creator>Sean McLaughlin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:54:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=330#comment-48</guid>
		<description>In all the onerous debate over same sex marriage, its proponents NEVER address this most obvious and fundamental issue of what&#039;s best for the children involved.  And, they believe that once the &quot;social stigma&quot; against gays and gay marriage is dampened or removed, that somehow magically, the inherent needs and problems of children exposed to those situations will be removed.  
I couldn&#039;t disagree more.  The rights of children are what are at stake here.  As society makes decisions as to what&#039;s best for everyone, children&#039;s rights cannot and must not be ignored, what&#039;s best for them needs to be put first and foremost in a legal sense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In all the onerous debate over same sex marriage, its proponents NEVER address this most obvious and fundamental issue of what&#8217;s best for the children involved.  And, they believe that once the &#8220;social stigma&#8221; against gays and gay marriage is dampened or removed, that somehow magically, the inherent needs and problems of children exposed to those situations will be removed.<br />
I couldn&#8217;t disagree more.  The rights of children are what are at stake here.  As society makes decisions as to what&#8217;s best for everyone, children&#8217;s rights cannot and must not be ignored, what&#8217;s best for them needs to be put first and foremost in a legal sense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
