<?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: Patti Davis: Marriage Should Be About Love</title>
	<atom:link href="http://archives.republicoft.com/index.php/archives/2004/02/24/patti-davis-marriage-should-be-about-love/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://archives.republicoft.com/index.php/archives/2004/02/24/patti-davis-marriage-should-be-about-love/</link>
	<description>Black. Gay. Father. Vegetarian. Buddhist. Liberal.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 May 2006 22:26:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: lish</title>
		<link>http://archives.republicoft.com/index.php/archives/2004/02/24/patti-davis-marriage-should-be-about-love/#comment-488</link>
		<dc:creator>lish</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republicoft.com/index.php/archives/2004/02/24/patti-davis-marriage-should-be-about-love/#comment-488</guid>
		<description>Did you and your partner create your son? As an American you have a right to love as you please, but in the eyes of humanity and God you do not have a right to confuse an innocent child. Humanity exists because of the union that creates life. When that un ion is in love, it deserves the recognition of marriage because of it&#039;s fundamental difference. All other love IS second-class to that type of love. That&#039;s why it should be honored with the word marriage. And as dysfunctional as the world is, there has a l ways been hope in the natural family. It&#039;s something we all want to have as youngsters. It&#039;s not your right to attempt to steal the glory of the natural order from your son (or to humanity itself) in order to prove a gay point. Marriage is holy. Those w ho use it for a personal agenda is wrong ... and love itself isn&#039;t enough of a requirement to warrant marriage. The bodies of a man and woman are ultimately designed to procreate even if they choose not to do so. That union has the holy right to be called m arriage above all other. I&#039;m very sad this fundamental point has escaped you, and you deny your own ability to create true life and love with a woman. You can pass this off as hate mail to deny this if you don&#039;t want to hear the truth, but truth doesn&#039;t m ake room for your denial of God&#039;s order (whether it be homosexuality or some other issue). I pray you will see the light one day before it&#039;s too late. God loves you (and so do I). He will forgive and heal. But you and your partner must look to your own upbringings to get the true answer to these feelings that go against His order. There are answers, if you really want to know the truth. 
Respectfully and with great compassion ....   r</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Did you and your partner create your son? As an American you have a right to love as you please, but in the eyes of humanity and God you do not have a right to confuse an innocent child. Humanity exists because of the union that creates life. When that un ion is in love, it deserves the recognition of marriage because of it&#8217;s fundamental difference. All other love IS second-class to that type of love. That&#8217;s why it should be honored with the word marriage. And as dysfunctional as the world is, there has a l ways been hope in the natural family. It&#8217;s something we all want to have as youngsters. It&#8217;s not your right to attempt to steal the glory of the natural order from your son (or to humanity itself) in order to prove a gay point. Marriage is holy. Those w ho use it for a personal agenda is wrong &#8230; and love itself isn&#8217;t enough of a requirement to warrant marriage. The bodies of a man and woman are ultimately designed to procreate even if they choose not to do so. That union has the holy right to be called m arriage above all other. I&#8217;m very sad this fundamental point has escaped you, and you deny your own ability to create true life and love with a woman. You can pass this off as hate mail to deny this if you don&#8217;t want to hear the truth, but truth doesn&#8217;t m ake room for your denial of God&#8217;s order (whether it be homosexuality or some other issue). I pray you will see the light one day before it&#8217;s too late. God loves you (and so do I). He will forgive and heal. But you and your partner must look to your own upbringings to get the true answer to these feelings that go against His order. There are answers, if you really want to know the truth.<br />
Respectfully and with great compassion &#8230;.   r</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Denise</title>
		<link>http://archives.republicoft.com/index.php/archives/2004/02/24/patti-davis-marriage-should-be-about-love/#comment-489</link>
		<dc:creator>Denise</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republicoft.com/index.php/archives/2004/02/24/patti-davis-marriage-should-be-about-love/#comment-489</guid>
		<description>I have asked -- many times -- what is at the heart of the opposition to gay marriage.  Mostly, people respond with defensiveness, anger and bigotry.  This response is at least rational (IMHO). 

It is, still, based in religious belief -- faith against all evidence -- but it seems to me to be held honestly and lovingly. Where one person believes that their &#039;truth&#039; is right (because of some inherent or taught faith in a religious doctrine) and another&#039;s is just wrong, there can be no argument or discussion. At that point, we just have to acknowledge each other&#039;s right to his/her beliefs and go our own ways.

I see a completely different picture of life and love (more akin to T&#039;s) than does the previous commentator, but I do respect his/her views -- for the most part.  I would have qualified the second sentence to say &quot;in my opinion&quot;.  For, in *my* world, God and humanity does confer a right to love -- and to raise a child.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have asked &#8212; many times &#8212; what is at the heart of the opposition to gay marriage.  Mostly, people respond with defensiveness, anger and bigotry.  This response is at least rational (IMHO). </p>
<p>It is, still, based in religious belief &#8212; faith against all evidence &#8212; but it seems to me to be held honestly and lovingly. Where one person believes that their &#8216;truth&#8217; is right (because of some inherent or taught faith in a religious doctrine) and another&#8217;s is just wrong, there can be no argument or discussion. At that point, we just have to acknowledge each other&#8217;s right to his/her beliefs and go our own ways.</p>
<p>I see a completely different picture of life and love (more akin to T&#8217;s) than does the previous commentator, but I do respect his/her views &#8212; for the most part.  I would have qualified the second sentence to say &#8220;in my opinion&#8221;.  For, in *my* world, God and humanity does confer a right to love &#8212; and to raise a child.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gayle Madwin</title>
		<link>http://archives.republicoft.com/index.php/archives/2004/02/24/patti-davis-marriage-should-be-about-love/#comment-490</link>
		<dc:creator>Gayle Madwin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republicoft.com/index.php/archives/2004/02/24/patti-davis-marriage-should-be-about-love/#comment-490</guid>
		<description>To the commenter named Lish:

I take it you&#039;re equally vehemently opposed to heterosexuals adopting children they didn&#039;t create or couldn&#039;t have created due to infertility then. How dare they oppose the natural order of God having chosen them to be infertile, and confuse their adopted children by pretending to be their parents? How dare any widowed or divorced parents ever remarry and present their children with stepparents instead of biological ones? Far better that orphaned children should die on the streets unadopted and children whose parents are abusive or can&#039;t stand each other should stay together and continue abusing them or arguing loudly 24 hours a day making the household miserable. Anything to prevent children from being raised in happy families, apparently.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To the commenter named Lish:</p>
<p>I take it you&#8217;re equally vehemently opposed to heterosexuals adopting children they didn&#8217;t create or couldn&#8217;t have created due to infertility then. How dare they oppose the natural order of God having chosen them to be infertile, and confuse their adopted children by pretending to be their parents? How dare any widowed or divorced parents ever remarry and present their children with stepparents instead of biological ones? Far better that orphaned children should die on the streets unadopted and children whose parents are abusive or can&#8217;t stand each other should stay together and continue abusing them or arguing loudly 24 hours a day making the household miserable. Anything to prevent children from being raised in happy families, apparently.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: laurie</title>
		<link>http://archives.republicoft.com/index.php/archives/2004/02/24/patti-davis-marriage-should-be-about-love/#comment-491</link>
		<dc:creator>laurie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republicoft.com/index.php/archives/2004/02/24/patti-davis-marriage-should-be-about-love/#comment-491</guid>
		<description>Dear Lish,

As an American, you have a right to love as you please, but in the eyes of humanity and God you do not have a right to confuse an innocent child. 

Humanity exists because of unions that create life, whether they be non-loving single nights of heterosexual passion and lust, or loving long term marriages. 

When a union is in love, it deserves the recognition of marriage because of it&#039;s fundamental difference to non-loving relations and one night baby-making stands. All other love IS second-class to that type of love. That&#039;s why love should be honored with the word marriage. 

As dysfunctional as the world is, there has always been hope in the natural family. It&#039;s something we all want to have as youngsters.  To grow up in a family with parents that love and care about you, that nurture you. 

It&#039;s not your right to attempt to steal the glory of the natural order from any child (or to humanity itself) in order to prove a point. Marriage is holy. 

Those who use marriage for a personal agenda are wrong.  Sex itself isn&#039;t enough of a requirement to warrant marriage, although the bodies of a man and woman are ultimately designed to procreate even if they choose not to do so. 

I&#039;m very sad this fundamental point has escaped you, and you deny your own ability to create true life and love. 

You can pass this off as hate mail, to deny this if you don&#039;t want to hear the truth, but truth doesn&#039;t make room for your denial of God&#039;s order (whether it be homosexuality or some other issue). 

I pray you will see the light one day before it&#039;s too late. 

God loves you (and so do I). He will forgive and heal. But you and your judgements must look to your own upbringings to get the true answer to these feelings that go against His order. 

There are answers, if you really want to know the truth. 
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Lish,</p>
<p>As an American, you have a right to love as you please, but in the eyes of humanity and God you do not have a right to confuse an innocent child. </p>
<p>Humanity exists because of unions that create life, whether they be non-loving single nights of heterosexual passion and lust, or loving long term marriages. </p>
<p>When a union is in love, it deserves the recognition of marriage because of it&#8217;s fundamental difference to non-loving relations and one night baby-making stands. All other love IS second-class to that type of love. That&#8217;s why love should be honored with the word marriage. </p>
<p>As dysfunctional as the world is, there has always been hope in the natural family. It&#8217;s something we all want to have as youngsters.  To grow up in a family with parents that love and care about you, that nurture you. </p>
<p>It&#8217;s not your right to attempt to steal the glory of the natural order from any child (or to humanity itself) in order to prove a point. Marriage is holy. </p>
<p>Those who use marriage for a personal agenda are wrong.  Sex itself isn&#8217;t enough of a requirement to warrant marriage, although the bodies of a man and woman are ultimately designed to procreate even if they choose not to do so. </p>
<p>I&#8217;m very sad this fundamental point has escaped you, and you deny your own ability to create true life and love. </p>
<p>You can pass this off as hate mail, to deny this if you don&#8217;t want to hear the truth, but truth doesn&#8217;t make room for your denial of God&#8217;s order (whether it be homosexuality or some other issue). </p>
<p>I pray you will see the light one day before it&#8217;s too late. </p>
<p>God loves you (and so do I). He will forgive and heal. But you and your judgements must look to your own upbringings to get the true answer to these feelings that go against His order. </p>
<p>There are answers, if you really want to know the truth.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

