<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>FireSociety Forums - Culture Fires - Marriage/Family</title>
    <link>http://www.firesociety.com</link>
    <description>FireSociety Forums - Culture Fires - Marriage/Family</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2008 18:48:36 GMT</pubDate>
    <webMaster>admin@firesociety.com</webMaster>
    <generator>FireSociety</generator>
    <ttl>60</ttl>
    
    <item>
      <title>Proposition 8 video</title>
      <link>http://www.firesociety.com/forum/thread/28939/Proposition-8-video/?src=103</link>
      <description>http://www.afa.net/prop8video/index.html</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2008 18:48:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>kmcheng</author>
      <comments>http://www.firesociety.com/forum/thread/28939/Proposition-8-video/?src=103</comments>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Federal Marriage Amendment(H.J.RES. 89)</title>
      <link>http://www.firesociety.com/forum/thread/26929/Federal-Marriage-Amendment-H.J.RES.-89-/?src=103</link>
      <description>This is my first post. I am surprised I have not found these forums until now. I am a conservative in every area. One of my greatest concerns that I and others are beginning to work on are the 4 marriage amendments this year. That is the federal marriage amendment, along with the California, Arizona, and Florida state marriage amendments. As I became more passionate about this over the last month and researched more I began to put together a website/blog to help consolidate resources and update people of the progress the FMA is making in congress right now. &amp;nbsp; www.traditionalwedlock.org I have no intentions of making any money of off this site. I don&amp;#39;t even have Google ad sense and will probably never have advertisements on there. My goal is to fight for these marriage amendments using online forums, Google groups, meetup, calling and email representatives in congress, as we as talking to pro-family groups about continuing to promote the FMA. We are up to 82 co-sponsors for H.J.RES. 89 in the house. This is significant progress in only 1 month of being introduced. Visit the site above or the following link to see the current states: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery... Is ...</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:13:21 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Trox</author>
      <comments>http://www.firesociety.com/forum/thread/26929/Federal-Marriage-Amendment-H.J.RES.-89-/?src=103</comments>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>What if you couldn't marry the person you love?  TV ad</title>
      <link>http://www.firesociety.com/forum/thread/28491/What-if-you-couldn-t-marry-the-person-you-love---TV-ad/?src=103</link>
      <description>http://www.letcaliforniaring.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=ltJTJ6MQIuE&amp;amp;b=3554233&amp;amp;ct=4563207 This is the TV ad that is attempting to change values in California about Gay marriage. Poor lady breaks a heel, has her veil torn off and an old lady trips her with a cane. What if you couldn&amp;#39;t marry the person you love? It is all about confusing the issues and making wrong look right.</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:01:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>sparks3</author>
      <comments>http://www.firesociety.com/forum/thread/28491/What-if-you-couldn-t-marry-the-person-you-love---TV-ad/?src=103</comments>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Flag this message Government official to ignore marriage amendment</title>
      <link>http://www.firesociety.com/forum/thread/28463/Flag-this-message-Government-official-to-ignore-marriage-amendment/?src=103</link>
      <description>California Attorney General Jerry Brown just announced that even if voters pass the marriage amendment, he will not apply it to the thousands of homosexual marriages that are taking place right now. Essentially, Brown says he will ignore the amendment and say it doesn&amp;#39;t apply retroactively! This is on top of last week&amp;rsquo;s outrage when Jerry Brown manipulated the descriptive language of the amendment in a blatant attempt to defeat the measure. Pro-homosexual activists like Jerry Brown are intent on destroying the family. And the media is in full support! &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; Imagine if a conservative government official announced &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; that he was going to ignore a constitutional amendment ... &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; or had manipulated an election ballot to favor conservative &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; ideals. The media would be calling for him to step down &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; immediately! + + Action Item: Spread the Word! A few days ago we launched a petition to stop Jerry Brown&amp;#39;s latest effort to destroy marriage. Thank you so much for signing the petition! Already, thousands have signed but we must rally thousands more. &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; ...</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 09 Aug 2008 03:17:36 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>kmcheng</author>
      <comments>http://www.firesociety.com/forum/thread/28463/Flag-this-message-Government-official-to-ignore-marriage-amendment/?src=103</comments>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Homosexual &amp;quot;Marriage&amp;quot; and Why It Matters To Society</title>
      <link>http://www.firesociety.com/forum/thread/26802/Homosexual--quot-Marriage-quot--and-Why-It-Matters-To-Society/?src=103</link>
      <description>Homosexual &amp;quot;marriage&amp;quot; has once again become an issue due to the recent ruling in CA. There are those who object to homosexual marriage based on religious beliefs and there are also ample anthropological arguments as well. I thought this thread would be a good place to discuss the ramifications of the CA ruling for us and our children, who will pay the consequences for our inactions today. The following article raises some very good questions and points about the subject.&amp;nbsp; Underlining is my emphasis. The Marriage Debate Goes Multicultural Anthropologists jump in &amp;mdash; and distort the history of their field . By Peter Wood L ast year the executive board of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) joined the controversy over gay marriage by issuing a statement that declared The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. &amp;nbsp; Ideologically, I suppose this is what one has come to expect from the AAA: a reflexive affirmation of leftist pieties . But still, it is surprising to see ...</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:14:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>ConcernedMom</author>
      <comments>http://www.firesociety.com/forum/thread/26802/Homosexual--quot-Marriage-quot--and-Why-It-Matters-To-Society/?src=103</comments>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>homosexuals are not made for raising children.</title>
      <link>http://www.firesociety.com/forum/thread/27930/homosexuals-are-not-made-for-raising-children./?src=103</link>
      <description>The Dictionary Defines a Parent as: (source www.dictionary .com) &amp;nbsp;par ent -noun 1.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; a father or a mother. (Not Father &amp;amp; Father, nor Mother &amp;amp; Mother.) 2.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; An ancestor, precursor, or progenitor. 3.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; A source, origin, or cause. 4.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; A protector or guardian. As such no two men or women should ever be allowed to partake in a parental relationship with any child. Social science evidence agrees that the best environment for the well-being of children is a household with both a mother and a father. A homosexual environment, on the other hand, can model homosexual behavior to children. In a study published in the January 1996 issue of Developmental Psychology, London researchers Susan Golombok and Fiona Tasker found that children raised by a homosexual parent were much more likely to experiment with homosexual behavior themselves. Based on their findings, Golombok and Tasker acknowledge that &amp;quot;by creating a climate of acceptance or rejection of homosexuality within the family, parents may have some impact on their children&amp;#39;s sexual experimentation as heterosexual, lesbian or gay.&amp;quot; Stability is the key to raising an emotionally and mentally healthy child; unmarried and homosexual partners simply cannot provide the stability that married heterosexual couples can give. ...</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:52:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>MontanaJohn</author>
      <comments>http://www.firesociety.com/forum/thread/27930/homosexuals-are-not-made-for-raising-children./?src=103</comments>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Losing The Gender Wars</title>
      <link>http://www.firesociety.com/forum/thread/27173/Losing-The-Gender-Wars/?src=103</link>
      <description>As James Madison pointed out in his famous 10th essay in The Federalist, &amp;quot;the primary source of danger is the propensity of men to form factions enabling a majority to oppress minorities.&amp;quot; * What Madison didn&amp;#39;t count on was the tyranny of the minority. In this case, the minority of homosexuals and other sexually, well, differently orientated individuals who are well on their way towards permanently altering the 2,000 year-old tradition of family and gender roles. Last weekend saw homosexuals across the world .. http://rightbias.com/News/070206gay.aspx</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:00:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Nancy Morgan</author>
      <comments>http://www.firesociety.com/forum/thread/27173/Losing-The-Gender-Wars/?src=103</comments>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Homosexual activists release 'marriage battle plan'</title>
      <link>http://www.firesociety.com/forum/thread/26784/Homosexual-activists-release--marriage-battle-plan-/?src=103</link>
      <description>Jeff Johnson - OneNewsNow - 6/19/2008 6:00:00 AM var addthis_pub = 'onenewsnow'; &amp;nbsp; Homosexual activists often complain there&amp;#39;s no such thing when pro-family groups refer to the &amp;quot;gay agenda.&amp;quot; But now nine pro-homosexual groups have made a copy of their battle plan available to the public. &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; The document is called &amp;quot;Make Change, Not Lawsuits.&amp;quot; In it, the nine pro-homosexual groups urge sympathetic activists not to rush to file lawsuits after taking advantage of the court-ordered legalization of homosexual marriages in California. &amp;nbsp; &amp;quot;... [T]hey are doing the ...&amp;nbsp;&amp;#39;boil the frog in the water&amp;#39; routine. They&amp;#39;re wanting to ...&amp;nbsp;prepare the ground, prepare the ideas and thinking so that, one day, you just simply wake up and same-sex &amp;#39;marriage&amp;#39; has become commonplace.&amp;quot; &amp;nbsp; -- Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel Mat Staver, founder of&amp;nbsp; Liberty Counsel , says the coalition has a multitude of reasons to discourage homosexual activists from filing lawsuits in order to force homosexual marriage on people who oppose it. &amp;quot;They&amp;#39;re afraid that, if they continue to file these lawsuits on the state level, they&amp;#39;ll actually lose lawsuits,&amp;quot; Staver says. &amp;nbsp; &amp;quot;And, in fact, they&amp;#39;ve lost so many, the fact that they&amp;#39;ve won one in California should not overshadow ...</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2008 02:32:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>kmcheng</author>
      <comments>http://www.firesociety.com/forum/thread/26784/Homosexual-activists-release--marriage-battle-plan-/?src=103</comments>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Respecting objections to same-sex 'marriage'</title>
      <link>http://www.firesociety.com/forum/thread/26713/Respecting-objections-to-same-sex--marriage-/?src=103</link>
      <description>Associated Press - 6/18/2008 7:45:00 AM var addthis_pub = 'onenewsnow'; &amp;nbsp; THOUSAND OAKS, Calif. - California&amp;#39;s county clerks are being urged to exempt employees who have religious objections to same-sex &amp;quot;marriage&amp;quot; from taking part in them. That appeal is in a letter signed by leaders of&amp;nbsp; Advocates for Faith &amp;amp; Freedom &amp;nbsp;and the Seventh-day Adventist Church State Council. &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; Council president Alan Reinach says some county workers in the Golden State believe it would be immoral to take part in same-sex marriages. &amp;quot;We have begun to hear from employees of the clerks&amp;#39; offices who have religious objections,&amp;quot; he shares. &amp;nbsp; Those employees with religious objections to same-sex marriage should be exempted from taking part in them, Reinach argues. &amp;quot;If there is no such right to refuse to provide the service, then clearly the beliefs and consciences of same-sex couples are being preferred in the law to the traditional religious beliefs of millions of Californians,&amp;quot; he says. &amp;nbsp; See earlier stories on the California situation &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; The Seventh-day Adventist group spokesman says homosexual rights should not eliminate county employees&amp;#39; religious rights. &amp;quot;If the Supreme Court meant what it said about equality, then that would not be equality -- that ...</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jun 2008 02:17:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>kmcheng</author>
      <comments>http://www.firesociety.com/forum/thread/26713/Respecting-objections-to-same-sex--marriage-/?src=103</comments>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Biblical marriage vs. CA courts: Ruling today</title>
      <link>http://www.firesociety.com/forum/thread/26635/Biblical-marriage-vs.-CA-courts--Ruling-today/?src=103</link>
      <description>Jeff Johnson - OneNewsNow - 6/16/2008 4:00:00 AM var addthis_pub = 'onenewsnow'; &amp;nbsp; Pro-family attorneys are trying another legal route to block implementation of so-called &amp;quot;gay marriage&amp;quot; in California this evening. &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; The California Supreme Court has rejected appeals of its ruling that the state must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples beginning at 5:01 p.m. (local time) today. But the Supreme Court&amp;#39;s decision merely hands the case back down to the California Court of Appeal, which is charged with deciding how and when to implement the high court&amp;#39;s ruling. It is that power that Matt Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel , is appealing to now. &amp;nbsp; &amp;quot;It should clearly be stayed because the people are going to vote in November with regards to the California marriage protection amendment. That&amp;#39;s a matter that, in fact, we addressed before the California Supreme Court, which they denied. However, the California Court of Appeals has a separate, independent obligation to consider this matter as well,&amp;quot; contends the attorney. &amp;nbsp; Liberty Counsel filed a petition last week with the appeals court on behalf of the Campaign for California Families , asking the court to delay issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples ...</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2008 02:15:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>kmcheng</author>
      <comments>http://www.firesociety.com/forum/thread/26635/Biblical-marriage-vs.-CA-courts--Ruling-today/?src=103</comments>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

