Sentences with phrase «many homosexual couples»

Still, marriage rates may get a little help from a surprising source: homosexual couples.

for me a committed homosexual couple is the same as a committed heterosexual couple; not the same as a rapist, pedophile, or drunk.

If marriage is a «lifestyle» choice for heterosexual couples, as people seem to believe, why should homosexual couples not be allowed to marry?

It clearly matters for the homosexual couple: They want to have their own kid, and they'll use «female sperm» or «male eggs» to make it happen.

What is happening when a heterosexual or homosexual couple deny or destroy the sacred interplay of fertility and coition?

Many homosexual couples have maintained a commitment to each other that has been fulfilling over time.

The adoption bill permitted homosexual couples jointly to adopt and in another strike against the status of marriage also allowed unmarried couples to adopt.

It is unacceptable that some modern Americans think it's alright to toss rules like these aside and yet still vehemently oppose marriage rights for homosexual couples.

Even the questions concerning the pastoral care of divorced and civilly remarried Catholics, and of homosexual couples — both topics of heated debate at last October's Synod of Bishops — are in the end based on theological foundations, and deal with the application of doctrine.

What is wrong, what is unnatural, what is immoral and what is gross is intolerance and discrimination against fellow human beings for their sexual orientation and active pursuit of preventing loving and committed homosexual couples from legally being married.

The argument that is being debated now falls, in terms of some of its aspects (not cohabitation in general so much as male homosexual couples specifically), within limits that are held to be inviolable.

My point is that when a homosexual couple wants an offspring they will try only one way that is copulation the way God planed if not from their own loins then from a third party, Adoption, IVF, this is how they choose.

In «Courting Cowardice,» published this week in the New York Times, Maureen Dowd attacks the natural law argument that since marriage is for procreation, homosexual couples are de facto incapable of being married.

Olson also invoked «fundamental rights» and was queried by Justice Scalia as to just exactly when it became unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage: 1791 with the Bill of Rights, 1868 with the 14th Amendment, or some other date, perhaps after the Court declined in 1971 to review a Minnesota Supreme Court decision upholding opposite - sex marriage requirements?

He had previously raised concerns over providing counseling services to homosexual couples, as he thought it might imply endorsement of relationships he conscientiously believed to be wrong.

He did, however, raise objections to counseling homosexual couples suffering only from sexual dysfunction.

But they differ scarcely at all over the distinctions between heterosexual and homosexual couples.

He would show up in a church on a Sunday when a homosexual couple visits the church, and Jesus would stand up and ask, «What do you think, should homosexuals be allowed to get married, or not?»

The question before us was whether the states would be obliged to honor the marriage of homosexual couples if the courts in Hawaii delivered to the country that unsolicited gift.

But I for one do not agree that the homosexual couples I know, who, despite all social pressures, have remained faithful to one another through thick and thin are behaving unnaturally or expressing idolatry.

Homosexual couples simply can not perform a unitive act (which I defined in a previous comment).

Homosexual couples are pursueing the right to marry their partners, most of which do not have that right.

It would undertake to provide social support of homosexual couples through difficult times as it does with heterosexual couples.

Obviously, a homosexual couple can not generate its own children.

The Civil Partnership Act was passed in 2004 (and came into force in 2005), giving homosexual couples the right to have a civil ceremony that gave them most — but not all — of the legal rights given to married couples.

I think he would be in the same boat as the homosexual couple that continuously practices sexual relations.

A homosexual couple can not procreate.

Homosexual couples who want to commit themselves to a monogamous lifelong relationship find themselves in the same situation as anyone else who cohabits without benefit of marriage.

Did not Jacques Derrida, the master of postmodern deconstructionism, propose in an interview with the French newspaper Le Monde, shortly before his death in 2004, the elimination of the word «marriage» from the French civil code so as to resolve the issue of the juridical status of homosexual couples?

We saw this truncated view of First Amendment freedoms several years ago when Catholic adoption agencies in several states were ordered to place children with homosexual couples, refused, and closed down.

A homosexual couple can give much love to a child, sometimes even more than a heterosexual couple.»

What we hear: «Homosexual parenting already exists as a matter of fact: Hundreds of thousands of children are being raised by homosexual couples.

There is no question of denying the suffering experienced by homosexual couples, whether male or female, owing to their infertility — a suffering they share with heterosexual couples who can not procreate.

The number of children of homosexual couples has also been greatly exaggerated.

Such homosexual couples now demand that their suffering be recognized and alleviated.

There is no question of denying the suffering experienced by homosexual couples owing to their infertility — a suffering they share with heterosexual couples who can not procreate.

Among Theresa May's tactics for sounding reasonable was to pretend to think that what we were really worried about was whether or not we would have to «marry» homosexual couples in Church:

We do not deny that homosexual couples are capable of loving actions towards others, even children they may look after.

The Daily Mail opposes it for as many of the right reasons as it is now possible for a secular paper to admit to: «This legislation,» it said, «which not even Stonewall, the most persistent gay rights group, was agitating for, is not just about allowing homosexual couples to have a wedding rather than a civil partnership.

http://youtu.be/ShwT6Qu9dZA Homo Baby Boom by Anna Boluda Ground - breaking legal changes in Spain in 2005 (same - sex marriage and adoption for homosexual couples) changed the lives of two - mom and two - dad families.

Recently there was a parliamentary decision in Portugal that approved a referendum to the co-adoption and adoption by homosexual couples (already allowed to marry).

Similarly, consider the case of the couple who were successfully prosecuted for refusing to grant a room to a homosexual couple on the grounds that homosexual practice is a sin according to biblical texts.

The third partner in Germany's governing coalition, the Liberal Democrats, have long been fighting for tax equality for homosexual couples.

He goes on to say, «Article 9 of the Charter simply leaves it to States to decide whether they wish to afford homosexual couples the right to marry» — and this in the context of a decision about civil, not religious marriage.

The State Senate is a single vote away from changing the law to allow gay marriage for millions of homosexual couples.

It was definitely because they voted to grant equal rights to homosexual couples.

«homosexual couples have higher rates of domestic violence than do heterosexual couples, especially among lesbians» - Paul Cameron quoted at http://www.biblebelievers.com/Cameron1.html

In a letter to all cabinet ministers, he wrote: «Catholic teaching about the foundations of family life, a teaching shared not only by other Christian churches but also other faiths, means that Catholic adoption agencies would not be able to recruit and consider homosexual couples as potential adoptive parents.

Catholic adoption agencies warn they will be forced to close agencies, rather than place children with homosexual couples.

This meant Catholic adoption agencies had to allow homosexual couples to adopt children in their care, although many agencies claimed they would shut down before they submitted to the legislation.