Posted on 07/27/2014 2:16:57 PM PDT by WXRGina
How about “Shacking?”
Is there a PC List to follow for the Democrat’s War On Women?
If so would the more accurate term “Shacking” receive a higher or lower rating than the more vague term “Relationship?”
That was excellent. Sharp guy.
If only our political leaders had the courage to tell the truth.
So what if I have a church ceremony and refuse the marriage license?
The guy is awesome. He remains on point, fact based and non-emotional. The gay questioners are blown away.
Yes, if ONLY!
Can sodomy produce a child? Enough said.
Bop Ellis in The American Clarion in his rebuttal to the claim of what marriage is by an advocate of perversion , cites the definition of the word marriage.
This gets into the definition of words and meaning including the word pervert; 1st def. To turn from its right (or intended) purpose,use or meaning; misconstrue,misapply.
Hence any and all of those actively advocating such positions participating within the political group known as the democrat party. Which in practice is now hardly democratic and the word itself has been perverted by its members and as such is “democrat” in name only.
Those members can and should be considered nothing less than a bunch of perverts.Advocating “Universal Perversity” on anything they touch including poor “Uncle Tom”.
Correction; Bob Ellis of the American Clarion reported on Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation rebuttal to the advocate of perversion and the change of definition of marriage.
Very good! Basically, civil unions. And another reason why the church should NOT be performing these unions as “marriages”.
At what point are we (heterosexuals) going to admit that *we’ve* watered down marriage so much that it’s practically meaningless?
Marriage is a contract between four entities. The man, the woman, Society, and Gd.
The man and the woman agree to certain responsibilities for the good of those individuals and for the benefit of Society and this agreement is sanctified by Gd.
The problem is that we (heterosexuals) have watered down our own responsibilities to almost zero, yet we still want the benefits of marriage accorded by Society. We still want to ‘feel good’ about our union being sanctified by Gd. *We* are the ones who redefined marriage as a ‘loving relationship’ and no longer the contractual agreement that it has *always*, historically, been. (Love was part of the contractual *obligations* of both parties, not the foundation of the union.)
*We* changed the definition of marriage and created this freaking mess.
So we want the benefits, but we don’t want to pay a price for it and we definitely want an easy-out clause before committing.
We now have no-fault divorce so that we can walk away whenever we want. There are zero criminal penalties for cheating. We’re rewarded with money and other material goods when we reproduce outside of marriage.
Then we cry when gays want the benefits and don’t understand the responsibilities. *We’ve* stripped away all meaning and turned it into nothing more than a privilege.
Actually criminalize infidelity. (As it stands, the only punishment for threatening pregnancy with someone who’s not your spouse or bringing home disease is feeling bad.) Make divorce more difficult.
Enforce *responsibility* on heterosexuals who sign up for the contract. Make marriage a serious commitment once again.
And once marriage means something, most homosexuals won’t want much to do with the institution. As it is, all they see is a big bag of freebies - because that’s all it is. Tell gays that they can enter into such a union, but they’ll go to prison if they cheat on their spouse and see how many *really* want the tax breaks. Tell them that a divorce is going to cost them HUGE and, if there are minor children involved, may not even be possible until the kids are grown. I’ll bet they’ll become very quiet.
And this just might have another effect. Maybe more of us will think twice before running off to Vegas if we understand that the knot won’t so easily be untied.
Of course, if we really want to fix society, we’ve got to stop rewarding women for having children without the benefit of marriage, but that’s an another subject.
The guy referred to in the article has the most solid answer, simply that "marriage" means a man and a woman. What the homos want isn't the right to marry, they want the right to redefine what marriage is. That's why it's vitally important to have a pre-PC dictionary, so when they try to pull up some online dictionary definition of "a union between two people", you can slam the book on them, so to speak.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
That’s a logical fallacy, I believe called unrepresentative sample. Infertile heterosexual couples are the exception, rather than the rule, whereas two homos can hump each other until kingdom come and that action will NEVER produce offspring.
I do like the definition of a marriage as being a union between a man and a woman, and I’ve also for a long time been arguing that there is no mechanism in place to deny those who engage in homosexuality the right to enter into this union AS IT HAS BEEN DEFINED.
-PJ
Yeah, BUDDY! :-)
-PJ
I look forward to the day when society re-chooses goals consistent with morality and limited government, and the ones who try to keep the dominoes from standing back up are called obstructionists.
I’m afraid that won’t be till the return of Jesus.
It is refreshing to hear someone speak like this, in secular terms that even liberals can understand. He doesn't scream, bloviate, belittle. I was quite impressed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.