Posted on 05/15/2015 1:04:22 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The lies just keep coming. Once you change the definition of marriage from one man and one woman, there is no limit to what it will lead to.
“Here’s why: From a legal perspective, marriage is a contract....”
Wrong! Contracts cannot be severed by one party, without cause, unless the contract was improperly entered into. Contracts are enforceable. This is no longer true for marriage, so it is not a contract.
Well, that was easy. Usually I need to read more than half a sentence of an argument to refute it.
But, just because divorce devalues marriage, that doesn’t mean we can’t oppose further destruction.
“for those on the left, marriage is NOT a contract”
It’s not a contract for any of us anymore, unfortunately. “No fault” divorce laws in all 50 states have seen to that.
Just a few years ago, the SC overturned DOMA and ruled that the federal government had no business defining marriage. Now they stand poised to reverse that decision and redefine it.
If argued as equal rights then polygamy should be allowable, too.
If argued as “governmental authorization” then that should be sufficient also to prevent gay marriage.
However, hypocrisy would never concern a liberal. They’ll say whatever it takes to sway the SCOTUS on this decision now.
I’m afraid you are right. The polygamists aren’t much interested in using the government to enforce their lifestyle to the extent the GayStapo is . . .
Absolutely correct. Fundamental tenet of Marxism is the destruction of the family. Post revolution Russia also tried to remove the stigma of an illegitimate child.
Chapter II Communist Manifesto.
“Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.
And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.”
the PRIDE...people insist on acceptance ..due to their...pride...
Rhe “need” for such pride ..so called.... seems unique to that group.
I doubt that the polygamists care much what others think of them.
Exactly. Once marriage is redefined, there is no block against having it redefined over and over again. Which will make it a meaningless term, and, that is what this is all about. Destroying marriage as a bedrock cultural institution and making it into an "anything goes" type of deal.
I have been thinking, recently, that one of the things that started this downward regard for marriage, was a small, inocuous thing. Writing our own "vows"; which, if anyone has ever listened to people who have written their own "vows", are not really "vows" at all. To me, at least, they usually sound like something a couple of 13 year olds would pass as a note in class. Not "vows" at all.
Now, this may seem small and insignificant; but, there are no promises to love and cherish, to honor one's spouse, til death parts them. Nothing that makes it a real, and serious comittment to one another. Yeah, writing one's own vows, sounds wonderful doesn't it? But, is it? Does it really convey a vow? A promise to one another?
This was an easy way to start watering down the significance of marriage to the couple, to the relations of each and to the community. Maybe I'm being overly sensitive; but, I think that this is something that we should think about.
Interesting denial considering three men got “married” to each other in Thailand a couple of months. Not to be outdone, three Massachusetts lesbians also “married”. One currently is pregnant and the plan is for the other two to do the same. I love my Labrador Retriever but have no plans to “marry” her (she would probably refuse anyway).
Biblical polygamists: Abdon, Abijah, Abraham...Solomon, Terah, Zedekiah, Ziba...
Not only that but many of them had concubines as well.
consider this too,
contracts do not change year to year without consent of the parties. Divorce law changes every year along with child support formulas.
\
Doesn’t open the door? Certainly doesn’t close it, either.
Defining deviancy down. Where does it end?
I don't recall another instance where liberals worry about implementation of a law, rather than asserting "it's the right thing to do" no matter what a mess it creates.
That's how I know she's either lying or seriously deluded. This is agitprop designed to blunt the truth - that being when you reinvent marriage by removing gender, it implies you can remove numbers just as easily.
It's a spurious argument that it'll cause problems. Everything the libs do causes problems, so they can go back and f**k it up some more later
Oh, that makes it okay. Should we also destroy our enemies, make slaves of them, take over their countries as well?
No? (I'm just asking because I'm not sure where you're going with your line of reasoning?)
True.
Frankly, polygamy is less offensive to nature than civil recognition of same sex couples.
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.