Posted on 06/26/2015 12:40:06 PM PDT by Marie
My two cents on the gay marriage thing.
Gays didn't destroy marriage. Neither did the Supreme Court. Hetrosexuals did that a long time ago. They forgot that marriage is not supposed to be based on romantic love. Historically, it's a contract between four entities. The man, the woman, G-d, and the State. Each party is supposed to have both rights and obligations to the other.
But we (hetros) made marriage about 'feelings' and romantic love. We chipped away at our obligations to the state and forgot that we have actual obligations to our partner. We decriminalized infidelity. We created no-fault divorce. We wanted all of the benefits, without all those messy obligations.
We got what we wanted. A meaningless, hollow union. Now we dare cry that gay people want to play in our park and get the benefits, too?
Conservatives are going about this all wrong. Don't fight gay marriage. Fight to make marriage mean something again.
- require premarital counseling and a six month (legal) engagement prior to the act.
- make prenups mandatory. (and they should include the management of future children and alimony.)
- criminalize infidelity with jail time (even when the sex act has the consent of the partner) and an automatic loss of all parental rights for the offender.
- End no-fault divorce. Make a list of legitimate reasons to leave a marriage and stick to it. (abuse, infidelity, addiction, etc)
- limit child support to $500 per child - no matter how much the father makes (women can't eat their cake and have it, too)
- have automatic 50/50 parental custody (with exceptions for abuse and addiction)
- once a divorce is initiated, there must be a 12 month 'cooling off period' where all of the rules for infidelity apply. They're still legally bound by the contract and if they stray, all of the jail time and loss of fortune and child custody apply.
Make people THINK before jumping into the lake in a fit of lust and infatuation. Create consequences for not honoring the contract. Make the contract difficult to break.
As long as it's a free ride for all of us, why do we even care who comes along?
If people still want to make *that* social contract and commit to one another once the institution has weight, then great.
Knock yourselves out.
But we won't do it because we (conservative hetros) love not having any actual responsibility. We fear the real commitment. We want the 'easy out'. We don't want to face the consequences for our actions. We don't want to have to pay a price for failure. We want to gimme, gimme, gimme and not worry too much about giving back.
You said it best here.
Well done. You ‘get it’.
Great and fascinating post.
I got to experience something similar, the depth and cunning of the USSR’s propaganda machine on Western Europe before the fall of the Wall. I saw the college students reading the cool pamphlets and going into the counterculture cool shops. EVERYTHING THEY READ AND BOUGHT, all the cool stuff, supposedly written and made by super cool people, was all done by the Soviets and these brilliant med students all just fell for it, easy peasy. I told them where this stuff was coming from, and they laughed at me because I was a stupid american. From the only BAD superpower. What did I know? But I was right.
If you are good enough, you can fool just about everybody. You can influence society so well with just the right kind of social approach.
Actually, I have a right to say anything I want unless Mr. Jim or a mod steps in and admonishes me, OK? And who, exactly, is foaming at the mouth? People who disagree with “your friend”?
I don’t agree with some of those rules. I like the one where if you cheat, you forfeit custody though. and get rid of no fault divorce.
I think we lost the war when we gave gays the word MARRIAGE. We should have stopped short right there and granted all legal rights to committed partnerships, but saved our word marriage.
And didn’t rhoda get divorced too?
so you mean muslims and Mormons are free to practice polygamy then?
Falling in love is not animal. Tearing off your clothes at the first stirring of the libido is animal but falling in love is not. I’m shocked at your ignorance of either love or marriage.
Who is stopping you from “talking strategies”?
I haven’t actually seen any of that going on all day long before this post, so really there was nothing to distract from, was there? I think there was one post about Walker giving lip service to an amendment, and that was it.
Not the first time reading that lengthy quote from Kate’s sister but it needs posting more often.
Do you know the difference between free exercise and unfree exercise?
As far as the polygamy legalization issue goes, the USSC effectively did that today, and did not cite the Free Exercise Clause in so doing.
Pure Marxism to be sure. Feminists are the authors of the War on Women.
“Do you know the difference between free exercise and unfree exercise?”
Please enlighten me. I can’t wait to hear this.
L
Your statement makes it seem like “love” is the opposite of “marriage for life”, such as is advocated in the Bible.
Why devote entire threads to nonsense distractions about gay marriage?
Most threads about gay marriage seem to be not about stopping it, or supporting politicians fighting it, but as someone’s agenda about something else.
Nonsense. I said no such thing.
Nope. Divorce was extremely common in Judaism, in fact very similar to that in Islam today. Jut write her out a certificate of divorce and send her on her way. When Jesus stated the original plan, his disciples were appalled, and said that in such a case it would be better not to marry at all. Which may be true. :)
Divorce was also common and easy in Greece and especially Rome.
It wasn't until Christianity became the state religion that divorce went out the window. Much of the early history of the Church after the Fall of Rome involves its conflict with German kings who were used to easy divorce and even polygamy. During more corrupt periods of Church history the rules didn't always apply, as divorce was often available if you were sufficiently rich and powerful.
This situation ended at the Reformation, so we're talking about a little more than 1000 years, not 3000.
Your friend lost me with the "state" part. The State is the problem.
How were we “willing to go along”? As Goering once said, “it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship”—and before you shoot the messenger, God puts the greatest onus on the leaders: “O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths” (Isaiah 3:12). So when it comes to Goering or the liberals in the federal government, they both employed and employ that principle, knowing that they possess the power either way.
And what’s your solution?
Great piece. Thanks for sharing it.
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.