To: jethropalerobber
We shouldn't just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. Fine, lobby the NY legislature and the US Congress to pass a law legalizing and encouraging homosexual marriage. Do not expect me to condone or accept the recent base decisions of leftist, above the the law judges.
2 posted on
11/22/2003 11:26:55 AM PST by
Jacquerie
(Democrats soil the institutions they control)
To: jethropalerobber
It's going to be up to conservatives to make the important, moral case for marriage, including gay marriage. Not making it means drifting further into the culture of contingency, which, when it comes to intimate and sacred relations, is an abomination.Abomination?! What a fool.
FMCDH
3 posted on
11/22/2003 11:30:58 AM PST by
nothingnew
(The pendulum is swinging and the Rats are in the pit!)
To: jethropalerobber
This is funny, if also sad. I remember for years and years the left would say that marriage is a useless, oppressive institution and that committment was for fools. The left proclaimed that someday they would abolish marriage once people had become "evolved" enough to reject old-fashioned notions about committment and fidelity. They praised the "freedom" of the swingers, who effortlessly moved from one meaningless relationship to the next.
Suddenly, in the past five years, marriage has gone from being an archaic institution that is the cause of society's problems to being the magic cure to every problem. The old, heterosexual marriage was held in contempt as a form of "oppression," and now the new, gay "marriage" is held in esteem as a sign of "liberation." What is happening is that after years of trying to tear down marriage from the outside, they are now trying to subvert marriage from the inside.
5 posted on
11/22/2003 11:41:14 AM PST by
Wilhelm Tell
(Lurking since 1997!)
To: jethropalerobber
This writer is certainly picking and choosing which religious tenets he wants to tout, and which he wants to spit on.
What a hypocrite.
To: jethropalerobber
"We're moral creatures with souls, endowed with the ability to make covenants, such as the one Ruth made with Naomi: "Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried."" But Ruth married a MAN! Boaz, I believe. And they begat.
8 posted on
11/22/2003 11:59:57 AM PST by
Eastbound
To: jethropalerobber
I have seen reputable recent studies that show that "long-term" gay relationships last an average of 1.5 years, and during that time, the partners have an average of eight other "contacts". That is sick and sad lifestyle.
9 posted on
11/22/2003 12:11:52 PM PST by
DeweyCA
To: jethropalerobber
Homosexual behavior is 'wrong' no matter what spin you put on it. The 'fruits & nuts' can spin doctor this all they want to, however spin does not change the facts.
11 posted on
11/22/2003 12:20:26 PM PST by
vladog
To: jethropalerobber
The author is ignorant. Marriage as an institution is not about love. The institution is about raising children.
Homosexuals can have all the private sex they want. Marriage is a public instution. You do not have sex in public.
To: jethropalerobber
My perspective on this issue is that all forms of sex outside of God-defined marriage (one man - one woman, for life) is wrong.
IMO, the homosexual lobby is seeking "marriage" because theirs is the only sexual sin which has not yet been approved/allowed by our society. Long ago, Americans accepted adultery and promiscuity as "no big deal," when, in fact, God calls both of them sin.
IMO, the move for homosexual marriage is just the logical last step in making all sexual sins equal.
Instead of approving and accepting homosexual "marriage," we should return to the Biblical definition of acceptable sexual relations, namely one man and one wife for life. In God's eyes, anything else is wrong, whether we like it or not.
26 posted on
11/22/2003 12:54:24 PM PST by
Prov3456
To: jethropalerobber
I've often wondered about this. Seems any sort of promotion of monogamy in the gay community would be a very meritorious cause.
32 posted on
11/22/2003 1:03:05 PM PST by
Kahonek
To: jethropalerobber
I take it that Brooks is gay?
I also take it that the NY Times picked him as their token conservative because, like Safire, he is safely on their side on the really important (to them) social issues.
Persistence in sin is not better than occasionally falling into sin. It is worse. Bigamy is worse than adultery, because "marrying" two wives and betraying them both permanently is worse than falling into a momentary betrayal and hopefully repenting it.
Evelyn Waugh makes this point in "Brideshead Revisited." It's not so bad that the hero and heroine have an adulterous affair, because it can be repented. But they can never marry, because that would mean committing themselves to a permanent state of sin.
41 posted on
11/22/2003 1:31:46 PM PST by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: jethropalerobber; GatorGirl; maryz; *Catholic_list; afraidfortherepublic; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; ...
"Nearly half of all marriages end in divorce."
Not true. One in four end in divorce, that one just gets divorced many times.
48 posted on
11/22/2003 3:29:56 PM PST by
narses
("The do-it-yourself Mass is ended. Go in peace" Francis Cardinal Arinze of Nigeria)
To: jethropalerobber
SSSSIIIIIIIIICCCCCCKKKKK! Hell waits!!!
58 posted on
11/22/2003 8:58:28 PM PST by
sarge4
To: jethropalerobber
SSSSIIIIIIIIICCCCCCKKKKK! Hell waits!!!
59 posted on
11/22/2003 8:58:40 PM PST by
sarge4
To: jethropalerobber
"Gays and lesbians are banned from marriage and forbidden to enter into this powerful and ennobling institution"
So is my dog.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson