................ Nooooo! NOT EVER!
Posted on 10/28/2004 2:44:06 PM PDT by Keyes2000mt
"Marriage is love." —from a Lesbian website.
This is the gay/lesbian mantra. The argument goes, "Gays and Lesbians who love each other should be able to marry and society has no right to tell them "No" because it denies their right to love each other."
First of all, from whence comes such a puritanical attitude about marriage? The left has taught us for years that "love and marriage" don't necessarily go together. Indeed, many heterosexual couples are shacking up with no intention to marry and have hardly any of the legal protections afforded marriage. What confusion goes through the head of liberal academics who write one paper about why allowing gay marriage is necessary to allow gays to express love, while on the other hand they write about heterosexuals shacking up as something that's wise.
Second, what's being said is that society has no right to arbitrarily say that some circumstance that is beyond a person's control should stop them from marrying the person they want to be with because of a moral argument against them. Thus liberal logic goes, Jim loves Harry, they can't help it they were both born men and should therefore they should be allowed to marry.
Lets carry this argument to its logical conclusion and ask a simple question. What makes an incestuous marriage wrong?
Lets compare the arguments against incestuous marriage to those against homosexual marriage. First, like the homosexual if a woman and her brother fall in love, they're artificially stopped from getting married by a circumstance which they can't control and this is due only to society's moral beliefs.
A major argument against incest is genetics. If you allow two closely related people to marry, their offspring may be prone to some serious defects because he or she would have genetic defects and poor general health. However, this argument fails under the regime of gay marriage because many genetically flawed people who will have children that will develop deadly diseases are allowed to marry. In addition, with gay marriage, we say that reproductive potential between the marriage partners is irrelevant, so who are we to say that the potential of reproductive defects should stop people from getting married?
Second, the moral basis of rejecting incest can be questioned as being too religious. Leviticus 18:22 (Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination.) is a key scripture against homosexuality that is attacked by many defenders of the lifestyle. Indeed, people have been imprisoned in other countries for quoting this politically incorrect scripture. However, Leviticus 18 also contains key prohibitions against incest. Verses 6 and 7 say, "None of you shall approach any who is near of kin to him to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD. The nakedness of thy father or the nakedness of thy mother shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness." Gay marriage advocates have argued laws against gay marriage are based on old religious taboos, but if they are, so are the laws against incest.
In the end, we have laws against incest because society made a moral judgment. We've said that family life is not to be subject to sexual tensions. We believe a daughter should feel comfortable spending time alone talking with her father without having to worry that her father is just another man interested in her body. We've said that the relationship between a brother and sister is to be one of love and trust. We've understood that if we allow incest, families as we know it will cease to exist.
As to gay marriage, marriage exists for one primary reason. People of all cultures acknowledge that men and women will end up having sex. The intended result of sex is children, the future of society. If they do not have stability in their lives, they can not grow up to be the kind of citizens society needs. Thus, marriage is recognized by society and legally protected so that children that result from the love of a man and a woman are in a stable environment that is recognized and enshrined before God and man. Thus a child has an actual father rather than a series of mother's live-in lovers.
With that understanding of why we have marriage, it becomes painfully obvious why marriage doesn't apply to homosexuals. No matter how much "love" they show one another, no matter how often they do it, it's never going to produce a child. While infertile heterosexual couples have gotten miraculously pregnant, never has there been a case of this happening with two men!
To surrender on homosexual marriage, is to surrender the right to make any moral distinction or set any boundaries (other than perhaps age)when it comes to marriage. Those reading this column make think it preposterous that we'd ever have legal incestuous marriages, but who would have thought 20 years ago, that we'd actually be discussing the possibility of having homosexual marriage foisted on our culture? We must draw a line in the sand and stop long march into moral darkness before its too late.
I've already told my wife that once we have "legalized" gay "marriage," I'm going to start campaigning for the polygamists.
As predicted at:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1242130/posts#2
Not tonight - I have a headache...
Incest: A fun game the whole family can play!
................ Nooooo! NOT EVER!
as soon as judges say marriage is all inclusive, man & wife will be replaced by man & man, wife & dog, man & man & wife & gerbil...
By milton & bradley ( both male names?)
Gee, according to radical feminists, marriage is patriarchal slavery and institutionalized rape. Now it's all about the love? I can't keep up.
Incest is just as ill as sodomy.
http://members.tripod.com/lillyforu1/ishomosexuality.html
If you believe that the most significant part of marriage is a religious ceremony, then you're already too late. Literally thousands of homosexual couples have been married in religious ceremonies in a wide variety of denominations. If you believe the most significant part conerns the legalities, then you still have a chance to stem the tide.
I'd like to hear from the Libertarians, Objectivists, Autonomists...etc.
Any objections to adult incest?
Beastiality is next.
"People of all cultures acknowledge that men and women will end up having sex. While the intended result of sex is fun, a very common natural consequence of sex is children, the future of society."
Bestiality or (gag!) "zoophilia" will probably become decriminalized before incest.
"I'd like to hear from the Libertarians, Any objections to adult incest?"
With a smarta## screen name like FatLoser, you should be able to answer your own question troll. Project much?
You might want to put a huge flow chart on your wall. Don't forget to add the part that rape is ok if its inflicted by a president or governor of Arkansas. That might be considered an act of love.
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.