Posted on 05/19/2010 9:33:33 AM PDT by massmike
The Republican Party reaps political benefits from its reputation as the political home for Americans who demand that government fulfill its obligation to secure unalienable rights, beginning with the right to life and including the rights of the natural family. Of course such Americans include a large number of women, found in the ranks of such organizations as Concerned Women for America and Eagle Forum. But as I noted in a recent post, Laura Bush’s remarks during an appearance on the Larry King show last week focused renewed attention on the fact that, starting with Pat Nixon, none of the recent Republican First Ladies has been among them.
This illustrates the great divide between the grassroots voters the GOP relies on for electoral success and a prominent element of the Party’s most influential elite. Beyond this, Mrs. Bush’s remarks are also a fairly representative expression of the logic many people rely on to justify their support for legalizing homosexual marriage.
At first blush, it sounds plausible enough. After all, isn’t love the foundation of marriage? Why should some loving couples enjoy legal recognition and privileges that are denied to others?
But the plausible conviction that loving homosexual couples “ought to have…the same sort of rights that everyone has” immediately runs afoul of the simple fact that homosexuals are not the only loving couples without the legal right to marry. Parents and their children don’t have it. Siblings don’t have it. Children not yet of legal age don’t have it; and so on. In principle, all such people are capable of forming loving, committed relationships. By the logic Mrs. Bush relies on, “they ought to have… the same sort of rights that everyone has.”
(Excerpt) Read more at loyaltoliberty.com ...
so for instance two men like poking each other up the arse and get off doing it then they should have rights ????????????
It’s frigging sick and anyone who supports their agenda is just as sick as those who do this sick stuff to each other
Very very disappointed in the ex-First Lady. More than I can say.
Me,too.I guess some people will do ANYTHING to sell a book...
Expanding civil marriage to gays means expanding government.
Marriage isn’t a fundamental right. You can’t get married to more than one person, you can’t get married to a close family member, you can’t get married when you are underage, and you can’t get married to someone who’s of the same sex.
How hard is this to understand?
I find it strange, and REVEALING, that the homosexual “rights” cause is so prominent.
It just tells me that Satan sees an especially effective
weapon in his battle to destroy Christians.
God’s word is clear. And you have to outright reject God’s Word in order to justify defending it.
it’s amazing how some seem to think that letting two of the same sex get off with each other is equal to a normal couple and that they have ot be admitted into the military , be married buy kids etc when we have so many problems in this country right now
I just don’t get it. Why should ‘sex’ preferences be a part of any legal decrees? I do believe gays should not be pilloried or lynched or harmed. They should have societal equal rights, jobs, vote...on and on.
What if your sexual preference is chimpanzees? Or Trees? Or, how about those guys who buy life size dolls....they actually prefer them.
Where is civilization heading? No answer needed.
I think this issue is so “important” because it can be used to drive Christians who preach God’s Truth underground due to state punishment for doing so.
This is a big Satanic goal, already achieved in Canada.
It’s not, it is simply not PC to say so.
true
I remember an elderly woman on here even saying that she got to know a guy who was homosexual and he just joined the church lately and he was nice and now this old woman has no problem with the homosexual agenda
they are infiltrating churchs, groups they tried the boy scouts, schools etc.
sadly some people fall for their crap but if they want to see their new found friend and who that person really is then they should go there freak parades
“Procreation is one of the natural obligations of humanity. “
Seriously? So my sister and husband who decided at some point to abandon the increasingly expensive process of assisted reproduction to overcome nature-imposed limitations on their ability to reproduce were shirking their moral responsibility?
So my other sister and husband who decided that all things considered—income, temperament, and other social factors—they were not good candidates for being parents, also shirked a moral responsibility?
So any poor couple who for whatever reason is barely able to be self-supporting, much less raise a family without considerable welfare assistance, is committing a morally reprehensible act by electing not to reproduce?
Wow!
By implication, marriage should be off-limits to widows and widowers who are beyond the age of conception, to physically or mentally disabled couples who have no plans to procreate etc. Who knew that in a land of liberty the yoke of social obligations ran so deep? I’m trying to imagine even one Founding Father who would subscribe the principle articulated by this author.
..and it's got a toe-hold here already...with Christian photographers fined for not wanting to take pictures at a lesbian commitment ceremony,and a Baptist Church threatened with losing their tax-exempt status for not renting its facilities for another lesbian ceremony.
I believe that the Catholic Church does not recognize matrimonial union between a couple who do not have the ability to procreate.
She’s made similar comment to abortion, too.
Same sex “marriage” has nothing to do with love. It’s about getting spousal benefits. These benefits were based on a family of working father, dependent wife & children. They were intended to care for widows without job skills or experience.
The Government is getting into the business of “Granting Rights” which means they have the de facto ability to “Take away rights”.
Instead of dealing with Inherent rights by the creator we are sliding into Napoleonic Law.
No... the institution exists because such unions typically do produce children. It’s not to say they must produce children. It’s merely that this is the reason the tradition of marriage came about. Without the need to care for and raise children there would be no purpose for marriage to exist.
The point of marriage is mainly because we are incomplete without a partner of the opposite sex. Man has God’s male traits and woman has God’s female traits. The two together as a unit are the full image of God. We crave naturally to be with “the other.” Homosexuality is unnatural because it only looks for partnership with the same. Children are the natural result of a natural partnership in the image of God.
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.