Posted on 08/11/2010 9:01:11 AM PDT by Starman417
States across the country are in the midst of debating the idea of changing the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Five states have legalized the practice through legislative or judicial action, but despite thirty-one attempts, not a single time has a majority of citizens of a state approved such a change. Not that this is an argument for majority rule. It’s not. Every state has a republican form of government and should be governed by the rule of law rather than man. Nonetheless, at some point government is accountable to the people and constitutional change is often how citizens make their feelings felt. Thirty states, including California, have amended their constitutions to explicitly state that marriage is to be considered between one man and one woman. This week a federal judge in San Francisco threw much of that into the air. Ted Olson argued that the court is merely protecting the right to marriage, a right the court has addressed 14 times since 1888. I have to disagree with Mr. Olson and Judge Walker. This is not just like Loving v. Virginia, which did away with barriers to interracial marriage. Race is not sex. This is not opening up marriage to just another group who had been arbitrarily excluded. Men and woman are fundamentally different and marriage has always been understood to be a union between a man and a woman, not just two people.
If we step away from thousands of years of western tradition, if we take that first step in changing the definition from one man and one woman, where does that road lead? Where do we stop? It’s the slippery slope problem. Sure, today we are arguing about two people of the same sex, but why could we not just as easily argue for one man and two women or three men or three women? Could we not use the same rationale to allow a salesman who lives in Miami but works in Charlotte to have a wife and children in Florida and another family in North Carolina? And what if his Charlotte wife wanted to have a second husband from across town for the weekends when her salesman husband is down in Florida? Who says a person can’t be committed to two different people simultaneously? In 1887 Utah was forced to outlaw polygamy as the price of admission into the United States because it was understood that marriage was between one man and one woman. Will the state now have the opportunity to amend its constitution to bring back the practice? Once we change the definition the permutations could be endless. What about children? It was not so long ago that the marriage of children for political or dowry reasons was not uncommon. Do we want to go back there and allow 12 & 13 year old children to be married and traded for family favors or for “love”? Is not the age of consent arbitrary?
Read more at floppingaces.net...
Uh, NOPE, duh.
We already have. Just look at the Divorce rate.
The divorce rate is not correctly tabulated.
You have serial divorcers.
You also do not have an accounting for re-marriage to the same person.
When you factor the latter in the divorce rate drops to the 30+% range.
The article is false.
The supermajority of states have already voted no.
There is no debate, the supermajority of the country does not want to redefine marriage. case closed.
I know I don’t want marriage redefined. In fact, with the “no fault” divorce laws and more couples living together than getting married (at least the last time I saw a study on such a thing), marriage has already been “redefined” to be nothing more than a fling.
That is still very high, especially if most of those are due to "irreconcilable differences."
This is a left-wing and homosexual movement to undermine the family and bring acceptance to a perverted lifestyle that should be banned in public. Sodomy was once a crime and should be so again mostly based on common sense disease control.
Where does the road lead?
The road leads to the appeals of various other interest groups who can claim consent in their relationships. Polygamy already has a movement for its recognition in progress. Google words “polygamy” and “Jonathan Turley” to find a lawyer who has already argued polygamy be legal to the courts. If lawyers are jumping on the legalization bandwagon, it’s not neccessarily too long before a moral issues legality can change.
Regardless, when the divorce laws were eased you redefined marriage from a permanent union of a man and a woman to a union of convenience, expected to last only until someone better came along. The Biblical command that what God had joined let no man put asunder was tossed right into the dumpster. The traditional concept of marriage got pitched at the same time.
Thanks for mentioning the serial divorce cases. I had never considered that factor into the claim that 50% end in divorce. It makes the picture look a little better to recognize that.
My gut tells me we will see the day where homosexual marriages will be the law of the land and yes, there will be unintended ramifications such as polygamy.
This will happen because the homo lobby keeps on pushing.....push, push, push, all with a lot of support from the left, MSM, Hollywood, Academia, etc.
But this won’t be enough. The homo activists will target churches, who will likely lose their tax-exempt status for not marrying the homo’s.
Once we drive down that slope, there will be a lot more than just Tea Parties who are mad as hell.
I am not interested in your sex life. I am referring to male homosexual behavior—rimming, felching, and other activities that often result in fecal ingestion, a material teeming infectious agents introduced to a different part of the GI tract. There is a very clear reason that male homosexuals are the #1 vector for the spread of infectious diseases. See below for a statement I wrote a week or so ago and realize that the marketing of homosexuals we see from hollywood is not based in reality.
We have watched the feminization of the country. Next, we will have the homosexualization of same, but at a much more rapid and forceful pace. Clearly, fear is not the issue with normal people; the word is disgust with deviant behavior whether it pertains to sex with children, animals, or the dead. This sickness grows more bold in demanding that others, not just accept, but exalt said behavior as normal. If there is any concern with public health, then let it be restated that male homosexuals are the #1 vector for the spread of infectious diseases among humans and are an unnecessary public health threat costing the system billions. Male homosexuals have the highest incidence of HIV/AIDS, syphilis, drug-resistant gonorrhea, entamoeba histolytica, chlamydia, herpes simplex II, Chancroid, Drug Resistant TB, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis non A & B, just to name a few. Hollywood and the press, of course, never discuss the CDC facts, but if you want to look for yourself the information is in the scientific literature. I don’t want to pay expenses for smokers either, but at least they don’t spread infectious agents. There is a notable homosexual group, consisting of thousands of members and tens of thousands more underground, known as the North American Man and Boy Love Association ( NAMBLA). This is a group of male child/boy molesters whose cry is “SEX BEFORE 8 BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE.” This group has been welcomed to most major homosexual parades across the United States. Homosexuals commit more than 40% of all reported child molestations in the United States, which, assuming homosexuals make up 2% of the population, means that 1 in 19 homosexuals is a child molester.
Right honey?
Egad....TMI! TMI!
Curious use of defining a group who has legitimate rights associated with an being an illegitimate [group.]
Sexual preference always disturbs me as being worthy of even being described as group who deserve special rights.
Why aren’t horse race gamblers a special group from dog race gamblers then? Shouldn’t they get special rights too?
And then there is their argument about being discriminated against like a minority group or women, which is baloney as one can clearly tell are different by merely looking at them. The same is not true with a homosexual/s so how do they qualify as a legitimate group singled out for discrimination again when they ARE a group within every group???
One cannot tell a homo unless they tell you or you ask, so again, a phony farce of an argument by the homos.
The whole argument of Homo’s deserving special rights is a farce when you break down their own arguments.
Look, I don’t even know what “felching” is and won’t bother looking it up. I’ll trust that you know about it enough to want to outlaw it. My question isn’t how gross something is, but how in the world you’d monitor such things.
“Sodomy” is clearly - and has always been - defined as non procreative sex. Many hundreds of millions of consenting heterosexual adults engage in sodomy. Not the kind you have mentioned, but perhaps safer and more benign types.
For me to suggest that “outlawing sodomy” isn’t perhaps the best strategy does not, in any way, somehow condone the lunacy of NAMBLA.
and besides, who the heck would even WANT such a job?! Eessh.
What was it 60 years ago? Exactly.
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.