Skip to comments.Really? Don't limit freedom to marry? We already do -- for a reason --
Posted on 09/22/2012 6:43:58 PM PDT by rhema
On Nov. 6, Minnesota voters will decide whether marriage will be protected in our state Constitution as the union of one man and one woman. Opponents' reason for fundamentally redefining our bedrock social institution appears on yard signs that dot the metro area: "Don't limit the freedom to marry."
Now, Minnesotans are nice folks, and we don't like to think of ourselves as needlessly limiting another's freedom. The truth is, however, we "limit" marriage in a variety of ways. You can't marry your sister or your father. You can't marry a 12-year-old, or two people, or someone who's already married to someone else.
Why do we "limit" the freedom to marry this way? Is it because we harbor a dislike for sisters or 12-year-olds, or for folks who wish to express their love and commitment in groups of three?
Of course not. All social institutions have boundaries, or defining characteristics, that are integrally related to the function they perform. The vital role of marriage -- in all times and places--has been to link men to women and the children produced by their sexual union, in order to create the optimal environment for rearing the next generation.
It's misleading, then, to frame the debate over one-man/one-woman marriage in terms of "limiting" the "freedom" to marry of people in configurations that aren't consistent with the institution's mission. It's like claiming that the color blue is somehow "limited" because it's not the color purple.
The human race's two sexes -- male and female -- have much in common, but they also differ in fundamental ways. In the bearing and rearing of children, men and women complement one another physically, socially and emotionally. Women give birth to babies, and men beget them. Mothers tend to nurture, while fathers tend to encourage risk-taking.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
The slippery slope began with the acceptance of artificial birth control, first for laity, then for clergy *.
* In those denominations having a married prebyteriate, of course.
Polygamy is next.
The same people who argue against homo marriages cannot use the same argument against polygamy.
Just wait and see.....
Strange huh. Gays claim that its all about consenting adults, with is ok until you get to the cases where Moms want to marry adult sons, or grandpas want to marry adult granddaughters, or the brother sister thing. I would suggest drawing the moral/legal line at unrelated men and women, but what do I know. Vote the Bible huh!
I’ve said this from the beginning. If you break down one wall, why not just break them all down? What makes a homosexual so much more entitled than a polygamist, or a zoophile? Shouldn’t they get “marriage equality” too? The reply I usually get is “No, that’s different. Those people aren’t normal”. And I say, “but, 50 years ago, gay people weren’t considered at all normal either. Who’s to say in fifty years we won’t be having polygamy pride rallies?”
Some people are just incapable of looking into the future.
I’ve seen them hinting at polygamy on du lately, the left is ramping that up. Under age will be next. Then parents and their kids will be the last.
It’s already moving that way.
Even in the Bible polygamy was acceptable. But not for everybody.....
I have never understod why anyone would want more than one spouse...........masochists?........
I hope you washed your screen afterwards.......
I don’t think it will be long before two people, a 10 year old girl, and a 25 year old guy stand before a judge and declare their lover for each other. The judge then takes the enthralled-girl aside and she says the same.
...at that point the judge will have NO CHOICE but to approve the marriage.
That’s where this crap leads.
In the past a couple was required to get a blood test and a clean bill of health before they could get a license to marry.
It that still a requirement anywhere or is it viewed as a quaint practice from olden days?
It is a very simple equation:
Marriage=1 man, 1 woman= civilization.
Polygamy, Homo marriage= barbarism.
Not hard to figure out.
Foolish person. Freedom to marry for queers, freaks and perverts includes a wide variety and number of combinations from the animal world including 2 and 4 legged types from inside and outside the food chain.
"I have been saddened when I think of our fellow Americans who are in incredibly committed interspecies relationships, who are building homes together, who are our neighbors and friends and who may be in our military, protecting the country, fighting on our behalf, yet have been constrained because of our bias and discrimination. It is time for us to put aside our antiquated notions and allow all of our citizens to enjoy the freedom to marry the life form they love and cherish."
Would ObamaCare cover electronic repairs?
Discouragement: reading the comments after the article.
More than that, I live amongst these...
Polygamy is a normal form of marriage. It’s a good thing compared to “homo marriage”.
Marriage is the carrot-and-stick to keep procreative couples together (lest the community be stuck with the offspring), which includes compelling the community to recognize and respect that union via providing privileged behavior.
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.