Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: JohnD9207

Their argument is all about “tolerance,” which is just as valid an argument to apply to incestuous relationships. And if they say incestuous relationships can have the negative effect of producing unhealthy children, ask them if homosexual incestuous marriages should be allowed then, where children can’t happen.

Marriage can’t be an example to children of how to live their lives if it’s changed to mean anything at all. How will you promote the idea of a man and a woman marrying each other and having children if marriage isn’t limited to that anymore? Changing the definition of marriage means you are saying society is not allowed to reward any different benefits or privileges or simply encourage a man and a woman who get married and have children. If you do that, you’re guilty of discrimination.


31 posted on 09/23/2012 1:22:46 AM PDT by JediJones (KARL ROVE: "And remember, this year, no one is seriously talking about ending abortion.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: JediJones

Very Good, and Thanks...great words.


35 posted on 09/23/2012 8:27:46 AM PDT by JohnD9207 (Mitt better grow a pair or this thing will be over soon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson