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


1 posted on 10/24/2012 11:24:22 AM PDT by rhema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: rhema

Interesting points. But, we’re not allowed to have any such discussions. The liberal homosexual activists have decided that it has to be marriage for.their relationships legal status. Liberal judges agree, such as when the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that that state’s civil union law amounted to discrimination.

If homosexual activists weren’t trying to shove this down our throats through the courts, it would be possible to discuss some of these issues. But they have poisoned the well, labeled all who oppose homosexual marriage as haters, etc. The media does the same. Would be nice to have a civilized discussion of how marriage ought to be defined.


2 posted on 10/24/2012 11:35:28 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rhema

Why does the author put the quotes around “same-sex” instead of “marriage?”


3 posted on 10/24/2012 11:36:45 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rhema

“...In other words, the state legislature would not discriminate against two maiden or widowed sisters who were living together or a mother and a devoted son or daughter who were living together in a platonic relationship. Why should such households and relationships be left behind when legal privileges and recognition are being passed out just because they are not in a sexual relationship?...”

Impossible to refute this logic ~ stellar quote!


4 posted on 10/24/2012 11:37:27 AM PDT by delcopatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rhema

I have a somewhat different suggestion. I would like to see government stay completely out of the marriage business.

My personal view is that marriage is a social issue. For those who believe in God, as I do, marriage is also, and even more significantly, a religious issue.

If two people want to have some sort of personal contract which gives each other various financial and legal rights, that is fine and they can do that with or without marriage.

If two people want to be married in the religious sense, that should be a matter for the couple and their God.

If two people want to be married in the eyes of society, that should be a matter for the couple and their family and friends.

Aside from any legal contracts, the government should butt out.


5 posted on 10/24/2012 11:45:22 AM PDT by generally (Don't be stupid. We have politicians for that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rhema

I have often said that people should be allowed to define their own households. Traditionally people have always done this, grandparents raise grandkids, take in family members or close friends who then become a part of the family. You used to hear of families taking in orphans without a lot of fanfare and raising them as their own. Problems can arise though in the modern era when you are dealing with school issues, medical issues, and the so-forth. I’d be happy to see a legal space for people to define for themselves their own household.

But only marriage is marriage.


6 posted on 10/24/2012 11:50:17 AM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rhema

Call it “Queeriage”.

Problem solved.


10 posted on 10/24/2012 12:21:28 PM PDT by djf (Political Science: Conservatives = govern-ment. Liberals = givin-me-it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rhema

Unfortunately this version if A Modest Proposal might play right into a power-loving governments’ hands: Ultimately if all relationships were considered special then all would be given special treatment (government favor, leading to being beholden to the gov) which is what the ultimate purpose (as in pandering to the Sodomites) has been all along, so as to get as many citizens dependant on gov as possible = job security for gov employees. (Meanwhile the gov goes broke but that has become less and less of a concern as time wears on, isn’t it?) Thus, I am afraid the gov just might like his Modest Proposal and take it up as the next increment in (wrecklessly) empowering themselves!


12 posted on 10/24/2012 12:53:59 PM PDT by Repent and Believe (Never tolerate evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rhema

The author is clueless.

This is just the left wing line.

This is government establishing what is or is not marriage via legislation. Marriage is a common law institution.

society rewards the institution not the individual.

All the contract stuff discussed is law now.

This article is a waste of time.


15 posted on 10/24/2012 1:03:30 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rhema

No one gets “the legal privileges and recognition” that a married man and woman get.

And while we are at it - no abortions, no drugs and no affirmative action.


30 posted on 10/24/2012 2:42:45 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper (Winning is Everything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rhema
Deuteronomy 22:13-28 is pretty specific.

No doubt many Freepers abide these rules.

31 posted on 10/24/2012 2:49:37 PM PDT by GalaxyAB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rhema

I find it curious that “civil union” rules explicitly forbid siblings from forming such unions, even though there may be sound reasons for siblings to join together in a household (e.g. if a brother and sister are widowed, and both have children, it may be better for the children to be raised by a parent and an aunt or uncle, than by a parent alone). If civil unions really weren’t about sex, why should their proponents exclude siblings?


35 posted on 10/24/2012 3:56:09 PM PDT by supercat (Renounce Covetousness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rhema

Guys, there is a cost to being married.

Maybe women don’t think so but men sure do.

In order to compensate for the cost, we used to provide exclusive benefits for traditional marriage. Legal and prestige benefits, mostly. That’s all now blown away, from brutal divorce proceedings, to others wanting in on the benefits.

Now there is almost no incentive to getting married. So why do the gays want in?


36 posted on 10/24/2012 4:12:25 PM PDT by AdSimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rhema
If two men or two women are living together in a relationship and they want to ask the state legislature in their state to grant some of the special legal privileges accorded marriage to their relationship the state legislature should respond in the following fashion: "We will consider your request, but the sexual nature of your relationship will be irrelevant to our discussions because marriage is the only relationship in our society that is defined by its sexual nature. Why should other people who are living in committed relationships that do not involve sexual activity be discriminated against or left out?"

Such response would be light years ahead of the muddle currently in the heads of the legislators, intimidated by homo thugs. However, there is one aspect missing.

True, two or more people should be able to grant one another any rights that they are in possession of. For example, they are automatic inheritance rights, hospital visits, medical care decisions, etc.

It is reasonable that they ask legal equality between various spacific instances of such union. For example, there is no reason to allow a gay couple to mutually granted rights and disallow two widowed sisters the same.

They cannot however demand that the state grants them privileges that the state chooses to grant properly married couples. Examples of such privileges are citizenship, taxation, adoption rights. That is because the heterosexual nature of the marital union is of a special value to the state, since in the event of children being produced or adopted by a married couple, the state has an interest in the children to be raised in a harmonious family, thus relieving the pressure on schools, juvenal law enforcement, etc. The state has no similar interest in non-sexual or homosexual or polygamous unions in the same way.

The demand of non-discrimination is valid between non-marital unions. It is not valid if a non-marital union is compared in privileges to marriage.

41 posted on 10/24/2012 6:32:07 PM PDT by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rhema

Maryland “Freak State” PING!


42 posted on 10/24/2012 6:39:15 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Obama should change his campaign slogan to "Yes, we am!" Sounds as stupid as his administration is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rhema

It should be what your Religion says it is. The government should be no part of it.

I married a woman and will spend the rest of my life with her. This was our choice by our Religious tenets.

We would have done this regardless of government. As it should be.


49 posted on 10/30/2012 4:57:30 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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