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

Skip to comments.

Why A Good Person Can Vote Against Same-Sex Marriage
NRO ^ | 30 October 2012 | Dennis Prager

Posted on 11/06/2012 1:08:41 PM PST by zeestephen

To argue that opposition to same-sex marriage is immoral is to argue that every moral thinker, and every religion and social movement in the history of mankind prior to the last 20 years in America and Europe was immoral.

(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: dennnisprager; prager; samesexmarriage

1 posted on 11/06/2012 1:08:44 PM PST by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: zeestephen

NR has fallen a LONG time ago.

The fact that the question is worded that way, as if the general assumption would be the reverse, shows that the NR writers are too influenced by the Eastern Establishment mindset.


2 posted on 11/06/2012 1:10:57 PM PST by Dr. Sivana (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen

I used a similar argument on my libtard sister this summer;
1. 57% of the American population suffers from a “phobia” that has not been clinically identified or diagnosed.
2. 57% of America is full of “hate”.
3. She voted for Obama when he opposed gay “marriage (and there for “hated” gays), but now that he’s for gay “marriage”, she’s equally OK with him.

The left has overplayed their hand on this one.


3 posted on 11/06/2012 1:11:41 PM PST by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen

I am a good person, and I voted against it. That is all I have to say at this time.


4 posted on 11/06/2012 1:13:41 PM PST by theelephantway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: theelephantway

That is all you need to say.


5 posted on 11/06/2012 1:14:57 PM PST by edcoil (It is not over until I win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen

Actually it is immoral to support gay marriage. Since the bible says that gay relationships are a sin, then it is moral to oppose a sin. So being against the sin (gay marriage) would be moral.


6 posted on 11/06/2012 1:16:04 PM PST by History Repeats (sic transit gloria mundi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen

I supose a good person could also possibly be for same-sex marriage. Thus far the possibility is entirely theoretical for me, since I have yet to encounter any practical examples.


7 posted on 11/06/2012 1:16:09 PM PST by Gil4 (Progressives - Trying to repeal the Law of Supply and Demand since 1848)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen
Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron.

Anyone who even thinks it's possible is a moron.

Buggery doesn't lead to pregnancy.

8 posted on 11/06/2012 1:18:08 PM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen
Stupid—”same sex marriage” is the same as “bicycle bulldozer spaceflight” there just ain’t no such animal and only the Almighty can bend reality that wild.
9 posted on 11/06/2012 1:19:46 PM PST by Happy Rain ("Remember the Benghazi 4")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen
A better title would be, "Can a sane person vote for something called "same sex marriage."

The very concept shows an inability to grasp either the social, moral or biological significance of marriage. It is not about making a statement that you are angry at reality. It is all about sanctifying the family & the reproductive function.

William Flax

10 posted on 11/06/2012 1:21:54 PM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Happy Rain
...—”same sex marriage” is the same as “bicycle bulldozer spaceflight” there just ain’t no such animal...

Precisely.

In addition to the moral question, should the very definition of the words that make up our language be up for negotiation?

Think about laws which are dependent on the word "marriage" or its variations. Was that law intended to apply as it would with a re-definied "marriage"? When the meaning of a law is changed ex post facto in such a way, how can that law ever be justly and impartially applied?

Where would it stop? Could we then go on to change the meanings of words such as "jury", "guilty" or "confess"?

There are HUGE consequences hanging in the balance of this issue. The word "marriage" means something. It should mean the same thing now as it has for thousands of years. To re-define such a critical and basic word would create a profound shock to much more than people's sense of decency.

Besides, it's just gross.

Eww.

11 posted on 11/06/2012 1:33:42 PM PST by TChris ("Hello", the politician lied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: History Repeats

Yup, it’s a duty to stand against sin and call sin, sin.


12 posted on 11/06/2012 1:39:25 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Gil4

What’s your best example of how this could occur?

It’s either being naive, not thinking it through logically, or using faulty logic.


13 posted on 11/06/2012 1:41:11 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: theelephantway
The fact that "same-sex marriage" is now viewed as normal and people (like myself) who view marriage as between one man and one woman are viewed as hateful and "extreme", shows how far our culture has sunk.

I am a traditonalist and I live a very conservative lifestyle (married to the same man for 31 years). I believe that words mean something. The word marriage means something, and that something is not two men having anal sex. Marriage is not just the best situation for men, women and children; but, it is also a very stabilizing force within the larger community.

14 posted on 11/06/2012 1:44:52 PM PST by LibertarianLiz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard
Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron.

Anyone who even thinks it's possible is a moron.

Buggery doesn't lead to pregnancy

What does pregnancy have to do with marriage?

15 posted on 11/06/2012 1:45:06 PM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen; windcliff; stylecouncilor

Classical marriage fosters stability of progeny and familial orientation through and across succeeding generations. Only one male and one female in a marital setting can direct these ends, Thus no other combination thereof should have any claim whatsoever on this unique societal institution.


16 posted on 11/06/2012 1:45:14 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ksen
Marriage exists and was established by God for the purpose of procreating and properly raising children in a stable environment with a father and a mother. The connection between children and pregnancy should be obvious ... Contrary to the falsehoods promulgated by leftists and perverts, the State did not invent marriage.

A relationship which by nature cannot produce children, as between two men, or two women, or between a human and an animal, cannot be a marriage.

17 posted on 11/06/2012 1:51:11 PM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard
Marriage exists and was established by God for the purpose of procreating and properly raising children in a stable environment with a father and a mother. The connection between children and pregnancy should be obvious ... Contrary to the falsehoods promulgated by leftists and perverts, the State did not invent marriage.

A relationship which by nature cannot produce children, as between two men, or two women, or between a human and an animal, cannot be a marriage.

Congratulations, you just nullified thousands of marriages between men and women where one or both partners are sterile.

18 posted on 11/06/2012 1:59:33 PM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard

I don’t care what % of what % thinks!
So now your moral compass is determined by popular vote?
Talk about insanity!!!!!!!!!
Not in this mellenimun.


19 posted on 11/06/2012 2:00:44 PM PST by Conserev1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana
NR has fallen a LONG time ago.

I cancelled my subscription during the 2008 election, when every cover illustration on NR for months and months prior to the election was of Obama. They were so fascinated with the guy, they were giving him free publicity!

20 posted on 11/06/2012 2:04:00 PM PST by Albion Wilde (If God can send millions of ordinary folks to preserve a chicken store, He can fix this mess.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ksen
Congratulations, you just nullified thousands of marriages

You could not possibly be more wrong if you were actually trying to be wrong. And you are completely and utterly wrong.

A man is a man. A woman is a woman.

A man or woman who by injury, illness, age, or defect is sterile is still a man or a woman.

The sexual union of a man and a woman, considered in the abstract, is capable of producing children. It is therefore, in the abstract, the substance of which marriage is made.

Physical gratification conducted between two men, or between two women, or between a human and an animal, cannot EVER by its very nature produce children. Relationships based on such actions, therefore, are not the substance of which marriage is made.

Your argument confuses substance (man, woman) and accident (sterility due to age, injury, illness, or defect). Such confusion is quite common in this miseducated age.

21 posted on 11/06/2012 2:08:41 PM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen
Why A Good Person Can Vote Against Same-Sex Marriage

I've seen this headline posted on NRO all week and it's bugged me every time I've seen it. This is NOT in question! The question should be 'Can a good person vote FOR Same Sex Marriage?" and the answer is a resounding NO!

22 posted on 11/06/2012 2:17:45 PM PST by pgkdan (A vote for anyone but Romney is a vote for obama. GO MITT!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ksen

“Congratulations, you just nullified thousands of marriages between men and women where one or both partners are sterile.”

I assume you’re being facetious, but what a profoundly ignorant statement. Firstly, the other poster referred to a relationship which we know cannot produce children. Maybe certain heterosexual couples can’t produce children either, but unless they knew and told us we wouldn’t know. We’re not willing as a society—either through modesty, concern for privacy, or not thinking it necessary—to find out before we let then get married. Although, if one side kept sterility from the other it is grounds for annulment.

Law have varying levels of specificity, however no e of them are designed for each specific case. It is hardly necessary that all married couples produce offspring for marriage to be about children. It is generally about the next generation, and overlooks particular deviant cases.

This is true of all manner of laws. For instance, many 17 year olds, or even 13 year olds, are maturer than 18 year olds. Many 14 year olds are probably better drivers than 16 year olds. Does that mean age of majority laws and driving age laws aren’t really about maturity or driving ability? Of course not. The laws chooses not willy-nilly, but somewhat arbitrarily. There’s no way not to choose arbitrarily, for there is no universal age of sufficient maturity to be an adult, though there are biological norms giving a rough estimate of when your brain reaches full development. Laws can be somewhat arbitrary, in that they are for the general case, not every specific instance. Infertile couples can be married in the same sense that immature 18 year olds can be adults.

If marriage isn’t about kids but rather about sex and lifelong companionship,first if all it’s some huge coincidence that all through human history only the sort of couples who can biologically reproduce have been married. More importantly, I don’t see compelling state interest in regulating it. Why do childless couples need special legal status or to be bound with one another? Let them come and go, I say. Then the solution would be to have no marriage, not to let gays in on it. As it is most of us see a compelling state interest in ensuring a stable early life for the next generation, and therefore support special status for heterosexual couples who so opt.


23 posted on 11/06/2012 3:01:07 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen

Two Words: Sodom and Gamorah


24 posted on 11/06/2012 3:04:18 PM PST by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard

Hmmmm, maybe you should learn how to communicate more clearly since you said the only valid reason for marriage was to have children.


25 posted on 11/06/2012 3:07:15 PM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
As it is most of us see a compelling state interest in ensuring a stable early life for the next generation, and therefore support special status for heterosexual couples who so opt.

Cool, then by your logic here:

This is true of all manner of laws. For instance, many 17 year olds, or even 13 year olds, are maturer than 18 year olds. Many 14 year olds are probably better drivers than 16 year olds. Does that mean age of majority laws and driving age laws aren’t really about maturity or driving ability? Of course not. The laws chooses not willy-nilly, but somewhat arbitrarily. There’s no way not to choose arbitrarily, for there is no universal age of sufficient maturity to be an adult, though there are biological norms giving a rough estimate of when your brain reaches full development. Laws can be somewhat arbitrary, in that they are for the general case, not every specific instance. Infertile couples can be married in the same sense that immature 18 year olds can be adults.

It is entirely reasonable to allow same-sex couples to marry since they are perfectly capable of providing a stable, loving home to children that need one.

26 posted on 11/06/2012 3:14:56 PM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ksen
Hmmm ... maybe you should learn how to read for comprehension since I absolutely DID NOT say that the ONLY valid reason for marriage was to have children.

I did say:

Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron.
Anyone who even thinks it's possible is a moron.
Buggery doesn't lead to pregnancy.

I then said:

Marriage exists and was established by God for the purpose of procreating and properly raising children in a stable environment with a father and a mother. The connection between children and pregnancy should be obvious ... Contrary to the falsehoods promulgated by leftists and perverts, the State did not invent marriage.
A relationship which by nature cannot produce children, as between two men, or two women, or between a human and an animal, cannot be a marriage.

Finally, I said:

You could not possibly be more wrong if you were actually trying to be wrong. And you are completely and utterly wrong.
A man is a man. A woman is a woman.
A man or woman who by injury, illness, age, or defect is sterile is still a man or a woman.
The sexual union of a man and a woman, considered in the abstract, is capable of producing children. It is therefore, in the abstract, the substance of which marriage is made.
Physical gratification conducted between two men, or between two women, or between a human and an animal, cannot EVER by its very nature produce children. Relationships based on such actions, therefore, are not the substance of which marriage is made.
Your argument confuses substance (man, woman) and accident (sterility due to age, injury, illness, or defect). Such confusion is quite common in this miseducated age.

The only way I see to reach your interpretation of my comments is to add the word "only" to my comment that "Marriage exists and was established by God for the purpose of ..." At no point did I say that He established marriage solely for that purpose.

In any case, I hope you are in agreement that "homosexual marriage" is a pure impossibility.

27 posted on 11/06/2012 3:35:22 PM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ksen; Tublecane
same-sex couples to marry since they are perfectly capable of providing a stable, loving home to children that need one.

Again, and at the risk of belaboring the point:

Two women, or two men, or a human and an animal, CANNOT produce a child. Buggery does not lead to pregnancy.

Two men, or two women, or a human and an animal, CANNOT provide a child with a stable family containing a father and a mother.

A homosexual relationship, or a beastial relationship, CANNOT by its nature, be the substance of which marriage is made.

28 posted on 11/06/2012 3:40:05 PM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ksen

“It is entirely reasonable to allow same sex couples to marry since they are perfectly capable of providing a stable, loving home to children that need one”

Gay couples can raise a child, but heterosexual couples will have kids in and out of wedlock. Where do you think most if the kids gays adopt come from. There is a compelling state interest in binding reproducers on wedlock because it addresses the problem of illegitimacy. There is no illegitimacy springing from gay coupling, and therefore no problem to address.

Adoption authorities can set their own standards, and I’m sure they screen for fidelity and farsightedness in gay couples. To propose marriage as a solution to doubt over whether the gay couples who have cleared all other hurdles will stay together at least until the child is 18 seems unreasonable to me. That’s like offering as solution to the chance a 14 year old is as good a driver or better than any 16 year old annual tests from 14 to 16, or maybe even earlier, just in case any good drivers are left cold by the law.

It’s not compelling, is the point. It’d be like killing a gnat with a cannon. Again, gays might be able to raise a kid, but heterosexuals will have children. The state’s interest is in those people, the ones responsible, being responsible. Many, many, many less gays will ever adopt or ever would adopt than boys and girls who make babies.


29 posted on 11/06/2012 5:00:04 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ksen

Bearing and raising children is not the only valid reason to get married. Whatever is the state’s sufficient reason for establishing the institution, once it exists qualifying couples can enter into bondage for any old reason. Whether or not their particular reason’s justify the state’s interests hardly matters. Unless childlessness overtakes a majority of marriages, or grows to cover some sufficient number to sever the connection between child rearing and marriage.

Even then we might want to keep it, since whatever most marrieds do boys and girls will still be popping out kiddies, and we’ll still want to encourage them to bind themselves together.


30 posted on 11/06/2012 5:26:20 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

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.

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