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 ...
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.
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.
I am a good person, and I voted against it. That is all I have to say at this time.
That is all you need to say.
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.
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.
Anyone who even thinks it's possible is a moron.
Buggery doesn't lead to pregnancy.
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
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.
Yup, it’s a duty to stand against sin and call sin, sin.
What’s your best example of how this could occur?
It’s either being naive, not thinking it through logically, or using faulty logic.
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.
Anyone who even thinks it's possible is a moron.
Buggery doesn't lead to pregnancy
What does pregnancy have to do with marriage?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.