Posted on 03/26/2013 6:45:04 PM PDT by impimp
Is there anything that we can do any more that doesn’t require government license?
I’m surprised all the gay people want to be on some government list identifying them as gay. What’s the worst that could happen?
I am pretty confident that when I get done with you you will have the right opinion.
3. Although I don’t really believe this myself (I’m more of a 1. person for consistent application of a universal definition of the legal term), one way I’ve gotten some gay friends off the issue is to convince them that it isn’t the government’s business what anyone’s sex or sexual orientation is so make it illegal for the government to ask or track those things.
lol
What I do know is that I don't give a flaming sh!t about how the U.S. government or any of its increasingly irrelevant institutions define marriage -- for better or for worse.
I’ve been mulling a third tactic. Somehow attaching homosexuality to polyamory and bestiality, citing all three as being legally equal unorthodox relationships.
This way, if they try to legalize homosexual marriage, it would de facto legalize polygamy and human-animal marriage, which would make it very hard for people to vote for.
I’m not sure how this could be done, but its an interesting concept that could trump even democratic support for homosexual marriage.
The problem with those of the Libertarian bent, folks who have been heavily influenced by Ron Paul and others, who are trying to surrender the fight to defend marriage and the natural family for us, is that they utterly fail to recognize a number of critically important things:
1) The fundamental nature of the marriage bond and its character as the basis for all human civilization, governance and economy.
2) The moral depravity that the homosexual idea represents.
3) The fact that if you give government over to moral depravity you will have destroyed the possibility of republican, constitutional self-government.
Our first President:
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness — these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles.”
— George Washington
Our second President:
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our constitution as a whale goes through a net.”
— John Adams
Our third President:
“No government can continue good but under the control of the people; and . . . . their minds are to be informed by education what is right and what wrong; to be encouraged in habits of virtue and to be deterred from those of vice . . . . These are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure and order of government.”
— Thomas Jefferson
Our fourth President:
“The aim of every political Constitution, is or ought to be first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.”
— James Madison
So I can get 3 Victoria Secret model wives? I’m sure my current wife won’t mind... OUCH!.. dang, just got hit over the head.
You might want to read this "On Christian Marriage" written by Pope Leo XIII back in 1880. Even if you aren't Catholic, it has some good reasoning in it. His primary concern was the impact of the State horning its way into marriage in order to make divorce viable. I sort of have a feeling what he'd have written on the subject in 2013.
I am disappointed the Catholic Church didn’t get together for a big protest. Future generations will ask “Why didn’t the Christians fight harder?
We have a 50% divorce rate. That may make your point, but obviously marriage isn't all that sacred to a lot of people. That's one reason I'd like to see it back to the churches.
2) The moral depravity that the homosexual idea represents.
A lot of things have moral depravity. Should everything immoral be illegal? If so, how is it enforced?
3) The fact that if you give government over to moral depravity you will have destroyed the possibility of republican, constitutional self-government.
Government is at best a necessary evil in and of itself. It has long been given over to moral depravity. How many people have been killed by governments throughout history?
I don’t think that is practical. There are literally tens of millions of government recognized contracts that are already in application that rely on the consistent legal definition of those terms.
There are also, at any moment, thousands of cases before the courts involving said contracts.
Just getting the government out of it would be a legal nightmare and a boom for lawyers redrafting millions of private contracts.
Marriage is a legal term and thus is under the jurisdiction of the government to define for consistent application.
Of course, there is also the Ex Post Facto issue regarding a recognized contract that is no longer recognized.
hahaha
It has been done FOR YOU.
Bravo Mark. Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical on the subject defines marriage and it’s sacramental intentions. It completely ties into its function in a “civilized” and sound society, not to mention the perpetuation of the human race. I concur with you 100%, it is reasonable and sound. And very in line with (God’s Law) the laws of nature.
Happy Easter.
hahaha
Homo marriage is coming. If not now, certainly in the near future. I only hope they get hosed in divorce court like a whole bunch of us heterosexuals have.
If marriage is not defended on every single front, including the national level, the demise of the republic is assured, whether folks will recognize it or not. This particular institution is that fundamental and indispensable.
Strategery? Simple, Simpson. Much of the battle happens in the sphere of the language. D’uh! And it’s something Lenin and his successors knew and applied here in the West. Conservatives seem to be clueless. So, let’s start by using the scientific term for “gaiety”, which is “pederasty”.
Because who is against gaiety? Who would be against choice, against social justice, against Affordable Care (Act)?
I keep repeating: use these euphemisms invented by the Left, and you’ve lost the debate before it started.
It’s pederasty, folks.
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.