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

Skip to comments.

Defence of marriage strategy debate (vanity)
26 March 2013 | impimp

Posted on 03/26/2013 6:45:04 PM PDT by impimp

Which approach is better: 1) politicians fight by passing legislation protecting marriage so that it will be defined as between one man and one woman 2) try and remove all references to marriage from Federal laws (I liken this to what the Russians did to their farmland so as to starve and freeze Napolean's army as he marched to Moscow) 3) other


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; marriage; ssm
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last
I am still formulating my opinion on this but I am confident that when I am finished I will have the right opinion.
1 posted on 03/26/2013 6:45:04 PM PDT by impimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 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?


2 posted on 03/26/2013 6:48:32 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: impimp

I am pretty confident that when I get done with you you will have the right opinion.


3 posted on 03/26/2013 6:50:24 PM PDT by bigheadfred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: impimp

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.


4 posted on 03/26/2013 6:50:44 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

lol


5 posted on 03/26/2013 6:51:55 PM PDT by bigheadfred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: impimp
I've always felt that the strongest argument against "gay marriage" is to eliminate any legal references to marriage at all. My rationale is that the government has a well-documented track record of fouling up just about everything it gets its hands on, and marriage has been no different. This is why you have entire subsectors of the legal profession dealing with the numerous cases when "legal" marriages fall apart. If contract law, real estate law, patent law, etc. had that kind of a track record, we'd still be living in the Stone Age.

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.

6 posted on 03/26/2013 6:52:57 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I am the master of my fate ... I am the captain of my soul.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: impimp

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.


7 posted on 03/26/2013 6:53:17 PM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: impimp

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


8 posted on 03/26/2013 6:53:28 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Legislate that down is up if you will, but take my advice, don't jump off cliffs anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon

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.


9 posted on 03/26/2013 6:54:37 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: impimp
Personally, I think government should get out of marriage altogether and leave it back to the churches and communities.
10 posted on 03/26/2013 6:54:40 PM PDT by Darren McCarty (If most people were more than keyboard warriors, we might have won the election)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: impimp
Marriage is a Sacrament. The government (not just the feds, but the states and the locals) has no place involving itself in sacramental issues.

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.

11 posted on 03/26/2013 6:55:17 PM PDT by markomalley (Nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good -- Leo XIII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: impimp

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?


12 posted on 03/26/2013 6:58:44 PM PDT by stevio (God, guns, guts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
1) The fundamental nature of the marriage bond and its character as the basis for all human civilization, governance and economy.

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?

13 posted on 03/26/2013 6:59:07 PM PDT by Darren McCarty (If most people were more than keyboard warriors, we might have won the election)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Darren McCarty

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.


14 posted on 03/26/2013 6:59:18 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon
Somehow attaching homosexuality to polyamory and bestiality, citing all three as being legally equal unorthodox relationships. I’m not sure how this could be done...

hahaha

It has been done FOR YOU.

15 posted on 03/26/2013 7:02:46 PM PDT by bigheadfred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; Borax Queen; Northern Yankee

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.


16 posted on 03/26/2013 7:03:49 PM PDT by kstewskis ("Tolerance is what happens when one loses their principles"..... Fr. A. Saenz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon

Happy Easter.

hahaha


17 posted on 03/26/2013 7:04:44 PM PDT by bigheadfred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

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.


18 posted on 03/26/2013 7:07:11 PM PDT by umgud (2A can't survive dem majorities)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Darren McCarty

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.


19 posted on 03/26/2013 7:07:56 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Legislate that down is up if you will, but take my advice, don't jump off cliffs anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: impimp

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.


20 posted on 03/26/2013 7:08:18 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong! Ice cream is delicious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: umgud

Maybe they can televise Gay Divorce Court. Now that would be funny.


21 posted on 03/26/2013 7:10:35 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: impimp

3. It is not reproductive.....the end.


22 posted on 03/26/2013 7:10:35 PM PDT by spel_grammer_an_punct_polise (Learn three chords and you, too, can be a Rock Star!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: umgud
Homo marriage is coming. If not now, certainly in the near future.

The Left is right now working very hard to create a sense of inevitability. I'm sorry to say it, but with many it looks like they've succeeded.

In fact, this is a war we can easily win, if people will just speak up boldly on behalf of what is right.

23 posted on 03/26/2013 7:11:58 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Legislate that down is up if you will, but take my advice, don't jump off cliffs anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

It is also a war that the courts can decide for generations (e.g. Roe vs. Wade) regardless of public opinion or what is right.


24 posted on 03/26/2013 7:15:24 PM PDT by impimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

In that case, lawyers would love the concept of government withdrawal on the matter - virtually limitless fountain of work.


25 posted on 03/26/2013 7:18:45 PM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: stevio

“Why didn’t the Christians fight harder?

Christians have been fighting for 50 years. We lost prayer in school, we lost abortion, we are losing this...part of the problem is demographic of church (divorce and so on) is like the world. We have slowly become like the world and can hardly fight at all now. Told my pastor today, we are goin to the bottom. Many hate God but he is giving them just what they want. Bad news we are being drug along with them. The only way to fight is you know how and that is not natural for the Christian. So, we have to endure for now and wait for God or for man to look up. I told Pastor this should drive us to our knees....Will it???


26 posted on 03/26/2013 7:32:22 PM PDT by taterjay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: impimp
3:
27 posted on 03/26/2013 7:34:22 PM PDT by GenXteacher (You have chosen dishonor to avoid war; you shall have war also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taterjay

I will add we lose because our Christian leaders in govt have done the betraying. Catholics like Biden, Pelosi, and others do not stand for God at all. how can you win with a stacked deck like that?


28 posted on 03/26/2013 7:38:10 PM PDT by taterjay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GenXteacher

The only way to fight is you know how.

You got it.


29 posted on 03/26/2013 7:38:59 PM PDT by taterjay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: impimp

Well over 6500 years of recorded history and what are humans debating about here in the 21st Century? Marriage and how its defined. Some progress ay?


30 posted on 03/26/2013 7:39:54 PM PDT by tflabo (Truth or Tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

How should the military handle marriage and families, how about immigration?


31 posted on 03/26/2013 8:02:56 PM PDT by ansel12 (" I would not be in the United States Senate if it wasnt for Sarah Palin " Cruz said.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon
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.

Good strategy, although I would exchange incest for bestiality (not personally, but for the argument). Gay marriage proponents argue that the activities between consenting adults are nobody's business, and an animal can't really consent but a relative can.

I had a debate with a young woman years ago about gay marriage. She saw nothing wrong with gay marriage, but when asked about incest she exclaimed, "That's gross!!" I then asked her, "Then we should limit marriage only to those you don't find disgusting?" She, of course, had no reply.

32 posted on 03/26/2013 8:10:00 PM PDT by randog (Tap into America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: randog

You’re correct. Hard to believe she doesn’t find rimming and turd-poking gross.


33 posted on 03/26/2013 8:11:32 PM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: impimp

Not if those charged with checking the courts would do so.


34 posted on 03/26/2013 8:15:14 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Legislate that down is up if you will, but take my advice, don't jump off cliffs anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
"Maybe they can televise Gay Divorce Court. Now that would be funny silly."

Fixed!

35 posted on 03/26/2013 8:38:34 PM PDT by randog (Tap into America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: taterjay

another reason we are losing is because I naively believed that most of the people i call friends and family were christians. They almost all conservative but today on facebook i found out that almost every single one of them support the gay marriage crap. I am shocked! Even the old aunt who quotes the bible almost hourly!!!!! Posts about how those of us who oppose it hide our bigotry behind the bible and the gays have just as much right to marriage as anyone else. I unfriended every one of them which has unfortunately left me without any friends. It has opened my eyes though. we are losing this fight because very few people who call themselves christians actually believe the bible. very few will actually live it, stand up for it, etc. guess i kind of feel a little like lot and his wife right now.


36 posted on 03/26/2013 8:51:44 PM PDT by annelizly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: annelizly

I know the inevitability angle pushed by the media, but we have lost so much ground in a short amount of time. We have gained in the abortion battle, but it has been a very long haul. In this marriage issue though, you are right, look at all the repubs in the past 30 days who are goin the other way. I guess at least all are being exposed for what they believe. you and me included. I did see protest in France opposing the pederasts. So, we musn’t lose hope. What we know is this is not the endgame for the pederasts. It is only the beginning so we have to fight to the end. It may get very lonely for us, but we must stand for good and right.


37 posted on 03/26/2013 9:13:22 PM PDT by taterjay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: taterjay

By the way, my daughter (grown and married) is being called a bigot on the FB as we speak. Was not even talking about the pederasts but person veered into it and began the namecalling.


38 posted on 03/26/2013 9:26:04 PM PDT by taterjay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: impimp
I am still formulating my opinion on this but I am confident that when I am finished I will have the right opinion.

Sorry, but I'm never one to run away from a fight, especially when it involves one's morals and principles.

IF you remove the references to marriage in the legal code, you have ceded the battle to the evil among us and given them a victory at some level.

Never back down from evil, never.
39 posted on 03/26/2013 9:38:35 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: impimp

Maybe we should stop talking about dividing mairrage between sexual preference....

...and start talking about dividing mairrage on sexual actuality.


40 posted on 03/26/2013 9:42:39 PM PDT by teppe (... for my God ... for my Family ... for my Country ....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
1. I'm not sure exactly why the military needs to "handle" anything related to marriage at all.

2. Immigration cases can be treated on a case-by-case basis without any regard for "marriage" under the law. Whether two people are immigrating as a "married couple" or as two individual adults doesn't necessarily make much of a difference, does it?

41 posted on 03/27/2013 3:21:40 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I am the master of my fate ... I am the captain of my soul.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
I hate to break this to you, but I would make the case that the battle was lost to the evil among us the moment the legal code was allowed to take root in an institution where the state has no business at all. That's the basis of the previous comments on this thread related to Pope Leo XIII and his document related to the sanctity of marriage.

In a secular social order, nothing that comes under the purview of the state can ever have any "sanctity" -- by definition. It's an abomination to suggest that a sacramental relationship such as marriage can ever be subject to the whims of a legal process involving a "license" of some kind.

I think it's no coincidence that the people I know with the strongest religious inclinations are also the ones who seem to be the least concerned about this whole "gay marriage" issue. It's not that they've surrendered in any way on the issue, either. It's just that -- like me -- they never gave a damn about what any government says about the institution of marriage.

42 posted on 03/27/2013 3:28:38 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I am the master of my fate ... I am the captain of my soul.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Amen Mark!

I think if more people approached Marriage as a Sacrament we'd be much better off as a society. You are absolutley right, once the govt. gets involved it muddies the waters and anything is possible in regards to marriage.

43 posted on 03/27/2013 3:54:19 AM PDT by Northern Yankee (Where Liberty dwells, there is my Country. - Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: annelizly
.. but today on facebook i found out that almost every single one of them support the gay marriage crap.

Heck, I saw a lot of people from here I'm connected w/ on FB posting the red equal sign yesterday. People want to be accepted and go along with the crowd.

44 posted on 03/27/2013 5:29:25 AM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: taterjay

I agree. Our earthly bodies want to engage in the physical fight, but this is a spiritual battle. We must continue with prayer. God bless.


45 posted on 03/27/2013 8:20:03 AM PDT by stevio (God, guns, guts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
1. I'm not sure exactly why the military needs to "handle" anything related to marriage at all. 2. Immigration cases can be treated on a case-by-case basis without any regard for "marriage" under the law. Whether two people are immigrating as a "married couple" or as two individual adults doesn't necessarily make much of a difference, does it?

Goofy and silly, you don't think that the military has to deal with marriage and families?

You think that immigration doesn't need to deal with married people and families?

46 posted on 03/27/2013 9:12:39 AM PDT by ansel12 (" I would not be in the United States Senate if it wasnt for Sarah Palin " Cruz said.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child; markomalley; SoConPubbie

That Pope had nothing to say about marriage in America in the 1880s, for one thing the federal government had already taken a stand against a Pope’s position on marriage when it moved against the Prophet and Pope of the Mormons and took a stand against polygamy in the 1860s.


47 posted on 03/27/2013 9:17:01 AM PDT by ansel12 (" I would not be in the United States Senate if it wasnt for Sarah Palin " Cruz said.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: annelizly

The Bible says it will be like the days of Noah. Noah kept preparing, all the while he had to watch the world as it kept on sinning worse and worse. He watched all this and kept preparing as God said to do. Those times come in life, yes we can still preach or give guidance, but if people do not want to listen, what else can you do? Romans also says God gives people over to their desires; He gives them what they want. How can we stop that?


48 posted on 03/27/2013 10:16:14 AM PDT by taterjay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
The military only has to deal with families because we have a large standing military that has no place in the U.S. Constitution. There would be no need for any military involvement in families with true "citizen-soldiers" serving as the backbone of our military.

And for immigrants, the only question relates to preferential treatment of married couples under immigration law. Eliminate that provision -- along with all the "anchor baby" nonsense -- and the whole issue goes away.

49 posted on 03/27/2013 3:49:01 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I am the master of my fate ... I am the captain of my soul.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
"The military only has to deal with families because we have a large standing military that has no place in the U.S. Constitution."
"And for immigrants, the only question relates to preferential treatment of married couples under immigration law."

Both are ridiculous, wives and families have always had to be dealt with in the military, what do you think a military career consists of, waiting until you retire to marry? No pensions or considerations for your spouse if you die? No housing for you and your wife no matter where you live, no pay considerations for your spouse when you are stationed in various places on the globe?

Immigrants are just individuals? Not married or unmarried?

50 posted on 03/27/2013 4:06:21 PM PDT by ansel12 (" I would not be in the United States Senate if it wasnt for Sarah Palin " Cruz said.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

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