Posted on 04/17/2015 10:23:05 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
This whole "gay" marriage thing is really about the destruction of marriage as a bedrock institution of our society. The polygymists are next. Group "marriages", hey, why not.
If the meaning of marriage is what the popular culture of the moment says it is, then it means nothing. Once redefined, it will be redefined again and again, removing all meaning from the word marriage.
Logic on which to hang your hat.
Thanks for posting this article.
I found it while looking for something else entirely, which happens more and more these days.
Separate the two and it all becomes clear. Marriage should not be reachable by the government because its love and religious qualities are outside the evaluative powers of government by definition.
Marriage should also not be termed alone, but in reference to the spiritual tradition, religion or church from which it is derived in each case. This is true anyway - religions don't generally accept marriages outside of their own tradition.
Then, as a separate event, people should have to file a separate petition for civil union with the government that is never called "marriage."
” If the meaning of marriage is what the popular culture of the moment says it is, then it means nothing. Once redefined, it will be redefined again and again, removing all meaning from the word marriage. “
There is already a 44 year old man who wants to marry his 18 year old daughter (not his by blood, but by marriage)
There already exists a standard definition of “marriage” that withstands all the tests of time, tradition, and biology. If that definition is to be changed, something radically different has to have emerged about human nature to justify the change. Yet the homo community has demonstrated no compelling reason to redefine such a cornerstone institution except their own caprice.
I propose that they have failed to meet their burden of proof, and that that alone is justification for leaving the definition of marriage as it is, and as it has been for centuries.
The author is quite the intellectual. But he is not smart enough to understand that “gay marriage” in Massachusetts was not instituted by the Supreme Judicial Court, but by Mitt Romney, the “Republican” governor.
Not to excuse Mitt, but I think it’s reasonable to assume that we would have gay “marriage” in MA - regardless of who was the Gov for that state...
Something like this was proposed 50-some years ago by C. S. Lewis who was commenting on the deteriorating state of marriage in England in the mid 20th century. There would be church marriages and government “marriages.”
I’m looking at how well the government has lately been serving as a steward of the institution of marriage, even if all the “gay marriage” stuff could be subtracted out of the picture. And the record is atrocious. While stuff like this grabs the limelight, we hear less about things like how (only some?) states now ban married couples from sex if one is also suffering from dementia — because that partner can’t “choose” in real time.
I’d likely get aboard a “divorce government from marriage” bandwagon. If the government really should get out of the bedroom, don’t be all special-case about it. Just. Do. It.
Mitt rolled over, BUT there had to be something to roll over TO.
It could be said that it will become a reductio ad absurdam with tragic consequences for families well beyond what they are now — and some lying cabal of professors will take an oath and deny it in open court.
The traditions of old Just Are Not Respected Any More.
Have you never heard of the term "marriage license". That is what this whole thing is about.
Should "marriage licenses" be granted to same sex couples, or father/daughter - Father/Son - Mother/Daughter - Uncle/Niece - Multiple Couples....
The answer is NO!
And it is clearly not up to a bunch of unelected and unaccountable justices who are all suffering from Alzheimers disease to make the decision for the whole of the country.
Marriage has both a traditional and legal definition. If you separate one from the other, then marriage has no meaning at all.
Frankly, polygamy is a far less serious challenge to the social structure, than making a mockery of family formation in relation to procreation. Solomon having multiple wives did not undermine the concept of marriage in the Old Testament. The present effort to divorce "marriage" from biological reality--i.e., who is able to procreate; why is humanity divided into two sexes, etc..--can surely undermine the social fabric.
Everyone reading this was once an adolescent. Did not most of those with whom you grew up, not have at least a major focus, in high school, on an effort to idealize a pursuit, or the invitation to a pursuit at the very minimum, for finding a mate from the opposite sex? The theme is basic, in some form, in most of the literature people read for recreation. It permeates the movies--even those produced by "artists," who themselves eschew traditional sex roles. The pursuit of sexual role adequacy & decent child rearing, inspire much of what ennobles individuals, through the generations.
The writer raises questions about allowing couples over what used to be referred to as "the age of hope," from marrying. But that is answered by the idea of giving anyone the benefit of the doubt--a benefit growing out of the report of the incredibly late in life birth to Sarah in Genesis. Of course, the ACLU might not like the concept, but earlier generations of the Western peoples considered the Bible a guide to what was morally acceptable. Like it or not, the concept of marriage has always been inextricably linked to family formation, via a sanctification of a properly mated--that is a naturally mated--couple's union.
What was this word you were putting in Tali’s mouth? Out with it BOY.
Divorce government and marriage.
Not only benefit of the doubt per the bible, but also establishment of a pattern. The couple is not bidden to divorce once they are past even medically proven childbirth years. And yes, Grandma and Grandpa can still “have sex.”
And getting backing for the bible means getting backing for God. It’s vain to complain that those who treat God as a passing acquaintance are doing a lousy job of sticking to the bible. The spiritual power to care about bible norms is not being had by those people and no, it cannot be ginned up on one’s lonesome.
From a worldly point of view, I would even say, if you think the bible is a great book to base a society on, then encourage every kind of evangelism you can in that society. “High minds” like Tom Jeff were only able to keep it up because there were so many Christian witnesses around them. Take those witnesses away and suddenly the “high minds” are wondering why they were bothering with that book.
Exactly.
If homosexuals are worried about legal status they should form legal partnerships. They can involves as many deviants as they want and amend it at any time to suit their fetishes.
“The justices have made their decision. Now let them enforce it.” — Andrew Jackson
Why not just surrender the whole issue to the perverts?
Just cave in on the culture wars. That's the ticket.
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.