Posted on 05/11/2015 11:31:21 AM PDT by servo1969
“Your actual reasons for refusal is between you and God.”
Is it? Whatever happened to “don’t hide your light under a bushel”? Or “whoever denies me before men I will deny before the Father”?
I would LOVE to bake that cake BUT it would offend Muslims. LOL Rush rules...
IOW - those who can’t “do”, teach...
Rush thinks childbearing is optional in marriage. He is perfectly fine with the notion of entering into marriage with the intention of never having a child. The main thing is mutual attraction and sexual satisfaction. Those are the basis of the argument for gay marriage.
Rush’s disordered view of marriage is well within the American mainstream, which makes it inevitable that this country will not — cannot — see anything wrong with same sex marriage.
Unfortunately, in today's world, you're punished for being principled and honest.
God bless you, I am in total agreement.
Yeah, and just think of all those people who fake it - year after year of marriage, and those stinking liars still never have even one child. And don't even start about whether the bride is an actual virgin! Stinking whores everywhere, I tellya.
Nope, we need to bring back accountability. Publicly documented sex on the wedding day, hang the bloody sheet out the window to prove virginity, and definitely forced coupling under supervision until pregnancy is confirmed. Otherwise what do you have? Marriage based on so-called "love" instead of the God-required stock breeding that provides all the morality the world will ever need, and none of the moral corruption we see all around us.
Its about time things were set right again, says I.
These days you can believe just about anything and still call yourself conservative.
You’re playing for the other team and don’t even know it.
I still prefer the following sign,
“We gladly cater to gay ceremonies. All proceeds will be cheerfully donated to Ted Cruz for President.”
I’d go with - “No hablo inglés!”
Yes. I’m called to be honest and honorable and principled, not clever.
I’ve always been honest. If I did something wrong, I fessed up to it and took the punishment. Sometimes it sucks having a conscience.
Rush rules is right. “Personally, I have nothing against it. But those radical Muslims might cut my head off.”
Really? I thought I agreed with you. Is there something in particular I got wrong?
And that word - "conservative." As I'm an American, to me it refers to the US Constitution. You want to teach me how I'm going against that? I'm all ears.
Childbearing is optional in marriage, that isn't an opinion, it's a fact.
"The main thing is mutual attraction and sexual satisfaction. Those are the basis of the argument for gay marriage.
Well no, that isn't the basis of the argument for gay marriage. They claim, as a basis of their argument, that it's about equality and civil rights. It still doesn't make any sense, but that is the basis of their argument.
...which makes it inevitable that this country will not — cannot — see anything wrong with same sex marriage....
I would say it's more that people don't understand the basis of the homosexual argument, and therefore don't understand how to dispute it with rationality and reason.
Congratulations; you are now an advocate for gay marriage.
If marriage is going to be re-defined as unmoored from childbearing and motivated entirely by mutual attraction, there will be NO reasonable basis for denying it to same sex couples. The liberal view of marriage, accepting of contraception and divorce, is entirely mainstream in America today, and gays are absolutely correct in asserting that in such an environment there’s no reason apart from discriminatory animus, for arguing that same sex couples should not enjoy equal access. This was baked in the cake when the Protestant churches caved first on divorce, and post-1930, on contraception.
If you have a rational argument against same sex marriage — or better still, what REAL marriage is — let’s hear it. But do not kid yourself that you can gut marriage of its essential orientation to childbearing and still retain an argument that can stand up.
As to my rational argument against homosexuals destroying marriage I would start with the unalterable fact that homosexuals have the exact same rights as heterosexuals they just don't wish utilize these right preferring their chosen fetish instead. Willing abrogation of rights is not a legally rational reason to ask for more rights. Then it can be further argued that there is no real reason for the cultural institution of marriage to be overthrown when everything they are asking for can be handled with civil unions.
Lastly and most importantly it should be recognized that marriage as an institution was formulated by our shared Judeo-Christian western ethos. As it is the basic building block of our civilization it should enjoy respect and protection from it being undermined. It predates our Government by centuries and as there is no constitutionally enumerated power for government to regulate marriage as it has no legitimate say over it, period. Their only involvement should be in enforcing the marriage contract.
Marriage is a vital social construct and child bearing is an important facet but its essential role can be filled without the marriage being a productive union.
Just charge 1 million for the cake.
This is where you go wrong. That is precisely the gay argument.
If marriage is a social construct, it can change. The only thing that makes marriage not susceptible to change is the fact that it's not socially constructed at all. It's not man-made. It's given, with the rest of human nature, and childbearing is part of that nature, unless someone frustrates the course of nature.
The shared Judeo-Christian tradition to which you appeal has no concept of marriage as a thing that can be severed from childbearing. Modern day Jews or Christians asserting to the contrary are not a continuation of that tradition, but a departure from it.
Just imagine you are on the witness stand being asked these questions? If marriage is a given why do so many people have children outside of marriage? If Marriage is a given how do you explain how different cultures have radically different family constructs if they have any similar constructs at all if? Do you support divorce for infertile marriages? Do you support divorce for those past their child breeding years or, for that matter, should people outside of their fertile years (or otherwise infertile) people be allowed to marry? What is the purpose of a marriage that beyond the respective spouse's fertile years? If marriage is intrinsically about childbirth should childbirth outside of marriage be illegal? If having children is the primary purpose of a marriage, would a marriage that resulted in 5 children be a better marriage than one that resulted in two children? Does it matter who raises the children once they are born if the marriage is primarily about having children? Historically or Biblically has marriage been legitimately or customarily terminated because of infertility (in the Judeo-Christian culture)? Historically and or Biblically has marriage been customarily prohibited between men and women who could no longer have children (in the Judeo-Christian culture)? Historically or Biblically (in the Judeo-Christian culture) has the number of children borne been more important the how well they were raised?
It is against these sort of poorly thought out arguments that homosexual marriage advocates have had so much success.
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.