Posted on 09/08/2012 9:03:55 AM PDT by Why So Serious
Here is a better way to look at this ... the government should not be in the marriage business, and marriage is not a political issue. Gay people, for the most part, express a desire to get married for the benefits that are extended to married couple [rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children]. Government should allow people to engage in civil unions [this includes men and women], only. Marriage should be left to the churches. Then, any one can have a civil union [man/lady, lady/lady, man/man, mom/son, dad/daughter, brother/sister, person/multiple people] which extends to that civil union the governmental rights that married couple now enjoy which include the marriage tax credit, right to pass assets without taxation upon death, the right to make life ending decisions [pulling the plug]. The whole issue dies in a blink. This should not have to be a political thing. Moving the line in the sand never works ... better just to erase it. I believe that my wife and I are married in GOD's eyes and believe that we have a civil union in the eyes of government. It should not be anything different then a partnership, LLC, or LP.
Oops. Well I guess I won’t be seeing you around...under that user name, at least.
Good one Lil’ Jeremiah. Marriage has an age limit, as could a civil union. In fact I believe that in most states you have to 18 to enter into a contract. Besides, mentally ill perverts already have access to our children. It is called the public school system.
I realize your stupidity on FR is now cured, but I will respond anyway. I didn’t mention age limits, my opposition to civil unions as a gateway drug for homo/fag/perv marriage still stands undefiled by your intellect. And you apparently think mentally ill sex perverts should have even more access to our children via fag marriage, then. What a jewel you are.
I wanted to alert you to some guy 'insulting' you in post 195, you should hit the abuse button.
You said that very well, I'm going to try and remember some of that language.
There's nothing fair about gays and their pals attempting to push their garbage on Free Republic. There is nothing fair about homosexuals attempting to force taxpayers to pay hard earned money in benefits supporting homosexuals.
There is nothing friendly about you pushing for such unions on this site, whether by agreeing with gay activist trolls, or by hovering your mouse pointer - over the abuse button against conservative Freepers.
There is no need for you to share the thickness of your skin or any other such anatomical morphology here. What is necessary is for you to understand that this conservative site has a zero tolerance policy for anyone pushing the gay agenda, including here since Oct 2000.
Thank you.
A big round of applause to ansel12 for hanging in there and getting the troll to reveal his true nature.
Not according to wiki. "in the early Imperial period some male couples were celebrating traditional marriage rites in the presence of friends. Same-sex weddings are reported by sources that mock them" "Roman law did not recognize marriage between men, but one of the grounds for disapproval expressed in Juvenal's satire is that celebrating the rites would lead to expectations for such marriages to be registered officially.As the empire was becoming Christianized in the 4th century, legal prohibitions against gay marriage began to appear."
Here is another source mentioning polygamy and marriage in history, and in Rome.
History of Polygamy
That’s the question Witte is wrestling with in his new book. He shows that the West has prescribed monogamous marriage for 2,500 years, and criminalized polygamy for 1,750 years. Polygamy was a capital crime in the West from the ninth to the 19th centuries.
Polygamy prohibitions, he says, are both “pre-Christian” in origin and “post-Christian” in application. “Roman law criminalized polygamy before Christianity was established and Enlightenment liberals were the most powerful defenders of the modern common law aversion to polygamy,” he says.
Thanks, he was weird guy.
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my Viking Kitty/ZOT ping list!. . . don't be shy.
Indeed he was. He actually reminds me of a couple of my coworkers. They love nothing more than to stir up trouble, but if you try to counterattack, they run crying to the HR office. I guess he didn’t realize (or care) that the “HR office” here at FR (no offense Admin Moderators) isn’t run by a bunch of politically correct paper-pushers like so many HR offices are.
Thanks. And thank you for being a steadfast defender of marriage on this site.
(There is no cure for stupidity!!!)
Well, you've certainly managed to conclusively demonstrate the truth of that, by golly.
Where did that come from?
Maybe so. Maybe so.
Yes, quite true. Thanks for that input.
Point well made, and extremely well taken. Thanks kindly. SJ
You pay only $4K a year to be single? Hmmm. I know a good deal when I see it.
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.