Posted on 08/26/2010 8:31:44 AM PDT by Starman417
To propose such an alternative is to profess ignorance of the motives of the pro-gay marraige forces.
They don't want fair. They want us to bless their lifestyle by saying there is NO difference between their's and our's.
And even then they won't be satisfied.
The real motive is the complete destruction of the institution of marriage. This then completes the leftists' attack on this institution. The lefties had to get rid of the structure of the American family because it stood in the way of people being dependent on the government. "Gay marriage" is the last nail in the coffin. If marriage can mean ANY type of coupling, then it means nothing at all. And, that is the point.
Check my post #3 for a more on this; but, I have to say that in CA, gays already had a “civil union” law that gave them EVERY advantage that married couples had; but, it wasn’t enough.
Since when is it discrimination to deny special rights for aberrant behavior?
“A study to be released next month is offering a rare glimpse inside gay relationships and reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many. Some gay men and lesbians argue that, as a result, they have stronger, longer-lasting and more honest relationships.
Hence the virulent spread of disease among homosexuals. What is honorable in that that they should get special rights? The very behavior that they want recognized kills them.
And while that may sound counterintuitive, some experts say boundary-challenging gay relationships represent an evolution in marriage — one that might point the way for the survival of the institution.
Destroying the basis for marriage will save it? Are people in this country REALLY that stupid?
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Perhaps Germany really does need lebensraum. If we let them go ahead and keep Czechoslovakia, they’ll probably be satisfied.
/stoopid
Maybe I’m going to get flamed for this, but I think once Republicans are back in power they should propose a constitutional amendment that permits any 2 people to marry but also outlaws abortion. That will at least provide 50-60 years of safeguards for the unborn until activist judges have constructed enough precedents to render it useless. Also, in all honesty, I think it’s just going to be a matter of 20-30 years before most states allow gay marriage anyway (just looking at trends), so we might as well try to get something out of it.
I can live with gay people marrying each other (they can answer for their actions when they are judged) if it ends the slaughter. And, I know there would be plenty of legal ripple effects to consider with this (religious groups and adoption, namely). Realistically, since killing babies in utero is a sacrament of the left, I suspect that would never fly anyway, but maybe it would serve to chip away at some of the gay ‘Rat voter base. Just an idea.
As a preface, I am a Catholic and married almost 50 years; however, I believe banning someone over the legal age to get a marriage license is discriminatory and unconstitutional. Let them get the marriage license and then try to find a priest, rabbi, minister, imam (or whoever marries the Islamists)to bless their marriage. Chances are they will only find a left-leaning judge. I also think this has to be on a national level and not state by state, so when they get ready to divorce, any state could provide that.
That’s surrendering to immorality and it’s unacceptable. You don’t give special rights to someone based on deviant behavior.
A judge in MA ruled that since Gay Marriage was now legal, that all laws in regards to Parental Notification in regards to Gay Sex being introduced to school curriculum were now vacated. In other words, Gay Marriage is the vehicle by which sex advocates gained access to other people’s children. These sex advocates do not have to undergo criminal background checks to gain access to schools.
"If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? No, calling a tail a leg don't make it a leg." - Abraham Lincoln.
Since when is deviant behavior a right under the Constitution? At the beginning of our country, states had laws against it. Virginias law had the death penalty. And you wanna try to say deviant behavior is a Constitutional right?!
Gay and straight marriage can never be the same.
There’s only one arrangement where the fun parts both fit and function.
And all the shouting in the world won’t change it.
Not all moral decisions carry the same weight. In war, we accept that we will accidentally kill innocents in the process of killing tyrants, to give one example. Do you object to that?
Is it worse to terminate a baby’s life or to give some meaningless government recognition to 2 gay people? I don’t like either, but there is no moral equivalency here.
Call the male practitioners of homo eroticism “lesbians”, and the female practitioners “gay”. When they try to correct you, tell them that it's all the same to you. When they tell you that it is not the same, that it is very different, and the different names are used to denote those differences, you spring the trap.
Then why should we call a union between homoerotic couples “marriage”. It's not the same, it's very different, and it should have a different name to denote those differences.
Again, that is surrender to immorality. Conservatives fight BOTH. Government should not legitimize ANY form of deviancy.
They also have the same right to marry. They can marry anyone of the opposite sex. They instead choose to demand special rights for deviancy.
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.