Posted on 08/26/2010 8:31:44 AM PDT by Starman417
A reasonable accommodation for gay people would be to create an institution precisely analogous to traditional marriage, but to call it by a different name, to recognize the reality that there are different considerations (and a different dynamic) between the union of opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples. 3. In what ways do eliminating the distinction between opposite sex and same sex unions threaten the institution of traditional marriage?
There is the potential for both short term and long term untoward effects.
In the first place, the reality is that the concept of homosexual marriage is absurd to a great many people, for reasons of entirely-valid biological obviousness (recognizing also -- but giving absolutely no deference to -- the obvious state of affairs that a great deal of true homophobia does exit, based on both religious and non-religious views).
In the second place, the institution of traditional marriage was developed over millennia to meet basic needs central to opposite sex couples. The pervasive universality of traditional marriage attests to the essential role of this institution in human existence and human progress. In Western Civilization, developing from the Code of Hammurabi and the Abrahamic religions, the condemnation of adultery became ingrained, along the importance of fidelity in the marriage vows. Thus, the concept of fidelity is of central importance in traditional marriage.
In Perry v Schwartzenegger (the California Proposition 8 gay marriage case) Judge Vaughn Walker's arguments supporting his decision were based, to a large extent, on his "findings of fact" that gay marriage would not threaten traditional marriage. But his findings were based on the cases and evidence presented by incompetent lawyers supporting Proposition 8. These lawyers failed to offer the most relevant arguments, failed to present the most relevant evidence, and failed to call competent expert witnesses (one of Judge Walker's "findings of fact" were that the two pro-Prop 8 expert witnesses were incompetent).
Judge Walker made a number of assertions, for starters:
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
Other than laws dealing with marrying relatives, certain blood tests or people who are incarcerated or otherwise incapacitated, can you name a SINGLE LAW in ANY STATE in the United States that prohibits unmarried persons of a certain age from getting married?
Let me make this very clear, there is NO LAW that prohibits homosexuals from getting married and there NEVER HAS BEEN.
Amen!
They may be able to destroy the “legal” definition of marriage but they will not be able to destroy the value or true meaning of marriage in a religious sense.
If you believe in God and you are faithful to him and your spouse then homosexual marriage should not mean a hill of beans to you.
The left thinks that they will be able to destroy marriage but the only people that can let them is me and you. I think that Jesus would try to pull his followers in close and keep the community together.
My goodness, this thread is larded with them.
Back later...
So we should just let the deviants ruin society as Rome did? And Sodom and Gomorrah? How about if God's people rise up, as they SHOULD and say "NO!"
Oh yeah. It may be that they just lack info.
I think we have many “republican” trolls pushing this homosexual based marriage nonsense. It is all a means to and end and the end is ending marriage as a broad insititution. Marriage or whatever is left would be come a grant via government fiat.
We are going to suffer many republican and so called conservative outings in the next few months. Olson has fallen, melman is out, crist is protected by the msm, and so on. It is time to purge DC and the MSM of these fetish agenda fanatics.
What has happened here in Massachusetts should serve as a warning to other states.
There is actually no such thing as a “homosexual”. At any given point in time, there are people who want to practice same sex sodomy, but that number changes all the time as new people enter that group, and people leave that group. There are many former homosexuals.
There is no earthly reason why an amorphous, changing group of people whose only common characteristic is that at the present time they prefer to practice same sex sodomy (and not necessarily exclusively) to get any special legal recognition.
None whatsoever. And there are many reasons why they should not.
Then the blogger is FOR same-sex “marriage.” Now we get it.
It will never be enough. Pathological perversion is insatiable.
AIDS. Who is giving each other AIDS?
Homosexuals. I call that slaughter.
I don’t think that their choices have any bearing on my salvation.
I do not believe nor will I ever believe that religion should be forced to recognize or perform these marriages.
I also don’t like that this turns into a civil rights issue because if it does then it will in some way be forced onto religions. Government should not be in the business of marriage, that alone dilutes the meaning and importance of marriage.
The government lets all kinds of sinners get married. Whats the real difference? Do you think that homosexuality is a worse sin than you own? God doesn’t think so.
Government should stay out of marriage, they could register your relationship and that would give the couple all the legal rights of “marriage”.
Wanna bet that Sodom started out the same way? Explain to me why deviant behavior should merit any validation. Behavior is a choice. They choose to operate outside social norms. There is no reason to accept that.
You don’t have to accept anything. If we are on the path of Sodom then that was started long long ago and many of us sat by while that was happening. Gay marriage is certainly not the first step. In fact abortion was most likely not the first step.
Sodom didn’t start with same sex marriage.
Are you suggesting that we should simply surrender to immorality?
“Chances are they will only find a left-leaning judge.”
It grieves me to tell you, but in left wing “protestant” circles, there are homosexual clergy...both men and women. Or, there are clergy that will perform the cermonies. My goodness, the Espiscople denomination has a homosexual Bishop.
Truly it is so. Currently in the U.S. there are more hetereosexual couples cohabiting “unmarried” than there are “married.” So, the homosexual mess is just another mannesfation of a deeper problem.
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.