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...
You can't be subjected to an extremely unhealthy lifestyle if you're dead, and considering the numbers (1.4M slaughtered babies a year), yes, I'd make the trade.
I agree with fighting both (and I do), but I'm a realist and a pragmatist. If 30 years from now 38 states have gay marriage (at the rate we're going - maybe a lot sooner depending on how Kennedy rules with prop8), are you going to tell me you wouldn't trade the additional 12 states for 1.4 million dead children every year then? What if it's 46 states, or 49 states?
There are moral decisions we all have to weigh. We do it all the time. Look at Iran - the decision is whether or not to wipe them out now and take a bunch of innocents with the bad or risk a greater number of dead innocents later by a full scale nuclear war.
Maybe you believe homosexuality is as bad as or a greater evil than despotism and widespread death. I don't. Maybe you believe we can eventually prohibit gay marriage AND abortion nationally, but if you belive one evil is lesser than the other (as I do), why would you gamble losing both when you're probably going to eventually lose the lesser evil anyway?
Of course, this is a useless argument anyway because it will never happen.
You were there and know the details of Sodom’s history?
The reason homosexual activists wanted same sex marriage in the first place is to “change” (aka “destroy”) the very definition and meaning of marriage and family.
They’ve stated this themselves, many of them!
My comp is dying so I may be off for a while.
Just when things are getting interesting.
That's the path to losing. Or maybe you've just found a clever way to back the homosexual agenda without coming right out and doing it.
Maybe you believe homosexuality is as bad as or a greater evil than despotism and widespread death.
It is as bad. They want to silence people (and churches) and make it a crime to speak out against their agenda. They want the government to intervene. That costs money. You have no idea the breadth and depth of evil that we face. Try reading GOProuds agenda.
GOProud Federal Legislative Priorities
They want to use the force of government to make you accept them. You don't think that's dangerous?
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington
Oh dear. That’s not good. Mine’s not doing so well either.
It’s stayed on for 10 minutes now. That’s the best it’s done today practically.
I just don’t have $ for a new one right now. Hope to have a friend tape it together soon.
;-)
If mine goes down, I’ll borrow Hubby’s laptop. But it’s hard for me to see the screen.
How would you like your 30 pieces of silver?
The law is the law, you can’t weaken one part of it without weakening other parts. None of this is in isolation.
Why do you think homosexuality and abortion are natural consequences of contraception? Take fecundity out of marriage and you lose the natural harmony. The same is true of recognising homosexual marriages.
Support for abortion will skyrocket as you divide the relationship between children and their mother and their father. The opposite is also true. Hold the line, and support will increase.
Btw, I hope you have good luck and aren’t off long!
“Conservatives fight BOTH.”
You are absolutely right! I can’t imagine Churchill saying to Hitler during the Battle of Britain,”we’ll give you the southern coast of England, but leave the rest of the country
alone”. His policy was “we shall NEVER surrender”. That should be ours,too.
I don’t understand the defeatists. So now we have to fight them AND the agenda.
I’ll hold the line, but I’ll also take my 30 pieces when you tell me what form of oppression is worse than murder.
Do you oppose state divorce laws as vociferously as you do gay marriage? If the argument is that marriage is a lifetime contract between a man and woman, do you fight that fight on all fronts?
Look, I agree that homosexual marriage is destructive to society and artificial contraceptives undermine many healthy marriages...and that divorce laws are lesser societal problems than these, but I also know that the argument becomes irrelevant if you’re dead.
Sure, in a perfect world every child would be conceived of good married parents, but since when do you think our utopias will ever become reality? What are we liberals now?
All I can tell you is that when I am judged, I want to be able to say I did as much as I could for the most vulnerable among us to have a shot at life, even if it meant enabling others to make decisions that they would ultimately come to regret.
“Do you oppose state divorce laws as vociferously as you do gay marriage?”
Gee, let’s see. I already said I thought contraception was wrong. Yes, I think divorce is wrong too. Much of the suffering we’ve had over the last while comes from the changes in the divorce law, and much of the problem we have with gay marriage is a consequence of this too.
Thanks for backing up my argument.
That wasn't the question, but nice try.
Since all moral dilemmas only have binary answers in your world, I hope God shows you mercy for any time you lied to your wife about how she really looks in "that" dress.
I know it wasn’t the question, because you approve of divorce, and you think it doesn’t matter in the end.
It does matter, and sadly for us kiddos, we have to try to pick up the pieces of ‘progressive’ policies punishing people.
My only point is that not all moral decisions carry the same weight. I don’t approve of divorce, but I don’t hold divorcees in contempt like I do abortionists. I doubt you do either.
I do think gay marriage is destructive to society, but there is no evil worse than in utero assassinations. I agree that all are symptoms of a bigger problem, but I also believe in realistic goals.
Gay marriage laws can eventually be reversed over time, but you can’t bring people back from the dead. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this.
Oh, I agree that abortion is by far the most serious. Don’t get me wrong there. It is the moral issue of the day.
Starman, who is this clown who wrote the article fawning over deviants and telling us that we’re homophobes? Do you agree with him or disagree?
There is no such thing as a “homophobe”, it is a gayspeak word invented to shut up anyone who disagrees with their agenda.
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.