Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Should social conservatives abandon the phrase “traditional marriage”?
The Collegiate Theist ^

Posted on 10/11/2013 9:24:17 PM PDT by Collegiate Theist

It seems like any time someone wishes to express their opposition to the redefinition of marriage, they start by extolling the virtues of so-called “traditional marriage”. In doing so, their intentions are undoubtedly to explain why it is that succumbing to the push for a more “inclusive” definition of marriage would be harmful to society. Their choice of words, though, may very well hinder their argument....

Whole article: http://collegiatetheist.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/should-social-conservatives-abandon-the-phrase-traditional-marriage/

(Excerpt) Read more at collegiatetheist.wordpress.com ...


TOPICS: Politics; Religion
KEYWORDS: blattingog; christian; doma; homosexuals; marriage; pimpmenot; possibleblogpimp; thoushaltnotpimp; traditionalmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last
To: Gene Eric

Yes, they were helpful and inspirational.


41 posted on 10/12/2013 3:13:32 AM PDT by Darksheare (Try my coffee, first one's free..... Even robots will kill for it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

>> So, “civil union” benefits for gays and no marriage benefits for anyone else?

I propose society take the risk of leaving marriage to Faith allowing private industry to market its wares according to any criteria it deems practical without involvement of the iron fist.


42 posted on 10/12/2013 3:13:56 AM PDT by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Collegiate Theist

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2776537/posts

Another in the mod lecture series.


43 posted on 10/12/2013 3:21:16 AM PDT by Darksheare (Try my coffee, first one's free..... Even robots will kill for it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Collegiate Theist

Collegiate Theist
Since Oct 11, 2013


Welcome to FR!!


44 posted on 10/12/2013 4:45:11 AM PDT by Arrowhead1952 (The Second Amendment is NOT about the right to hunt. It IS a right to shoot tyrants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

sorry, I was not aware that doing so was frowned upon. Is there any way to edit/delete a thread once it’s posted?


45 posted on 10/12/2013 4:57:01 AM PDT by Collegiate Theist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: shibumi

Thanks, sorry. I wasn’t aware of this when I posted. Is there a way to delete the thread now?


46 posted on 10/12/2013 4:57:01 AM PDT by Collegiate Theist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon

Well said. This was my point exactly.


47 posted on 10/12/2013 4:57:01 AM PDT by Collegiate Theist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: shibumi

Can someone help me edit or delete the original post?


48 posted on 10/12/2013 4:57:01 AM PDT by Collegiate Theist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra

Internet search for “Lovecraft” images.


49 posted on 10/12/2013 6:05:37 AM PDT by shibumi (Cover it with gas and set it on fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Collegiate Theist

No.

You are doomed.


50 posted on 10/12/2013 6:06:48 AM PDT by shibumi (Cover it with gas and set it on fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Collegiate Theist

NO.


51 posted on 10/12/2013 6:08:09 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darren McCarty

I don’t use the term “traditional marriage.” I use “marriage.” Homosexuals can’t do it. That is not marriage. It may be a union of some sort, but it is not, and cannot be, marriage.


52 posted on 10/12/2013 6:10:40 AM PDT by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Collegiate Theist

Just remember in the future that we will appreciate full postings. Don’t hit the excerpt button.

(Or “OG” will hunt you down.)


53 posted on 10/12/2013 6:10:47 AM PDT by shibumi (Cover it with gas and set it on fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Collegiate Theist

In my own discussions, I always call it simply, marriage. There is only kind, between one man and one woman. There is no need to redefine the term.

The lefties I know HATE it.


54 posted on 10/12/2013 6:13:48 AM PDT by Colonel_Flagg (My PV2 is my hero.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Collegiate Theist
Should social conservatives abandon the phrase “traditional marriage”?

Not if they support traditional marriage, they shouldn't. Except, mostly, they don't.

Traditional marriage (a/k/a real marriage, actual marriage, marriage by definition, etc., etc.) has 3 elements:

1) It is permanent and effectively indissoluble (remarriage with a living spouse is not legal)

2) It is sexually exclusive, with civil and criminal sanctions for adultery

3) Any offspring, regardless of genetic paternity, belong to and are the responsibility of their father, and bastardy has legal and moral consequences, including no support from a putative father.

Under this proper understanding of traditional marriage, the notion of two men or two women living together under its constraints in order to gain social recognition would be absurd.

However, "traditional marriage" today, when used in polemic, means:

1) A "contract" terminable by one of the parties at will without damages to the counterparty, regardless of circumstance

2) violation of sexual exclusivity free of any legal or social consequences

3) Offspring, regardless of paternity, belong to the mother and may be used, again without regard to paternity, as hostages to require payment of cash and prizes from their putative father at discretion of their mother, even without regard to the existence of a contract between the man and the woman.

4) Cash and other tax benefits are awarded to a man and a woman living together under the above-described arrangements.

This current state of affairs is not "traditional marriage", but is more properly considered "gay marriage for heterosexuals".

Advocates for marriage should stop referring to "gay marriage for heterosexuals" as "traditional", the ONLY thing of traditional marriage that remains is that one party is a man and the other is a woman.

55 posted on 10/12/2013 6:25:07 AM PDT by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon
There is only one type of marriage, and everything else is just a delusional attempt to make disturbed people feel normal.

Please see my post below.

56 posted on 10/12/2013 6:31:16 AM PDT by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: shibumi

Thanks Shibumi, much appreciated.


57 posted on 10/12/2013 7:07:45 AM PDT by agere_contra (I once saw a movie where only the police and military had guns. It was called 'Schindler's List'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Collegiate Theist

You’re right we need to call it: REAL MARRIAGE!


58 posted on 10/12/2013 7:51:43 AM PDT by JSDude1 (Is John Boehner the Neville Chamberlain of American Politics?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

I would absolutely agree with your first definition. Hetereosexuals are not without fault when it comes to diluting and violating marriage.


59 posted on 10/12/2013 7:56:47 AM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: JSDude1
We need to call it REAL marriage

It's not as simple as you make it out. By "it", do you mean true marriage as it existed prior to 1969-73, or do you mean the simulated relationship that exists now?

60 posted on 10/12/2013 8:07:36 AM PDT by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson