Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 09/08/2012 9:03:58 AM PDT by Why So Serious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-46 next last
To: Why So Serious

Better not leave out ‘pets’ ... just sayin’


2 posted on 09/08/2012 9:06:02 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Why So Serious
"government should not be in the marriage business."

I agree 100%!!!

Because I am now single I pay $4000 dollars a year more in federal income taxes. Get the damn government out of the marriage business/social engineering!!!

3 posted on 09/08/2012 9:08:06 AM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Why So Serious

So it’s really all about money and not getting government approval for sodomy with the ‘one you love’?


4 posted on 09/08/2012 9:10:46 AM PDT by ex-snook (without forgiveness there is no Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Why So Serious

A ‘family’ the cornerstone of any society from the most primitive to the most modern. It stands to reason that the government will be concerned about its structure if for no other reason than to insure domestic tranquility.


5 posted on 09/08/2012 9:11:16 AM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Why So Serious

I’m 58 and my son is 22. We both came to this conclusion independently of each other — local government offers civil unions, religious organizations offer marriages. DONE!


6 posted on 09/08/2012 9:13:09 AM PDT by duckworth (Perhaps instant karma's going to get you. Perhaps not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Why So Serious

What’s interesting about the gay marriage issue is that many gays that pushed for it never get married after they are able to. I live in NY. Thanks to Cuomo, gays can get married. At work not a single gay person that posted signs on the subject, flew the equal rights flag or wrote letters to the editor ever got married. They aren’t even planning to get married. We ask why and we get some crap answer like “we don’t need a paper to tell us we are married...”


7 posted on 09/08/2012 9:15:18 AM PDT by Dutch Boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Why So Serious

Homosexuals want marriage as a sign of society’s approval for their behavior. In most places, they can already get all the rest - but they want “marriage” so they can be “normal”.


9 posted on 09/08/2012 9:17:33 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberalism: "Ex faslo quodlibet" - from falseness, anything follows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Why So Serious

Activists know that they could have civil unions pretty easily, what they want is the word “marriage”, so as to destroy it.

You want to destroy “marriage” as well, making government civil unions (which would merely replace marriage) the norm, and allowing “marriage” to fade into obscurity as it becomes a little religious ceremony for some, in their individual churches, something for personal consumption only, but not applicable to society at large.

You legalize homosexual marriage and polygamy either way in your proposal.

Libertarians are leftists who are attacking our culture and society, and morality using a different name.


10 posted on 09/08/2012 9:18:38 AM PDT by ansel12 ( Aug. 27, 2012-Mitt Romney said his views on abortion are more lenient than the Republican Platform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Why So Serious
I live in a gay ghetto, so I hear these conversations all the time. "Republicans won't let people choose who they love." It's such a crock. So when I bring up the fact that civil unions are legal in our state, they come back with "Civil unions aren't a marriage." What's the difference? I ask. "It's not a marriage in the government's eyes." But you get all the government sanctions in a civil union that a married couple would. What's the difference? "You can't call it a marriage." You can call it anything you want. Why are you so intent on having it be called a "marriage" when you are getting all the same benefits that a married couple would? "Because people don't see you as being married." Oh, I see. In other words, you don't care one whit about being sanctioned by government. What you want is to be able to force churches to sanction your union. "Blink. Blink. :::steam rising::: What are you, a f&8$#& Republican??" And that's where the conversation usually ends.
11 posted on 09/08/2012 9:21:45 AM PDT by ponygirl (Be Breitbart.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Why So Serious

The state should be the authority on marriage, and it’s up to the people of that state to define it.

Those that should butt out are the courts. It is not their domain and any court that acts otherwise should be impeached.


12 posted on 09/08/2012 9:21:45 AM PDT by A_Former_Democrat (Now a Chick-fil-A customer . . . God bless Dan Cathy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Why So Serious

I agree.


13 posted on 09/08/2012 9:22:40 AM PDT by LuvFreeRepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Why So Serious

That makes way too much sense for the left to go along. It also does little to destroy the family, which is the real goal, as families are the backbone of society.


17 posted on 09/08/2012 9:33:09 AM PDT by Josephat (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Why So Serious

FWIW, marriage is primarily a matter of the Church, or the synagogue. But in the West, government has had the job of recording and confirming it, for legal purposes, and because proper marriages are the foundation of a sound society. As long as you have a Christian nation, that works fine.

Now, we are in something of a dilemma. Freedom of religion used to mean freedom to follow a sensible religion. But now it might be Islam, or pot smoking, or Satanism, or Wiccans, or polygamist sects, or who knows what. Where do you draw the line? People used to pretty much agree. But now there is no agreement. We won’t have a healthy marriage situation unless and until our country returns to traditional religious and moral values—not by force, but by consent and conversion freely consented to.

But although the primary authorities over marriage should be the churches, government has a role to play—if we can ever get the current mess straightened out. There is no way that you can have a free society without the widespread moral agreement that comes from religion, and we no longer seem to have that. Which is not to say that we could not have another Great Awakening, which is what is needed.


18 posted on 09/08/2012 9:35:47 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Why So Serious

I agree. Unfortunatly, this is too simple. What was it that Clint Eastwood said...conservatives by the very nature of the word don’t go around beating drums like the liberals... I really managled this, but you get the picture.


21 posted on 09/08/2012 9:39:01 AM PDT by DefeatCorruption
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Why So Serious
Gay people, for the most part, express a desire to get married for the benefits that are extended to married couple

What a bunch of liberal crap. The result of your fantasy will result in more out of wedlock children, the number source of poverty in America.

Gay marriage was banned in Oregon by a people's vote. The liberal legislature then pushed through civil unions, granting gays ALL the benefits of a real marriage. The gays in Oregon are still working on getting the gay marriage ban overturned. They want acceptance of their perversion.

24 posted on 09/08/2012 9:45:09 AM PDT by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Why So Serious
the government should not be in the marriage business, and marriage is not a political issue.

As long as the marriage contract has implications on tax laws, inheritance laws, property rights, child support, etc, then government does have a place to make sure the contractual terms are clearly defined and consistent. The Constitution authorizes Congress to set the standards of 'weights and measures'. According to the Federalist papers, legal definitions are considered a measure that is within the government's jurisdiction to define. If legal definitions don't mean anything or are inconsistent, then contracts and laws aren't enforceable.

If you want the government out of the marriage business, simply having private contracts between individuals, then all the laws and recognized contracts that apply to marriage first must be addressed.

25 posted on 09/08/2012 9:45:40 AM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Why So Serious

Government is interested in traditional marriage because, a natural outcome of man/woman marriage is the result of children, new citizens to replace the older citizens who are retiring or less able to do certain work (in the case of the military, work for national defense). This goes back many millenia- in ancient Roman empire days, the consul and Senate would regularly issue edicts for landed and non landed citizens to increase their number— have more children. This was especially true as the expansion of Rome required citizen soldiers. What has changed this somewhat is the advent of technology and the political annoyance of a group that insists that religions say their relationship is the same. It isn’t and can never be. Men and women are different—biologically and countless other ways.

The STATE, in this case, the feds, but also the states, have been involved in biology— and that is a major part of the problem. Carried to further extreme, since it seems homosexuals are demanding that churches/religions acknowledge they are the SAME as man/women in marriage, would it not then devolve that a condition of homosexual marriage would be the requirement that one of the party produce a child (from a sperm donor for L’s, and artificial womb for male homosexuals). Such is the “advancement” of the biotechnology that would enable this.

Against this backdrop and, furthering the homosexual agenda against the traditional family structure, you have planned parenthood pushing the abortion industry. Children are not to be wanted in this “overpopulated” world.

From a biblical point of view, and any number of other “biologically sound” points of view, the true marriage of a man and a woman provides stability- psychological, societal, and... biological. To suggest otherwise can be countered with vast historical precedent.


26 posted on 09/08/2012 9:46:10 AM PDT by John S Mosby (Sic Semper Tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Why So Serious

I have been saying that since I was old enough to know what it meant.

I had a legal, civil contract (marriage license) with my husband, and we were also ceremonially married-by a priest of our religion (Catholic). There is no reason one should not be binding without the other-they are two completely different things.

A civil, legal contract is just that-and a marriage is a religious matter between a clergyman who performs the ceremony and the two people who choose to bond before God. If the U.S. military had not required the civil license to make me “officially” his wife, my husband and I would have been quite happy to skip that and just go straight to our priest-we would have been just as married, as far as we were concerned.

Anyone can enter into a legal/civil contract, but the specifications of the marriage bond are determined by the religion of one’s choice-in Christian and Jewish doctrine, one man and one woman, not a village.

Let each state decide if they want to have it that way. Despite well-meaning “concern”, any time a government sticks their hands into personal, non-business relationships, it ends up badly, just like this same sex “marriage” nonsense...


28 posted on 09/08/2012 9:47:17 AM PDT by Texan5 ("You've got to saddle up your boys, you've got to draw a hard line"...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Why So Serious

The vast majority of gays don’t want to get married, they want to be with as many partners as possible....Marriage to them is all about “normalizing” their behavior.


30 posted on 09/08/2012 9:51:41 AM PDT by dfwgator (I'm voting for Ryan and that other guy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Why So Serious

I think it’s just about the creeping encroachment of liberal power. Watch what they attack, it’s the very things that we hold dear and binds us together as Americans.

It’s about tearing down America so the squirmies can take it over.

Everything from smoking, to the sanctity of life is on their agenda, and unless we stand firm, America will become Pottersville and continue its fall into 3rd worldism in a short time.


33 posted on 09/08/2012 9:52:41 AM PDT by FrankR (They will become our ultimate masters the day we surrender the 2nd Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-46 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


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