Posted on 11/26/2003 5:20:26 AM PST by Holly_P
Doing so would strengthen marriage as an institution and the culture of fidelity.
Anybody who has several sexual partners in a year is committing spiritual suicide. He or she is ripping the veil from all that is private and delicate in oneself and pulverizing it in an assembly line of selfish sensations.
But marriage is the opposite. Marriage joins two people in a sacred bond. It demands that they make an exclusive commitment to one another, and thereby takes two discrete individuals and turns them into kin.
Few of us work as hard at it as we should, but marriage makes us better than we deserve to be. Even in the chores of daily life, married couples find themselves, over the years, coming closer together, fusing into one flesh. Married people who remain committed to each other find that they reorganize and deepen each other's lives. They may eventually come to the point when they can say to each other: "Love you? I am you."
(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...
The reason Deep 6 doesn't have an answer is because their is no answer. If marriage is a right designed to accrue happiness to adults as the SJC claims, then there is no rational basis for denying adults any type of "marriage" they wish to enter into and all the screaming from Deep 6 isn't going to change a damn thing.
When Roe was passed, the Deep 6's of the world assured us that it was only 1st term abortion where children were simply "blobs" that could be killed. OF course now we kill babies on the way out with university professors arguing to extend the time to 6 months post birth.
You won't get a rational answer from an irrational ideologue.
Homosexual behavior, monogamous or not, results in severe health hazards. There's no evidence homosexual behavior is anything other than just that, behavior, and behavior that can be changed.Deep_6 responded by stating
I responded to your comments numerous times on numerous threads, yet you continue to post ridiculous rhetoric concerning homosexuals and homosexual behavioral modification.The above is a complete fabrication as Deep_6 has never, once, responded to me before this week. And then all Deep_6 said was I was wrong without providing any supporting evidence.
Deep_6 continues to make false statements and when asked to support the statements, refuses. My statements are supported by scientific studies whereas Deep_6 appears interested in pushing the homosexual agenda.
Right here on FR, seek and ye shall find. This is a thread on homosexual marriage. I'd be happy to comment on any of the above and have forcefully for the 5 years I've been here and for much of my adult life.
But I might ask you the same thing. The government, in the form of the judiciary, is currently attacking the venerable institution of marriage. That there are people who abuse that institution is not a comment on the institution itself. The verdict is in, two parent families with one from each sex accrue to the nations and the childrens interest.
The Great Society is a prime example of the government redefining family and leaving in its wake several generations of fatherless children and the total breakdown of the family and mores in the inner city.
So now we do it all over again.
Where is the fury over the health hazards of the homosexual lifestyle? A lifestyle the media shoves down our throats.
You may find information found in my profile in support of what you question above:
The Eyes of an EagleMany of us on FreeRepublic condemn all threats to the family, including those that spread a deadly contagious virus obtained through behavior that can be changed.
Lust is Lurking
Marriage is not defined that way. There is a precise definition requiring the participants be of the opposite sex. A homosexual union cannot meet that definition.
It is done with dignity, honor and respect for one another, and is a life-long contract.
So draw up and execute the proper contracts; just don't call it marriage and don't seek protected status from the government. If you choose to claim protected status based on behavior then I want that status verified. By protected I mean minority status.
How many heterosexual couples live up to that pledge? ....
The inability of heterosexual couples to live up to their vows does not confer legitamacy to the concept of homosexual marriage.
If the concept of marriage has gotten that bad among the heterosexual community at large, how then can homosexuals wishing to make the same pledge, be bad?
Never said anything about good or bad. What I have said is that if you are claiming a status based on behavior then the behavior needs to be verified. Homosexuality is defined by behavior.
As I stated on other threads each time this topic has been debated, we have many, many clients, associates, and friends that have been living together for well over 20 years in homosexual relationships. Their bonding without benefit of a marriage contract has outlasted that of so many other heterosexuals that have garnered the marriage contract.
Nothing is stopping them from formalizing the relationship with the proper legal documents.
There is an all-encompassing debacle of "rights" associated with the marriage contract. "Next of kin" rights, spousal rights, the right to make life and death choices abound. And along with the "rights" are the many other contracts whose provisions apply only to those that are married, or the partner in marriage. Insurance contracts, deeds, joint contracts.. All contracts in one way or another, including the legal rights in court actions, have some exception or exemption for an individual that's been bonded in marriage.
Draw up the proper contracts and you will be protected from all of these issues without needing to be married; unless you engage in criminal activity and need the spousal protection afforded a married couple- persons of the opposite sex.
When that is the case; when there are so many legal issues that surround the act of marriage, then that marriage decree can not and should not, be limited to any select few, if based on prejudicial issues. We do not [legally] judge a person's worth by ethnic, color, heritage or sexuality. We afford the same legal rights to all.
Select few is a stretch. The population of the USA is pushing 300 million and is more or less divided equally between male and female.
Prejudicial issues? What prejudice? The requirements are defined as persons of the opposite sex; not persons engaging in a behavior. Claiming prejudice is one of those steps to claiming protected status.
Sexuality does not currently qualify as a minority or protected status. Race and gender do qualify for minority or protected status and are not behaviors. Sexuality or sexual orientaion are.
You have the same legal "right" to marry as anyone else. You need a person of the opposite sex to say yes to a proposal of marriage.
Yes, that is part of our Constitution.
As I said before, there is no right to marry enumerated in the constitution. Marriage is defined as between people of the opposite sex. Homosexuality is defined as behavior. If homosexuals are granted special status based on behavior then proof of the behavior is as reasonable as asking for proof of minority status(Black,Hispanic,Asian)when individuals apply for benefits granted due to that status such as affimative action or minority owned business contract set asides.
I don't care what consenting adults do with or to each other as long as I am not effected.
What I do care about is expansion of minority status because that effects all of us.
If homosexuality is granted minority status by the government, then claiming that status must be verified before receiving the benefits of that status from the government.
"Trust but verify" is a very conserative concept espoused by Ronald Reagan.
That's not what the experts on homosexuality have stated. That is, environment is the major factor in determining homosexuality. This link summarizes the problem very well.
Scripture must be quote in context. Here's something you may find interesting:
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
I believe hypothalmic changes have been attributed to PTSD and other trauma, i.e. environmental causes.
I wish I were as sure of that as you.
There may be some logic and empirical truth in some of these arguments, but there are enough contradictory indications and unintended side-effects to suggest that the connections aren't as clear as 1960s liberals believed they would be. So it is with Brooks's argument today. It looks very naive.
Brooks is ahead of the curve, but it looks like other neoconservatives will follow him to something not so far different from the Rockefeller-Lindsay liberal Republicanism of a previous generation -- the complacent and naive ideology of the upper class. Given that so many of the younger neo-con's actual and spiritual parents were Kennedy-Johnson Democrats it's not so far a trip.
I've read some on that too, but it was 10 years ago or more - before Levay's studies and I don't have a source for it. I'm not sure if it matters much due to Levay's comments on his own work... If you get a source I'd really appreciate you passing it my way.
Marriage is of both kinds: Legal contract and Religious contract. I am
concerned only with the legal aspects; It is the others that confuse the two.
The state has legalized and regulated marriage by offering certain benefits
provided only to those people that have decided to enter into the contract
of a licensed marriage. The day that the government made legal that bond,
and provided easements for it, marriage became a legal entity separate
from any Religious bond and ceremony. Blood tests are needed in most
States, along with proof of birth, Social Security numbers, relationship
information to avoid an incestuous marriage, etc. Church sponsored
ceremonies do not require such "proof" [sexuality of partners excepted].
To that above extent, in the eyes of the State, marriage is indeed a
licensable right and can be denied at will [that is what I am attempting
to debate].
In the eyes of Religion, marriage is an inalienable right between two people;
no state can prevent that union from taking place [I do not have any
argument with that concept, nor it's religious based restrictions].
Re:
"...In my post #82, I gave examples of ways that the same people who oppose same-sex civil unions because those contracts would "undermine traditional marriage" tolerate - endorse, condone, and actually pay for - actions that actually *do* undermine traditional marriage..."
To wit:
"To: hocndoc
Re:
"..TV sitcoms show every kind of sexual immorality, I wonder who's shocked and why......"
It's called "freedom of speech" and should be honored and cherished.
We should depend on good parenting to teach right from wrong, not some
TV show.
That aside.... What's that got to do with allowing the same rights for all?
84 posted on 11/29/2003 5:19 AM UTC by Deep_6"
The answer, I thought, was evident. I'm not concerned with the liberal
use of "free speech". If we start limiting through legislation, the type
of information we allow through free enterprise media, we begin to limit
all our freedoms and rights.
If you were suggesting that those concerned with the improvement of
our society and quality of family life use the usual boycott methods
to achieve their goal, I agree. The media, like any other enterprise,
depends on marketing strategies. If it's getting too many complaints,
it will change it's strategy. That's freedom at work.
But those that complain about TV, movies, and music for corrupting
their children, are barking up the wrong rope. Decency begins and
moral codes are taught at home. I do not blame any external force
for making the quality of life morally poor; it up to the parents to
teach right from wrong. Unfortunately, some parents have trouble
discerning right from wrong and the likeliness of having children
carrying the same prejudicial burden of their parents becomes systematic.
Re:
"...We should cherish the right to freedom of speech, but we don't have
to - and should never be forced by the State to - cherish, endorse,
condone or pay for - what we consider immoral acts by others....."
We differ greatly in thought here. What actions I may consider immoral
may be Constitutionally correct for the participants of that act. It is not
correct to assume that tax dollars should not go to the area or people
that offends me [or you] alone. If the actions are within our Constitutionally
protected rights, then any social program paid for with taxes shall be
correctly permitted.
I personally do not know of any "forcing" of any State to cherish,
or endorse anything that we do not desire to. But at the same time,
discriminatory actions in the line of business would not be tolerated
if the business is to be licensed by the State.
Re:
"...My intention in pointing out that an admitted adulterer was playing
basketball to the cheers of the supporters of "traditional marriage" was
that, in fact, the same freedom of speech would allow those who truly
believe in traditional marriage to act to remove any endorsement or
support, similar to those who objected to the Reagan movie......"
Absolutely. Add Rush Limp-bag, Mikey Jackson, Arnold S., etc to the
bag, and you've got the bullseye.
If they're going to preach morals, then preach it completely. Singling out a
group of people to cast stones at, simply does not make a more moral world.
The topic is the legalization of same-sex marriages. The comment was regarding
the "right" to be married. If it needs to be "legalized" to occur, then it has been
regulated. If it is regulated, then it must pass Constitutional muster. It doesn't and
it must be fixed.
Those condemning the right for gays to be married, should do so within
their own Church and congregation and not be concerned with Constitutional
rights of others within their circle.
All others...... Enjoy freedom.
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.