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 ...
No. Doing so would invalidate it, and make it an abomination. IMHO
Marriage joins a Man & a Woman in a sacred bond.
I love it when liberals pretend to sound conservative. They never do a good job. This is one example. It's always obvious because they try to tell YOU how YOU should think.
Under law, it absolutely should be permitted. There is no legal reason to
deny any two people making a lifelong commitment the benefits others
making the same commitment receive, simply because they meet a religious
description of "marriage".
If a lesbian female can marry a homosexual male; if we allow jailed
death-row prisoners to take vows of marriage; if we do not reject any
marriage under any other circumstances as long as both are of opposite
sex, then we are disallowing with hypocrisy and prejudice, Constitutional
rights and justice for all those of same-sex commitments
My thoughts exactly.
Oxymoron.
The ability to reproduce. The government has no compelling reason to care if Steve and Jim stay together in a committed relationship. BTW, if you really know the gay community, gays refers to actual gay marriages as 'mythical', because it is so rare in the gay community that two partners stay together very long. A study puts the length of these gay 'marriages' at 1.5 years vs. 7.2 years for a man and woman marriage.
OK, let's use the definition of marriage as a vow of commitment. So if homosexuals want to commit to one another, who is stopping them?
Perhaps gay marriage is not really about pledging a troth for life, but about forced public acceptance.
Don't forget those who commit crimes together. They can marry and then claim spousal privilege, then the courts couldn't force them to testify against each other.
How much longer until this becomes "marriage joins two creatures in a sacred bond"?
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.You responded with nothing but misdirection and misinformation. When asked to support your statements you didn't respond and I know why... you can't support your statements. The facts support what I said above and if you think otherwise, post a reference that supports your position. Anything else and you're supporting the homosexual agenda.If you don't have a problem with folks engaging in a destructive lifestyle, perhaps, unknowingly, you don't really care for the well being of gays? As I see it, the true friends of gays are those who condemn homosexual behavior and accept homosexuals as the human beings that they are.
For a different angle on where this homosexual marriage issue may bring us, check out what Boston columnist Howie Carr said here.
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.