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 ...
Engaging in sexual actions with someone of the same gender, does not
make that person a homosexual. A homosexual desires a person of
the same sex in the same manner a heterosexual desires a person
of the opposite sex.
"...I know conservative homosexuals who do NOT agree with the
"radical gay agenda"; they know how to handle their private affairs
without the help of the government......"
Sure, you or I can get by without the perks of Government coffers,
but if you or I are being denied what is Constitutionally provided to us,
would it be right not to fight for it?
If you do not own a firearm, would you ignore the fight against
legislation that will make owning a firearm illegal?
Constitutional rights; human rights, should never be taken lightly.
What someone else loses today, you may lose tomorrow.
I won't let it happen on my watch; not without a fight.
Gay or straight, rights are rights.
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?
Slavery was legal for a ton of years.... Blacks sat in the back of buses
and were refused to be served at the same areas as whites.. Woman
weren't allowed to vote...
Your point?
You started 6 paragraphs with that phrase. That's a lot of hate.
I have not used the word hate in any of my previous posts on this topic. Do not insinuate that there is any hatred in my disscusions. An objection is not hatred.
In this topic, the contract is "marriage". All that comply to it's contract; all that are willing to vow to remain together as a couple, deserve the same treatment under law.,
Contracts other than marriage are available to solve the problem of two people entering into a partnership. Reciprocal personal sevice contracts, powers of attorney, incorporation, limited partnerships,equal partnerships, asset distribution,etc. Marriage is not the only way to solve what we would be led to believe are insurmountable problems created by what in my opinion is a behavior. If rights, status or privilege are to be granted based on behavior then it is only reasonable to verify said behavior.
Definition from FindLaw
http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/results.pl?co=lawcrawler.findlaw.com&topic=63/634e8e4d4e93fc49502a0d4ec5df4166
marriage
['mar-ij]
1: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law (see also divorce)
2: the ceremony containing certain legal formalities by which a marriage relationship is created
...but if you or I are being denied what is Constitutionally provided to us, would it be right not to fight for it?
There is no right enumerated in the Constitution that confers the right to marry to people practicing homosexual behavior.
Homosexuals have the same Constitutional rights as any other individual in the United States of America. The Constitution doe not address marriage, it is an issue left to the States.
What rights are you referring to that are being denied?
Here is another article that seems to agree that being homosexual is about behavior.
It's safe to assume you have not been reading these threads?
Marriage should not be considered "a right" that's been legislated
for a select group. Unfortunately, it appears that the honor of being
able to legally tie your life to another's and enjoy the legal benefits of
making such a life-long pledge, has indeed become a "legislated right".
It's been a licensed act, with fees attached and rationed to those
that fit a certain sexual preference outline.
If your questioning the legality of making it a "right" to be licensed,
regulated and doled out in a prejudicial manner....... The answer
is no, it's not Constitutionally correct, it's not Constitutionally
legal and that's been proven to be the answer over and over again.
Thanks
Since you make it apparent that you can't seem to find the time to read all
the posts concerning this topic with any effort to clearly understand the
position some of us take on this topic, please at least read post #78 and
please discontinue repeating the idiotic rhetoric of others.
Thanks.
Your unabashed and overly passionate interest in having two people
disclose exactly what it is they do behind their closed doors, is near
amazing in this type of forum.
If "rights, status or privilege are to be granted based on behavior",
then in the instance of "marriage" the only "behavior" qualifier can
and should be the willingness to dedicate one's life to one other
individual and to do so with a bond that exceeds all others in law.
It is done with dignity, honor and respect for one another, and is a
life-long contract.
How many heterosexual couples live up to that pledge? The statistics
worsen each year. Divorce is easy, too easy. And the honor and respect
of being married, that once was cherished among those of us that married,
has dwindled to be simply a passing fancy; something attributed to
our older generation.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Yes, that is part of our Constitution.
There is no community that can "make" any Religious institution comply
with that, that is considered by that institution to be against their Religious
principle [Government action included].
The fact that a Religious institution has decided to allow gays to be part of
their clergy, has been the decision of that institution. If the members of that
congregation do not accept that institution's decision, then they may speak up
and make it known [some have]. There has been a large part of their
congregation that also agrees with that institution's decision. It is also their right
as part of that congregation, to make their wishes known.
The notion that there has been some sort of conspiracy; some sort of
underhanded diabolical plot to coerce a Religious institution into traveling
down some sort of sacrilegious path, is simply not true, nor substantiated
by any fact, what-so-ever.
I won't go into Religious doctrine on this thread, but what has transpired
within that Religious institution, has not been "forced" by some group
of militant gays. It's happened because some people realize that a person's
sexuality has nothing to do with the quality of person they are. They
are here on this Earth because God put them here. I respect that, more
than I could ever respect those that oppose that concept.
Thanks.
Rather than second guess God's purpose, I prefer to accept
all that He's provided and let Him point me in the direction
He wants me to travel.
Apparently, and for whatever reason He might have had....
I find myself traveling in the direction I passionately am.
To be equal in the eyes of man, is blessed; to be equal
in the eyes of law, is essential.
Thanks.
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.