Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: farmfriend
In Defense of Traditional Marriage

Marriage is not an arbitrary construct which can be redefined simply by those who lay claim to it. Broadening the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions would stretch it almost beyond recognition--and new attempts to expand the definition still farther would surely follow. On what principled ground can Andrew Sullivan exclude others who most desperately want what he wants--legal recognition and social acceptance?

Why on earth would Sullivan exclude from marriage a bisexual who wants to marry two other people? After all, exclusion would be a denial of that person's sexuality.

The same holds true of a father and daughter who want to marry. Or two sisters. Or men who want consensual polygamous arrangements. Sullivan may think some of these arrangements are unwise. But having employed sexual relativism in his own defense, he has effectively lost the capacity to draw any lines and make moral distinctions.

Forsaking all others is an essential component of marriage. Obviously it is not always honored in practice. But it is the ideal to which we rightly aspire, and in most marriages, the ideal is in fact the norm. Many advocates of same-sex marriage simply do not share this ideal; promiscuity among homosexual males is well known. Sullivan himself has written that gay male relationships are served by the 'openness of the contract' and that homosexuals should resist allowing their 'varied and complicated lives' to be flattened into a 'single moralistic model.' But that 'single moralistic model' has served society exceedingly well. The burden of proof ought to be on those who propose untested arrangements for our most important institution.

This is a large, tolerant, diverse country. In America people are free to do as they wish, within broad parameters. It is also a country in sore need of shoring up some of its most crucial institutions: marriage and the family, schools, neighborhoods, communities. But marriage and family are the greatest of these. That is why they are elevated and revered. We should keep them so.

115 posted on 12/01/2003 10:09:00 PM PST by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Kevin Curry
I see the push to have homosexual unions given special legality as the effort to impose acceptance. In essence legislate the liberal/leftist morality. (or lack thereof)

Private sexual behavior has to be tollerated. It is out of sight and out of mind. However imposing legal recognistion of the homosexual act into the institution of marriage is the imposition of forced public acceptance. It is taking homosexual sex and forcing it on all.
118 posted on 12/01/2003 10:12:35 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies ]

To: Kevin Curry
Good Post.

My sexual orientation is to avoid paying taxes.

In the new ever changing definition of marriage I will marry my son and therefore have him avoid paying any inheritance taxes on my estate!

Try and argue that I cannot.

It’s a consensual marriage between two adults.

Ah but the liberals cannot allow the rich to get richer… now can they!
133 posted on 12/01/2003 10:42:13 PM PST by Kay Soze (Liberal Homosexuals kill more people than Global Warming, SUVs’, Firearms & Terrorism combined.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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