Posted on 12/04/2003 9:53:48 AM PST by ArGee
The part that is confusing me is why it "didn't catch on."
In thinking about this last night I was able to crystallize my confusion more.
If there is no moral dimension to marriage, then there is no reason not to change its definition to include homosexual marriage.
If there is a moral dimension to marriage then it's the same moral dimension there is to sex. You can't stand on a moral judgement of marriage without an accompanying moral judgement of sex.
People appear to be demanding the former without demanding the latter, and I can't figure out why.
Shalom.
As Ann Coulter said in her column yesterday (you can link to it from Drudge) everyone knows the weakness of the U.S. Constitution. Judges don't care about it - why would they care about an ammendment to it.
Shalom.
But those same people who oppose homosexual marriage support homosexual marriage. They just want it called "civil unions."
Shalom.
As Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Herald pointed out, her example with the ERA points out how prescient she is as well. When she was stopping the ERA she said it would one day lead to homosexual marriage.
Massachusetts has an ERA.
Check out Jacoby's article. I think you can still link to it from Drudge.
Shalom.
I know it wasn't your position. I was just really struck by the fact that such a stupid phrase was included. It doesn't even have to do with morality or homosexuality. They included a description and its polar opposite in an "or" clause. It's as if they had said:
You must be in this universe or not in this universe.
And the person who wrote that is in charge of your company's benefits policy!!!
Shalom.
It was intentional to entrap, but I think it does prove my point.
I described a marriage, and you were able to apply it to homosexuals who were joined in a civil union. I did not disprove your point, which is that homosexual men must adopt (homosexual women can have a natural child) but in the context of the public mind, I think my point is valid.
It's a spade. Calling it a heart won't change the fact that it is black in color and has its point at the top.
Shalom.
If you are right (and I think you may be) then why did they balk at calling it marriage. The "homo thought police" are still there.
Something inside gave them enough of a spine to say, "You can do your perverted things and come to my Christmas party, but don't dare call it marriage."
Shalom.
Agreed
You've hit the nail on the head. They've infiltrated and are destroying the church. They told us that they would be coming for the church, to destroy it's moral authority, and to usurp marriage. Their stated goal of coming for the children and lowering the age of consent is next. Thanks to widespread support of GLSEN, one of the crown jewels of the homosexual community, they have infiltrated the schools and the indoctrination now begins in kindergarten.
That is not what the polls say.
Shalom.
And so do I. But many have not. They have accepted everything else the homosexual activists have thrown at us, including civil unions. Yet the word "marriage" trips their consciences.
What is it about that word "marriage" that does so?
That's all I'm trying to figure out.
Shalom.
One might as well decree that rocks will fall up.
Only because the Americans who don't support homosexual marriage do support homosexual civil unions (according to the polls). Since they are the same in name only, I'm trying to figure out what it is about the word "marriage" that is tripping them up.
Do you share the beliefs of the rest of us here or not?
I won't speak for anyone but myself. I believe that homosexual behavior should be recognized as a mental illness and treated, not tolerated.
Didn't I have long conversations with you on yahoo recently in which you touted the merits of a gun free society? I'm almost certain that you're the same guy.
No. I don't do Yahoo groups or chat.
In my opinion, you're fishing for answers as a person who wishes to see changes made in favor of the homosexuals and not as a person who's "just curious".
No, I don't want that change made. Americans who support civil unions have tripped over the word "marriage" and I truly can't figure out why. But I do understand if you've said everything you have to say on the subject. I could just be dense.
Shalom.
I believe that and you believe that, but do the people who support homosexual "civil unions" believe that? If they did, wouldn't they also believe that The Almighty has declared homosexual behavior "an abomination" and deny it any kind of recognition at all?
That's what has me confused.
Shalom.
Sorry, couldn't find it, if you have a link, I would appreciate it. My search through Google for Jacoby and Schlafly did take me to a site where a Mona Charen column
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/mc20031205.shtml
from today appeared. Of course, she came down in favor of man-woman marriage, and said that gay marriage must be resisted, but she also stated that "though by all means they should be able, through contracts and living wills, to ensure that inheritance, hospital visitation and so on are managed as they would prefer." She knows that the fairness issue needs to be addressed, at least on some level. Frankly, I discount what she says on one basis. Frequently, Ms. Charen's opinions are based on her basic philosophy of "men are promiscuous, women are monogamous, its all in their nature" belief, and this piece is well infused with that sentiment. She goes on to state that society places no value on gay fidelity, and that ignores the costs to our society of the spread of disease.
Back to Phyllis Schlafly: Well, she seemed to be right in her prediction. The only reason it was discounted back in the 1970's was because gay marriage was quite unthinkable, even by most gay advocates. The gays of the baby boomer generation were still out living the wild life in the 1970's, like many of their heterosexual counterparts. Marriage, committment to one person, and the raising of families were foreign to young gay activists of that time. Besides, there were more important things on their political horizon, not the least of which was getting attention from society for hardcore physical gay bashing.
At the same time, the hippie commune with "free love", dope smoking, and assorted antisocial behaviors were in the news. The hippie culture died out, and the only people promoting polygamous marriage these days are nutballs out in the western deserts, who find brain-dead women to share their "utopian" delusions.
If a large number of people didn't come to know and accept gay people, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and Schafly would be wrong. That's the problem conservatives have here, how do you convince people in the middle who work with, live near, and may very well be related to, an openly gay person, that heterosexuals deserve a right that homosexuals are denied? You can play on their general uneasiness, but expect the other side to play back. If there are any marked setbacks on the path we are now on, I fully expect a gay backlash, that will take the effect of encouraging gays to out themselves to friends, family, co-workers, and neighbors, all at once, on one big day. That's the ultimate trump card they hold, and they've been holding back on it, watching the news. If they ever play it, expect that mushy middle I talk about to get very squishy, and there will not be a distinction between civil union and gay marriage anymore in their minds.
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.