Skip to comments.
Same-sex marriage threatens real marriage
Manchester Union Leader ^
| February 22, 2004
| Bernadette Malone
Posted on 02/22/2004 6:54:58 AM PST by billorites
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 341-352 next last
To: billorites
I believe that people who oppose gay marriage (let's call it what it is) but stand idly by are as guilty as those who are forcing the issue on the rest of society. Gays depend on your being docile.
2
posted on
02/22/2004 6:58:49 AM PST
by
raloxk
To: billorites
What buch of freaks.
3
posted on
02/22/2004 6:59:02 AM PST
by
Vaduz
To: billorites
4
posted on
02/22/2004 7:00:09 AM PST
by
Elle Bee
To: billorites
How do you put some logic to all this "gay marriage" crap?
If we all did it, the human race would die out!!!!!!!!!!!
But some of these folks WANT kids to prove something (and propogate this perversion) which defies logic!!
5
posted on
02/22/2004 7:01:20 AM PST
by
Sacajaweau
(God Bless Our Troops!!)
To: billorites
Within ten years of legalizing homosexual marriage, the words, husband and wife, will become politically incorrect.
The homosexuals will complain that those words offend their status as married couples and that everybody should be referred to as partners.
6
posted on
02/22/2004 7:03:55 AM PST
by
CROSSHIGHWAYMAN
(I don't believe anything a Democrat says. Bill Clinton set the standard!)
To: Elle Bee
I refused to sign up. I bet is wasn't to pick up a key lime pie.
7
posted on
02/22/2004 7:15:56 AM PST
by
Paleo Conservative
(Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
To: billorites
I'm not sure this article makes enough sense that it can be disagreed with, so let's try an analogy. In early America, voters were defined as propertied men; should any attempt to extend the franchise to all men or to women have been attacked as 'destroying voting'?
This is completely aside from the question of whether extending the franchise was or was not a good idea. Similarily, gay marriage may indeed be a bad idea; but to say that it 'endangers marriage' is simply nonsensical.
8
posted on
02/22/2004 7:16:48 AM PST
by
Grut
To: billorites
Many homosexuals dont take the polygamy analogy seriously, or they become easily offended when the comparison is made.Ok, I want to marry my Mom.....still ok gays!
9
posted on
02/22/2004 7:35:38 AM PST
by
Lockbox
To: billorites
raloxk is RIGHT!
10
posted on
02/22/2004 7:41:44 AM PST
by
JOE43270
(JOE43270)
To: raloxk
You are Absolutely RIGHT!
11
posted on
02/22/2004 7:42:46 AM PST
by
JOE43270
(JOE43270)
To: Grut
"...Similarily, gay marriage may indeed be a bad idea; but to say that it 'endangers marriage' is simply nonsensical..."
Marriage is a specially protected institution in most societies for a reason. If the definition of marriage is expanded to include other subgroups, it will lose some of it's status, and will be weakened. This is not a good thing, and will hurt us as a nation, and as a culture, in a very broad sense. Also, it doesn't help to take a wonderful and well respected institution like marriage and redefine it as something supportive of sexual perversion. It's a loss of respect that is quite injurious. Turning marriage into a haven for deviants is a very bad idea.
12
posted on
02/22/2004 7:47:02 AM PST
by
jim35
(A third party vote is a vote for the DemocRATs.)
To: billorites
there is no such thing as same sex "marriage." can we get that straight (no pun intended)? What
God joins together is "married." "Marriage" is a union defined and accomplished by God (observed, officiated, and celebrated by man); man may try to paste the label on other unions, but 'tain't never gonna be "marriage."
and finally, this political flash-in-the-pan that we are seeing cannot destroy Marriage, any more than a fly can destroy an eagle.
13
posted on
02/22/2004 7:54:44 AM PST
by
the invisib1e hand
(do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
To: Grut
Voting is not a social institution that existed for thousands of years, the fundamental purpose for which was and is procreation and raising of children.
Voting is not a fundamental component of the social fabric. The family is. Marriage and the family have been under intense attack by social experimenters for one hundred years, and the institution is showing severe tattering around the edges. The homosexual marriage assault is the final attack, which will finish off marriage as a viable and stable social structure.
If you wish to gaze into the future and see what Western society will be like as a result of the erosion of marriage as a meaningful, stabilizing institution, merely observe what liberal social experimenters have done to the most vulnerable segment of our society, the black population.
Victims of slavery and then discrimination, blacks depended upon the family to be a solid refuge against the hate and disadvantage surrounding it. Liberals, while wishing to free blacks from discrimination originally, found a permanently dependent constituency to be ultimately desirable. That, coupled with leftist ideology that defines the family to be an enemy of the state - it interferes with control of individuals - resulted in policies and programs designed implicitly to "liberate" the individuals from the family. The result? A 70% single birthrate; institutionalized poverty, since single parents seldom advance economically; fatherless boys with high tendencies to murder members of their own communities.
More prosperous nonblack communities are more resilient and resistive to government programs designed to destroy the family structure. Therefore, other means are employed to erode it. Liberal judges impose what elected officials dare not. With making marriage symbolic only of devotion between two (or more) people, it discounts the serious dedication required in a genuine, child-generating and child-rearing institution. Just beyond this redefinition of marriage lies the increasing chaos of a family-less society.
By the way, this was tried on a very large scale in the USSR. The result today is a very bleak future for that unfortunate nation.
That is our future, as well, if this assault upon marriage is not successfully repelled.
14
posted on
02/22/2004 8:13:06 AM PST
by
TheGeezer
(If only I had skin as thick as Ann Coulter, and but half her intelligence...)
To: ahadams2
ping
15
posted on
02/22/2004 8:26:51 AM PST
by
Eala
(Sacrificing tagline fame for... TRAD ANGLICAN RESOURCE PAGE: http://eala.freeservers.com/anglican)
To: jim35
If the definition of marriage is expanded to include other subgroups, it will lose some of it's status, and will be weakened. What status? In most states, no-fault divorce has been the rule for decades; a 'contract' which either partner can abrogate at any time is no contract at all... and many 'couples' don't bother with even that trivial amount of formality.
Marriage is already moribund. At least when gay couples desire to wed, they are showing respect for an institution which many straights have abandoned.
16
posted on
02/22/2004 8:28:45 AM PST
by
Grut
To: Grut
Similarily, gay marriage may indeed be a bad idea; but to say that it 'endangers marriage' is simply nonsensical. I agree, and I didn't think the author's arguments advanced her case.
17
posted on
02/22/2004 8:37:44 AM PST
by
Amelia
(I have trouble taking some people seriously.)
To: Grut
I want to marry my dog but he keeps running away.
To: billorites
If gay marriages do become the rule of law, I think heterosexual couples should in mass absolve themselves of state recognized marriage. Then the now single mothers should flood the state welfare agencies for every handout they can get. This will send a clear message to all the pro-gay marriage crowd that there is a societal value to the traditional man and woman marriage. I know many will be opposed to this but when a state recognized marriage no longer holds any value why not make a mockery of it. After all, a marriage recognized by God is all that really should matter.
To: Amelia
It's interesting that social liberals say Gay marriage can't hurt marriage because marriage is already hurt by the number of divorces.
Well, the liberals ought to know, since they pushed through No Fault divorce. The liberals pushed feminism to get all women out of the homes. The liberals taxed the women out of the homes, and then equated marriage to slavery. The social liberals pushed for co-habitation before marriage.
The social liberals did everything they could to destroy marriage, and are now using the devistating results to make it worse.
20
posted on
02/22/2004 9:04:02 AM PST
by
aimhigh
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 341-352 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson