Posted on 03/04/2004 7:35:53 AM PST by rface
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:11:45 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I UNDERSTAND the compulsion to "energize the base," but couldn't Republicans have found something a little less toxic than this brew of Gaytorade?
When President Bush came out in favor of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, he was stirring up a cocktail to keep the cultural warriors in the party. It's assumed that this elixir will give them a sugar high all the way to the election.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
The overwhelming majority of Americans who do not approve of marriage between same sex couples
marriage isn't a "right" - that's why you have to get a license
Sorry, you can't trot out a "Morality" argument when many people note the Bible says homosexuality is sinful and immoral.
Basically, you are saying marriage is whatever you want it to be. The 2 number is arbitrary. The inbreeding issue means that marriage is to create kids -- if so, then homosexuals are striken. If not, then your argument fails. You can't win that one.
Your selfish "I didn't get married to support thh fabric of society" is short-sighted. Whay get married at all? If you have love, then you don't need a piece of paper.
Saying "Marriage is about Love" is as childish as saying "War is Bad."
It is my job to make sure that this will not happen.
It's just a contract, not a holy writ!
Are these always the same cockroaches that consider it a 'living document'?
We don't live under a biblical or religious government. You can set your own morality, on want ever basis you wish. It doesn't mean it is or should be the law on the land.
Same as yours. In your context "Moral" is an empty word since you define it as YOUR morality.
No, basically I am saying that marriage is between two people that love each other and it's none of your business who they are
You don't answer my question: Why two? The number is arbitrary.
and of course they don't have to but I would have to assume they might, reproduce it would bring about a genetic degridation of the human spieces
So, Marriage is about reproduction, which is what I said. Therefore homosexual marriage is precluded -- using your own argument!
No I didn't need a piece of paper the government said I did. I wanted to marry her within the law and let the world see without doubt our love and dedication for each other.
Why? According to you, marriage is a meaningless institution, since you arbitrary define it.
Saying married is anything but about love and dedication is childish. It says to me that you have never been in love and do not know what love is yet
Nice try (if once again childish -- are you over 14 years old?). We are not talking about love. I am happily married and deeply in love. Don't try to elevate yourself by putting someone me down -- I didn't attack you or your definition of Love -- this is about the Institution of Marriage -- which is BASED in love, but represents something a whole lot more.
Your self-refential argumentation continues to not make sense and sounds like something out of DU. I have defined Marriage and its role and why it needs to continue in the way it is now. All you have offered is meaningless platitudes. Please put together an argument directly refuting my analysis and explain your position. As of this moment you have made no arguments except that marriage is an arbitrary thing to be defined by you.
If you are going to come to the grown-up table, you had better learn to use the utensils.
But I think of it this way: May God's Will be done, here on earth as it is in heaven.
But more importantly, God's will must come first, always! Therefore, if we are defeated – if His will is that Christ shall come again now - that the end times stage must be set and America must become nothing - we Christians must not resist it, but rather embrace His will, remembering this lesson:
I tend to concur. Also, ran across somewhere a rumble from "the other side" that gay-marriage proponents feel that the issue may have been precipitated prematurely, that gays took the wicked Lawrence decision to be a starting gun for "do what you want".
Also see that the Dems are not happy about these "sooners" jumping into a hot-button issue with both feet. They hoped to slip the issue this year, and frankly so do the Bush people. The Bush Administration has actually been very pro-gay, thanks to the insider lobbying by the Log Cabins and closeted power gays.
You can't politick against someone you don't know is politicking against you.
Precisely. The downside on this issue is that Bush's inner circle, and the leadership of the GOP, are closer to Goodman's position than they are to ours.
This is what big tents get you. No message, no voice, and only uncertain and hesitating leadership on critical issues. Even with a thrown gauntlet staring him in the face, even with an obviously activist Supreme Court up to its old Warren-Court tricks in Lawrence, Bush still wants the gay vote. Never mind that 4,000,000 evangelicals and fundamentalists sat out the 2000 election, because of his uncertain trumpet and his catering to the gays.
Were you aware that Mary Matalin had explicitly endorsed gay marriage as a "duh" issue during Campaign 2000 to the gays Dubya was courting? That she was quoted on it?
Nice try, but an adult's in the room now. Time to take your medicine, troll.
The proposition that people of the same gender have a "right" to marry, and that refusal to allow them to marry is a denial of a Ninth Amendment right, is buncombe. The proposition is radical and revolutionary, and therefore the onus lies with its proponents, to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the majority, in the course of legislative deliberation, that their radical proposal will do no harm but will convey concrete benefits to society at large. Society is under NO obligation to change its institutions to accommodate a wheedling, mendacious minority of perhaps 2% of the population, whose stock in trade is contempt for the morals of the majority. We owe you NOTHING!
Rights claimed are not rights unless they're rights. I may claim the right to marry my car -- but I don't have that "right". I don't have a "right" to marry my sister, or an underage girl, or an insane woman, or any man. Marriage has always been closely governed and conditioned. That's why we have divorce courts, for example, precisely because marriage is a societally modulated Big Deal. To pretend, with a great effusion of crocodile tears, that the big, bad, "homophobic" (word in quotes because it's usually a slander when uttered) majority is denying homosexuals a natural or civil "right" is ludicrous and a witting lie, and I won't put up with your ventilating it here.
The reason why you and your pals like to couch the argument in the terms you do, is that there are very good reasons to apprehend why single-sex marriage might be a detriment to society, but of course the conclusive data must remain unavailable to the "con" side of the argument because of the impermeability of the moving membrane of time. Therefore, you hope that structuring your argument so that the affirmative is the default case will strip conservatives of the data they need to refute your claim that your revolutionary change will be innocuous. That is the same sort of thing liberals have been doing for three generations, much to the rue and cost of society. Whether it's Social Security, the Pruitt-Igoe and Cabrini Green housing projects, or whatever is the liberal flavor du jour, the argument is always the same -- "you can't prove it's a bad idea!" Yeah, well, that's why God gave humanity a sense of smell.
As for the crack about Biblical bases for defending civilization, the Bible provides not just the moral foundation of all our laws, including those that restrain me from hunting you down like an animal, but also the peculiarly Jewish and priestly sense of personal purity and cleanliness, of modesty and privacy that is the distinguishing mark that sets modern society apart from the ancient world of paganism. Whether we like it or not, we are Christians to the bone, and Christians are Jewish to the bone, in our most basic sense of personal space and of privacy and modesty within that space. Only the most hatefully selfish person on earth would want to take that away from so many hundreds of millions of Western people, and only selfish advocates of their own peccadillo would want to deprive them of their sense of moral bearings, and substitute for our sexual morality the kind of amorality that hasn't been seen in the Western world since the time of Diocletian.
And all just for you? Just for the 2%? I dont' think so!
You do not have to assciate with any married gays if you do not like thier choice in partners.
I know I don't, because they're not going to be married to people of the same gender.
And I don't have to put up with your "if you don't like the show just change the channels" argument, when it isn't gays' right to say what the program should be in the first place.
DINGdingdingdingding!
Liberals love to call things "living documents". That's code for "we're gonna welsh" and "then we'll come back and renegotiate it later -- after we've broken the deal."
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.