It don't work any other way
Posted on 03/09/2004 11:03:15 AM PST by DameAutour
Marriage was originally defined as a legally recognized religiously based contract. In accepting homosexual "marriage", one is tacitly giving God's imprimatur to an unholy union.
In a more secular vein, let's rephrase the question. Was a dollar under the gold standard (heterosexual marriage) worth more than a dollar tomorrow (homosexual marriage). How about after the dollars are "adjusted for inflation" (subjected to grotesque redefinition of "marriage")?
I'm sure my parents could have said the same thing about the sexual revolution of the '60s. And they would have been right. It didn't impact their marriage. They have been married for 50 years and still love each other, although they did a lot of learning about what love was.
The argument is a strawman because those of us who are concerned aren't talking about the impact on an instance of a marriage, but on the concept of marriage. The selfish people who say, "It won't impact MY marriage," haven't considered the impact on their children's marriages, or their children's children's.
Marriage in my time was greatly impacted by the sexual revolution and it is even more greatly impacted for my children. In fact, this whole perverted marriage push would not even be on the radar if it had not been for the "free love" movement of the '60s.
Now for an important question. Should we consider the future impact of our actions, or is it enough to take care of ourselves and let our children worry about it?
I know where I stand.
Shalom.
This is a cultural norm and a historical fact. And the attitude is that if a heterosexual person is a philanderer, that person should not get married.
A homosexual goes into a "committed" relationship/civil union/gay marriage without this promise of sexual fidelity. Their love transcends the physical. The physical is separate from the emotional. They are not like heterosexuals. Sex describes their lifestyle choice. No homosexual will discourage homosexual philandering -- certainly no heterosexual will.
Are we to then have two definitions of marriage? Or will one influence the other? I think the fidelity issue is a strong one.
You've made a few comments to posters: "and I applaud your attempt to bolster this weakened-marriage argument -- but I don't think you've succeeded.' and "I still think it's one of the weakest arguments in our arsenal."
Perhaps you's like to contribute something besides criticism? Perhaps you'd like to share maybe a strong argument or two?
Look harder. The movement is gaining steam. Right now a "covenant marriage" is offered as an alternative marriage in some states. I believe Louisiana is one.
Shalom.
If this is your condition, then you must refrain from using the word "marriage", which carries with it the legal (secular) recognition of a religious (biblical) contract.
This is like endorsing the practice of identity theft - All ID Thieves do is merely amend the definition of some other person's name and personal data to include themselves. To redefine marriage in such a way is fully comparable.
Civil unions? Fine. Don't make me pay for them (through tax-funded insurance programs, insurance industry broad-base rate retrenchment to cover newly expected losses, etc.). Don't make me endorse them, either - it trods heavily on my own religious freedoms (at least until they completely redefine "religious").
Would slavery fit that definition? Just wondering.
It don't work any other way
I just don't see homosexuality all of a sudden becoming more attractive to people just because gay marriage becomes an option. Are there really people out there who would be gay but for the fact that they can't get married to a member of the same sex?
Considering that homosexuals make up 2-4% of our population, I really don't see how much of a difference this would make to Social Security etc.
Keep in mind, too, that the average homosexual is better educated and has a higher income than the average heterosexual person, so the financial aspect doesn't seem like a major factor.
Next up ??
-- Why can't I have three wives/husbands ??_______________________________________________-- I want to marry my pet crocodile. We're in love !
-- _______________________________________________
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX(fill in the blank)
If I had to choose between those folks that are opposed to gay marriage and:
-- the Vigilante mayor of San Francisco illegally giving out marriage licenses to same-sex couples... I'll take those opposed to gay marriage. I am opposed to same-sex marriage myself.-- the mayor of New Palze, NY (ditto above)
-- the folks in that New Mexico county (ditto above)
-- the folks in that Oregon county (ditto above)
-- the city of Asbury Park, N.J. (ditto above)
-- the folks filing the lawsuit in Florida suing for same-sex marriages
-- (whoever I've left out doing the same)
-- The Faggachusetts Court telling the legislature they MUST write a law APPROVING gay marriage.
I fault the MAYORS taking blatantly ILLEGAL actions (Vigilante actions) and LIBERAL judges not making decisions based on the law, etc. These people should be dealt with HARSHLY. Judges should be impeached and thrown out of office. Legal action should be taken against mayors NOT upholding the laws/going AGAINST the law.
I don't FAVOR an amendment on such a thing, but given the situation of out-of-control judges and mayors, what other remedy is there ? I don't see another way.
So until I see an EFFECTIVE alternative remedy, I would support the amendment.
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.