Arguing that a redefinition of marriage to allow gays is analogous to expanding voting rights rests on a false premise. As the right to vote expanded, the concept of of "the vote" always remained the same. Voting always meant choosing one's representative, no matter who was allowed to vote. Marriage, however, has always been a union of man and woman to raise their children. Thus, "gay marriage" distorts the entire concept of marriage in the way that expanding the franchise never changed voting.
Plus, the canard that gay marriage does not threaten traditional marriage is put to the lie by Gene Robisons, the Episcopal cleric who left his family for a gay lover. If he was willing to do that when homosexuality was stigmatized, how many other marginal marriages might end when society gives homosexuality the thumbs up? Plus, how will we be able to teach children about marriage when we will always have to treat Suzie's two daddies as a normal family?
Liar.
That's the first LIE, without even reading the rest of the "homo-promo" tripe.
Marriage Can Be ExpandedIndeed. Incest. Polygamy. Bigamy. Interspecies relationships. If two people of the same sex can marry, then why not anyone, under any circumstances?
How many times have you heard something from a tearfull momma like this "I know they said Jerome killed them people, but he's a good boy."
Understandable avoidance of reality.
Rather than get his daughter help, this person simply gave up and gave in.
Sad, not just for them but for the larger society as well.
Agreed. The comparison is invalid. The nature of a vote does not change regardless of who is voting. Marriage has always been understood from time immemorial to be a union of a man and a woman. If people of the same sex unite, it changes the nature of marriage since the substance of the union will be different. One would expect liberals to understand that when you change a traditional arrangement, it destroys the essence of that arrangement. That is exactly why marriage cannot be expanded in the way the voting franchise was. Don't expect liberals and gay activists like Sherman Stein to understand that not all change is good for society.
The man's daughter is confused so he does the natural thing - he learns from her.
Most recent studies indicate that only 10% of male homosexuals are born that way. The rest just get sucked into it.
That editorial is so gay.
I must disagree here: As the right to vote expanded, the concept stayed the same - it was just opened to more people. The same goes for marriage in this situation: Expanding marriage opens it to more people, but the concept stays the same; The joining of two in a common bond.
I'd like to hear the author explain bi-sexuality.
Why can't people confront their own children who are homosexuals? Randall Terry does a very good job of being able to love his gay son, while at the same time declaring how his son's lifestyle is wrong and self-destructive. These loony liberals just melt into mush when faced with their own childrens' homosexuality. Why should that mere fact cause them to dump the moral beliefs they have always held dear?
We seem to have lost alllllllllllllllllll
awareness and understanding about what
sacred vs profane
means in our society.
Sacred, holy = set apart for a lofty, holy, devoted use--as unto God etc.
profane at least meant and means common, i.e. NOT set apart as very special.
When marriage becomes whatever whim strikes whatever group of critters . . .
HOLY MATRIMONY
will truly have become profaned to the extreme. It seems well on it's way to that dismal state.
Any woman--or man, for that matter--worth a few dozen connected brain cells
should well realize that to be cherished uniquely, exclusively, after the pattern of Christ Loving the church--is indeed a most precious state.
Perhaps there's been such little of that evident the last 50 years that succeeding waves of young critters have given up--so much so, that they no longer have any hint of such a dream as part of that glint in their eyes for one another.
Homosexuality is degeneracy in adults. To condone and affirm this degeneracy as 'just as acceptable as normal sexual behavior' is to at once establish the worthlessness of the human soul and the institutions of civilization upon which the healthy continuance of culture depend. Embracing degeneracy degenerates the society. Does it harm traditional marriage as a fundamental institution of our civilization?... It murders it, aborts it, twsits the civilization into an laien beast of hedonistic pursuit where degenerates are protected to define themselves by their sexual proclivities no matter how unhealthy those proclivites may prove to be. THAT is the goal of the degenerates, to be 'just as acceptable' as any other behavior or minority. But what other class of marginal humans is allowed to define themselves based on degenerate behavior entered into willingly, then given full minority staus equal to race? I marvel that the black community is not outraged at the 'in your face' methodology of the degenerates, as the homosexuals diminish the legitimacy of true minorities. But then I remember that most black people vote democrat and that is the party of degeneracy and blood sacrifice for empowerment.
Did he ever wonder who seduced her into the lifestyle?
That doesn't make it right. In fact it makes it more suspect when your judgement is clouded by emotional sentiment.
BUMP
Marriage is an institution formed by God, no one is allowed to change it's rules but God. So until the sky splits with a booming voice relating differently, marriage is between a man and a woman. Separation of church and state cuts both ways, government is not allowed to define "marriage", it is outside their domain and remains in the domain between society and God.
I suppose a state could legalize unions, if the politician wishes to risk his seat in office, but state sanctioned unions cannot be defined as Holy Matrimony.