Replies

People need to be able to freely enter into contracts, and one of the few responsibilities government should have is to enforce those contracts.

This point has been long debated in U.S. Constitutional law. Marriage was originally considered an institution of God's design, and U.S. law until very recently tended to deny the rights of couples to design their own variations. Great legal wars were fought to suppress polygamy and incest, for instance, or plural marriage. Until the 60s, there was a general legal expectation that the man was the breadwinner because of the woman's role as the childbearer. Marriage was not a contract, but a covenant (the couple's promise to God to follow his rules for marriage, for the good of the entire society).

The invention of the so-called "fool-proof" pharmaceutical birth control in the 60s, coupled with Roe v. Wade, changed all that. And California began the tidal wave of judicial activism on the family in the 60s by approving the "palimony" claims against Lee Marvin and initiating the "no-fault" divorce revolution in the early 70s. During this decade, invitro fertilization techniques and lesbian activism also came on board, along with leftist social workers insisting on affirming out-of-wedlock mothers and of placing abandoned children for adoption with single gays and lesbians. Thus the "contract" view of sexual relations began to rise: the couple's agreement with one another, not with the rest of society.

5,000 years of Judeo-Christianity, dismantled in a single decade.

'Marriage was not a contract, but a covenant'
'the "contract" view of sexual relations began to rise: the couple's agreement with one another, not with the rest of society.'

I agree that marriage is a covenant. But the covenant aspect is not the same as the legal aspect. The fact is that the Swedish government allowed the virtual marriage of the two lesbians. As much as we may disagree with that, we should understand that those two people then have to be held accountable for their actions. If the government wanted to say there's no such thing as a responsibility-free sperm donation, which I think would be a perfectly reasonable position, then that's something the man should have known from the outset.

This point has been long debated in U.S. Constitutional law. Marriage was originally considered an institution of God's design, and U.S. law until very recently tended to deny the rights of couples to design their own variations. Great legal wars were fought to suppress polygamy and incest, for instance, or plural marriage. Until the 60s, there was a general legal expectation that the man was the breadwinner because of the woman's role as the childbearer. Marriage was not a contract, but a covenant (the couple's promise to God to follow his rules for marriage, for the good of the entire society).

The invention of the so-called "fool-proof" pharmaceutical birth control in the 60s, coupled with Roe v. Wade, changed all that. And California began the tidal wave of judicial activism on the family in the 60s by approving the "palimony" claims against Lee Marvin and initiating the "no-fault" divorce revolution in the early 70s. During this decade, invitro fertilization techniques and lesbian activism also came on board, along with leftist social workers insisting on affirming out-of-wedlock mothers and of placing abandoned children for adoption with single gays and lesbians. Thus the "contract" view of sexual relations began to rise: the couple's agreement with one another, not with the rest of society.

5,000 years of Judeo-Christianity, dismantled in a single decade.

I'd say you have a slam dunk on this one. I do lay most of the blame of this on "The Pill" and The Warren (Supreme) Court. I lay a little of the blame on us, well not you and me and most here directly but "us" as a collective society by letting these fools do this to our society. If someone would have stood up to these fools and said "no" or "go fly a kite" and so on, sooner or later, they would stop and go back in the closet at least. As one Freeper put it, homosexuality "went from ther love that 'dared not speak its name' to the 'love that will not shut up.'" Already in small pockets, we are seeing the word "no" used such as one case here in Pittsburgh at Duquesne University where one student said on an online forum that "homosexuality is subhuman." The University wants him to take sensitivity training but he refuses. I'm glad, but he is only one person, maybe if we all started doing that but the key is to get someone in power to say "no" and that still seems to be lacking. I say when that happens, I hope soon, it will be a new day. As to the sexual liberation stuff, actually that has started in the backrooms before the 1960's but "the Pill" and The Warren Court gave them the tools to do their plans. As one Freeper said (RCA2000),"it is all part of the big plan."

5,000 years of Judeo-Christianity, dismantled in a single decade.

I think you are premature in your declaration of death.