Posted on 06/06/2006 3:05:36 PM PDT by JulieRNR21
Believe me I share their frustration. I know it was a 4 to 3 decision, but such decisions are made routinely in every state and in the USSC. As you point out though, it is now clearly within the power of the voters. They must speak loudly. I understand it is supposed to come up again this summer.
My point was that you cannot put traditional marriage into the Constitution, or anywhere else, because people overwhelmingly favor easy divorce and decriminalization of adultery.
Good move.
Are any of your friends in Massachusetts married, and if so, how have the same sex marriages affected your friends' marriages?
The only thing I ever notice about that picture are her stirrups. She's obviously not a horsewoman and looks a little foolish.
It's not a question of same-sex affecting their individual marriages.
For thousands of years human society has affirmed that marriage between one man & one woman is the natural order for procreation and the best environment for the raising of children.
They may not, but I think the propagandizing on alternate lifestyles in schools may affect that generation in ways that might well make family gatherings a heartbreak in years to come. It would be better if they told the truth about the dangers of a gay lifestyle.
"Traditional marriage has three partners,God, the male and the female." This is so naive. There have always been four. It was the church, and now it is the state that sanctions marriage.
You are right. It's going nowhere. But at least we are on the offensive. KH is right to hold that old Bolshevik's feet to the fire on an issue that people care about.
We always campaign on Democrat issues. She's not doing that. I am really rooting for her.
I'm just not sure how the propagandizing will impact family gatherings. Some of it is way over the top as is illustrated in Tammy Bruce's book The Death of Right and Wrong. That kind of stuff doesn't belong in any school. As for the dangers of a gay lifestyle, yes, those who engage in sex with multiple partners and without protection are clear dangers to themselves and others. But the same thing can be said for similar heterosexual lifestyles. Schools, when presenting sex education classes should definitely point that out.
I think you have that right. The larger issue might be stated as that we want government to stop social engineering. They don't know enough to overturn eons of practical development. This is just the tip of the iceberg. We want them to stop bossing us around by thinking they should tell us how many children to have, what to eat, what to drive, which light bulb to buy, and make us switch to toilet that don't flush and washing machines that break our backs.
She needs to distinguish herself from him in these areas of importance, not try to paint him as soft on gay marriage. That's a loser for sure, as many conservatives are opposed to this amendment.
The larger issue might be stated as that we want government to stop social engineering. They don't know enough to overturn eons of practical development.
The Marriage issue is just the beginning of many she's going to address!
Look here for "Contrast between Harris & Nelson":
http://www.electharris.org/news/Read.aspx?ID=63
"So the President isn't the only one pandering to a small group within his base. Unfortunately for those of us who believe there are serious issues facing this Nation, I'm afraid this one will play right into the hands of the Democrats this Fall.
We must never undermine the uniqueness of an institution that continues to serve as an essential thread in the fabric of our society. I support the passage of the Marriage Protection amendment being debated in the Senate," Congresswoman Harris said.
I hate to pop her bubble, but the 10 million couples living together outside of marriage and the 1 million divorces a year pose an infinitely greater danger to marriage than the piddly 6000 same sex marriages in Massachusetts. I'm trying to figure out how any of those 6000 are endangering my marriage."
You are quite right that easy divorce (promoted by liberal feminists) has led to a serious consideration of gay marriage. Easy divorce, however, has had a terrible emotional effect on children and countless adults. It has led to a disrespect for traditional marriage and has gotten us used to the concept of taking mothers or fathers away from children. Because we are accustomed to taking mothers or fathers away from children (for the sake of our terribly important adult life style preferences), gay marriage makes sense to some people. Given the terrible effect that easy divorce has had on both individuals and society, why would you add to the effect by legalizing gay marriage? How is a son supposed to learn to be a man through two lesbian parents? How is a girl going to learn to relate to men through two lesbian parents? How can two homosexuals mother a baby? Don't give me the argument about gays adopting little orphan children. The gay rights movement is not about that. What about the natural tie of kinship? There is a denial of kinship ties in gay marriage.
This divorce argument is an argument in favor of making divorce laws stricter. It is not an argument in favor of gay marriage.
But if we are to adopt a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, this does not do that. No heterosexual is going to consider which type of marriage to engage in, same sex or traditional. Therefore, if traditional marriages decline in this Country, it cannot be linked to gay marriages.
Because we are accustomed to taking mothers or fathers away from children (for the sake of our terribly important adult life style preferences), gay marriage makes sense to some people.
I cannot see any linkage here between people opting for gay marriage (in place of what?), and the separation of children from their natural parents. I may be missing your point.
Given the terrible effect that easy divorce has had on both individuals and society, why would you add to the effect by legalizing gay marriage?
First I do not want to legalize gay marriages in my state. I have no say on any family law issues in any other state. Second this amendment is being sold under false pretenses. It is not intended to stop gay marriage, but only where a judge rules the state constitution does not so permit. This is wrong, as the state constitution only needs to be amended to cure the problem.
How is a son supposed to learn to be a man through two lesbian parents?
This is an entirely different situation than gay marriage. Adoption bans have been found legal all the way to the USSC. If a state wants, however to permit same sex adoptions, again, that is their business, not mine. Even without same sex marriages, adoptions must be considered by the state since heterosexual unmarried couples and singles routinely adopt in many states. Nor will the FMA even touch on this issue.
Don't give me the argument about gays adopting little orphan children. The gay rights movement is not about that
Again, that is up to the state. But the statistics show that 40 thousand children a year go unadopted. Child abuse has been shown to occur far more often in those institutions substituting for a permanent home than they do with adoptees. Most couples want infants, so that the older child often goes through the foster system for years before finding a permanent home, if ever. Most monogamous same sex couples have the same desires to treat their adopted children with love and caring as heterosexual couples do. There is no credible evidence to the contrary. The gay rights movement may deserve criticism for their tactics and some of their goals, but most gays and lesbians claim not to be part of anything other than their desire to be productive assets to their community.
There is a denial of kinship ties in gay marriage.
I'm not quite sure what you meant by this.
To summarize, the statistics you are referring to are meaningful. The ten million couples living out of the state of marriage and the one million divorces directly and materially have a negative impact on marriage. The 6000 same sex marriages have no such link. We may not like them, nor do I even understand the causes of it or why people are so inclined. But I can find absolutely no identified harm that is done to traditional marriage.
It may be a naive idea to your thinking but it is the truth.
I am sorry but you must be blind, deaf and dumb if you think the government public school are pushing homosexuality as a normal life style. It also is pushed everyday on the TV your kids watch. The comics are now going to publish a lesbian Batwoman. Open up your eyes and mind to see what is going on in our culture.
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.