Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MrB
If gay marriage is a threat to marriage it is a threat to mine as well. Of course, it isn't and we have a few years of proof of that.

No one is dismantling the institution. It is being expanded to let others get married.

I don't get it. Wouldn't gay marriage lead to more monogomous relationship amongst homos? Isn't that a good thing?

I don't buy that gays are destroying marriage by wanting to be married. I see it as them coming around to recognizing a good thing and wanting to have it for themselves.

107 posted on 05/15/2008 12:59:05 PM PDT by purpleraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies ]


To: purpleraine
Sounds like you have no interest in maintaining the traditional values of our culture that made us what we are today. You take at face value that "marriage" is what gay couples and activists want, and they won't move the goal posts just a bit further. You TRUST leftists with only wanting "this one little thing" in the culture war.

From: http://www.wevotevalues.com/11arguments.pdf

The third reason marriage between homosexuals will destroy traditional marriage is that this is the ultimate goal of activists, and they will not stop until they achieve it. The history of the gay and lesbian movement has been that its adherents quickly move the goal line as soon as the previous one has been breached, revealing even more shocking and outrageous objectives. In the present instance, homosexual activists, heady with power and exhilaration, feel the political climate is right to tell us what they have wanted all along. This is the real deal: Most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to create an entirely different legal structure. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax‐free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, and much more) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would “couples” be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed. If you doubt that this is the motive, read what is in the literature today. Activists have created a new word to replace the outmoded terms infidelity, adultery, cheating, and promiscuity. The new concept is polyamorous. It means the same thing (literally “many loves”) but with the agreement of the primary sexual partner. Why not? He or she is probably polyamorous, too.

108 posted on 05/15/2008 1:11:44 PM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson