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

To: Maelstorm

If cessation of government definition/regulation/licensing of marriage will “end marriage as you know it”, your concept of marriage is pretty pathetic. The sorts of marriages that make a positive contribution to society aren’t the ones that rely on government approval to endure and thrive.


11 posted on 03/24/2009 10:39:33 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: GovernmentShrinker

Why is there any reason for anything to be ceased? Licensing marriage doesn’t take anything from anyone who wishing to get married that fits the definition that can be licensed. What do you not understand and why do you care if the government licenses marriage or not? Gays under your definition can have the added benefit of not being interfered with by the government. Yeah for them. If they can not make a convincing political case to change the definition of marriage then why should the rest of us give up anything? There is absolutely nothing oppressive by having a licensed legal marriage. You don’t have to do it. Most who don’t it refuse to largely to assuage commitment and maintain wiggle room so not to say they are “married”.
I’ve seen very few that remain cohabiting without formal marriage for the sake of romance, laziness, lack of commitment, fear, those things come to mind.

I still haven’t figured our why you as an individual are so hostile towards the concept of marriage. So what homosexuals do not fit the natural or legal definition of marriage. They choose not to and they have every right to do that just as we the public and our representative have every right to choose not to endorse their chosen arrangement. Nothing stops them from drawing up legal documents inferring legal responsibilities to whomever they wish sexual or nonsexual. Do you believe the government should rescind drivers license requirements because some wish to drive but do not meet the requirements under the law? I hardly think so.

As for my concept of marriage I think it is pretty robust. I’ve been married since I was 21 which makes it 14 years and my wife and I have 4 kids. My wife stays at home and I provide for them. It is her choice. I didn’t tell her she had to, it just made sense for the best interest of our children. What other definition of marriage do you have in mind because the marriage license was just a formality, a necessary one but I never dated anyone without the hope of marriage. The document didn’t make my marriage a success but it did show a commitment that I took very seriously and I believe if a man and woman really desire to make a family they will desire to be married legally. Why not? My parents are still married, my grandparents were married till they died, my great grandparents were married till they died both sides of the family divorce was nonexistent. Divorce is the plague of the current generation that accepts no standards and demonstrates the same childishness you display. None of my grandparents were born into riches they were poor one spent time in foster care but it didn’t seem to stop them from building good families.

I can’t blame you for your faithlessness it hasn’t always been easy to do what is right in the face of a popular culture that has become increasingly hostile to natural families. Natural is only good when it involves grocery produce and trail mix. That said I don’t know why people believe that if they can’t get their whims catered to that somehow others who are just fine should have to give up something to make them feel better when they have lost a political argument.

I think we have given up enough to people who should feel lucky we tolerate them at all for all their whining and demanding of things that are due to them. Marriage licenses take nothing away from anyone it merely casts into law the definition on which people have agreed upon since the nation was founded and approximates the natural family arrangement and is generally beneficial. The law has marriage right and there are things of far greater urgency to remove than marriage licensing. The fact that it is the number one thing on sexual activist’s list when they are not alarmed at the degree of confiscation of wealth, and the real abuses of government power where things are taken away from them and others suggests a lack priorities on their part. The only reason I’m concerned at all is because they want to foist their fiction on all of us, by redefining marriage, by indoctrinating our children, by intimidating their ideological opponents by making fringe disease ridden sexual behaviors acceptable. They decided to fight this battle. We just are responding. We didn’t ask for this and we are in no obligated to change ANYTHING to suit them.


33 posted on 03/25/2009 12:42:23 AM PDT by Maelstorm (This country was not founded with the battle cry "Give me liberty or give me a government check!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: GovernmentShrinker

yea why should the Govt tell a father not to marry his daughter and why should the Govt tell a son he can’t marry his sister or dog.

ARF

Lets just have anarchy hey, no laws and forget all together Govt

ARF


51 posted on 03/25/2009 9:39:55 AM PDT by manc (Marriage is between a man and a woman no sick MA,CT sham marriage end racism end affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | 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