Posted on 05/10/2009 8:29:27 PM PDT by La Lydia
When the D.C. Council passed a measure to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, council members...violated the sacred trust of their office...a strange brand of reverse bigotry is being perpetrated. Defenders of virtue and protectors of family and age-appropriate education of children are being called "bigots." ...
The institution of marriage is unique in our society. It is the one institution that binds women and men together to form a family, serving incredibly important societal purposes. There is little doubt that the best environment for raising children is by a loving married mother and father.
Advocates of same-sex marriage purport that their form can peacefully coexist alongside traditional marriage. But same-sex marriage laws will create conflict between people who fervently believe in traditional marriage and the law. Those conflicts would always be resolved in favor of same-sex marriage because there can be no "conscientious objectors" to the law....
-- You can teach your children that marriage is between a man and a woman, but your children's D.C. schools will teach them that marriage includes same-sex couples.
-- You can teach your children that there are important spiritual and societal reasons to believe only in traditional marriage. But your children will be told that gay marriage is a civil rights issue, and that those opposing it are akin to the racists of history ...
-- You can be a counselor, physician or attorney who believes in traditional marriage, but if you act in concert with your beliefs, you could lose your professional license...
-- Your church can teach that same-sex marriage is not appropriate, but if you are too active politically on the issue, your tax exemption may be revoked.
These are not hypothetical conflicts. They have already emerged and will become increasingly frequent...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
And islam will be right there, with its Saudi-financed mosques in major cities and small university towns.
Something the “It-doesn’t-affect-my-marriage-or-your-marriage-personally” crowd needs to read.
He forgot to add that if you teach traditional values to your children that you could in the eyes of the law you could now be seen as doing your children harm. This would give grounds to take your children away from you and put them up for adoption.
Oh and those children will be needed for all the adoptions that will be wanted by couples who could not produce their own children.
Don’t kid yourself this is the MAIN objective of this legislation. The entire goal behind it is to break up the traditional family.
Something very odd is going on here.
Anthropologists have traditionally categorized societies at the most basic level by their marriage customs, as these are the most basic institutions of society.
Yet here we are in the process of drastically altering our own marriage customs to ones never seen before in any human society, assuming all the time there will be no unforeseen negative effects.
This is societal hubris of the very highest type.
The ONLY point I can concede to the Gay Rights group, is the legal issues around a committed gay relationship. Issues that are automatic for a heterosexual marriage, require extraordinary (not superhuman, but more than anyone else requires) legal steps.
A Gay couple buy a house and start a business, one dies - unless a will is given, the surviving mate may find himself fighting his deceased family for half of his own home and/or business
A Gay couple have a car accident. One is seriously injured, the other member cannot give medical permission to allow emergency surgery, or in some states, even visit his mate in intensive care.
These, and similar other issues are the ONLY points I can concede. That’s why I prefer to use the term ‘Civil Union’ instead of “Marriage”, as the latter infers spiritual and religous aspects that are reserved by God, for a Man and a Woman. A “Marriage” exists to form families, that is the entire point of a “Marriage”; this point is not possible for a gay couple. IMHO, they have no more claim to a “Marriage” then they do to claim an Agricultural Excemption on their taxes - they do not meet the minimum qualifications of being capable of the potential of producing children.
I have no problem with legal equality - but “Marriage” is not the same thing as a “Civil Union”. A “Civil Union” is all that they are qualified to apply for. IMHO.
The punchline is there IS a residency requirement for divorce in Iowa: an ENTIRE YEAR. So . . . these people are heading back to neighboring states with marriage protection laws in the legislative code. What happens when they want to divorce? Well, their home state is not going to grant divorce if it doesn't recognize the legality of their "marriage" in the first place. If they want to get divorced in Iowa, they must move here and live for a year first.
I think this is hilarious.
I understand what you’re saying, having lived in inner-city Minneapolis for 20 plus years. Gay moms and dads with kids were all over the place. Where we are now, it’s two parent, mom and dad families. Maybe I’m hopeful, but I don’t see the normal two parent family going away.
Soooo...a “Civil Union” is a legal contract....? Right? I don’t think that’s so hard. Business partners have to do this kind of stuff too...in fact, married people have to do it, also....in WILLS. It might be a LITTLE more complicated, but I don’t think it’s that much more work.
ping
Social services makes money on each adoption they set up.
Most people who want to adopt do not want to adopt a child with medical problems such as crack babies.
They don’t want to adopt older children with emotional problems either.
What they want is little healthy babies and there is a real shortage of those available for adoption in this country.
Don’t kid yourself that they have an entire adoption network set up that can suddenly become very profitable to them under the guise of helping the children.
White babies from poorer families would be especially at risk since they would not have the money to fight them in long drawn out court battles. (not a racial thing it is just that healthy infants have always been in short supply and most of the population happens to be white)
Most of the people who run and work for social services don’t have children of their own and a fresh out of colleges with very liberal agendas... they do not have what is best for the child in mind.
Yes these laws could easily be turned into you are mentally abusing your children by teaching them traditional values.
I’ll admit, I’d have loved it if Miss California’s response had been, “You want to stick what where? That is soooooooo gross! What kind of disgusting pervert are you?”
Oh well. This sort of legislation is disgusting, but it is sadder to think that it is even conceivable in America. It wouldn’t have been 30 years ago...
bookmark for later.
Where was the author of this piece when those "incredibly important societal purposes" were being nullified, one by one, over the liberalization of our laws and mores over the past fifty years?
Even now, EVEN HERE, were I to list what the now eliminated, but still real benefits of government sponsored marriage are--I'd be shouted down as a pre-historic, politically incorrect brute, so slowly has the pot been brought to boil.
What is wrong with a Will and a Power of Attorney?
Why should a person have “rights” conferred upon them simply by the type of sex they wish to engage in?
Homosexuality is defined soley by the sexually perverse practices CHOSEN by the people.
You don’t confer rights on sexual choices.
Go back 40, 30, even 20 years ago - who would have every thought we’d ever be having a national debate over what is the definition of marriage? I’ll bet that 99% of people would have said it’s one man, one woman, period. The other 1% would think it’s just fine if someone wants to marry a rhododendron.
Too late.
They've already destroyed all valid arguments, systematically, over the last half century.
Even here most are numb to the fact that there are few if any reasons remaining for the government to marry anyone to anyone.
So now when you look around for a reason to justify your inborn hard-wired desire for traditional marriage, you cannot manage a valid argument for involving government in heterosexual marriage any more than in homosexual marriage--
Because there is no longer a reason for government to marry anyone to anyone.
And all you have left to argue with is sentiment.
Which is no objective argument.
Back then it was considered a psychopathology
L
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.