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 ...
“The problem here isn’t ‘gay marriage’, it’s getting Government regulation in there in the first place.”
True because it opens the door for tons more regulation and meddling .
Precisely. Government doesn’t belong in marriage at all.
The whole agenda here is mass gay adoption and recruitment. They want uninhibited access to children from birth on to increase their numbers astronomically.
The homo-leftists only consent to "civil unions" because it will eventually be used as a foot-in-the-door to full blown same-sex "marriage." Homo-leftists won't be content until they sully the last vestige of a moral, civil society - they have made this extremely clear in the past few years. For all intents and purposes, "civil unions" are "marriage" in all but name, giving virtually all the rights of marriage and compelling those who don't agree to act as if they do. It gives them leverage to obtain children through adoption to use as a tool to shove their agenda further through the courts.
Society shouldn't reward bad behavior, and homosexual behavior is among the worse. Disease, a complex of mental disorders, physiological damage, family dissolution are a few of the results of this "lifestyle." It is well documented that homosexual men are shockingly more promiscuous than the average normal man, and even in committed "marriage" relationships, infidelity runs rampant as an accepted part of being "gay." The increased rate of STD's and HIV infection among homosexuals in Massachusetts has posed a real concern of late - this, after more than 5 years of homosexual "marriage."
This is legal extraordinary measures that one group gets automatically, and another group must hire a lawyer and file papers to get. Hence, my stance on a 'Civil Union'. Why should one group be forced to hire an attourney, file papers and have legal representation to acquire the same rights that are confired to a Husband and Wife?
Yep! It's the Triumph of the Will.
Why would a person consciously CHOSE a lifestyle that will alienate his family, his friends, expose him to a life of derision and ridicule?
Some people are simply born this way, percentage-wise, it’s about the same percentage of people born with a cleft palete, a club foot or other birth defect. I think we can both agree that this is not a ‘normal’ situation, as it is not designed to aide the species and does not replicate.
I, and a great deal of others, do not believe that a truly gay person chooses to be this way. There is a segment of society that claim to be bi-sexual; and I would agree that this segment actively choses to be homosexual - anything that gets them their jollies is fair game. However, for a man to prefer a man (over a woman) is something I cannot comprehend - and I believe is a trait that is hard-wired. I believe this is a defect, not a choice.
“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.”
This is why you take care of this before hand. I have. I am divorced—have 3 children 2 grandkids. Everything is spelled out no matter who I am with. It is the parties responsibility to take care of this stuff before.
And stepping back one more step...
the whole agenda here is to destroy the traditional family, the institution through which the knowledge of God and Christ is passed from generation to generation.
Because they aren't a husband and wife.
A husband and wife is what a marriage is. Once you start giving other pairings the same rights that are conferred on a husband and wife, you've already lost the argument against making them husband and husband.
If they are the legal equivalent of husband and wife, on what grounds do you segregate them into a separate category called civil unions? On what grounds do you refrain from teaching their "lifestyle" to the kiddies in the public schools? After all, they're the legal equivalent of husband and wife. Are you going to tell the kids they're equal to husband and wife legally, but somehow not quite as good so we don't let them marry? How long could you get away with that? And how long would it be until threesomes demanded the same civil unions?
Because if we recognize them as a 'Marriage' then under the 'Equal Protection' clause, they could sue our churches to marry them. A church would decide whether to go to court, risk their tax exemption - or simply fold and allow the marriage to take place. Thereby, taking the sacriment of marriage and making a sacrilege out of it. We both know that some gay people have this as their goal. A 'Civil Union' confirs the legality they demand, while protecting the sacriment we consider ordained by God.
As for their lifestyle, it's already being done. As for what to tell the children, that's up to you. Our kids and grandkids are taught that homosexuality is an abombination unto God. People commit all kinds of acts against God - and for those acts, they are accountable unto God.
If we're going to allow that, we should have civil unions for threesomes and foursomes. And we should have civil unions for people who aren't even sexually involved with one another. They just happen to room together and claim to be fond of one another, so why not give them the benefits of married couples? If it's what they desire, shouldn't we give it to them? After all, that seems to be the criterion these days.
The only solution to the public schools propagandizing the kids on homosexuality is for society to become healthy and sane again, and that means coming right out and saying that homosexual relationships are unnatural and, to be blunt, are no damned good. Saying they're just as good as marriage, but are slightly different so we give them civil unions instead of marriages, is just a short term tactic the left is using to lure some conservatives in for the kill. Civil unions will never last, for obvious reasons. They're "separate but equal", and liberals will never allow that the stand in the long run.
Once you concede that homosexual couples deserve all the rights and privileges of marriage except the name, you've lost the battle and same-sex "marriage" will eventually become law.
Two friends start a business and one dies... Go into business with a friend without a written partnership agreement or a Will? Very poor judgment on the part of the partners. Is marriage a solution to this problem? No.
A neighbor you care for has a car accident and is seriously injured... If the neighbor wanted you to be able to make medical care decisions on their behalf (and you wanted to accept such responsibility) they can give you a durable medical power of attorney. Again, should you have married your neighbor instead? The answer is obvious.
All of these types of arguments are bogus. Two adults who simply wish to live together can with minimal fuss cover all of this with a trivial bit of legal paperwork which would cost far less than the most modest "wedding". The primary "beneficiary" of "gay marriage" remains divorce lawyers.
How are they bogus? A ‘right’ that is automatically conferred to a hetersexual couple required extraordinary effort for a couple that is forbidden to marry. That is the fact, simple and uncut.
The cost and effort required to obtain the Power of Attourney and the Will, is a cost that is not shared with a married couple.
Substitute any other minority you like, for the word ‘heterosexual’. We can use Jewish, Christian, Black, Dutch - whatever. One group is excluded from the legal protection afforded another group.
I think we both agree that we wish this problem would just go away - that the hands of time would turn back to when this was truly considered a perversion, which it is. However, we are now forced into a position of ‘damage control’. Some states now recognize gay marriage, I see this as a bad thing. When you use the word ‘marriage’; certain other religous connotations follow. How long before your church is sued, if they fail to allow a gay marriage to take place?
Consider, our churches have tax exempt status. One could argue that by virute of being tax exempt, they are supported by the taxpayer. Hence, if the taxpayer supports them, they must provide services to everyone. Do you see where this is going?
There is no legal discrimination here. A gay man is just as free to marry a woman as a straight man is, so attempts to tie this back to historical miscegenation laws are incorrect. But if we redefine marriage to say a man can "marry" another man, why stop there? Why can't he "marry" his mother? Or several people? Or his dog? What legal or moral theory would be used to deny these other "rights"?
Depending upon where you live, the battle is already lost. And given that a legal contract in one state, is legal in another state (ie. my wife and I are married in UT, we are also married in Texas), a gay married couple could move in next door to you and there is not a thing you could do about it.
I'm thinking a head of the curve. A church is tax exempt, the church does not pay taxes on it's property, nor on the tithing it receives. One could argue, that by virtue of receiving a tax exempt status - it is being supported by the taxpayers. After all, the church receives the benefits of police, fire, water, sewage and road benefits that every other institution pays taxes to support, right? So, the next thought would be that if a taxpayer funded institution is denying a group of citizens the sacriment would result in that church being sued for discrimination.
Would the Gay movement like to bankrupt as many churches as they could? Would they directly attack a church that refused to allow big gala weddings? We both know they would. I simply suggest we allow another way for these people to get the same legal protection afforded everyone else. Hopefully, this will bypass a situation that would be detrimental to our freedom of worship.
So, you can share the rights we all share, provided that you do exactly what we tell you to do. Right? Why punish a the woman? Why punish the kids that would likely arise from such a situation? This will not diffuse the situation that has already been lit.
The laws, as presently written, do not mention gender - it was assumed. However, as we both know, these laws are being challenged and are being struck down because of this omission. So, we can stay the course and eventually lose everything - and make no mistake - we WILL lose.
Or, we can create a safety net; affording the gay community the same 'rights' as the rest of the population. Now, here's my hidden agenda. I want to see gay couples pay alimony, child support and other costs that the 'married' community enjoys. The life expectancy of a gay relationship is much, much shorter than the average straight couple's. So, if they demand 'marriage', then isn't it only fair that they also enjoy 'Divorce', 'Child support', and 'custody' battles too?
The facts are that more than one state now recognizes gay marriage; therefore, the battle is lost. A couple legally married in a state that recognizes gay marriage - it legally married in your state too. Just like my marriage to my wife is legal anywhere in the USA. I merely suggest an alternate method of allowing them to get the rights that they are suing for.
“Why would a person consciously CHOSE a lifestyle that will alienate his family, his friends, expose him to a life of derision and ridicule?”
In today’s day and age with the homosexualist agenda brainwashing folks non-stop via the courts, the media, the public school system, and Hollyweird, I think many folks would consciously choose to get involved in homosexual activity. Which is what the left has wanted all along in order to destroy the traditional/biblical family and get everyone dependent on the government, Jean Jacques Rousseau style.
“Some people are simply born this way, percentage-wise, it’s about the same percentage of people born with a cleft palete, a club foot or other birth defect. I think we can both agree that this is not a ‘normal’ situation, as it is not designed to aide the species and does not replicate.”
Do pro-homosexual groups really like this argument? If so, I think they would be trying to tie themselves more to the disabled rights movement rather than the African Americans’ rights movement. But they want to brainwash everyone into thinking homosexuality is “normal” and even the disabled rights activists will usually concede that a cleft palate, a club foot, blindness, deafness or whatever disability is not normal.
bump for reading later
That's the way a lot of conservatives think these days, which is why the West is finished. The left makes a demand that would have been considered outrageous just a few short years ago, and the conservative response is to find some way to meet the demand that falls just a tad short of complete capitulation.
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.