Posted on 03/09/2010 12:18:39 PM PST by Kaslin
Well, if that were a question I wanted to ask, perhaps. But I was making a statement about what the optimum situation for children is...that is my opinion. People should be grown ups and realize they need to take care of their kids no matter what, of course. But I was simply making a statement about what is FAR AND AWAY the best situation...don’t see why we need to stop stating that...I don’t think “single parenting” is too hot either, personally. Sorry.Single parenting is awful. Worse than homosexuals from my experience.
Again the problem is that these days conservatism has stopped offering real solutions to social problems. Throwing fits at homos because they parent better than single parents and worse than a traditional family begs the real question "What can we do as a society to make families more stable and raise children right?".
“Indeed, legally creating a union does not enable two men or two women to become “one flesh,” nor does a legal ceremony give the union sanctity.”
Thought this was the most convincing statement made. The concept of “one flesh” is refering to children from marriage. It is probably the most enriching phenomena associated with marriage - that a loving couple joins together to make “one flesh”. I am always struck by the beauty, intelligence, joy and love everytime I look upon my son. My wife and I will exchange glances and we are both thinking the same thing, how grateful this gift of One Flesh. I am sorry that some are unable to reach this place. There is only one path to this place and it is marriage between a man and a woman. The writer is correct, all else is imitation or counterfit. Not trying to be mean and non-inclusive, just recognizing the obvious that one flesh is the union of a man and a woman.
That's the crux of the matter. Cheap way to get your lover's AIDS medication paid for by someone else.
First myth - that it’s “Marriage”.
Calling it “marriage” doesn’t make it marriage any more than calling a dog’s tail a “leg” makes it a leg.
Thought this was the most convincing statement made. The concept of “one flesh” is refering to children from marriage. It is probably the most enriching phenomena associated with marriage - that a loving couple joins together to make “one flesh”. I am always struck by the beauty, intelligence, joy and love everytime I look upon my son. My wife and I will exchange glances and we are both thinking the same thing, how grateful this gift of One Flesh. I am sorry that some are unable to reach this place. There is only one path to this place and it is marriage between a man and a woman. The writer is correct, all else is imitation or counterfit. Not trying to be mean and non-inclusive, just recognizing the obvious that one flesh is the union of a man and a woman.Again, this begs the question. What do you do with children that *don't* come from "one flesh" families?
Exactly, they already have the SAME MARRIAGE rights as anyone else.
And also, heterosexuals (ie normal people) have limits on who they can marry. They can’t marry their brother or sister, they can’t marry a parent, they can’t marry cousins, they can’t marry people already married, they can’t marry anyone who doesn’t want to marry them, they can’t marry more than one person at a time, they cannot marry animals, or inanimate objects.
Plenty of restrictions normal people have to put up with.
I’d rather go the other extreme — more insurance freedom. We shouldn’t be coerced into paying for someone else’s alchohol abuse, drug abuse, etc. And yes, we should be allowed to opt out of AIDS coverage. If it’s due to a blood transfusion — that would be a major lawsuit anyway.
thanks.
Will check it out.
And I forgot, normal people can’t marry another person if they are not of legal age.
There has never been a “right” to marry; historically, marriage was intended to be an obligation undertaken by a couple prior to engaging in behavior which could reasonably be expected to yield children.
Hasn’t always worked out that way, any more than any other obligation, but that doesn’t transform it into a “right”.
Again, this begs the question. What do you do with children that *don’t* come from “one flesh” families?
Love them.
*Allow?!?! And just who gets to decide that? YOU? The government?
The real question is, "What are YOU doing on FR supporting gay marriage and nanny-statism?"
All children are a result of the *one flesh* union between a man and a woman. The fact that they’re no longer living with the parents who brought them into this world is totally irrelevant.
Best for kids, bottom line is a stable mom and dad, I agree. Single parenting can be awful. It’s hard. But - I’ve had way too much exposure to the effects of homosexuals raising kids, and they’re better off with a stable straight single parent.
And it's just so unfaaaaaair!
/leftist
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Thanks, mm!!
This article and discussion covers a lot of ground. Will get back to the discussion in a bit.
Well, besides the destruction of the family and Christianity, the other defining aspect of all leftist policies is that the irresponsible have their consequences paid for by the responsible, by force, and without the permission of the responsible.
No. That isn't the real question. Society should NOT give children to people with deviant behaviour and mental issues..
Stop claiming that abnormal behaviour is acceptable.
Excellent essay; I’m saving it in my “position papers” file!
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.