Posted on 02/21/2012 7:21:59 AM PST by NoPinkos
In the intensifying debate over same-sex marriage, what I sometimes find hardest to understand is why so many opponents don't see gay people's longing to be wedded as the fundamentally conservative, lavishly complimentary desire it is. It says marriage is worth aspiring to and fighting for. Flatters it. Gives it reinvigorated cachet, extra currency, a sorely needed infusion of fresh energy.
If those seem like odd phrases to attach to what is sometimes called holy matrimony, well, consider the unholy state the institution is in. Around the time last week that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was vetoing a same-sex marriage bill that the Legislature had passed, The Times published a front-page story... reporting that the country had reached an ignoble milestone: more than half of births to American women under 30 happen outside marriage. I doubt that a significant fraction of those babies' parents are gay men or lesbians forbidden to wed. No doubt the huge majority are straight people who haven't bothered to.
Those who do bother don't make such an impressive go of it... between 40 and 50 percent of first marriages won't last. And practice doesn't make perfect: the divorce rate apparently rises for second and third unions, like Newt Gingrich's with Callista, a supposedly pious Roman Catholic woman whose devotion didn't dissuade her from sleeping with him while he was married to his second wife.
The religiousness of this country's social conservatives is a selective, capricious, hypocritical thing. Some Catholics who cite church teaching to explain their opposition to same-sex marriage have broods much smaller than they likely would if they let nature have its way. They're using artificial birth control, which, as we've recently been reminded, the church officially rejects, a stance that illuminates just how ludicrous some orthodoxies are....
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The first time a man gets pregnant from anal intercourse, I’ll change my mind on this.
Same sex marriage is a fad, in my opinion, and will fade from history—In Time. The issue is a non-issue because it flys in the face of western civilization (and eastern too) Even the Ancient Greeks, who favored homosexuality, never had same sex marriages. This too shall pass. These are strange times—but they can not last. The America we grew up with—with all of its flaws—is being replaced with something that is a hollow shell of what America was. Sad really but expected. No one person, movement and group set in motion the decline. If anything we were killed by our own success and our own goodhearted nature.
Eye opening? The guy is a flaming raving leftist idiot from the NYT.
What’s odd is that you think it has some value.
What’s your POV about two mentally ill homosexuals of the same sex “marrying” each other?
Don't your love a liberal's open minded invitation to a discussion?
After having knocked most of the underpinning out from traditional marriage w/ no-fault divorce, eviserating any male rights in the divorce, and the sexually saturated charlie sheen media assault we're now told that homosexuals have arrived to save the day!
No thanks j@ck@ss.
Not surprising. Since 1965, there has been a concerted effort through the courts to strip God out of every aspect of public life; yet, people see no correlation between this and the fact that our country is going to Hell in a hand-basket.
The ancient Greeks, as a whole, did NOT “favor” homosexuality. It was practiced, usually among elites, but was still taboo enough to support the imprisonment of Socrates.
No one group caused the decline? I’d say the one group was liberals-now-progressives, and it’s been going on for at least a century.
Homosexuality is just necrophilia with a warmer body.
I just don’t get this liberal reasoning.
Because of the high divorce rate, and because of the high rate of out of wedlock births, and because people use birth control, sometimes against the teachings of religious leaders, this means we must allow homosexual marriage????
Marriage as an institution has been hurt by the high rates of divorce in recent years. But, because of that, we need to allow homosexual marriage?
Because so many young girls and women don’t get married and have babies anyway, because they and their boyfriends have rejected the idea of marriage, that means we must allow homosexual marriage?
I don’t get the liberal reasoning. So many liberals talk about problems with the institution of marriage, say that “straights” have screwed up marriage in some ways, so we should allow homosexual marriage because the institution of marriage has other problems.
Does anyone else see the issue here? It’s like they are not making a positive affirmative case for why homosexual marriage is good for society, but are saying, because of these other problems, we should have homosexual marriage.
Would this line of reasoning be acceptable in discussing other issues?
Maybe you live in some conservative backwater - no TV, Internet, Newspapers, magazines... It's like experiencing the sun coming up in the east as 'eye opening'... If there's someplace in this country to NOT hear non-stop liberal (50 year old ) ideas, let me know, I'll become your neighbor.
Stand and defend your position that this is "an eye-opening comment on the state of marriage".
Call it what you like, but no matter what you call it, this is not a marriage!
Call it what you like, but no matter what you call it, this is not a marriage!
Call it what you like, but no matter what you call it, this is not a marriage!
Changing the name will not change what it is, and what liberals want to call "marriage" is in no way a real marriage.
Hey, noob - reply and tell several of us why you think this article is “eye-opening”.
placemark
Not much chance of a reply now, if you get my drift.
Aha, I was going to check back today to see if Pinko replied, since I knew it was a troll and had not yet surfaced. It got zotted here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2849890/posts?page=64#1
I wonder if it used to be flowerplough, he did the same thing. Posted pro-fag stuff and then didn’t answer on the thread.
I was sure yesterday it was a retread.
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.