Posted on 05/01/2012 5:41:30 AM PDT by pgyanke
Absolutely. Everybody knows that the Pilgrims fled to America so that men could have the freedom to marry each other.
However marriage is and should be an institution between one man and one woman only. Polygamy, polyandry, and other arrangements are not a part of Western Civilization, and Western Civilization is by far the greatest accumulation of wisdom and civilization ever devised.
If people want other arrangements, they can make them through contracts.
Homosexuality is not normal, and it is not a variation of normality. It is a disorder of the reproductive system.
How intolerant!
Very good point, TC. I’ll have to remember that in my next conversation on the subject. I like the way you put that.
Mostly dead on.
“What’s happening in this Amendment is the opposite of the State creating or regulating the institution of Marriage…”
It is? Seems to me with state involved, the definition it uses is going to be whatever judges, pols or the majority thinks it is at any one time, that’s what this amendment is about. It has worked fine up until recently. The homosexualists love the involvement now, because there would be no way to punish those who don’t buy into “gay marriage” otherwise. That’s what this is all about. They also dig that many have been conditioned to think that marriage comes from the state, and so are willing to accept whatever impossibility the state deems is a marriage.
Freegards
Thank you. It’s not really a complex issue, but addressing it effectively in our current climate takes considerable thought and a variety of approaches.
Read the amendment again. It speaks of “recognizing” what marriage is, not creating it by governmental fiat. You are wrong about the gay marriage crowd liking this amendment. They are livid. It is written clearly and narrowly. There isn’t any room for litigation. They can challenge whether marriage itself is discriminatory but they they will have a hard time twisting such plain language (not that they won’t try).
Look across the country and you can see that this is a necessary evil. I would rather not have the state “recognize” or in any way get involved in marriage... but it is what it is. The other side is getting involved in changing the definition of marriage. This is our push back.
No, of course the homosexualists don’t like this amendment. My point was that this isn’t the opposite of the state regulating or “creating” marriage. It is about the state recognizing the true definition of the marriage, as it usually has, for the nonce. It can easily change if enough folks (or judges) think it should, because that is how the state’s definition is determined. I voted for the amendment in my state and it passed, but only by 57% if I recall, in 2006. The homosexualists do love that the state is involved in the institution because there would be no other way to punish those who don’t buy into ‘gay marriage’ otherwise.
I would hazard that folks only think they can vote on changing the definition of marriage because they have been conditioned to think that marriage comes from the state, instead of their faith. Pope Leo XIII saw this coming 130 years ago.
Freegards
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.