Posted on 03/27/2013 8:04:53 PM PDT by keats5
Abstract Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of this country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.
See more at http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it
(Excerpt) Read more at heritage.org ...
As noted in some of the argument in the court, what we are really do is arguing over language. Marriage, as used in the English language, is a union between a man and a woman. It contains a religious aspect, founded in the principles and traditions of the Bible and other religious teachings, a contractual aspect, and a public aspect. The contract is that the parties will combine into a partnership, financial, and spiritual, and will be as one entity to the outside world. The public aspect is that marriages are recognized by the state as creating certain legal rights between the married people and the state. For example, inheritance laws, child support laws, taxation rates, visitation, guardianship, and myriad ways in which a person has obligations or rights by reason of their being married to another person.
The contractual aspect of it can be taken care of no problem by making a standard contract that has all the elements of the marriage contract and allowing homos to sign such a contract as between themselves. The courts can, and I think they do, recognize such contracts as valid and enforceable. (In the past, such contracts might have been unenforceable as against public policy.)
The legal aspect can also be handled by simple changes to the laws as well. A state can create a civil union type of relationship, that carries the same tax, inheritance, etc. consequences as if the people were married. I am not for such laws, but I don't think that the Constitution bars a state from enacting such a law.
But a civil union is not a "marriage", at least not in the English usage. Thus, what is most disturbing to many people is the idea that homos want to take what we do, something holy, just, ordained, sanctified, good for the country and humanity, and turn it into another word for the ugly, disgusting, vile and hedonistic things that they do. They want to change us by changing the words we use for ourselves. And we don't want to recognize them or what they do. How to resolve that?
Well, no matter what they claim, a marriage will still be a union between a man and a woman. Even if they try to claim that night is day, it will still be too dark to see. What we need are new words that convey the legal and contractual status that they want, but not using the word marriage, which theirs will never be. I propose the following:
1. Faggage--the union of two men, who will henceforth be known under the law as "ver-men", married not to their husband but to their "buttbro".
2. Lickage--the union of two women, henceforth known as wymmin, married to their Y-wife.
3. Trannage--any union in which one of the involved is a transvestite. The parties are trannies and wymmin or ver-men, and their spouses will be known as Trangles, in the case of a male tranny, or Donuts, in the case of a female one.
4. Baggage--a union of more than two people, which can consist of Trangles, Donuts, Buttbros, and Y-wives.
Let each state debate and decide whether they wish to establish the institutions of Faggage, Lickage, Trannage and/or Baggage (even the Wise Latina seemed to have problems with Baggage.) Those that do, like Massachusetts, great, you can go there to get your Faggage certificate. You can leave your estate to your Buttbro, and have everything you want. After all, the goal is not to destroy marriage and religion, but just to have what we have. Right?
We’ve already been seeing some of the consequences of feminism/romanticism/homosexualism. All who don’t see the economic consequences, yet, will see those and other consequences soon enough. But criminal/immoral folks don’t care about consequences, until they’re bitten by them. Point is, we’re morally bankrupt as a nation.
Have any of you wondered why so many end-of-the-world predictions and fictitious disaster scenarios are pushed by the media recently? The class of sociopaths behind those productions (including funding) are guilty, and they know it. But being dishonest and vain, their assumptions about the consequences of their misdeeds are very unlikely in many ways.
Immorality is expensive and deleterious to production.
Years ago, a letter to the editor of the UC Davis student newspaper explained that she thought gay “marriage” should be legal, because if it were legal, she would be able to marry her partner and her family would realize that she is just as normal as anyone else. Which is silly. If her family sees her homosexual behavior as aberrant, they’ll continue to see it that way regardless of whether she has a legal document claiming she is “married.” It was very telling that nowhere in her impassioned plea for the “right” to “marry” her partner did she mention any kind of commitment or love for that partner.
This article has a good analysis of the background of gay “marriage”: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02
There were some real eye-opening charts in your posted article.
One of my biggest concerns about gay marriage centers on the innocent kids. I have a very liberal nephew, who fights for same sex marriage.
When I asked him if it would have been OK for him to be raised by two men instead of his mother and father, his immediate answer was, “No, of course not.”
One of the primary purposes of marriage is to provide a stable long-term environment to raise the next generation, and the ideal is for children to learn from both a mother and father. Homosexual partnerships will never be able to offer that. Your article speaks powerfully about how transitory homosexual partnerships are in comparison to marriages.
Good article. Thanks for posting it.
RYAN ANDERSON NEEDS TO BE ON THE SUPREME COURT!!! I bet that most of these facts have not been presented at both of the SSM cases. If so, the DOMA should stand firm with the court and all courts across the land.
We don’t have enough thinkers to get this country in the right direction...although I am praying that the high court makes at least one good decision and does not change DOMA as stated. Otherwise was are on an interstate to hell as documented in previous history...
YES, basically...”Redefining marriage” = Women and Children hurt most
We have let our enemies educate our children. And now we reap the consequences.
Even for those of us who have removed our children from public schools, we as a nation will still suffer the consequences of a young generation who have no sense of understanding what it means to become informed citizens.
What is stunning is such an article that is full of such obvious truths needed to be written. Shows how much we have defined deviance down.
At its core, marriage is a contract for procreation.
“At its core, marriage is a contract for procreation.”
Yes, and also to ensure that the children have an emotionally rich and stable environment to thrive. Not only are two parents needed to reproduce naturally, the unique characteristics of both mother and father are necessary for the children to grow into secure, safe and emotionally healthy adults.
We have an entire generation, maybe two now, who have been carefully trained to reject truth.
Having said that, I can personally attest that in some pockets of America, there are some bold, bright young people who are unapologetically pushing back the PC crap.
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.