Posted on 03/27/2013 10:45:06 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, issued some words of advice for fellow GOPers: Get in the 21st century with same-sex-marriage issues.
“We do have a platform, and we adhere to that platform,” Mr. Priebus said in a USA Today video. “But it doesn’t mean that we divide and subtract people from our party” who favor gay marriage.
“I don’t believe we need to act like Old Testament heretics,” he said in the USA Today video. Rather, Republicans “have to strike a balance between principle and grace and respect.”
His statements come as the U.S. Supreme Court is due to hear two cases on gay marriage — one on a California-voted ban on same-sex marriage, and the other on the legalities of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which bans the federal government from giving marriage benefits to same-sex couples.
His statements also come at a time when politicians from both sides of the political aisle are renouncing their past objections to gay marriage. On the Republican side, Sen. Rob Portman – an Ohio conservative with traditional values — just flipped on gay marriage, in part, he said, because of the recent revelations of homosexuality by one of his sons.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Since we can't zot the libertarians in real life who want to run the Republican Party, let's try to get some debating practice here in cyberspace and learn more about how to effectively argue against those people in the real world outside cyberspace.
Kudos for seeing beyond the zot mentality! Zotting has is place, but when taken to extremes has the effect you note of hampering FReepers' effectiveness in the real world.
I note for the record that I'm against same-sex "marriage" - but also against froth-flecked screeds against libertarianism (which IMO is less of a threat to marriage that GOP-e squishiness).
This might all be a blessing in disquise.
First, it seems to me that Christians should now come out in favor of canceling all preferences, especially to include tax preferences granted “married” people. After all, why should a single person be denied a tax break granted either when living or dead? It’s not as if cousins, friends, and associates can’t be dear friends, since we’re defining “marriage” as “who do you love”.
Give it to everyone or deny it to everyone. The same with visitation, inheritance, etc. privileges.
Give them to everyone or deny them to everyone.
Step Two, Stop getting “marriage licenses”.
Step Three, Instead, be united in your church in a “Service of Holy Matrimony”. The word “matrimony” itself derives from “mater (mother) + “monium (state of)”. We would be talking about couple living in a Holy union with the potential of protected motherhood.
Churches must develop this language because it specifically mentions “mothers” and they must swear off the state in this. Give to Caesar what’s Caesar’s. Were the believing churches able to recognize other legitimate matrimonials, that unity would be a large sign to the culture.
Step Four, inquire of lawyers how to best arrange the necessary contracts that will provide all protections that secular marriage now provides.
Since libertarians and conservatives agree on economics, that would be a strange thing for anyone to say.
LOL, only you could get confused by that simple and accurate post.
The only confusion here is yours in thinking that I'm confused.
You clearly have no idea what that post was saying
I know very well what it was saying - I just pointed out the ridiculousness of the straw man it fabricated in the course of saying it.
or referencing
Nothing that exists in reality - perhaps your misreading of the infamous RNC 'autopsy', in which the text "libertarian" occurs not once.
and don’t understand it.
Again, I know very well what it was saying - I just pointed out the ridiculousness of the straw man it fabricated in the course of saying it.
If they impose Homosexual Marriage as legitimate in our society, then the meaning of "Marriage" loses it's religious and moral value to Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims and all other religions that viewed Marriage as an institution designed to hold together a family unit for the protection of those conceived under it.
If the State recognizes homosexual marriage as legitimate, then the Church must no longer recognize the State as the source for which we register our commitment to that institution.
If it goes on a State by State basis, then I would encourage everyone who lives in a State that sanctions Homosexual Marriage to get married in a State that does not recognize such marriages. If the Supreme Court rules that Marriage must include homosexual couples, then I would advise that Church Members get married in church and register their marriage as a "Civil Union" with the State (for purposes of property distribution and custody issues) and not get any "License" to marry since that "License" would now represent a permit to engage in abominable licentiousness.
One way or another we have to take a stand on this issue. If we have lost this culture war, then we need to separate ourselves from this current culture. If the Supreme Court redefines "Marriage" then we have to find some other noun to make our claim for the legitimacy of our biblically sanctioned unions. Holy Matrimony would clearly be apropos as there is no way the Supreme Court can redefine that term without coming up with a secular definition of "Holy".
I am just hoping God will not go old Testament on us.
Your posts reveal that you didn’t understand it, and now you claim that you did know what it meant and that you were just lying in your posts and pretending that you didn’t know what it meant.
What a waste of our time to troll like that.
Your confusion deepens and persists.
I agree with you. “Holy Matrimony” is clearly a better alternative than marriage anyway.
For one thing, it is impossible for 2 male homosexuals to even begin to approach the “mater” part of the word. And the argument that it takes 2 to procreate stifles any sophistry on the part of 2 lesbians.
Polygamists could take advantage of all but the part about “Holy” although they could abscond with the word.
What they cannot abscond with is official approval by a church that actually has Christian standards for matrimony.
We absolutely must refuse to get licenses in states that also license homosexuals.
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 ]
Late to the party on this thread, but I think it's pretty important to know that the Republican Party is now offfically the enemy of the Constitution, morality, common sense and human decency. They have taken off the mask, and are now an Enemy, Domestic. I am not exaggerating one iota.
Anyone wanting on/off either pinglist FREEPMAIL me.
Check out the article I just pinged out.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3001725/posts?page=11
What The Founders Believed About Homosexuality
Freedom Outpost ^ | Mar. 28, 2013 | Tim Brown
The whole article:
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/what-the-founders-believed-about-homosexuality/
Insane, isn’t it, Connor MacNessa.
It’s really accelerating.
So, you're saying the RINOs did represent you?
I am done with both parties, PERIOD.
Well that's all there is (except for the 53 or so "third parties"). You didn't help elect Obama did you?
Which exists only inside the GOP.
Well OK, I haven't and wouldn't send a dime to anyone BUT a candidate.
Come out of her, my people!
Abandoning that old system IF they make it an abominable one, SoCon.
Start our own.
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.