Not true. Look
Posted on 03/29/2013 12:09:41 PM PDT by Kaslin
Same-sex marriage is probably inevitable in America whatever the Supreme Court decides. That's because the public is clearly leaning that way. That the court is even being asked to impose a sweeping social change on the nation is illustrative of another lost battle -- the idea that the Supreme Court is not a super-legislature and that nine robed lawyers ought to refrain from imposing their policy preferences on the whole nation.
Even two liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, have from time to time expressed caution about the Court imposing its will on matters better left up to the people and their elected representatives. It will be interesting to see whether those prudential considerations come into play in their decisions in these cases or whether the desire for a particular outcome overwhelms concerns about the Court's proper role. Too few Americans recognize this for what it is -- a loss of sovereignty.
Champions of same-sex marriage are carrying the day for a number of reasons. 1) The advocacy embedded in popular entertainment, such as "Modern Family" and "Brokeback Mountain" has been funny, touching and disarming. 2) Proponents of same-sex marriage appear to be asking for simple justice. 3) Americans would rather stick pins in their eyes than willingly hurt anyone's feelings. 4) Proponents seem to be embracing the conservative value of marriage.
Beyond all of those factors, though, the most potent argument in the SSM quiver is the race analogy. During oral argument at the Supreme Court, advocates argued (as they have elsewhere) that impairing the right of homosexuals to marry is analogous to proscribing interracial marriage. If that's true, it's game, set and match. If SSM is like interracial marriage, then the only possible motive for opposing it is bigotry.
Liberals slip on this argument like a comfortable sweater. It's easier to impugn the good faith of your opponents than seriously to grapple with their arguments. Oppose forcing Catholic institutions to distribute free contraceptives? You hate women. Oppose changing the definition of marriage? You hate gays.
To understand opposition to SSM, you must credit that it isn't about gays; it's about the institution of marriage, which is the foundation of our civilization. Advocates demand: "How does permitting gays and lesbians to get married hurt your marriage?"
It's the wrong question. Forty years ago, when illegitimacy was picking up steam in the U.S., conservatives expressed alarm. Liberals responded that traditional families weren't important -- that the only thing that mattered to children was love. Those who argued that the stigmas against divorce and unwed childbearing served important social functions were dismissed as Victorians or bigots. To decry the rise of illegitimacy was to be accused of insensitivity.
That experiment with alternative family structures didn't go well -- as all but the most benighted now acknowledge. The rate of illegitimate births in the U.S. is now 51 percent for women between 20 and 30. It's a slow-motion disaster for children, for parents and for the nation.
So how can those who value marriage object to offering its stability to a group that wants to marry? It's a reasonable question. What we do know is that changing the definition of marriage from a lifelong, exclusive commitment between husbands and wives to an expression of feeling between two adults has not gone well, feelings being mercurial. Enshrining SSM furthers that redefinition.
It may be that when SSM is widely available, same-sex couples will adopt exactly the same standards about commitment and parenthood that male/female couples practice (and, despite the alarming statistics, most still do). But it's also possible that gays will bring to marriage very different expectations. Andrew Sullivan, one of the fathers of the SSM movement, has noted that gay unions are more "open" and "flexible" than straight ones. If that's true, and surveys suggest that it is, will that affect the likelihood that married gay couples will stay together? We don't know. Will it adversely affect any children in the home? Again, unknown.
Nor do we know whether purposely denying to children of same-sex couples a parent of each sex is damaging. Does having two fathers erase the need for a mother or vice versa? It's too early in the history of this experiment to know.
What we do know is that traditional families featuring the lifelong, exclusive commitment of husband and wife are best for children and for society. Gays and lesbians are not responsible for the mess that our culture has made of family life. But perhaps they can understand that resisting its further redefinition is not bigotry but prudence.
There is no conservative push-back. Republicans, who allegedly represent conservatism are either evolving on the issue (Murkowski) or simply keeping their moouth shut. Conservatives are not represented in this public issue. The only thing necessary or evil to prevail is for good men and women to do nothing. That is where we are.
If any - ANY - public figures stood up and TOLD THE TRUTH about the “gay” life AND the homosexual agenda we would NOT BE LOSING. (If we are, that’s not for sure.)
Only because of self serving, gutless coward, conscience-less weasel-like politicians with no moral compasses are we supposedly losing. They can’t say “boo” about the homo agenda or the terrible dangers of the homosexual life. They lose because they gave up already.
I've absolutely had it with people controlling the dictionary in an attempt to change the faith and morals of a whole culture!
In Germany - Jews, Gypsies and the like were called untermenschen meaning under-men or less-than men. So the people who were executing them to the tune of 6 million were not killing men at all, in their minds they were merely exterminating untermenschen. They did not feel morally wrong until the world finally made them see it as murder.
And over the last half century, the media and body politic have oh so carefully and deceitfully referred to the unborn as fetus. And so again, the 30 some odd million women who terminated their pregnancies were not killing people at all, in their minds they were merely removing feti. Many or most still do not realize the moral implication of what they have done.
The politically correct no longer use the term untermensch so that is a non-issue but I personally refuse to use the word fetus to describe an unborn child - and no matter what a State law may dictate - or the Supreme Court may rule - I will not refer to a same sex union as a marriage thereby implying any moral equivalency.
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 ]
I used to like to read Mona Charon, more than 20 years ago. Anyone who uses the word "gays" to describe homosexuals is part of the reason "we" have "lost". She says:
Gays and lesbians are not responsible for the mess that our culture has made of family life. But perhaps they can understand that resisting its further redefinition is not bigotry but prudence.
WRONG! THEY DEFINITELY ARE PART OF THE REASON OUR CULTURE AND SOCIETY ARE IN THE CESSPOOL! And trying to get 2% of the population - the mentally ill sex pervert part - to change their agenda - is stupid and a waste of time. Charon has it all, all wrong. They are much to blame, and the rest of the blame falls on cowardly spokespeople, commentators such as herself, and politicians and judges who have no moral principles.
And the rest of us, who were more or less silent. And that is the reason I don't shut up. Even if my feeble efforts on FR and here and there have no effect, at least I've done what I can do.
If anyone wants on/off either ping list, FREEPMAIL me.
And that! If Charon thinks that is a winning argument, she's either got dementia or has become an alcoholic. RACE IS IMMUTABLE! SODOMY IS A BEHAVIOR! There are countless numbers of former homosexuals. There has never been a former black person in the history of the world. If people can't counter that argument with three sentences they're either actually a liberal or have play doh for brains. Now I'm practically sick with anger.
Mona Charen is an idiot. My hatred for professional politicioans and op-ed writers who are supposedly “conservative” is about to cause physical illness. To think I used to read her columns when I got that weekly thing in the mail - was it called the Conservative Chronicle?
Maybe late 80s or so.
Until recently,there was a proper word for gays.Deviates.
Pederasts. Scientific term.
It has nothing at all to do with the tiny minority of homosexuals who actually take advantage of same sex marriage where legal.
I can’t believe you’ve read nothing about such things as:
Homsexuals adopting and foster parenting children and the horrible results and “gay marriage” will increase this
Children being increasingly taught in schools that “gay is good” because of same sex marriage being legal, such as in Massachusetts
Businessness being forced to accomdate “gay weddings” etc or forced out of business
And on and on and on.
It’s too bad the SCOTUS can’t read everything we have on the subject here at FR. I’d love to present something to the SCOTUS... as if that would ever happen.
From what (little, I’ve been very busy) I’ve read about the arguments presented at the SCOTUS, they were very weak arguments. Everyone is too chicken**** to tell the truth.
I’m afraid it’s going to have to get fixed the hard way.
(Greetings!!!!!!)
Welcome to LIBERAL LAND!!
The short answer is deviance has been marketed by Hollywood. From there, it was picked up and used in our schools, and much of the funding came from homosexuals that have hired an army of lawyers to make it all happen. Civilization is simply going to regress a few thousand years.
Not true. Look
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
The transition is chemical......
Hydroquinone baths did the deed. (and dissolved the nose)
Massive quantities of US manufactured hydroquinone are imported into Africa by French cosmetics manufacturers for inclusion in various lightening creams.
If you think you're ever going to address these things with arguments and briefs before the U.S. Supreme Court, just think of this nation's governing bodies -- including the U.S. Supreme Court -- as diabolical tools of Satan. It does change your perspective of things, doesn't it?
How comical (and ironic) is it that the Ayatollah Khomenei, of all people, had this country pegged correctly decades ago?
So long as Neo Europa including New York and all that is north and east remain in the Republic, there will be no America
Neo Europa must be purged
Rejection of “traditional” marriage is a rejection of God, because it is God who ordained/ordains marriage. Period. Marriage is not a “civil” institution, it is God’s plan for men and women. Period. It is the means by which a man and a woman can enter into a special spiritual union for the purposes of fellowship and intimacy and procreation and that ultimately pictures for the believer God’s love (in Christ) for the church (read Ephesians 5). To bring anything else into the conversation concerning the Godly institution of marriage is to misdirect the discussion. Marriage is from God. It is part of God’s ordained plan for men and women. It pictures Christ and the church.
That this debate is going on now serves to render before a desperately wicked/hopelessly fallen world that once more Man will not have “this man” to rule over him. Given marriage’s vital role in forming a sensible foundation to human society, can it be very long before Christ’s return? When man has utterly given himself over to such debauchery (Romans 1), where no trace of being made in God’s image remains, can it be long before He who comes will come and will [no longer] tarry?
The “debate” about marriage is but one piece of the connection to God, one of the cords of His love, that sinful man must snip and cut to be free from God’s egregious reign. And, so, in this Resurrection season, our “highest court in the land” has gathered to hear the new charges against God and God’s Son. They have assembled in their robes and arrogance to set before us their puny renderings of juris prudence; to issue from on high their pronouncements about God, all shrouded in the wisdom of this age (which is foolishness to God). And the mob crowds around with signs, with chants, to billow and howl its demands to be freed from under God’s will and desire for their lives; to demand, instead, a murderer once more. “And as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so [Christ] will not open His mouth.” And in all lowliness and humility the Savior of the world will once more take up His cross and bear it away outside the camp to be cast out, to be scourged, to be mocked, and to be put to death.
And while He lay in the tomb silent, waiting, we, like the disciples of old wonder in our disillusionment, “How could these things be?” or “... we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.” These are the days of discouragement. These are the days of darkness. They have cast Him out. They have done away with Him...for a short season. And we can become discouraged in this. For we, too, can fix our eyes upon this world, not realizing Christ has ever been talking about the one to come. A kingdom where there will be a true wedding indeed, between a Man and a Woman, a King and His Bride, and they shall be united forever.
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.