Posted on 06/25/2013 8:28:42 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
This year, June's wedding bells had a discordant tone, as they ushered in a raft of same-sex marriages. I hereby invoke a panel of experts -- Fr. Thomas Vandenberg, G. K. Chesterton, and Kurt Vonnegut -- to explain why such marriages are a dangerous debasement of the concept of marriage.
Fr. Vandenberg's new book, Rediscovering a Pearl of Great Price , is an inspired exposition of the full meaning of Christian marriage, It should be required reading for couples planning to marry, although some of the passages may come as a surprise:
"The greatest gift a husband can give his children is to love their mother, and the greatest gift a mother can give her children is to love their father. That is what will keep the proper balance in the family and make their home environment secure. That is what will free the children from their primary fear, which is to be abandoned by one of their parents. Why do they fear that? Because that is what has happened to so many of their friends at school."
Marriage is supposed to have the ambitious goal of providing children with a nurturing and reassuring base from which to learn to face the world. Therefore, parents must not only be good persons, not only a man and a woman (so as to provide the dual role models psychologists say they need), but also so unshakably devoted to each other that their mutual love can withstand all the temptations and shocks that life will hurl at them, as well as the abrasion of living with each other.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Even when legalized, gay marriage is still pretend marriage, and nothing will change that. Gay couples are pretending to be married to claim some normalcy and legitimacy for their relationship, but that will never happen. They will get all the complications of marriage, but none of the reward heterosexual couples have. Nothing, not language, not popular culture, not marriage will ever make homosexuality anything but sexual perversion.
Couldn’t help giggling at your comments. You were typing so fast you were reversing your letters, or you are Dyslexic. My son is Dyslexic and he types like that. :o)
it’s not dyslexia I don’t beleive- it’s neurological issue that for osme reason reverses the letters between the brain and hte figners- My mind sees them right- but by hte itme it gets down to hte fingers, it’s reversed- (plus I’m a sloppy typer which doesn’t help matters any)
God defines marriage not government. When we allow the State to define marriage, it does so for its own purposes. Because the First Amendment forbids the State from expressing an ecclesiastical opinion, its definition of marriage is a secular one derived by the political process. As such whoever has the power at the time gets to define marriage to its advantage or to the disadvantage of groups it wants to punish.
In the case of same sex marriage, clearly advocates are more interested in destroying Christian marriage than they are in adopting it. They also yearn for approval, which I cannot give.
It is time to get government entirely out of the business of marriage. Every single secular aspect of state-defined marriage is already handled by alternative means or can easily be accommodated by minor changes in existing law. Inheritance is already resolved by existing legal structures. We have entire demographic segments in society where more children are born outside of a marriage than are born inside one. Their rights of inheritance are not encumbered by the lack of marriage at their conception, or at their birth or upon the death of a biological parent.
(eg. 74% of black children are born outside of marriage.)
If you scan the website of the Human Rights Campaign (hrc.org) you will see that most of the reasons they give for same sex marriage is related to the tax code. I just heard this morning that over 1,100 specific points of the tax code relates to the government’s definition of marriage. There are 1,138 points of federal law that refer to marital status.
We have allowed the State to make marriage a secular matter when it cannot be. The only role for the State is to respect the marital status of a person, however that person defines it. It is not for the State to express an opinion on that status unless fraud is clearly involved.
Some facts, the argument to remove any legal definition of marriage would be the end of marriage anyway, since it wouldn’t exist and the word would not have any definition at all, since it could mean anything from Islamic relationships to gay, to incestuous, to satanic, it would just be a toy word to be mocked and played with for a couple of generations.
Besides, government or a controlling religion/authority has always had to rule on marriage, society cannot function without it, that is why the Romans, the Greeks, the Apache, New Guinea headhunters, people that we have never heard of, all had to have marriage laws, property, children, inheritance, warrior deaths in service, marriage law is not something that politicians cooked up a 100 years ago.
Besides, why waste time on such childish LIBERTARIAN silliness anyway. DON’T WASTE TIME IGNORING ACTUAL POLITICS AND REAL LIFE AND CURRENT LEGISLATION AND ELECTIONS BY TRYING TO PRETEND THAT MARRIAGE WILL BE REMOVED FROM LAW AND GOVERNMENT IN THE NEXT YEAR OR TWO OR 20 ANYWAY, THAT ARGUMENT DOESN’T EXIST, AND QUIT PRETENDING THAT IT DOES.
Outraged At FLA, I got my threads mixed up and did not mean to ping you to this post, I was not trying to drag you into a thread that you are not on, sorry.
When we give secular government the power to define marriage, when people whose real ideological motivation is to destroy marriage seize enough levers of government power, they will use government to the effect of destroying the institution we all want to preserve. Allowing government to define marriage for purposes of taxation and others was fine when government was not inherently hostile to marriage. Sadly that time has passed. In order to protect marriage, we must now prohibit government to have any role in defining or approving of marriage at all.
Just because some ancient nations extended control over marriage doesn’t justify giving any of the United States or our federal government a monopoly over it today. The Prophet Abraham got married without benefit of State sanction, as did many people in Torah.
To preserve marriage, it is time to let marriage return entirely to the private sphere, such as exactly where it was before organized government was extant was this continent was being settled.
Gay marriage pops up and suddenly you guys want to block the efforts to stop it, where were you the previous thousands of years?
Why you want Mosques and gay churches (and Catholic churches)and any individual, and Mormons, and atheists, to define marriage, is puzzling, but by winning, you force the government to accept it.
The Pentagon has already announced that your gay spouses will start receiving death benefits.
Oh stop that stupid nonsensical argument. There is no movement to erase marriage laws from American society, or Western civilization, or from anywhere else on earth.
Your childish fantasy has nothing to do with the gay marriage debate in America.
Marriage law has always existed in America, and even before the white man arrived, and in the places where the white man come from.
Atheists marry, Muslims marry, Catholics marry, gay ministers marry, and people move from state to state, their family structure moves with them, they want to adopt, divorce, serve in the military and have their spouse be declared dependent, they want to bring their spouses to America when immigrating, they want child custody, they want lawyers to decide how 100 million dollar estates are divided.
Marriage isn’t going any place so drop that silly notion, that is merely your own weird fantasy, it has no place wasting people’s time on a political forum about conservative political action.
That is my understanding of Dyslexia. The brain has some kind of glitch that mixes the signals from brain to hand. My son can’t spell anything and he is a genius in some things.
So far I get my spelling mostly correct, but my brain stops signal to my eyes and refuses to open them. The brain is a funny thing and can sure make life interesting. Hope I didn’t embarrass you.
[[My son can’t spell anything and he is a genius in some things.]]
Sounds like what’s mostly happenign with me (although some is that my fingers also hit keys next to the one I’m tryign to- but you’ll see consitsantly many of mine are infact reversed- but I’m thinking mine is caused by a neurological problem as my spelling (and speakign for that matter soetimes- although speakign isn’;t affected nearly as bad as my spelling is for soem reason- but I do often say thoughts backwards) was never bad- and infacvt was quite good- I was an editor i nour school newspaper back i nthe day- I have a coupel of health issues which can cause as a side effect, neurological problems- I’ve been tested some, but they only found mild polymiositis- not enough to cause such issues with my spelling- but perhaps there’s mroe wrogn than what the few tests I’ve had have found- haven’t had the full neurological workup tests doen yet- kina dreadign htem really-
[[My son can’t spell anything and he is a genius in some things.]]
Maybe genius has soemthign to do with it I don’t know- My iq was tested at 152 although you’d never nkow it looking at my psots superficially- and they say many of the world’s greatest writers were horrible spellers who gave their editors fits- even some presdients couldn’t spell well at all and had peopel checkign htem over for them before printing- Hemmingway drove his editors crazy with his bad spelling- I believe Keats too- and dickenson and agatha Christie too- I hjad a whoell ist of geniuses who couldn’t spell wirht a lick at one point-
[[The brain is a funny thing and can sure make life interesting. Hope I didn’t embarrass you.]]
Not at all- infact you were very civil about it and I thak you- Just ran into several imamture poeople who felt it their duty to hurl one insult after another at me in another thread- beleive me, discussing hte issue with you in a civil manner was very pleasant- and yo’re right, the brain is very complicated and mysterious-
[[Allowing government to define marriage for purposes of taxation and others was fine when government was not inherently hostile to marriage.]]
And that’s a good point- now that gay marriage is goign to be passed- it IS goign to cause massive icnrease in debt- paying out benifits to peopel that will NOT reproduce adn who raise adopted children in environments that are unhealthy for a child- we are now paying gay people to put kids at risk- and we are payign peopel to NOT reproduce top create future geenrations of taxpayers-
We’re in economic hardships, and what do do gay peopel want? Yep- more govenrment money and benifits and they want hte gobvdnrment to rule that they have a ‘right’ to this benifit that was traditionally meant as an investment to heteroesexual couples to create and raise healthy tax patying children
The problem is not what I want to do, it is that those who seek to redefine marriage are now in sufficient control of government that they have already set out to do just that. For example, in Kalifornia, public schools teach that same sex marriage is “normal”.
In light of the recent legal developments, it was a mistake to allow government to have any power in that private area. Marriage as an institution exists outside of government. People on a desert island with no government at all can marry. People who went beyond the limits of organized government in the US, say in the early 1800’s when parts of the west where not yet states, were free to marry without any State law whatsoever. People who escaped (or were exiled) from Jamestown or Plymouth colony were free to marry without having any government intrusion in their private affairs.
In my opinion, I would rather return to that condition rather than where supporters of government-sanctioned same-sex “marriage” can force me to acknowledge a relationship that God defines as immoral.
I don’t know what you mean by all those hypotheticals being “free to marry”, either they were legal marriages or not, Common Law marriage is still allowed in many states, as long as it is legal.
None of this has anything to do with people just getting to decide for themselves what marriage is.
Your condition did not exist, government or authority has always decided on marriage.
Let’s take the above out of the equation for a bit. When did gov’t start the social engineering (tax code, benefits, etc.)? 1910? 1930?
For the federal government it was 1780, with legislative updates in 1794, 1798, and 1802, and so on.
[marriage] License, approval from gov’t to that which otherwise would be illegal.
"Marriage licenses were introduced in the 14th century, to allow the usual notice period under banns (a different type of public formality) to be waived"
Thomas Jefferson bought his marriage license in 1771, George Washington purchased the marriage license for his nephew in 1799.
In Virginia--"By the 1670s marriage licenses could only be issued in the county in which the bride resided."
"Marriage licenses have been required since 1639 in Massachusetts"
When did the Church start giving up its role in the matter?
Which church? The church that made Greek marriage law, Roman marriage law, Apache Indian marriage law, the church of New Guinea headhunters (who of course, also had marriage laws), which church or Mosque would you have make American marriage law?
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.