Posted on 06/04/2015 11:49:38 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
but homo-sexual?...what logical function does it have?...reason tell your hetro and homo sexual desire are not equal (and one is really a corruptio n of the other) the law must acknowledge simple truth or be forever arbitrary..
For the idiot libertarians....I not saying the law need ban gay.. but neither can the law serve it a equal to heterosexual.. ban gay sex and at most it oppressive ..ban heterosexuality and its global genocide the extinction of man ... they are not equal...you don't have to be okay with the oppressive to still knowledge the logic they are not equal
To say they must be the same under the law is like saying the right to water is equal to the right to beer...the end of prohibition did not require the government put up a keg next to ever public water fountain...
And like above ...ban beer and it oppressive prohibition..ban water and its extinction... not equally bad.. be like comparing the Holocaust to getting rousted at a DUI checkpoint
An actual conservative TEA Party Christian would say that we should get government out of the business of treating married and single people differently, and thus eliminating the First Amendment battle between Equal Protection and the Free Exercise clauses, simply by limiting government interference in our lives, without any reference whatsoever to faith or sexual preference. Any other answer is lobbying for government control, but to THEIR way of thinking (religious conservative or liberal interest group).
It’s coming, but I’ll never agree to it. To me it’s about who makes the laws. That’s the legislative branch. If marriage is redefined it should be done by those elected to make law, not by federal judges who are unelected and not responsible. And don’t tell me it’s a denial of equal protection. Heterosexuals and homos alike are prohibited to marry each other. That’s why they changed the terminology from “gay marriage” to “same sex marriage.” And no, it’s not the civil rights issue of our time; just ask any (most) blacks in general and black ministers in particular.
“If you’re a good Republican, a good Christian, and a good conservative, then you really can’t support gay marriage”
This is about the only bit of truth in this offal.
“To suggest that because a particular institution in society is old, we ought not to examine its moral underpinnings is to call into question the entire Revolutionary War, the Protestant Reformation, and the movement to eliminate the slave trade from Western Civilization.”
It is in fact the merits of that so called reassessment that calls into question the one claiming to have carried out such a reassessment honesty, values, and perhaps even sanity.
There is nothing moral or practical about redefining an ancient institution designed from the beginning to protect families into something entirely different that really has nothing to do with family just as it is incapable of producing children. Instead their new ‘definition’ like the current understand erroneously held by too many in our popular culture holds little to no real value as a union being entirely based upon that which exist in truth entirely independent of the legal contract.
In short if marriage is what they think it is, then it has no need for the legal or moral institutions associated. The only thing the legal and moral concept of marriage does is bind the parties in union. If it is about the parties themselves rather than any other concern such a children then such a binding is not only unnecessary, its undesirable and today with easy divorce pointless.
Theses people are interested in only one thing and its not marriage it is to force the rest of us to legitimize their sinful and self-destructive lifestyle. They are even now demonstrating this fact with their aggressive assault upon religious liberty across the board, and even talking about openly banning and persecuting churches that refuse to endorse them.
Anyone who supports their cause is either naive, in league, or an idiot. Not one of which deserves respect among our kin for that position, nor any other that they have ‘deduced’ with the same ‘logic’ as its likely to be just as full of holes and/or based upon illlrational external pressure that betrays dishonest and non-thinking men.
re: There is nothing moral or practical about redefining an ancient institution designed from the beginning to protect families into something entirely different that really has nothing to do with family just as it is incapable of producing children.
The very fact that this writer would question thousands of years of institution in order to REDEFINE it, calls into question his calling himself a Conservative. He is not in fact a conservative in this regards. He is LIBERAL.
And here’s the other thing — the very fact that he does not even refer to the Bible and the teachings of the church in his argument calls into question his calling himself “Christian”.
He may think he is both of those things even if he doesn’t posses the qualifying believes or intellectual knowledge and reasoning skills to understand the poor foundation of his judgement. The same judgement that I suspect is the reason he doesn’t recognize the clear faliacies of his argument.
I do agree with him on one thing, Washington has no business in the institution of marriage. Marriage is too important to allow Federal officials to touch, as you know everything they get their hands on tends to become corrupted.
I think if we return marriage to the church we would end up with a wide variety of unions only the permanent kinds would survive. Primary because the other kinds would not serve the same propose.
He may think he is both of those things even if he doesn’t posses the qualifying believes or intellectual knowledge and reasoning skills to understand the poor foundation of his judgement. The same judgement that I suspect is the reason he doesn’t recognize the clear faliacies of his argument.
I do agree with him on one thing, Washington has no business in the institution of marriage. Marriage is too important to allow Federal officials to touch, as you know everything they get their hands on tends to become corrupted.
I think if we return marriage to the church we would end up with a wide variety of unions only the permanent kinds would survive. Primary because the other kinds would not serve the same propose.
He may think he is both of those things even if he doesn’t posses the qualifying believes or intellectual knowledge and reasoning skills to understand the poor foundation of his judgement. The same judgement that I suspect is the reason he doesn’t recognize the clear faliacies of his argument.
I do agree with him on one thing, Washington has no business in the institution of marriage. Marriage is too important to allow Federal officials to touch, as you know everything they get their hands on tends to become corrupted.
I think if we return marriage to the church we would end up with a wide variety of unions only the permanent kinds would survive. Primary because the other kinds would not serve the same propose.
My point is that erotic relations between two men or two women will never produce issue. What the state is now doing, of course, is to deny that its interest in marriage is primarily about continuity from life from one generation to another.
Hey!
I was gonna say that!
Here they go again with the deceitful emulation and outright lying. Guys like this setup fake Tea Party websites righ before the elections and post false propganda and lists of preferred candidates that all turn out to be all RINOs. When you research them later you find out they are liberals with fake credentials or false background stories about who they are. Liars, cheats, thieves ...
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.