Posted on 07/18/2003 10:12:51 PM PDT by new cruelty
The problem comes when people confuse the civil law with God's Law. Look at divorce. It is a simple matter to get divorce in this country. Just show up at court with the papers signed and the man forks over all his money for the rest of his life, and the civil marriage is over.
But this does not and should not mean that the two people are no longer married. Unfortunately, for most folks, the civil law and moral law are equivalent, and the marriage is over when the court says it's over. Since our courts will always be permissive, since we will always vote to be allowed to do whatever we darn well please, having the courts decide on divorce can only weaken the institution of marriage.
Similarly with expanding the definition of marriage. Absent judicial intervention, the great mass of people will continue to think of marriage as the traditional joining of a man and a woman. A small minority may take a different view, but if there is no need for a judicial definition of marriage, then the view of the minority need not be imposed on the majority.
Thus if marriage truly is a durable societal archetype, it will continue as before, without governmental recognition or sanction. However, if government is involved, it can only destroy the institution.
Government can never create. It can only destroy.
So you think it's impossible for two people of the same gender to enter into a loving, committed, long-term relationship?No, that is entierly possible. However, that's not a marriage!
Marriage is a three way committment between a man, a woman and the community (church, village, tribe, government or whatever) that sanctions the marriage. I discussed this in more detail in post #146 on this thread. Same sex couples cannot honor both a committment to remain faithful to eachother and a committment to the community to produce children to assure the community's survival and growth.
Answer me this. If same sex couples are given the same benefits and treatment as traditional married couples, will traditional married couples be expected to produce children as is currently expected of them.The trick question circulating from homosexual apologists is, 'How will allowing homosexuals to marry harm heterosexual marriage(s)?'It won't.
If Jimmy and Joseph are a married couple, with all the benefits, but they are given a pass on creating the next generation of taxpayers to support us in our old age and soldiers to protect us, why the hell should Dick and Jane go to the trouble, pain and expense of having children?
Any community that sanctions the fraud of same sex marriages deserves a quick extinction.
I stipulated in my post that the individuals in the relationship were two men or two women. How does that constitute "hiding" anything?
And it sounds like you think that what two people do in their bedroom nullifies every other aspect of their relationship, not sure if that's what you meant.
They can't. They can live together if they want. Next question.
Sin and perversion are being hidden behind the nice terms of relationship. I thought that was clear from what I posted about my best friend. All the niceness of our relationship becomes perversion if we were homos.
And it sounds like you think that what two people do in their bedroom nullifies every other aspect of their relationship, not sure if that's what you meant.
Yes, that is exactly right. The same could be said about a man with a beautiful relationship with his daughter, once they go to bed together. Or a man and his dog. You seem to ascribe no moral or spiritual significance to the act of sex, is that what you meant to do?
So they can be handed over to the homosexual couples to raise?
hear hear, biblewonk. Agreed heartily.
Why not? If they want to be "married" then they should have to take everything that comes with it--higher income taxes, community property and scumball lawyers who specialize in "gay divorce."
And those steps are working their way through Congress right now, with the boisterous support of most FReepers, a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage.
We are pushing to grant the Federal government jurisdiction to forever define marriage, giving away the right of the separate States to do it.
It seems to me that you are using children as the only justification for the definition of marriage.Not at all. On the contrary, the "same sex marriage" crowd are trying to use a committed relationship as the only justification for the definition of marriage. They are trying to get a free ride on the other requirements.
If you read my earlier post, children are only one of many elements to a marriage. Children are an important part of the comittment and the contract. A strong, faithful relationship is another requirement. A willingness to raise your children with respect for the laws and customs of the community is yet another requirement. Failing any of these requirements is a serious problem for a marriage. Asking for a marriage when you know that you can't meet all of the requirements is fraud. That's why same sex marriage should never be allowed. It's fraud, plain and simple.
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.