Posted on 07/18/2003 10:12:51 PM PDT by new cruelty
There are many (including me) who belive that the term mariage specifically (and exclusively) refers to the spiritual and legal union of a man and woman as husband (that would be the man) and wife (that would be the woman). Marriage is conveyed certain privileges in our society, and the purpose of marriage is to establish families for creating and raising children.
I apologize here if I get too graphic, but sometimes it helps to identify what those with other opinions are actually trying to achieve.
I also believe that marriage is not, and should never be, a legal "right" or package of government provided "benefits" for a man and whoever (or whatever) he sticks his penis in. I don't believe marriage should ever be a legal "right" or package of government provided "benefits" for a woman and whoever (or whatever) she allows to penetrate or stimulate her vagina. Those who wish to define marriage in terms of sexuality miss much of the point of marriage, and they probably have no business getting married in the first place (and that goes for a lot of heterosexuals, too).
Like I said earlier, friends, lovers or whatever have the means available today to address most of the issues of "partnership." Anybody can establish a living will and convey to other the right to be consulted on medical decisions, and to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapacitated person. The example given before of someone who has their "life partner" (whatever the heck that is) excluded from their life when they become ill because the "judgmental parents" don't approve of their "lifestyle" can be handled within existing laws in most states.
Geesh, I never cease to be amazed at how obtuse some people can be.
Okay, suppose they don't get a restraining order, but use their perogative as blood relatives to instruct the hospital not to admit the partner. You're ignoring the underlying issue here. And I know a divorce attorney, and I've heard some stories about restraining orders that would curl your hair.
NO.
I know today anyone can say anything, no matter how silly, illogical and internally contradictory.
The question is meaningless.
Like asking "should trees be allowed to breed with locomotives?"
The question can be asked and even a law passed making it "official", but meaningless it remains.
I could never understand the perverts' obsession with being deemed "normal".
They're not.
Never can be.
No matter what.
They aren't willing to concede to anything that doesn't conform to their idolatry of perversion.
Marriage certificate = birth certificate.
Secular, biological, no esoteric hobgoblins, no perverted ceremonious fakery - - crams the fallacious "separation of church and state" argument right back down their throats... (pun intended)
Your analogy had no semblance of similarity whatsoever.
Thanks for the lecture, but you're losing sight of what I said when I originally entered this thread. You don't need to lecture me on why marriage is for one man and one woman. You don't need to lecture me on it's value to our society or it's traditional place or it's saction by God. I don't and haven't disagreed with any of that.
My gripe is and always has been the utterly stupid, dismissive, and disingenuous sophistry that I've seen here far too many times now. That gays are free to marry, as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.
Do you honestly think that's a substantive, persuasive or credible argument??? If so, you're neck deep in denial.
If anything that kind of argument only paints you as someone who has no rational basis on which to argue his case for traditional marriage and is simply relying (hoping) that the argument for "tradition" carries enough weight to prevail. And I'm telling you, warning you, you better come up with a more logical and defensible basis or you will indeed see gay marriage come to fruition in the U.S.
In the past here on FR, I've made a rational basis case for preserving traditional marriage. Sadly, as far as I've seen, no one else seems to be able to do the same with any veracity. Simply saying "it's always been that way" will not hold for long. You better sharpen your argument.
Assertions are fine, but useless as refutation.
The moon is made of blue cheese. Anyone who can't see it is risible.
See the nonsense in those statements?
How about some reasoned arguments as to why you think the statement is absurd.
You don't believe words can have fixed definitions? What?
My problem with gay marriage is two-fold. First, the debate around it is solely over the "RIGHTS" and never about the "OBLIGATIONS". If one is to hear from both pro and con the entire debate is over rights. Well, if that keeps up then the concept regarding obligations wil fall by the wayside and marriage will be looked upon both legally and socially as a granting of rights. Such a one-sided confering of rights upon certain parties is not tenable under our concept of equality under the constitution. The end result of this entire process will be the watering down and complete destruction of the concept that marrieds have obligations to the state. In addition to the focus on rights having the consequence of destroying the concept of obligations and thereby destroying marriage as we know it, the second problem I have is the "sacred" part that marriage holds in our social constructs and our laws.
The meaning of sacred is to "set apart". It has religious connotations but even under our social, political, and legal constructs we have "set aside" this notion of marriage. We say to the parties that this label is sacred. One of the things that makes it sacred is that the "entry fee" is restricted. Not anyone two people can be married. We have some standards about it. By removing the "entry fee" we begin the process of removing barriers that actuall set marriage apart and make it sacred. The end result of this process will be that the concept of marriage will no longer be sacred, it will simply be a legal contract.
The combined effect of my two concerns is that we have set the wheels in motion to remove the concept that marriage is first and foremost and obligation and is viewed by society as sacred. In the end, the gays will find that the very thing they sought is unatainable.
The solution in my mind, before this process degenerates marriage further, is to establish the concept of civil unions.
I think this an exposure of the core of homosexual marriage. Men and women would be getting married even if there were no financial or social benefits.
Indeed, the man/woman covenant flowing naturally from the male/female pardigm is the reason such benefits are naturally present in any society in the first place. That paradigm is reflected in the physical and behavorial structure of creatures in general.
The "traditional family" is the surest guarantee of freedom. It can survive, and add to its number to survive better, without the support of a society and the regulation of a government. A homosexual "family" can't do this. It would have to be a weakness in the protective fabric of families where ever it appears.
At the basic Mother Nature level, a family of that nature would simply die of old age.
If our society passes on a redefinition of something so modeled after material reality, it is mad and deserves its coffin.
Then I would say the life partner who got sick was irresponsible for not providing for this enventuality and ask you this question" If this person was so irresponsible over this small issue regarding his/her relationship,. what makes you think he/she would take the responsibility marriage would require ?
Every married person should give their spouse a POA. Without it, in the event of completer disability, the spouse has no power to effect transactions for the other.
What you are saying in your example is that the naturally irresponsible person who doesn't avail themselves of the simplest of contracts like POA and living wills will avail themselves of a more major commitment like marriage.
I don't buy it.
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.