[Dr Warmoose]

If conservatives are upset about sullying the original meaning of marriage let's go back even farther and talk about ancient Mesopotamia or Egypt. Let's talk about dowries, about transferring property right between father and husband. Let's talk about the husband's surname as a cattle brand. The definition of marriage as a heterosexual union was only recently adopted by the Church as a holy union between 'man and wife'. And this is only a single chapter in a long history of marital 'bliss'.

Recently adopted?

Matt 19:4-6 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' "and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? "So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

Six days after the whole universe was created, God made it one man and one woman. I fail to see how anyone can call that "recently adopted".

Perverts and Liberals. Totally incapable of telling the truth.

And my wife doesn't consider taking on my name "being branded like cattle".

[Support Free Republic]

Thank you very much!

Thank you very much!

That's the nicest thing that anyone's ever done for me.

It isn't every day

good fortune comes me way!

I never thought the future would be fun for me!

And if I had a bugle

I would blow it to add a sort

o' how's your father's touch.

But since I left me bugle at home

I simply have to say

Thank you very, very, very much!

Thank you very, very, very much!

Thank you for your donation!

[dixiechick2000]

"Should gays have the right to marry?"

No

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

A man and woman get married and have a son. The man gets a retirement check in his old age. then the wife dies.

To keep the retirement money flowing in the son convinces his pop to "marry" him with a gay wedding. Father and gay son live now as man and "wife'. Then Father dies and gay son continues to live on Poppa's retirement check as the "spouse".

If son gets another "spouse" and the son dies can the new "spouse" continue to live on Papa's retirement check?

Consider the posibilities for fraud...

[the lone wolf]

So called "gays" already have the right to marry. No one has ever denied either male or female homosexuals the right to marry.

The problem does not lie with society denying them the right to marry--the problem is with their perverted desire to marry man-to-man or woman-to-woman.

This has never been acceptable throughout history. It is not acceptable now. But it may become legal anyway.

[Mike Darancette]

Gays might have a ceremony but they will not be married since by definition they are not a man and a woman.

Gays want to ape the straight people whom they revile. I can't wait to see the expression on the face of some wealthy chicken hawk when his boy toy takes him for millions in community property and separate maintenance after 6 months of "marriage".

[Jeff Gordon]

Should gays have a right to get married?

Only if they are conservative republicans. If we need to prevent someone from getting married or breading, it should be liberals.

[Eastbound]

"Should gays have the right to marry?"

The state can't grant rights. . .only protect them. Guess the question should be directed to God. I can't speak for Him, nor can the state.

Matrimony is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Guess the gays will have to invent a new word to describe their thing and then apply for a license to practice whatever it is that they do.

[Red 5]

Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist

what an understatement . . .

Her constant mention of "separation of church and state" is completely ridiculous - and even more aggravating!!! That phrase is nowhere in the Constitution. The Second Amendment says Congress can't establish any religion (and when they say "establish", I'm sure they mean in both senses of the word). It is clear to those with knowledge of the Constitutional Convention that the Founders intended that this nation would make political decisions with a moral, even religious base: there was prayer before every meeting of the convention and among the first actions of the convention was the appointment of a chaplain.

Also, according to a recent Supreme Court decision regarding flag burning, the determination of what is acceptable free speech and what isn't depends on the opinion of the majority. If one thinks about this, this decision has great implications on not only the gay marriage issue, but also other sexual issues, such as pornography in libraries.

[CaptIsaacDavis]

THIS ENTIRE SCHEME HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH INCLUSION. THIS HAS LESS TO DO WITH CIVIL RIGHTS AND SOCIAL EMPOWERMENT THAN THE IMPOSITION -- VIA JUDICIAL DIKTAT AND THE POLICE POWERS OF THE STATE -- OF AN ANTI-RELIGIOUS AGENDA. THE TRUE NATURE OF THE AGENDA IS REVEALED BY THE FACT THAT THEY DO NOT LOBBY FOR A NEW STATUS THAT HAS THE LEGAL EQUIVALENT OF MARRIAGE UNDER SECULAR LAW, BUT RATHER A REDEFINING OF "MARRIAGE" ITSELF.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

at some point, my husband and I will explain what marriage is and what it is not.

The way the laws are going, someday that will be illegal. The only thing you'll be allowed by law to tell your kids about marriage is "anything goes".

[Polybius]

Should gays have the right to marry?

Hey, if we heterosexual males have to worry about being taken to the cleaners in Divorce Court, why shouldn't gay males have the same privilege?

Let them have their "Civil Unions" (Minus adoption rights that would involve a child).

After a few years, they will be longing fo the "Good Ole Days".

[Godel]

Should gays have the right to marry?

So much for journalistic standards, the very title is biased. Gays have the right to marry just like anyone else. But if they are men they must marry a woman and vice versa. Gays and Straights have the exact same rights. The real title should be "Should marriage be changed from a union of man and woman, to any union of two individuals" This much more accurately reflects the issue and should make us ponder, with marriage already in trouble, do we really want to trivialize it anymore by twisting it beyond recognition.

[sam_paine]

It's not SHOULD gays have a right to marry, but DO they???

They cannot be GIVEN a right by our vote, we can merely recognize an inherent right if they ALREADY have it.

For example, blacks and women always justly had the right to vote, but it was not GIVEN to them by amending the Constitution, rather the Constitution was amended to better reflect their rights and ensure that the government wouldn't encroach on it.

So, to me, the question is "Do gays already have an inherent right to be married," and then, "Does the Consttution correctly reflect that?"

If we assume that inherent rights are granted by God, then it can hardly be reasonable to believe that gay marriage was included in your human rights by God.

On the other hand, if inherent human rights include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (or property), then if a person wishes to pursue the sadness of gay happiness, then perhaps that is something the government should not restrict.


Anyway, I believe we should resolve the question of whether or not gays already have the "rights" in question, -before- we talk about encoding them either way in the Constitution....not the other way around.

[unixfox]

Look on the bright side, marriage is marriage, right? Then make these "gay marriages" accept the same tax burdens as the rest do. With the marriage penalty and the inheritance taxes it would be sweet music to watch them yell unfair.

[Lucas McCain]

Of course "gays" should have the right to marry. And as far as I know, they have that right. A homosexual man is free to marry any woman who will have him. It is the same right that any other man has. What the "gays" want is a new right just for them.

[cc2k]

It seems to me that gays have the right to marry now. Can't a gay man marry any woman he chooses? Or is there some law that only heterosexual men can marry women?

As for men marrying men, heterosexual men can't marry men either. So, the law seems completely fair on this issue.

[Fzob]

Marriage is based on male property rights and commerce.

Wow, it only required getting to the second sentence to jump into the low end of the feminazi intellectual pool. I can only guess that since marriage is based on male property rights and commerce those countries / cultures that do not recongize property rights don't have married people?

[PatrioticAmerican]

It is an impossibility for gays to marry as marriage required one man and one woman. They can enter into a binding contact, but not marriage.

Definition of marriage as the dictionary even explains it: "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. "

[scripter]

Ping

Homosexual Agenda Index

Homosexual Agenda Keyword Search

All FreeRepublic Bump Lists