Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

"That government is best which governs least." - Thomas Paine
1 posted on 07/16/2004 8:09:38 AM PDT by Voice in your head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Voice in your head
Marriage is not simply a contract between two, or however many people, people who love each other. It is the basic social building block of our civilization. For government to simply turn aside as the forces of secular hedonism destroy it would be slow motion suicide for our civilization.
2 posted on 07/16/2004 8:16:08 AM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Voice in your head

That Oregon county announced it was not going to issue marriage licenses a couple weeks ago. Seems like we're pretty close to ending marriage as it is.

Someone needs to do a study to determine how much money will be shifted from gay couples onto other folks as a result of the extension of marriage to the gay community.


3 posted on 07/16/2004 8:16:19 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Voice in your head
The problem with gay marriage is not that it harms the institution of marriage. The problem is that it provides an official stamp of approval to homosexuality through government license. Those who debate this issue never mention this and are losing the debate. They don't have the guts to say that homosexuality is a filthy and evil perversion and not only shouldn't be approved by the government, but should be vigorously stamped out.

This debate is lost because the right side can't even muster the correct argument. The sanctity of marriage isn't the issue. Homosexuality is the issue.

4 posted on 07/16/2004 8:19:50 AM PDT by Batrachian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Voice in your head

Stripping the primary family unit of any legal protections would guarantee the end of our society as we know it.

Look to the Democratic National Convention coming soon in Boston (or a "Gay Pride" parade) for a concrete look at the society that would rise in its place.


5 posted on 07/16/2004 8:22:05 AM PDT by FormerLib (Kosova: "land stolen from Serbs and given to terrorist killers in a futile attempt to appease them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Voice in your head
The entire gay marriage issue is to serve as a revenue stream for lawyers. Gay divorce will provide some good income and that is all.
8 posted on 07/16/2004 8:25:08 AM PDT by Camel Joe (Proud Uncle of a Fine Young Marine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Voice in your head

I prefer the traditional No Sex marriage.


9 posted on 07/16/2004 8:26:23 AM PDT by Conspiracy Guy (Kerry has a Carter Plan. Bush has a Reagan Plan. You choose which is your plan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Voice in your head

If anything needs defining, it is sex itself.


18 posted on 07/16/2004 8:36:44 AM PDT by Old Professer (Interests in common are commonly abused.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Voice in your head

This is the position of libertarians (generally extreme secularist cultural liberals) who don't have the guts to say they want sodomite marriage.

Marriage is a contract between two people and society. A contract between two people is just in a lawyer's office. A marriage is and has always been a very expensive public ceremony surrounded by elaborate ritual. Society no longer has the power to use tradition, family, religion, or fear of ostracism to protect marriage, to protect wives and children from the vagaries of male hormones and mid life crises so it employs the state to do so.


21 posted on 07/16/2004 8:38:35 AM PDT by Sam the Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Voice in your head
I agree with you on this.

Government recognition of marriage makes no more sense than government regulation of the sacrament of baptism.

Many of the arguments for government recognition of marriage center on the need to legally protect the family from government intrusion. Do we really believe that a power hungry government will be stifled by its own regulatory institutions.

If we aren't living in a nation that dutifully respects the god given rights of each of its citizens then a government supplied contract is going to do little to help that.

28 posted on 07/16/2004 8:45:01 AM PDT by avg_freeper (Gunga galunga. Gunga, gunga galunga)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Voice in your head

It's Time to Privatize Marriage:

http://www.zetetics.com/mac/ifeminists/2002/0716.html

"Why is marriage declining?" — the question buzzes in the news.

I believe one reason is because marriage has become a three-way contract between two people and the government, which is regulated by the state from wedding vows to divorce decrees.

Marriage should be privatized. Let people make their own marriage contracts according to their conscience, religion and common sense. Those contracts could be registered with the state, recognized as legal and arbitrated by the courts, but the terms would be determined by those involved.

*click the link for more*


34 posted on 07/16/2004 8:56:01 AM PDT by society-by-contract
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Voice in your head

Paine was married a couple of times. His issue was with England and the Monarchy.


44 posted on 07/16/2004 9:07:40 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Voice in your head

This article ASSUMES that civil law has no deterant value which IMHO is incorrect.


48 posted on 07/16/2004 9:23:15 AM PDT by ThomasMore (Pax et bonum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Voice in your head

Karl Marx and Frederick Engels

Manifesto
of the Communist Party
1848


Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not intended the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed correlation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor.

But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.

The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce free love; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

My,my...your ideas seem to have been espoused in 1848.


49 posted on 07/16/2004 9:32:30 AM PDT by ijcr (Age and treachery will always overcome youth and ability.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Voice in your head

Absolutely. In the early days of this nation, a young feller and his girl thinking about getting marriage would NEVER have thought about asking their government for permission. The church was the source of marriage. Government should be out of the marrying business altogether.


107 posted on 07/16/2004 4:05:45 PM PDT by gitmo (Thanks, Mel. I needed that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Voice in your head
So the gist of your argument is, leave it up to the individual religions to decide who they will or will not marry.

I have infinitely greater trust in the ability of religious institutions to make moral and ethical decisions than I do in the government.

Do you? What about Gene Robinson, the gay Bishop in the Episcopalian church? What about the pedophile-shuffling within the Catholic church? Pedo-priest commits a sexual crime - he is shuffled off to a different parish. These are the first two that come to mind. I'm sure we can add to the list of "moral and ethical decisions".

122 posted on 07/16/2004 7:03:53 PM PDT by my_pointy_head_is_sharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Voice in your head

agree mostly


123 posted on 07/16/2004 7:05:31 PM PDT by Triple (All forms of socialism deny individuals the right to the fruits of their labor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Voice in your head
Your argument would only work if religious institutions were the paragons of moral and ethical virtues that they should be, but, sadly, are not.
124 posted on 07/16/2004 7:07:36 PM PDT by my_pointy_head_is_sharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Voice in your head

What are you a lawyer, trying to drum up business?


155 posted on 07/17/2004 5:45:29 PM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Voice in your head

Lets get government out of enforcing contracts, too! That will teach them!


169 posted on 07/18/2004 9:36:03 PM PDT by HitmanLV (I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Voice in your head

If we were to do away with gov't's recognition of marriage and link those now provided benefits to children's birth certificates, it might just end the Homo agenda.


176 posted on 07/19/2004 2:09:57 PM PDT by azhenfud ("He who is always looking up seldom finds others' lost change...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson