“For if you cannot say what marriage is, how can you be so sure about what it isn’t?”
Excellent article! Controlling the definition...I liked this point that was made as well...
“This is why states err when proposing laws and constitutional amendments limiting marriage to a man and woman. Instead, their measures should state, “Marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman.” Again, this isn’t just semantics. When these measures go to court and judges are left to rule on the constitutionality of limiting who may marry, they can easily rationalize that such laws violate the equal-protection clause. But if the law is framed as I suggest, this argument becomes illogical, as no one is being denied anything. After all, a homosexual certainly can — and may — marry just as anyone else may; he may form a union with a member of the opposite sex. As for heterosexuals, they cannot form a legally sanctioned union with a member of their own sex any more than anyone else can.”
I have been making that argument for years now. So, whenever the issue of gay marriage comes up, instead of arguing against it I just say that I am for it as long as polygamy is allowed also. And not only traditional polygamy but gay polygamy, bi polygamy, and incestuous polygamy. That usually shuts the discussion up quickly, and I get to be seen as incredibly tolerant. In other words, I out liberal them into silence. Its fun.
Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
“undefining it” - exactly what I’ve been saying is their goal all along.
Can they reproduce naturally? How about changing the laws of nature? Do it 'for the children'
Exactamundo! And it's not really "news" that they are trying to do this, since Andrew Sullivan and Michelangelo Signorile both gave the game away almost 20 years ago when they railed against the heteronormality of traditional marriage.
Traditional marriage underscores and brilliantly illuminates the perversity of homosexuality, and that is the burn that homosexuals are trying to make go away, by making marriage itself go away.
"Gay marriage" is not an establishment of anything, but rather a disestablishement of the institution of marriage as it has been practiced and sanctioned for over 8000 years.
Many, many years ago, I listened to a wise Biblical scholar discuss homosexuals demanding special rights. He said a big mistake people make is trying to rationally argue the merits against the homosexual position. He said we need to treat them like we would a bratty two-year old who wants something you don't want them to have. The case against homosexual is so plain and obvious there is no need to discuss it. The solution is to simply tell them, "No" and be done with it.
The democrats real objective is not to redefine ‘marriage’ or to ‘undefine’ it either. These are just means to a greater end. The democrat party seeks to redefine ‘civil rights’. They seek to make a mockery of our Constitution. The precedent here is to have a person’s behavior considered on the same level as a person’s race from a legal standpoint.
The party of the KKK seeks the power to control an issue they had lost up until today. It is amazing that they are now so close to accomplishing this.
No, Mr. President, Same-sex Couples Cannot Marry
________________________________________
Selwyn have you met Willard ???
Willie Mitty tell Selly how you did it in MASS...
You can call a giraffe a “crocodile”. You can put it on a ballot, and get a majority vote that a giraffe is a crocodile. You can get court rulings that giraffes are crocodiles. You can pass legislation redefining (or undefining) “crocodile” so that giraffes are included.
None of that makes a giraffe into a crocodile.
There is no such thing as “gay marriage”. You can call gay relationships “marriage”, you can take polls, you can get votes, you can get rulings, you can pass legislation.
None of that makes it a marriage.
SnakeDoc
Acceptance of the ‘one man, one woman’ still leaves a problem.
What is the definition of a man/woman.
Genetic? Adaption? Thinking of transgenders here.
Love it!!! So rational. Thanks for posting.
The government needs to be removed from marriage completely. How does government have the right to re-define an institution not of their making? So much for separation of Church and State - but we all know that concept is a one-way street.
Somebody ping Maggie Gallagher. She’s done more to lose this battle (by accepting and using the terminology and concepts of marriage-haters) than anyone else I know of.