Posted on 08/01/2012 7:03:07 PM PDT by JeepersFreepers
I will not use the term "traditional marriage". I believe making a distinction between so called "traditional" Marriage and other feigned "marriages" is a mistake. Marriage is what it is, period. The very phrase "gay marriage" or "homosexual marriage" is an oxymoron.
True marriage is the preeminent and the most fundamental of all human social institutions. It is a relationship defined by nature itself and protected by the natural law that binds all men and women. It finds its foundation in the order of creation. Civil institutions do not create marriage nor can they create a "right" to marry for those who are incapable of marriage.
To limit marriage to heterosexual couples is not discriminatory now, nor has it ever been. Homosexual couples cannot bring into existence what marriage intends by its very definition. To now "confer" the benefits that have been conferred in the past only to stable married couples and families to homosexual paramours is bad policy. The institutions of government should, when acting properly, defend marriage against those who would redefine it.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.org ...
This was written in response to the assault on Chick-fil-A by supporters of the homosexual agenda.
You could give gays marriage today and it still wont make them husband and wife..so what are they after?
Amen!
The very word “marry” means to seamlessly join together 2 distinct parts.
There is no more seamless joining than that which produces a new being that is the perfect joining of the former 2 distinct parts.
Social security benefits and anything else that is federally limited to [hetero] husbands & wives. Companies and state govt’s. are free to give bennies to same-sex couples, but not so at the federal level. The last frontier!
I miss shrimping in Texas.
“...what are they after?”
The means to use the state to punish those who don’t agree with them. It was always a danger with the state’s involvement, as the definition the state uses to recognize the institution is simply whatever judges, pols, or the majority thinks it is at any one time. Also, to convince many to accept ‘gay marriage’, as many have been conditioned in the modern era to think that marriage comes from and is defined by the gubberment. There’s lots of folks that will accept any marriage as long as it comes with a piece of paper from the state.
Freegards
To prevent duplication, please do not alter the published headline, thanks.
ping
You can’t seamlessly join together 2 men or 2 women because, first, they aren’t 2 distinct parts.
They are the same parts.
Prawn???
Some history and historical pictures at the source of this FR thread.
It’s not marriage, its just two perverts shacking up.
Excellent article!
What is that?
then why not social union..with jp..I think its just apolitical tool to get votes..it takes someone real low to use it.
Homosexual “marriage” is like putting a pitcher behind home plate or a catcher on the mound. If you own the ball park you can do what you want, but if you’ve got anything other than one pitcher and one catcher on the field, what you have still isn’t called a ball team.
the Deac speaks the truth The very phrase "gay marriage" or "homosexual marriage" is an oxymoron. --> let's stop using that term and refer to it as a homosexual civil union. Lets not let them win the war of words (like the term "gay" or "progressive")
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.