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

To: markomalley
And, so it begins. This is inevitable, once you redefine marriage to include gays; what possible reason could you give to NOT redefine it to include all other types of arrangements.

The acceptance of "gay marriage" is simply the beginning of the end of marriage, period.

3 posted on 08/28/2012 3:37:40 PM PDT by LibertarianLiz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: LibertarianLiz
...beginning of the end of marriage, period.

I think, the end of civilization.

21 posted on 08/28/2012 4:05:57 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: LibertarianLiz
No, it's not the "beginning" of the end of marriage. It's pret'near the end of the end.

Marriage was already comprehensively deconstructed by heterosexuals, long before the homosexuals swarmed in to claim its parts and bits. Through civil marriage, easy divorce/remarriage, and contraception, heteros redefined marriage from being a Natural Law-anchored, fertile exclusive lifelong union, to being a construct of positive "say-so" law, sequentially multipartnered, and sterile.

Marriage --- as obviously defined in all of human history across centuries, continents, and civilizations --- makes sense only as a setting for procreative sex which then defines two-and-only-two people, the male and the female, as the responsible parents. People of random genders rubbing non-procreative body parts together don't require solemn durable societal recognitions, responsibilities or covenants. In such case, there is no need to specify one, two, three, any number of people, and it doesn't matter whether the non-procreative parts are elbows, anuses, noses, knees or reproductively disabled genitals.

Who queered marriage? Heterosexuals. They "redefined" it. It's inevitable that the various kinds of queers would now claim the mutated thing as their own.

22 posted on 08/28/2012 4:12:56 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Honest to God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: LibertarianLiz
No, it's not the "beginning" of the end of marriage. It's pret'near the end of the end.

Marriage was already comprehensively deconstructed by heterosexuals, long before the homosexuals swarmed in to claim its parts and bits. Through civil marriage, easy divorce/remarriage, and contraception, heteros redefined marriage from being a Natural Law-anchored, fertile exclusive lifelong union, to being a construct of positive "say-so" law, sequentially multipartnered, and sterile.

Marriage --- as obviously defined in all of human history across centuries, continents, and civilizations --- makes sense only as a setting for procreative sex which then defines two-and-only-two people, the male and the female, as the responsible parents. People of random genders rubbing non-procreative body parts together don't require solemn durable societal recognitions, responsibilities or covenants. In such case, there is no need to specify one, two, three, any number of people, and it doesn't matter whether the non-procreative parts are elbows, anuses, noses, knees or reproductively disabled genitals.

Who queered marriage? Heterosexuals. They "redefined" it. It's inevitable that the various kinds of queers would now claim the mutated thing as their own.

23 posted on 08/28/2012 4:14:14 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Honest to God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: LibertarianLiz

Exactly. The homosexuals get furiously angry when you compare their non-procreative arrangements to others. But there really is no difference.


41 posted on 08/28/2012 5:19:38 PM PDT by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: LibertarianLiz
And, so it begins. This is inevitable, once you redefine marriage to include gays; what possible reason could you give to NOT redefine it to include all other types of arrangements.

I agree. The recent SCOTUS decisions leave no room whatever to ban polygamy. What about bi-sexuals? Don't they have the same rights as others? So the argument will go, and they'll be right under the current state of the law, IMHO.

The acceptance of "gay marriage" is simply the beginning of the end of marriage, period.

I respectfully disagree. Gays didn't begin the whole "redefinition" of marriage movement. Rather, Christians did. First, birth control became acceptable, despite the fact that nearly all Christian denominations condemned it for 2,000 years. Second, divorce for cause, like adultery, grew in acceptance, until finally "no fault" became the norm. This made the marriage contract terminable at will unilaterally by either party for any reason or no reason. The no fault divorce law was signed into law in California by none other than Ronald Reagan.

Ultimately, Christians had redefined marriage to the point where gays could honestly say "hey, your "marriages" look an awful lot like our relationships. Kids are completely optional, and there's no lifelong commitment. We pay our taxes like everybody else, so we should be entitled to the same opportunity to avail ourselves of that institution, now called marriage." And, frankly speaking, they were right about that. We do have a little thing called equal protection of the laws.

Pope Paul VI was a prophet.

We Christians have none to blame but ourselves.

50 posted on 08/28/2012 7:29:01 PM PDT by Gluteus Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: LibertarianLiz

I predict that it will be perfectly acceptable as long as the man gets multiple females....just let one female take on several “husbands” and then we’ll have wrath from the citzens....


52 posted on 08/28/2012 7:31:36 PM PDT by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | 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