Posted on 01/30/2013 8:14:51 AM PST by Belteshazzar
One more point. Kathleen Parker is billed as a “conservative.” I suppose that is so if, by conservative, you mean less gratuitously, radically progressive than others.
Now how exactly offering marriage to ~1.5% of the population (homosexuals are roughly 3% of the population overall, and saying even half of those ever have an interest in marriage is generous) is supposed to save in institution for the other 98.5% seems rather dubious.
It’s amusing that the Left would have become so attached to marriage now since they spent to many decades trying to kill it.
That's like saying assisted suicide can help cure cancer.
The polygamists are now beating the same drums the homosexuals did.
You know those Muslim polygamists; they’re really good at beating things. Wives (plural).
“Same-sex marriage can help save the institution”
Because it has lasted so long without it?
Gay “marriage” is a mockery of a sacrament that most religions (Christian and non-Christian) consider holy.
I considered it to be equivalent to conducting baptisms with dog excrement instead of water.
Marriage is an institution only to the view of the State. The State has implemented civil unions to satisfy the needs of the non-religious and homosexuals to throw a party and and so that homosexuals can pretend their arrangement has legitimacy.
But it is not marriage, and calling it marriage only destroys marriage.
“That’s like saying assisted suicide can help cure cancer.”
I think you have mastered the logic of article admirably.
Yeah...reminds me of some “friends” who wanted us to go with them to the “Gay Mens Christmas Chorus Concert”.....ugghhhh. What a travesty.
No same sex marriage, no illegals, no drugs, no abortion, no communism.
“We had to kill the children to save them.” —Janet “Butch” Reno, US Attorney General
Kathleen is an idiot, and a fake conservative. She looks and sounds like one on occasion in order to fool some of the people some of the time.
The only thing that will strengthen marriage are young men and women trained in virtue and dedicating their marriage to God.
Two homos or two lesbos cannot pretend enough to accomplish those requirements.
Marriage is an institution only to the view of the State. The State has implemented civil unions to satisfy the needs of the non-religious and homosexuals to throw a party and and so that homosexuals can pretend their arrangement has legitimacy.
But it is not marriage, and calling it marriage only destroys marriage.
...the poor dears seem to want it both ways...to conjoin with out having to recognize traditional faith backing marriage, while at the same time recognizing traditional secular advantages backing marriage...
...though I’m not sure what advantages they’d be losing by simply acknowledging the conjunction as a civil union...that seems to satisfy the situation the best...obviously thy’re after something else, the total destruction of faith based culutral mores, most likely...
“Marriage is an institution only to the view of the State.’
And the view of the state is simply whatever judges, pols, or 51% of the voting public thinks it is at any one time. That’s all it can be, it was always a danger. Pope Leo XIII warned about the danger of the modern state changing the definition it uses to recognize and manage the institution 130 years ago.
The shame of it is the state has the power to punish those faiths that will never buy into whatever impossibility the state is calling marriage at the time.
Freegards
The only thing that will strengthen marriage are young men and women trained in virtue and dedicating their marriage to God.
Two homos or two lesbos cannot pretend enough to accomplish those requirements.
...but her argument baldly states that the relationship between the man and women is peripheral to the situation, and that the union primarily is for the benefit of the offspring...we can argue all day whether homosexuals make good parents-I tend to think they’re problematic-but her point that heterosexual infidelity (or any infidelity) has a deleterious effect on children is beyond a doubt...on that basis, her argument has standing...
You are right.
The institution of marriage is something not instituted by man, but by God. (Genesis 2) It will survive even the outrages we are now witnessing for the very reason that it is an institution of God. It won’t go away. It is what it is, even if the majority within a society abandon it and, thus, deny its blessings to themselves and their progeny. The society itself will come apart, but the institution will long outlast it, as history has proven many times.
On the other hand, marriage is something properly administered by the state, i.e. government as opposed to church. By this I do not mean the state can do with it as it pleases or define it according to current tastes and trends. Again, it is what it is, and the church knows better than the state the truth of that. The state can only administer it as it was originally instituted and for the purposes it was originally given: 1) lifetime partnership/companionship/love and 2) propagation and preservation of the human race. Any honest historical examination of the laws of the 50 states (since this has always been a matter of state rather than federal law) will show this to be true.
It is no coincidence that government, in failing to fulfill its proper role in upholding this, the 6th Commandment, is also failing to uphold the 4th Commandment (protecting the honor due parents from their children), 5th Commandment (protecting the sanctity, i.e. the God-giveness, of life), 7th Commandment (protecting the right of ownership), and 8th Commandment (protecting the right of reputation). In other words, we are witnessing the breakdown of our society, something which has happened to many nations before. When the law is used to protect vice at the expense of virtue, the slide down the slippery slope has begun.
The shame of it is the state has the power to punish those faiths that will never buy into whatever impossibility the state is calling marriage at the time...
...you’re correct, and sadly so for our humanity...but truth be told, the state as it exists at any point in time does not need to assail faith with open aggression...disagreements arising from within the faith itself accomplish that end quite nicely...
...history manifoldly bears that out...
Marriage was instituted by God for man and woman to be open to begetting children and to be friends in God.
Whether a couple acts in fidelity to one another does not alter the original intent of marriage according to God.
The original intent by God's design is what is at stake.
“On the other hand, marriage is something properly administered by the state, i.e. government as opposed to church.”
But if the state is involved, how do you avoid eventually conditioning people to think the state defines marriage? Seems to me that’s really the big reason so many accept impossibilities like ‘gay marriage’: it can exist because the state decides it can. You even see many faiths only do ‘gay marriage’ ceremonies if the state gives its permission, even though that particular faith might already think ‘gay marriage’ is possible, but won’t act before the state decides it is officially.
Freegards
God cannot be pleased.
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.