Posted on 05/20/2014 12:34:44 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
I think a major strategic error overlooked by conservatives is adopting the terminology of the enemy:
Using the term, “traditional marriage”
Tacitly one is crossing a very important psychological threshold just by using that term —you are allowing for the concept of NON-traditional marriage.
Right away you are giving away 50% of the battle, just by doing that. NEVER never never use enemy terminology, and the left rarely does that:
They always say, “anti-choice”, they never say, “pro-life”.
You can “love” many people....doesn’t mean you should MARRY them...or be sanctioned by the state into a marriage with them. And, yes....homosexual marriage is impossible...ie...”absurd”.
And...we should call it NATURAL Marriage....
We ought to be able to go into a courtroom and say to the judge, Your honor, you know as well as I that same-sex marriage makes no sense; and so I rest my case.
The real solution is to have the judge recalled and thrown out.
Problem is that there is no such thing as a self evident truth to the left. To them right and wrong only exist as long as they agree to it and they get to decide when to move the boundaries.
The problem is that this is already the argument of the opposition to God-designed marriage: “it’s a self-evident truth that people who love each other and want to commit to each other should be allowed to, regardless of their sex.” (Next year it will be “regardless of their number,” and the next it will be “regardless of their age.”)
There is no rational argument, because the argument is not rational, it is spiritual. I Corinthians teaches us that the rational mind cannot discern the things of the Spirit of God. Period.
Argue that permitting Gay Martiage in a state violates the First Amendment Rights of Christians.
Now that would really set them off.
The one thing they can’t stand is someone pointing out that they’re freaks.
We destroyed the particularity of natural marriage by winking at premarital sex.
We destroyed the stability of natural marriage by OK'ing easy, even no-fault divorce.
We destroyed the procreativity of natural marriage by accepting contraception, sterilization and abortion.
We destroyed the paternal significance of natural marriage by expanding the state to fill the role of the husband, making provision by actual men, husbands/fathers, redundant.
"Natural marriage" has been smashed to the pavement --- by heterosexuals -- and consists of a broken chassis and a scattering of shiny bits.
So now that there's nothing left of "natural marriage" except two adults registering their self-centered self-gratifying coupledom, there's no rational reason why they can't sift through the wreckage and pick out the fragments: the cake, the reception, the honeymoon, the bits they like.
The problem is that Progressives reject the ideas of the Declaration and its assertions of natural law. Progressives see “truth” as whatever is the contemporary sense of the norm. . .even if the contemporary sense is perversion. That’s why, for Progressives, it’s all about propagandizing the people to cow them toward the “norms” that their superiors, the experts, feel is best for them.
They already stole the word gay, leave marriage to the ‘breeders’. They can call their arrangement anything else they want.
Excellent points!
Excellent post!
BOOM!
Only a science denier would believe that it takes a male and female member of a species to advance that species! Only a science denier would believe that a gay trait in any species could survive millions of years of evolution without being able to procreate....
You science deniers are a whacky lot!
Wasn't much of a bother when, from 1969-1973, marriage was comprehensively redefined by the States and the courts.
Except that in many (most?) cases the judge is a federal judge who has a lifetime appointment.
Mrs. Don-o, I'm totally stealing every point of this post! VERY WELL SAID!! Bravo!
As for the judge and his 50+ year old term, rational basis is code for judges in disagreement with elective assemblies. It is a judicial bumper sticker that replaces thought with raw despotism.
Oh, and I ask everyone, do we live a free republic if unelected, unaccountable blackrobes can so casually redefine the foundation of western civilization?
When judges are so comfortable sticking pins in the eye of the civil society, how much longer can we expect any of our remaining and dwindling freedoms to last?
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.