Posted on 02/18/2015 6:58:14 AM PST by wagglebee
February 17, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Public opinion has nothing to do with whether something is good or moral, but it’s worth noting how so-called same-sex marriage came to Alabama. It was imposed on Alabama the same way it’s been imposed on the majority of the American people—by activist judges.
It’s no surprise that progressives and liberal media are going bananas over Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore’s refusal to give in to judicial tyranny or ignore the Alabama Constitution’s marriage amendment before the Supreme Court weighs in. They are incensed that one man has the intestinal fortitude to stand for the rule of law and resist the imposition of same-sex “marriage” upon a state that voted overwhelmingly to define marriage as between one man and one woman.
Liberals have been pushing the acceptance of same-sex “marriage” and gender ideology on Alabama for quite some time. They try to frame those who support marriage as similar to racists and segregationists, and use emotional manipulation to imply that disagreeing with same-sex “marriage” means you are a Christian bully or that you want to keep loving families apart.
Alabama’s marriage law didn’t ban anything; it defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Same-sex “marriage” redefines the institution of marriage itself and has far-reaching consequences.
Marriage supporters must be ready to defend marriage using charity, truth, and courage. Across the country, bakers, photographers, and wedding planners have faced considerable fines, lawsuits, and bankruptcy for refusing to participate in same-sex ceremonies. Anyone who expresses any disagreement with the gay lobby is labeled a bigot or a hater.
But believing marriage is the lifelong union of a man and a woman that brings new life into the world is anything but bigoted.
Marriage is a beautiful institution that ties kids to their parents, and allows them to learn from both their mother and their father, who each contribute to parenting in a different but valuable way.
In contrast, same-sex unions can never be marriages. Marriage brings a man and a woman together for life and to care for any children that their union produces. Marriage has been crucial to society throughout history because it connects children to their biological parents.
Although circumstances sometimes prevent children from being raised by both of their parents, decades of social science demonstrate that children have the best chance at success when married biological parents raise them. It’s an injustice to children to deliberately deny them a relationship with one or more of their biological parents.
Families are micro-societies where children learn the norms of masculinity and femininity. We must stand in solidarity with single parents whose conditions are often not through their own fault, but acknowledge that ideally, every child should be known and loved by his or her mother and father.
Marriage benefits children, who do best when raised by a married mother and father. Marriage acknowledges the biological fact that a man and a woman are necessary for reproduction.
Redefining marriage to be a union based solely on adult feelings, not the needs and rights of children, puts kids at risk. Same-sex “marriage” views children as a commodity to which adults are entitled.
Redefining marriage ultimately leads to redefining parenthood. Same-sex “marriage” undermines the notion that children are entitled to a relationship with both of their parents—a principle that was nearly universally acknowledged, especially in law, until recently.
Although not every marriage produces children, every child has a mother and a father. A married couple can still unite in a way that is ordered toward procreation; a same-sex couple cannot.
Marriage is a personal promise with a public purpose, children. Without the assistance of an additional person, same-sex unions cannot produce children. Ironically, the campaign for same-sex “marriage” in Alabama complains:
For eight long years, Cari Searcy and Kim McKeand have been trying to establish a legal bond to their son, Khaya, who they welcomed into the world in December 2005. They have filed petition after petition seeking second-parent adoption for the child, rightly asserting that there is no reason that Khaya should not be legally connected to both of his parents.
Except Khaya is not their son. He is the son of Kim McKeand and a man—his mother and his father. Claiming that two women are his parents ignores this reality.
The three essential characteristics of marriage are complementarity, exclusivity, and permanency. Complementarity allows for the two halves of humanity to bring new life into the world. Exclusivity and monogamy, marriage scholar Ryan Anderson writes, “encourage childbearing within a context that makes it most likely that children will be raised by their mother and father.”
Complementarity, exclusivity, and monogamy benefit children. Removing any of these characteristics from marriage changes the institution and benefits the whims of adults instead.
If marriage is just “a union of two people who love each other,” then two is an arbitrary number. Why not expand “marriage equality” to three people, or four? If they all love each other, then why can’t they get “married,” too?
Once marriage is no longer a complementary, conjugal union, then there’s no reason why it must be limited to just two consenting adults.
Many would have you think this battle is about “marriage equality.” It’s not. It’s about redefining marriage altogether.
Laws defining marriage do not prevent two women, two men, or various polyamorous arrangements from loving each other, living together, and spending their lives with each other. But these relationships are not marriages and should not be recognized as such.
Marriage is treated differently than other relationships under the law precisely because it is different. It benefits children—our future—and links them to their parents.
Anyone who believes that children have a right to be loved and known by both of their parents should prepare to stay in the culture war for this battle—and likely future battles over whether three or more people legally have the right to a child who is not their own.
Now is not the time to wilt.
The fight to protect the family isn’t one that can be sat out in good conscience. As society becomes increasingly secular and intolerant of people who believe mothers and fathers matter, the price we will pay for our beliefs will only be greater. The trials that come from striving to faithfully live in such a culture may not be comfortable, but we can hope that ultimately they will be worth it for future generations.
When something is going wrong, you don’t say, “oh well, lets make it worse.” You are supposed to try to fix it, dumbass.
Actually, the ONLY time people say that is when their particular vice (drugs, prostitution, homosexuality, etc.) is the subject of legislation.
Well, I never say that, and I have none of those vices ... but the kernel of truth in that sloppily-phrased expression is that one can't successfully legislate against those immoral acts whose only participants are consenting adults. The only demonstrable result of such efforts is to enrich criminals.
Homosexual "marriage" is another thing entirely, since marriage is a positive act by an institution (government or house of worship).
Those other things such as drugs, prostitution, homosexuality, etc., have been legislated against and controlled under the rationale of ‘good of the culture’.
In my mind, it’s a valid argument. Healthiness/Wholeness is a legitimate cultural concern. We forbid blood donations from those in countries with mad cow disease even though the probability of infection is in the multi-millions to one.
The “consenting adults” criterion is the poisonous core of the Leftist’s ideology, although they are hypocritical in applying it (non-discrimination laws making unwilling servants of private individuals, etc.) There is demonstrable societal harm done by the actions of adults who consent to engage in immoral behavior.
Would you have prostitution de-criminalized? All drugs? Polygamy? Public nudity and obscenity?
I make some general statements about my beliefs and you attack me - which leads me to believe that you have no leg to stand on.
First off - don’t put words in my mouth and don’t tell me what forum I should or shouldn’t be on just because I happen to think that you’re jousting windmills. If the mods want to kick me off for expressing my thoughts - which ARE conservative, then let it be so. Then you can be a forum of sheeple who think, talk, and act alike. How liberal of you.
Also - what rights are we defending? The right to marriage? Freedom of religion? You already have the right to get married. You have the right to get married in a church if the church allows it. If a homosexual gets married in a different church or even your church, is that infringing on your rights? Do you not have the right to leave that congregation? AS I WOULD?
As I mentioned, I would defend any church’s right to deny marrying a same-sex couple and I would fight vigorously to defend the right of that church to do so if the government steps in and tries to force denominations to do so like in HOUSTON.
You call me a libertarian. Maybe. In some ways I am. But if you think being a conservative is being a straight down the line Republican then I think YOU’RE on the wrong forum. If I’m wrong, then I will absolutely leave today and never come back or post again. As usual, I think for myself, make my own decisions, and don’t follow the herd unless the herd is going to the right pasture.
If I could see some sort of severe, criminal, tangible cost to our country from gay marriage, then I would say that we need to do something - but there’s no proof of that. Even if there was some sort of tangible social cost, would it be worse than the social cost heterosexual marriage already imposes on our society?
HAVE YOU EVER BEEN DIVORCED? Do you have any idea what it does to a family? How much it costs society in every sense of the word? Do you know how absolutely horrific an experience it is? It wouldn’t be so bad, but the courts have nosed their way so far into our personal lives that to get divorced is absolutely devastating in every way you can imagine. Even if you don’t believe in divorce, and the other person does, you’re screwed.
Here’s an idea there Chucky, why don’t we focus on getting the courts and the government out of our personal family lives (and stop with their little social engineering experiments through taxation loopholes for married couples and children) and people might not get divorced quite so often. THAT’S CONSERVATIVE.
Here’s what I think, slick. You don’t want small government. You want government that imposes your agenda and your belief system. What’s the difference between you and goofball up in NYC who bans super sized soft drinks and smoking. They’re both bad for your health, aren’t they? You drink enough of those and smoke enough cigarettes and you’ll probably kill yourself eventually and prematurely before God planned it. That’s suicide - that’s a sin. So let’s regulate it because God considers suicide a sin.
When does it stop? Where is the line between liberal and conservative? I’ll tell you where - the line starts with the liberty of the people and ends there - period. Government intervention is a sword wielded only in the most dire of circumstances. Otherwise - it’s just we the people doing our thing.
Small, unobtrusive government doesn’t care who gets married to whom. It doesn’t care if you want to kill yourself with tobacco. It lets the people decide for themselves what they want to do unless it disrupts the general welfare.
I’m not in favor of civil unions, I just don’t see how it effects me one way or the other except that those people will be paying fewer taxes because of how our tax system works - which means guys like me will probably have to pick up the slack for married (gay or otherwise) people like you? unless we get spending under control.
Why don’t you worry about that instead of making me pay higher taxes in order to support your brood and your “let’s all get married like Ozzie and Harriet” philosophy? Like those tax breaks do you? Nice aren’t they?
See, I don’t get those because I’m divorced and my child is 19. Instead, I have to pay a higher rate with no deductions while people all over this country can have 3,4,5 kids and get money for it.
Why aren’t you fighting that fight instead of this one?
Your faith? Here’s a lesson in faith - have faith God will judge these people. Equating gay marriage with MURDER is quite possibly the most apples and oranges comparison I have ever heard.
“I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.
“You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
“You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
“Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God is giving you.
“You shall not murder.
“You shall not commit adultery.
“You shall not steal.
“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”
Let’s see: Murder - check. Stealing - check. Adultery - check. Homosexual marriage - can’t find that one.
Is it mentioned elsewhere in the scriptures - sure. I believe it’s a sin, but you’re sure as s**t cherry picking what you are fighting against and for. Where’s your righteous indignation against RAMPANT adultery in this country? Where are the laws there? Is that okay now? Is that worse or better than gay marriage? Because the way I was brought up the Ten Commandments are THE primary laws of GOD and you seem to be ignoring a whole bunch of them in favor of something that seems to rile you up.
So I’ll tell you what. If you want to regulate who can and can’t get married, then you need to start incarcerating people for adultery. Because it’s a right there in your big ole dumb face 10 commandment. There needs to be a national movement against adultery. The courts need to start granting 100% rights to the cheated upon spouse. If one spouse cheats on another, the non-offending spouse gets all assets, custody, etc. automatically no exceptions. Not only that, but the spouse needs to be jailed and lose all the rights to ever marry again.
Think that would work?
Romans 1:..
22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.
Note also that Romans 1:32 points out that those who approve of such conduct are just as guilty as those who engage in it.
Lev 18:22 “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination....
25‘For the land has become defiled, therefore I have brought its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants.”
In my mind, it’s a valid argument. Healthiness/Wholeness is a legitimate cultural concern. We forbid blood donations from those in countries with mad cow disease even though the probability of infection is in the multi-millions to one.
Drugs are a public health threat, if at all (nobody ever got a communicable disease from pot), because of their illegality and consequent behaviors like sharing of hard-to-get-because-illegal needles. And prostitution is no more a public health threat than noncommercial promiscuity - should we criminalize that?
Interesting to see this retread troll is over here pushing his Godless pro-liberal crap.
Usually (Often) he is posting pro-dope threads advocating legal marijuana, heroin, crack cocaine, meth and more.
You asked some good and valid questions. And CF will answer “YES!” to them all.
I believe if they agree with the ten commandments of G_D, they're moral laws, if they disagree they're immoral. Laws supporting abortion, same-sex marriage, homosexuality, etc. are immoral in my opinion. Making such acts legal does not make them moral. They are only for the purpose of forcing moral people to condone these acts against G_D and human nature.
This country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs and that's why there can never be a true separation of church (the religion we practice) and state. The atheist would like us to separate our religious beliefs from the laws of the state.
We were once a nation under G_D and we may still be if we uphold the laws he has given us. I know I am narrow minded.
Our churches need to be getting prepared. Right now, they need to be delivering sermons on a regular basis regarding the sin and perversion of homosexuality. They need to be in the habit of doing this. And the congregations need to get used to hearing it. If, and when, the government decides it is a hate crime to speak out against homosexuality, then our churches will have been prepared and used to speaking out.
The churches in Canada need to be speak out on homosexuality on a regular basis. Make the government throw all of them in jail.
You're just an impostor.
You must understand the culture under which they arose, ConservingFreedom. Promiscuity was also strongly frowned upon, and while both it and prostitution existed, they were not sanctioned, but were instead censured. They could easily make the case for them being contrary to a wholesome culture.
For example, do you want an adult book store to open next to your kids’/grandkids’ elementary school?
Citing one set of failures and sins as an excuse for opening the door to abominations is really stupid. Kind of like using a leaky roof or broken windows as an excuse to bulldoze the foundations of a house.
We need to defend those bakers rights to refuse to make wedding cakes. No head in sand here, sir. STOP ASSUMING YOU KNOW WHAT I KNOW. You do not know me, and I do not assume to know you.
I’m well aware of the incidents with wedding planners, bakers, etc., and it enrages me.
But I won’t take away someone else’s liberty to defend another’s unless they have harmed said person in a profound way. There’s a difference.
Liberty is forfeit when an individuals actions takes away the liberty of another. So in the case of the wedding cake bakers, if we remove their ability to conduct their business as they like, we risk having to forfeit the rights of those filing suit against them (ACLU and homosexuals on a crusade - a pox on their heads and others).
So our courts must defend the rights of the bakers as well the rights of the homosexuals who want to have their civil unions and marry in the churches that will allow it.
Quite simply, the bakers can say “no,” and the churches can say “no,” and the homosexuals can get married in their back yard by whomever will have them and they can bake their own damn cakes. They can make their choices and we can make ours. It’s just that simple.
I will defend liberty where it is threatened. I won’t attack an entire misguided community and take away their rights, however.
Here’s how conservative I am. I wholeheartedly disagree with Lincoln’s decision to preserve the union when half the nation had a fundamentally different belief system and wanted to pursue it on their own and in peace. Lincoln was wrong.
Slavery is also wrong, as it deprives men of their god given liberty, but taking away the liberty of an entire culture to defend the liberty of others is a crime in and of itself.
I believe in liberty so profoundly that I know that it will triumph no matter what we do. Eventually the slaves would have freed themselves and killed their masters. Eventually the south would have had to abandon that entire way of life and economy because it deprived so many of their rights and because it competed poorly against a more free market, free labor driven economy right north of them. History has proven me right over and over again. Russia, France, England - it will happen in China sooner rather than later, and it will happen wherever humans are not free to make their own decisions and live their own lives.
The government shouldn’t sanction, forbid, condone, or support any kind of marriage in any way. It’s none of the U.S. Government’s business, it’s none of the state’s business.
You also didn’t read my post - I already said I would defend churches who are forced by the government to conduct gay marriages.
bump
Typical libertarian claptrap. Marriage and the family is THE cornerstone of every successful nation. Our Constitution and our laws for 200 years promoted and protected the family. And as the US tears down and dismantles the sanctity of marriage, we see the disastrous results that have left us with a welfare society.
Unless we return to a social structure WITH GODLY LAWS AND VALUES in place, we have no chance at success. Upthread you admitted to being a liberal as oppposed to being a Christian.
Consider this.... http://www.faithfacts.org/blog/libertarianism-christianity
The way I believe we can fix marriage and the American family is to take government/courts out of the picture. This way the looming horrific consequences of divorce are null and void and man and wife (that’s right, man and woman) can act of their own free will to love and cherish as God intended and suffer God’s given consequences if they choose to enter that mutual agreement frivolously or without true commitment.
Because in this life and the next, I think we suffer when we forsake our spouse.
Once you sign that LEGAL contract, though, you’re legally bound for the ride and if you decide to get off for whatever reason, “justified” or not, you’re screwed.
Don’t call me a dumbass, dumbass.
An empty promise, since you've surrendered moral principle.
I'd no more trust someone like yourself to defend right than I would trust an arsonist's promise to help out with building maintenance.
That idea is one of the most inane notions out there today.
The organization of the natural family and its defense is one of the primary building blocks of human civilization and self-government.
Getting government out of that business is national suicide.
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.