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

To: jwalsh07
I wasn't arguing that there is a constitutional agrument for this new development, only that in interpreting the spirit of the constitution in new developments the accent should be on personal freedom, not on theology. Pragmatics would lead to the notion that even if rules re: sodomy and oral sex are illegal, they cannot be enforced. So if relationships develop of in the shadowed sphere which raise complex issues as to who is due what for what reason, a pragmatic regard for maintaining the peace with an accent for personal freedom would behoove us to consider a marriage-lite legal arrangement between consenting sexual aberrants that grants them all rights of marriage except for legal adoption.

Real marriage, in social not legal terms, is in fact a committment between man and women that is biologically significant in that the rearing of offspring becomes the overriding obligation of the union. This can not be cheapened because of a marriage-lite provision for the sexually aberrant, nor is the development of a new form of legal union a necessary threat to the preexisting form more legitimately granted.
It doesn't hurt us to allow it, and it simplifies matters, why not let it be done?
83 posted on 11/30/2002 6:20:48 PM PST by kcar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies ]


To: kcar
It doesn't hurt us to allow it, and it simplifies matters, why not let it be done?

I don't care what people do in the privacy of their own homes, period. I don't think the state should either.

I do think that marriage between men and women is and has been the strenght of America's republic. As evidence I offer the devastation that LBJ's Great Society inflicted on urban America where men were replaced by the state as head of household.

Sometimes you have to draw a line in the sand and here's where I draw this one. Homosexual couples can draw up contracts that are legally binding and that should be respected as such in courts of law. That they have to go the extra mile is the price paid for choosing an unnatural union.

However, if you are going to extend the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples, then why not extend it to brothers and sisters, Mothers and daughters, Fathers and children or two friends who live together platonically. All loving relationships.

84 posted on 11/30/2002 6:38:21 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | 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