Posted on 06/02/2002 11:10:43 PM PDT by kattracks
And yes, there are many examples in history where a lack of "higher morality" has turned society into a cesspool, or a tyranny, or a footnote.
Today, adultery is legal grounds for a divorce. Isn't that simply a moral issue? Why should the state care what happens between my wife and me?
I'd be statisfied if we stuck w/ the God that inspired and illuminated the founding documents of this republic. That the vast majority of my fellow citizens also recognize this God as sovereign is not inconsequential.
Nor would it bother me to stick w/ a generic "God", ie creator. It is the absolute moral vacuum, being promoted innocently and not so innocently, by so-called progressives that I see as a real and genuine danger.
A ship w/o ballast cannot stay afloat in heavy seas. And in heavy seas there is no where to take ballast on.
Those issues are not addressed at all in the Constitution, regardless of your wishes. I do not approve of pornography and the rest, but our Constitution allows it,and thank goodness for that.
Tolerance does not mean approval.
The Virginians of Jefferson's time were Libertarians. Have you ever read his Notes On The State Of Virginia--written at the time of his Governorship? Do you know how Homosexuals were treated by the premier American Libertarians?
"Gay marriage" is an oxymoron. It only can be seriously discussed by people to whom words no longer have disciplined meanings, reflecting any basic thought behind them. Anyone who understands marriage, the committed mating of two sexual beings, a man and a woman, understands that to even talk about the commitment of two asexuals to each other as "marriage," is to mock the mating process, and indeed the whole life process. It would be satire, and nothing more, in any other generation.
While you are personalizing a disagreement with some on our side who may be misguided on this, those who want to tear down traditional American and Western Society, sail merrily along, from one victory to the next. They are winning because we do not effectively attack the real enemy; those who are systematically deconstructing our Society; confusing analysis of our heritage; and frustrating all serious study into the nature of man and woman.
Those who are destroying your world are not a few errant Libertarians--many of whom are not really Libertarians, at all--but the Socialist egalitarians, who want to equate all peoples, all individuals and all forms of conduct. In dealing with personal conduct, it has always been far more important how Society views that conduct, than any thing Government can do about it. Focus on attacking the ideas that support the effort to treat deviant sex as an Alternative Life Style, and you will defeat it. Concentrate on besmirching the ideas of those who believe that Government has less of a role in that fight, and all you do is confuse the real issue. If enough of your neighbors begin to understand what this issue is really all about, as a Social issue, the Law will adjust to their perception.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
"Advocates of gay marriage are fond of comparing those who warn against it to racists who purveyed silly scare stories about the effects of miscegenation. But the real model for gay marriage is the priesthood scandal. Here is a case in which gay sexual culture has not been tamed by, but has instead dramatically subverted, a venerable social institution -- an institution built around an ethic that is a first cousin to marital fidelity itself. Should the connection take root in the public mind, gay marriage may not become a reality after all."
Let's hope the connection takes root before homosexuals dramatically subvert yet another venerable social institution.
The biggest problem we have is our mechanism for knowing. There is no scientific proof of the dangers of making homosexual behavior normative because there is no way to create and observe two groups of people where the normalization of homosexuality is the only variable. Social sciences always have this limitation and can, therefore, only draw the shakiest of conclusions.
Christians and Jews have decided to trust G-d's wisdom on the matter with the hope of avoiding all the disasters that are the promised result of abandoning sexual fealty within a heterosexual monagomous marriage. Since you and I trust G-d, we can speak in no uncertain terms about the destructiveness of homosexual behavior. But those who do not trust G-d can do nothing but wait and see.
Unfortunately, the only way they could possibly concede the point is after the damage is done.
Shalom.
...er, nevermind.
Keep going Dim, you're on the right track. The bible does say marriage is between one man and one woman in the new testament. In the OT it was allowed for one man to marry several women. Why? Because only when a man joins with a woman can you get children.
Only male-female unions are worthy of being called marriage and treated with the benefits thereof because only male-female unions (which intrinsically have the apparent potential to produce children) have benefit to society.
God Save America (Please)
Yes, the grownups are busy dealing with real issues, and have no time for schoolyard gibes at the "queers".
It's a "vicious attempt to make the U.S. Constitution explicitly anti-lesbian and gay rights," said Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women.
It is not a 'vicious attempt.'
It cannot 'make the U.S. Constitution explicitly anti-lesbian and [anti-]gay rights.'
The U.S. Constitution is silent on the matter of the homosexual syndrome, and thus the States may or may not choose, State by State, what will be the law regarding the definition of marriage.
The U.S. Constitution is not the appropriate social contract to alter on this matter, because again, such civil matters regarding the relationships known as "civil unions" is a State right, not a federal right.
There is no federal right to marriage, and it is absurd to begin such a Department of Civil Unions; though I am certain that the "tax and spend" knuckle-draggers "on both sides of the isle" will happily conclude such a proposition as they form a union of the political moment so as to create an even bigger addition to our federal leviathan ... under the name of "Anything to Move Forward the Meaning-Less-Ness of Constitutional Foundations."
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.