Posted on 10/11/2013 9:24:17 PM PDT by Collegiate Theist
It seems like any time someone wishes to express their opposition to the redefinition of marriage, they start by extolling the virtues of so-called “traditional marriage”. In doing so, their intentions are undoubtedly to explain why it is that succumbing to the push for a more “inclusive” definition of marriage would be harmful to society. Their choice of words, though, may very well hinder their argument....
Whole article: http://collegiatetheist.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/should-social-conservatives-abandon-the-phrase-traditional-marriage/
(Excerpt) Read more at collegiatetheist.wordpress.com ...
The phrase traditional marriage does not hinder my argument. It hinders THEIRS.
Pipes get bent....so should they.
Should idiots stop writing articles like this.... read the rest at my blog....
As far as homo marriage goes, my church won't recognize it. I'll leave that to the Anglicans and Henry the VIII's descendants.
Traditional marriage is marriage in accordance with Natural Law. It is heterosexual.
government cannot “get out of it”
who do certain benefits go to is a big thing since the government is the largest employer in the country
Yep, even the question is stupid.
Why should conservatives constantly be asked to surrender?
What is the alternative word or phrase that you propose we use?
Let the gub’mint allow “civil unions” and leave “traditional marriage” and holy matrimony to the church. Remember, like the libs say, “separation of church and state”!
Historically, social embracement of homosexuality and sexual deviancy has been the downfall of virtually every great civilization. We saw it with the ancient Greeks and the Roman Empire.
America is going to be the next great civilization to fall if we continue on our current liberal path to obscurity.
“Those who do not know their history are condemned to repeat it.”
So, “civil union” benefits for gays and no marriage benefits for anyone else?
Which needs to change.
Start by eliminating the TSA, BATF, IRS, EPA, most of the executive branch, (and I can go on and on)
Since there is no government church in America, your argument is to end marriage as humans know it and just let everyone create their own definitions, which of course, the government will still have to recognize as it has throughout history.
Marriage has always had a legal definition whether it was from the Greeks or Romans or Sharia law or Catholic law for a while, or tribal law, or whatever, marriage and families and death and divorce lead to the need for law.
What?
Welcome to FR.
Excellent point! The Catholic Church has addressed this issue by standing on the condition of marriage as it is in the Catholic Church, as one of The Seven Sacraments.
Catholics enter into the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and always have. This means it is not a gimmic, produced out of thin air to meet a threat. It is ancient, in the Church.
Thus, reliance on the Freedom of Religion clause will enhance their defense of marriage on proven and crystal clear religious grounds.
Given their reluctance to recognize a Catholic divorce, they will be seen as quite credible on their serious view of “marriage”.
The regime has successfully made a mockery of all things “traditional”, already.
It’s probably too late. There’s no greater symbol of America’s cultural decline into the sewer than embracing the abject deviancy of homo marriage. An America that embraces this is not an America worth saving.
Any reason for excerpting your material?
/ hat tip to the blogger overlord who is currently on break and a side ping for popcorn.
How about “real marriage”?
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.