Posted on 10/11/2013 9:24:17 PM PDT by Collegiate Theist
Yes, they were helpful and inspirational.
>> So, “civil union” benefits for gays and no marriage benefits for anyone else?
I propose society take the risk of leaving marriage to Faith allowing private industry to market its wares according to any criteria it deems practical without involvement of the iron fist.
Collegiate Theist
Since Oct 11, 2013
sorry, I was not aware that doing so was frowned upon. Is there any way to edit/delete a thread once it’s posted?
Thanks, sorry. I wasn’t aware of this when I posted. Is there a way to delete the thread now?
Well said. This was my point exactly.
Can someone help me edit or delete the original post?
Internet search for “Lovecraft” images.
No.
You are doomed.
NO.
I don’t use the term “traditional marriage.” I use “marriage.” Homosexuals can’t do it. That is not marriage. It may be a union of some sort, but it is not, and cannot be, marriage.
Just remember in the future that we will appreciate full postings. Don’t hit the excerpt button.
(Or “OG” will hunt you down.)
In my own discussions, I always call it simply, marriage. There is only kind, between one man and one woman. There is no need to redefine the term.
The lefties I know HATE it.
Not if they support traditional marriage, they shouldn't. Except, mostly, they don't.
Traditional marriage (a/k/a real marriage, actual marriage, marriage by definition, etc., etc.) has 3 elements:
1) It is permanent and effectively indissoluble (remarriage with a living spouse is not legal)
2) It is sexually exclusive, with civil and criminal sanctions for adultery
3) Any offspring, regardless of genetic paternity, belong to and are the responsibility of their father, and bastardy has legal and moral consequences, including no support from a putative father.
Under this proper understanding of traditional marriage, the notion of two men or two women living together under its constraints in order to gain social recognition would be absurd.
However, "traditional marriage" today, when used in polemic, means:
1) A "contract" terminable by one of the parties at will without damages to the counterparty, regardless of circumstance
2) violation of sexual exclusivity free of any legal or social consequences
3) Offspring, regardless of paternity, belong to the mother and may be used, again without regard to paternity, as hostages to require payment of cash and prizes from their putative father at discretion of their mother, even without regard to the existence of a contract between the man and the woman.
4) Cash and other tax benefits are awarded to a man and a woman living together under the above-described arrangements.
This current state of affairs is not "traditional marriage", but is more properly considered "gay marriage for heterosexuals".
Advocates for marriage should stop referring to "gay marriage for heterosexuals" as "traditional", the ONLY thing of traditional marriage that remains is that one party is a man and the other is a woman.
Please see my post below.
Thanks Shibumi, much appreciated.
You’re right we need to call it: REAL MARRIAGE!
I would absolutely agree with your first definition. Hetereosexuals are not without fault when it comes to diluting and violating marriage.
It's not as simple as you make it out. By "it", do you mean true marriage as it existed prior to 1969-73, or do you mean the simulated relationship that exists now?
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.