Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

I’ve been divorced four times, but homosexuals are the ones destroying marriage
The Matt Walsh Blog ^ | February 4, 2014 | The Matt Walsh Blog

Posted on 02/05/2014 4:15:29 AM PST by xzins

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 last
To: Frapster

Yes, and also the tagline.


81 posted on 02/06/2014 1:22:58 PM PST by Tax-chick ("The right" is a gelatinous mass of contradiction.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

Your post deserves a detailed reply but I am very busy for several days. I will try to get back to you.


82 posted on 02/06/2014 4:03:54 PM PST by Albion Wilde (The less a man knows, the more certain he is that he knows it all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

ha! that’s classic!


83 posted on 02/06/2014 6:00:52 PM PST by Frapster (Build the America you want in your home... and keep looking up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

That too!


84 posted on 02/06/2014 11:32:51 PM PST by Fledermaus (If we here in TN can't get rid of the worthless Lamar, it's over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Frapster

My 17-year-old is nearly as funny as he thinks he is, sometimes.


85 posted on 02/07/2014 2:46:24 AM PST by Tax-chick ("The right" is a gelatinous mass of contradiction.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: drbuzzard
The Left now commonly cites the divorce rate as evidence that traditional marriage is already dead, but they are the ones that introduced no fault divorce all over the country

The left? That's why Oklahoma and Utah and Missisippi and all those leftist states have no-fault divorce?

Let me remind you of a little history: the first no-fault divorce law in America was signed by Gov. Ronald Reagan. The last state to adopt no-fault divorce was New York.

86 posted on 02/09/2014 4:38:22 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum

Not to imply that I am in any way better than anyone else, but I am very content to have been married to one woman, and to have been with her for 35 years. I have no interest in making any changes to my relationship with my wife. We’ve had good times, and bad. But, we believe in the vows we made to each other all those many years ago.


87 posted on 02/14/2014 1:57:41 PM PST by SoldierDad (Proud dad of an Army Soldier who has survived 24 months of Combat deployment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad

Thanks for the comment.

I’m glad that there are those out there who believe in their marriage vows. You clearly are one of them.


88 posted on 02/14/2014 3:05:46 PM PST by OldPossum ("It's" is the contraction of "it" and "is"; think about ITS implications.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Trying to say divorce is a reason to have same sex marriage is a stretch at best.

Then pointing out gay’s will get divorced also (and over time probably statistically catch up) again does nothing to advance the pro-gay argument.

If you have to resort to “well, it won’t be near as bad as marriage now” you’ve probably run out of steam.


89 posted on 02/14/2014 3:11:22 PM PST by Fledermaus (If we here in TN can't get rid of the worthless Lamar, it's over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

Those aren’t “marriages” in the true sense. That sounds more like an addiction to the process.


90 posted on 02/14/2014 3:13:27 PM PST by Fledermaus (If we here in TN can't get rid of the worthless Lamar, it's over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
"... as long as you are not arguing that the state could somehow stay so far out of marriage that it fails even to support marriage. That is the situation we have now, in fact."

I think this idea should be examined. To start with, what kind of support does the state, or should the state, give?
Government has proven time and again that it spoils what it touches. Over time and in many places, government has tried to take over religious sacraments, never for the purpose religion assigned them, but for *other* purposes. Births used to be registered in church, now they are registered by the state. Marriage (and divorce) are done by the state. Burial, and now even death, are being encroached upon by the state.
None of them are improved by this.
Alternatively, when marriage, as such, is between people and their faith, it is socially enforced by their community and themselves. An absence of government involvement likely helps far more than it hurts.


I told you some weeks ago I'd get back to you on this. Finally, a thread has been posted that gives some of the rationales why government staying out of marriage entirely would not work:

Why Privatizing Marriage Can’t Work

91 posted on 02/16/2014 3:45:05 PM PST by Albion Wilde (The less a man knows, the more certain he is that he knows it all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Charles Henrickson

I’m sorry to hear that.


92 posted on 03/20/2014 4:20:41 PM PDT by Jacob Kell (The last good thing that the UN did was Korea.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson