That same Law of Unintended Consequences will rear its ugly head in other, far more sickening ways.....guaranteed.
Example: the inevitable (and probably ultimately successful) passage of laws allowing bestiality and pedophilia.
(Romney) added that if two people of the same gender want to live together, want to have a loving relationship, even want to adopt a child in my state, individuals of the same sex are able to adopt children. In my view, thats something which people have the right to do, but to call that marriage is, in my view, a departure from the real meaning of the word.
Washington Post May 10, 2012
So Willard Mitt Romney thinks homosexual sex is equal to “a loving relationship” even if he is confused on exactly what marriage is...
Very good points, thank you for posting this.
One of my key points is this though; Attorneys especially Divorce and Family Attorneys are just salivating over the though of Gay marriage. Imagine how their business would bloom and the courts themselves would need to hire more judges and clerks and associated people to handle the increase in business.
The issue of ‘gay marriage’ is an issue that seeks to re-define the meaning of civil rights to include a person’s behavior as a means of creating a protected grouping of people. As far as I know throughout our history the only groups to be covered by civil rights were groups encompassing gender and/or race with the exception of being handicapped (thus a phsycal state of being).
Why is no one questioning that it is the party of the KKK (democrats) that is now seeking to re-define civil rights when throughout history they have always been the party opposed to civil rights. What will be the legal ramifications of this act of redefining civil rights to include ‘behavior’ as a means to create protected groups of people.
This blog posting also though raises a great point as well. Is the inclusion of ‘behavior’ as a means to establish a protected group really a means of destroying civil rights or at least to make a complete mockery of civil rights. Which will weigh more in Court - a person’s race? a person’s gender? their sexual identification? how their behavior is viewed? All fo these are open ended questions that depend upon the interpretation of a judge and of course the democrats beloved trial lawyer industry.
As you can see, rights that have been hard-fought would eventually evaporate.....furthering the decline of our society.
What say you?
What is there too say? The problem begins when you call what supposedly has been hard fought, R I G H T S. Rights are self evident truths, Absolutes even.
“That among these, are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”. Title 9 for example is no more a right than abortion. I like to call them manufactured rights. Man being the operative word.
True rights come from God not man. Thus the early medical termination of a pregnancy, for cosmetic reasons, could not possibly be a right, though the black robes say otherwise.
Rights are precious, and important enough to defend with our life’s blood as the founders promised each other by their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.
Anyone willing to fall on their sword for title nine for example or any of the other so called rights enumerated in this blog piece?
I’m against the legalization of gay marriage, but it is quite a stretch to say doing so would overturn the differentiation between man and woman and all the associated “protective” laws that go with that. After all, the ones who are in favor of legalizing gay marriage are mostly those in favor of so-called “women’s rights” (which really means special priviledges and man-bashing).
where you’re making your mistake is in assuming that the Left will act consistently. No, they will lump or split as they see fit to advance their vile and Godless agenda.
I have always maintained that the institution of gay marriage will have repercussions that will not be good for anybody.
Including gay people.
What do I say?
God defines marriage, not the State. Jesus tells us that from the beginning of humanity, it was God’s intent that marriage would only be one man and one woman. Scripture in many ways and places also tells us that God defines sexual morality and that people who refuse to practice that morality cannot qualify for the freely given gift of eternal life.
The State attempts to force us to recognize its power. One way is to presume the power to define who is married and who is not. We cede this power in part because we allow the State to tax incomes and estates, so to administer such taxing power, the State must define who it considers to be “married” and who is not. Just as when it defines a corporation to be a “person”, the State does not hesitate to define anyone it pleases as being “married, totally apart from how God would define it.
I dont want a government that can tell me what I may or may not do in the privacy of my own home or relationships. In a Constitutional Republic with a provision that prohibits Congress from making any law respecting religion, I have to allow others to have their own beliefs and morality. I can only be an advocate for the morality and beliefs that I think are true. I take my understanding of sexual morality from Scripture and that is where I learn that God considers sodomy to be an abomination.
If a State decides that two (or more) people can marry, if that is all that happened, I could live with that because I don’t have to approve, change my beliefs or what beliefs I pass on to my children.
However, once gays have sufficient influence with a State to redefine marriage, gays dont stop there. They use the State to forbid me from acting on my morality and beliefs. In fact, the State in some cases forces me to accommodation in their practices.
If I have children in public school, the State will insist on teaching them that gay marriage is just as normal as godly marriage. You will be sanctioned as a parent if you attempt to remove your child from such indoctrination.
If you run a business that could provide services to gays, you will be sanctioned if you decline to treat them as any other customer. For example, if you run a wedding photography business, you will be sanctioned if you decline to photograph a gay wedding.
In short, gays will jam their lifestyle down our throats because when the State says they are equal it is forbidden for a private citizen to dissent from that status. In doing so, they seek to force me to give them approval for something that I will never approve of. It is that last point that galls gays the most.
Curiosly, when liberal advocates of gay marriage are asked if their policy also would allow polygamy or polyandry , they recoil in horror and insist that it does not. However, logic demands that it does. I would ask how same-sex parents are going to react in the future when Utah public schools insist on indoctrinating the children that LDS-related polygamy is just as “normal” as same-sex “marriage”. The fact that this will be an issue will show yet again that gay “marriage” is not about marriage at all, it is about forcing the rest of us to approve of repugnant sexual immorality, something that LDS polygamists never demanded.