Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

All of the BS About Gay Marriage earned me a big ol' ZOT!

Posted on 09/08/2012 9:03:55 AM PDT by Why So Serious

Here is a better way to look at this ... the government should not be in the marriage business, and marriage is not a political issue. Gay people, for the most part, express a desire to get married for the benefits that are extended to married couple [rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children]. Government should allow people to engage in civil unions [this includes men and women], only. Marriage should be left to the churches. Then, any one can have a civil union [man/lady, lady/lady, man/man, mom/son, dad/daughter, brother/sister, person/multiple people] which extends to that civil union the governmental rights that married couple now enjoy which include the marriage tax credit, right to pass assets without taxation upon death, the right to make life ending decisions [pulling the plug]. The whole issue dies in a blink. This should not have to be a political thing. Moving the line in the sand never works ... better just to erase it. I believe that my wife and I are married in GOD's eyes and believe that we have a civil union in the eyes of government. It should not be anything different then a partnership, LLC, or LP.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: anothervanity; asv; civilunions; homosexualagenda; libertarian; rumpranger; samesexmarriage; trollingforsuckers; vanity; zot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-253 next last

1 posted on 09/08/2012 9:03:58 AM PDT by Why So Serious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

Better not leave out ‘pets’ ... just sayin’


2 posted on 09/08/2012 9:06:02 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious
"government should not be in the marriage business."

I agree 100%!!!

Because I am now single I pay $4000 dollars a year more in federal income taxes. Get the damn government out of the marriage business/social engineering!!!

3 posted on 09/08/2012 9:08:06 AM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

So it’s really all about money and not getting government approval for sodomy with the ‘one you love’?


4 posted on 09/08/2012 9:10:46 AM PDT by ex-snook (without forgiveness there is no Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

A ‘family’ the cornerstone of any society from the most primitive to the most modern. It stands to reason that the government will be concerned about its structure if for no other reason than to insure domestic tranquility.


5 posted on 09/08/2012 9:11:16 AM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

I’m 58 and my son is 22. We both came to this conclusion independently of each other — local government offers civil unions, religious organizations offer marriages. DONE!


6 posted on 09/08/2012 9:13:09 AM PDT by duckworth (Perhaps instant karma's going to get you. Perhaps not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

What’s interesting about the gay marriage issue is that many gays that pushed for it never get married after they are able to. I live in NY. Thanks to Cuomo, gays can get married. At work not a single gay person that posted signs on the subject, flew the equal rights flag or wrote letters to the editor ever got married. They aren’t even planning to get married. We ask why and we get some crap answer like “we don’t need a paper to tell us we are married...”


7 posted on 09/08/2012 9:15:18 AM PDT by Dutch Boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone

Families are stabilizing factors, that has nothing to do with the government being involved in marriage.


8 posted on 09/08/2012 9:16:04 AM PDT by svcw (If one living cell on another planet is life, why isn't it life in the womb?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

Homosexuals want marriage as a sign of society’s approval for their behavior. In most places, they can already get all the rest - but they want “marriage” so they can be “normal”.


9 posted on 09/08/2012 9:17:33 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberalism: "Ex faslo quodlibet" - from falseness, anything follows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

Activists know that they could have civil unions pretty easily, what they want is the word “marriage”, so as to destroy it.

You want to destroy “marriage” as well, making government civil unions (which would merely replace marriage) the norm, and allowing “marriage” to fade into obscurity as it becomes a little religious ceremony for some, in their individual churches, something for personal consumption only, but not applicable to society at large.

You legalize homosexual marriage and polygamy either way in your proposal.

Libertarians are leftists who are attacking our culture and society, and morality using a different name.


10 posted on 09/08/2012 9:18:38 AM PDT by ansel12 ( Aug. 27, 2012-Mitt Romney said his views on abortion are more lenient than the Republican Platform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious
I live in a gay ghetto, so I hear these conversations all the time. "Republicans won't let people choose who they love." It's such a crock. So when I bring up the fact that civil unions are legal in our state, they come back with "Civil unions aren't a marriage." What's the difference? I ask. "It's not a marriage in the government's eyes." But you get all the government sanctions in a civil union that a married couple would. What's the difference? "You can't call it a marriage." You can call it anything you want. Why are you so intent on having it be called a "marriage" when you are getting all the same benefits that a married couple would? "Because people don't see you as being married." Oh, I see. In other words, you don't care one whit about being sanctioned by government. What you want is to be able to force churches to sanction your union. "Blink. Blink. :::steam rising::: What are you, a f&8$#& Republican??" And that's where the conversation usually ends.
11 posted on 09/08/2012 9:21:45 AM PDT by ponygirl (Be Breitbart.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

The state should be the authority on marriage, and it’s up to the people of that state to define it.

Those that should butt out are the courts. It is not their domain and any court that acts otherwise should be impeached.


12 posted on 09/08/2012 9:21:45 AM PDT by A_Former_Democrat (Now a Chick-fil-A customer . . . God bless Dan Cathy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

I agree.


13 posted on 09/08/2012 9:22:40 AM PDT by LuvFreeRepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Paint w/ a broad stroke much?

Libertarians only wish to get gov’t out of the things it has NO business being in...marriage being one. Leave marriage to those as religious based institutions and civil unions for anything else.

Stable family unit, all fine and dandy, but gov’t has made some animals more equal than others (tax credits, etc.). (Living) Wills and contracts should hold for all taxes, inheritance, etc. - again, get Gov’t OUT.

And, since they can’t procreate anyway, why worry about gay unions? There’s enough reason to fret these days about the ease of divorce in ‘normal’ couples than the fringe. Now, adoption, that’s a whole new argument.


14 posted on 09/08/2012 9:27:03 AM PDT by i_robot73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Dutch Boy
What’s interesting about the gay marriage issue is that many gays that pushed for it never get married after they are able to. I live in NY. Thanks to Cuomo, gays can get married. At work not a single gay person that posted signs on the subject, flew the equal rights flag or wrote letters to the editor ever got married. They aren’t even planning to get married. We ask why and we get some crap answer like “we don’t need a paper to tell us we are married...”

Exactly, it is all about the argument. Remove the things that divide us and focus on what unites us.

15 posted on 09/08/2012 9:29:48 AM PDT by Why So Serious (There is no cure for stupidity!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: avacado
Because I am now single I pay $4000 dollars a year more in federal income taxes. Get the damn government out of the marriage business/social engineering!!!

How stupid is that? And it is because you are NOT married.

16 posted on 09/08/2012 9:31:18 AM PDT by Why So Serious (There is no cure for stupidity!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

That makes way too much sense for the left to go along. It also does little to destroy the family, which is the real goal, as families are the backbone of society.


17 posted on 09/08/2012 9:33:09 AM PDT by Josephat (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

FWIW, marriage is primarily a matter of the Church, or the synagogue. But in the West, government has had the job of recording and confirming it, for legal purposes, and because proper marriages are the foundation of a sound society. As long as you have a Christian nation, that works fine.

Now, we are in something of a dilemma. Freedom of religion used to mean freedom to follow a sensible religion. But now it might be Islam, or pot smoking, or Satanism, or Wiccans, or polygamist sects, or who knows what. Where do you draw the line? People used to pretty much agree. But now there is no agreement. We won’t have a healthy marriage situation unless and until our country returns to traditional religious and moral values—not by force, but by consent and conversion freely consented to.

But although the primary authorities over marriage should be the churches, government has a role to play—if we can ever get the current mess straightened out. There is no way that you can have a free society without the widespread moral agreement that comes from religion, and we no longer seem to have that. Which is not to say that we could not have another Great Awakening, which is what is needed.


18 posted on 09/08/2012 9:35:47 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ponygirl
Yep. It has never been about marriage, gay or otherwise. It has always about forcing churches to change their definition of marriage in a way that it becomes meaningless.

Sort of like the ACLU wanting to establish atheism as the defacto state religion by driving all competiting version out of the public square.

19 posted on 09/08/2012 9:36:52 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
So it’s really all about money and not getting government approval for sodomy with the ‘one you love’?

It is all about the money. The fact that gays cannot get married has been preventing sodomy, is that what you think? I have news for you, it is taking place without government approval.

20 posted on 09/08/2012 9:37:59 AM PDT by Why So Serious (There is no cure for stupidity!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

I agree. Unfortunatly, this is too simple. What was it that Clint Eastwood said...conservatives by the very nature of the word don’t go around beating drums like the liberals... I really managled this, but you get the picture.


21 posted on 09/08/2012 9:39:01 AM PDT by DefeatCorruption
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: duckworth
I’m 58 and my son is 22. We both came to this conclusion independently of each other — local government offers civil unions, religious organizations offer marriages. DONE!

You and your son are both good at critical thinking. The apple does not fall far from the tree.

22 posted on 09/08/2012 9:39:49 AM PDT by Why So Serious (There is no cure for stupidity!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ponygirl
"What you want is to be able to force churches to sanction your union."

Nicely played. I think it's not even that complicated. It's more about forcing everyone else -and particularly Conservatives- to use the term 'marriage'.

I'm in the rag biz, so do business with lots of gay guys. Politics comes up from time to time. All I know would be voting Dem, but none care about this marriage nonsense.

23 posted on 09/08/2012 9:41:55 AM PDT by moehoward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious
Gay people, for the most part, express a desire to get married for the benefits that are extended to married couple

What a bunch of liberal crap. The result of your fantasy will result in more out of wedlock children, the number source of poverty in America.

Gay marriage was banned in Oregon by a people's vote. The liberal legislature then pushed through civil unions, granting gays ALL the benefits of a real marriage. The gays in Oregon are still working on getting the gay marriage ban overturned. They want acceptance of their perversion.

24 posted on 09/08/2012 9:45:09 AM PDT by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious
the government should not be in the marriage business, and marriage is not a political issue.

As long as the marriage contract has implications on tax laws, inheritance laws, property rights, child support, etc, then government does have a place to make sure the contractual terms are clearly defined and consistent. The Constitution authorizes Congress to set the standards of 'weights and measures'. According to the Federalist papers, legal definitions are considered a measure that is within the government's jurisdiction to define. If legal definitions don't mean anything or are inconsistent, then contracts and laws aren't enforceable.

If you want the government out of the marriage business, simply having private contracts between individuals, then all the laws and recognized contracts that apply to marriage first must be addressed.

25 posted on 09/08/2012 9:45:40 AM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

Government is interested in traditional marriage because, a natural outcome of man/woman marriage is the result of children, new citizens to replace the older citizens who are retiring or less able to do certain work (in the case of the military, work for national defense). This goes back many millenia- in ancient Roman empire days, the consul and Senate would regularly issue edicts for landed and non landed citizens to increase their number— have more children. This was especially true as the expansion of Rome required citizen soldiers. What has changed this somewhat is the advent of technology and the political annoyance of a group that insists that religions say their relationship is the same. It isn’t and can never be. Men and women are different—biologically and countless other ways.

The STATE, in this case, the feds, but also the states, have been involved in biology— and that is a major part of the problem. Carried to further extreme, since it seems homosexuals are demanding that churches/religions acknowledge they are the SAME as man/women in marriage, would it not then devolve that a condition of homosexual marriage would be the requirement that one of the party produce a child (from a sperm donor for L’s, and artificial womb for male homosexuals). Such is the “advancement” of the biotechnology that would enable this.

Against this backdrop and, furthering the homosexual agenda against the traditional family structure, you have planned parenthood pushing the abortion industry. Children are not to be wanted in this “overpopulated” world.

From a biblical point of view, and any number of other “biologically sound” points of view, the true marriage of a man and a woman provides stability- psychological, societal, and... biological. To suggest otherwise can be countered with vast historical precedent.


26 posted on 09/08/2012 9:46:10 AM PDT by John S Mosby (Sic Semper Tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Activists know that they could have civil unions pretty easily, what they want is the word “marriage”, so as to destroy it.

You want to destroy “marriage” as well, making government civil unions (which would merely replace marriage) the norm, and allowing “marriage” to fade into obscurity as it becomes a little religious ceremony for some, in their individual churches, something for personal consumption only, but not applicable to society at large.

You legalize homosexual marriage and polygamy either way in your proposal.

Libertarians are leftists who are attacking our culture and society, and morality using a different name.

Really? I have been married for 22 years. I started dating my wife in 1978 at the age of 16, we got married in 1990 at the age of 28 and today we are 50. Do you really believe that the government and its marriage thing had something to do with it. You sound like Barack Obama .. Julie and I did not create this marriage ... government created it!!! And if government allowed civil unions some how my wife and my marriage will become something other than what it is now. If you think that, I feel sorry for your spouse. I guess you love your spouse because government marriage mandates it.

27 posted on 09/08/2012 9:46:28 AM PDT by Why So Serious (There is no cure for stupidity!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

I have been saying that since I was old enough to know what it meant.

I had a legal, civil contract (marriage license) with my husband, and we were also ceremonially married-by a priest of our religion (Catholic). There is no reason one should not be binding without the other-they are two completely different things.

A civil, legal contract is just that-and a marriage is a religious matter between a clergyman who performs the ceremony and the two people who choose to bond before God. If the U.S. military had not required the civil license to make me “officially” his wife, my husband and I would have been quite happy to skip that and just go straight to our priest-we would have been just as married, as far as we were concerned.

Anyone can enter into a legal/civil contract, but the specifications of the marriage bond are determined by the religion of one’s choice-in Christian and Jewish doctrine, one man and one woman, not a village.

Let each state decide if they want to have it that way. Despite well-meaning “concern”, any time a government sticks their hands into personal, non-business relationships, it ends up badly, just like this same sex “marriage” nonsense...


28 posted on 09/08/2012 9:47:17 AM PDT by Texan5 ("You've got to saddle up your boys, you've got to draw a hard line"...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

I agree with you 100%, and you expressed the essence of this issue perfectly: “
“Libertarians are leftists who are attacking our culture and society, and morality using a different name.”
And that is why I loathe Libertarians more than the Dems - at least the Dems stay on their own side of the room and don’t pretend to be part of our movement.


29 posted on 09/08/2012 9:48:56 AM PDT by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

The vast majority of gays don’t want to get married, they want to be with as many partners as possible....Marriage to them is all about “normalizing” their behavior.


30 posted on 09/08/2012 9:51:41 AM PDT by dfwgator (I'm voting for Ryan and that other guy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A_Former_Democrat

No no and no.
It is God Almighty who is the authority on marriage, not the state.


31 posted on 09/08/2012 9:51:46 AM PDT by svcw (If one living cell on another planet is life, why isn't it life in the womb?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: i_robot73

No I don’t paint with a broad brush, libertarinas are leftists that like conservative economics.

Libs attack our culture with the same goal as any other leftist, to destroy it.

You don’t like homosexuals adopting? Well libertarians do.

Which set of laws do you want governing marriage and divorce, Islam’s, Scientology, Hare Krishnas, or government?

Do you want the ‘Children of God’, or FLDS making their own laws on marriage?


32 posted on 09/08/2012 9:52:14 AM PDT by ansel12 ( Aug. 27, 2012-Mitt Romney said his views on abortion are more lenient than the Republican Platform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

I think it’s just about the creeping encroachment of liberal power. Watch what they attack, it’s the very things that we hold dear and binds us together as Americans.

It’s about tearing down America so the squirmies can take it over.

Everything from smoking, to the sanctity of life is on their agenda, and unless we stand firm, America will become Pottersville and continue its fall into 3rd worldism in a short time.


33 posted on 09/08/2012 9:52:41 AM PDT by FrankR (They will become our ultimate masters the day we surrender the 2nd Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

Will taxpayers be required to pay for benefits to those in civil unions?


34 posted on 09/08/2012 9:53:10 AM PDT by SumProVita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ponygirl
"Civil unions aren't a marriage." What's the difference?

They are free to get a civil union contract and then have a private marriage ceremony that isn't a legal issue. I have several gay friends who did this. Private "Marriage" ceremonies at a Unitarian church then a separate legal contract like a civil union. It isn't much different in a straight couple getting a marriage license then going to their church for a private ceremony. The only difference with the first example is the two don't legally relate.

35 posted on 09/08/2012 9:53:25 AM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: i_robot73

Umm..yes, they CAN and DO procreate all the time, via surrogates - read a magazine occasionally, because this is not a secret.
Also, once you normalize homosexuality, there is no way to keep them from adopting, having flagrant dykes and transvestites in your school rooms, etc.


36 posted on 09/08/2012 9:54:06 AM PDT by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

I don’t even know how your post was relevant to mine.


37 posted on 09/08/2012 9:55:06 AM PDT by ansel12 ( Aug. 27, 2012-Mitt Romney said his views on abortion are more lenient than the Republican Platform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Homosexuals want marriage as a sign of society’s approval for their behavior. In most places, they can already get all the rest - but they want “marriage” so they can be “normal”.

Exactly. This is not about “rights” as much as it is about getting into peoples heads and making them believe it is normal and acceptable.

I’ve always had the feeling that they, themselves, know that it isn’t “normal” in any sense, and their militant attitude is a kind of cognitive dissonance. They’re trying to convince themselves as much as others.


38 posted on 09/08/2012 9:55:06 AM PDT by djf (The barbarian hordes will ALWAYS outnumber the clean-shaven. And they vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

The homosexualists look at the state’s involvement in the institution and see a way to punish those who won’t agree with them about their lifestyle. The statists look at the state’s involvement and see a way to control the culture by weakening it so more are dependant upon the state.

With the state involved in the modern era, many have been conditioned to think marriage is simply a state contract with benefits and strictures denoted by pieces of paper that can be broken and resumed between whatever parties the state allows. How does the state determine what it will allow? In the modern era, judges, pols or the majority decide. And that’s it. It was always a danger. Pope Leo XIII warned about it 130 years ago.

Freegards


39 posted on 09/08/2012 9:55:44 AM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious
Then, any one can have a civil union [man/lady, lady/lady, man/man, mom/son, dad/daughter, brother/sister, person/multiple people] You have serious issues, Weirdo.
40 posted on 09/08/2012 9:56:18 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper (I used to want to change the world. Now, I want to stop the world from changing me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

Also, what are the ultimate consequences of a society that does not encourage the ideal of the traditional family as the cornerstone of its foundation?


41 posted on 09/08/2012 9:56:59 AM PDT by SumProVita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
What a bunch of liberal crap. The result of your fantasy will result in more out of wedlock children,

Wait, if we allow gay men and women to get married it will result in out-of-wedlock children? HUH!? 75% of black kids are born out of wedlock and in the white community it is spiking away, as well. As far as people voting to ban things ... that is not always a good thing. People voted for Al Gore to be the President. Thank your lucky stars that the Electoral College stopped that. Be careful with saying that you want the "people's vote" to dictate. In 25 years the "people's vote" will be majority muslim. You obviously support that notion while it works for you, at which point you want to waste it on stupid issues

42 posted on 09/08/2012 9:57:35 AM PDT by Why So Serious (There is no cure for stupidity!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious
Government should allow people to engage in civil unions [this includes men and women], only. Marriage should be left to the churches...The whole issue dies in a blink.

You couldn't be more wrong here. California had civil unions (and still has them, as far as I know). However, that wasn't enough for the homos, so they used a homo judge to declare Prop 8 (inserting the definition of "marriage" as one man-one woman into the state constitution) unconstitutional. This was never about acquiring the same rights as married couples, nor about love. It is about forcing everyone else to accept homosexuality as normal, and using the government to do that.
43 posted on 09/08/2012 9:59:47 AM PDT by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious
No. If tomorrow, what you propose were to happen, the new line would be requiring people to recognize civil unions. If the ‘pricetag’ for homosexuals shacking up and calling themselves married was the loss of every ‘automatic’ benefit of marriage, then the gays would demand it.

This has nothing to do with health benefits, social security benefits, etc. It has everything to do with using the force of law to recognize sodomites, and to compel those who disagree with them to shut up. You can not refuse sodomites entry into your establishment, nor deny them your skills. You must recognize their relationship and celebrate it in any manner they choose.

That's how this works. Every bit of dancing around, mentioning any and all reasonable accommodations, it is all there only to support the forced recognition of their shacking up and making it equivalent to marriage.

We had a pivotal moment in history, that one moment where we could have exposed the homosexual agenda for all to see - Mitt Romney could have simply accepted the state supreme court ruling, and stated: Go ahead, declare every marriage to be unconstitutional.

And now the man who caved is our presidential nominee.

44 posted on 09/08/2012 10:00:09 AM PDT by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SumProVita
Will taxpayers be required to pay for benefits to those in civil unions?

Which benefits would that be?

45 posted on 09/08/2012 10:01:55 AM PDT by Why So Serious (There is no cure for stupidity!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

You are right. I now say that Libertarians are Dems who don’t want to pay taxes. They revel in immorality - I don’t even want to speculate why - and they want to return us to a culture of paganism where “anything goes”.
I wish that all the members of FR who are Libertarians would leave and join/form a Libertarian group.


46 posted on 09/08/2012 10:02:42 AM PDT by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

I think if states just started opting out of calling what they sell marriage licenses and started calling them civil contracts instead, that would dampen the political fire connected with it.

Most clergymen will not celebrate a religious union (marriage) between anyone/thing but one man and one woman-defuse the politics that way-a civil union is simply a business contract, and religions don’t regulate those, whether they are between a man and woman, or any combination of participants.


47 posted on 09/08/2012 10:04:01 AM PDT by Texan5 ("You've got to saddle up your boys, you've got to draw a hard line"...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Wondering how anything can destroy a marriage other than the two people involved in the marriage


48 posted on 09/08/2012 10:04:17 AM PDT by Why So Serious (There is no cure for stupidity!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious
Government should allow people to engage in civil unions [this includes men and women], only.

You have been duped into precisely the conclusion the homosexual marriage advocates want you to come to. The real intent of the homosexual marriage movement has never been about expanding marriage to homosexuals, polygamists, and pedophiles. It's about eliminating marriage for heterosexuals. Removing legal recognition for marriage is a significant step towards the destruction of the family and our overall society as we know it.

49 posted on 09/08/2012 10:04:23 AM PDT by Ronaldus Magnus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

Developing Virtue Is The Path To True Freedom
“Freedom” Without Virtue, Is License

We do not live in a time or in a society that really encourages the development of virtue… We denigrate marriage and family which is really the first school of virtue… We practice the intrinsic evil of unrestricted abortion… And we as a nation live well beyond our means financially…

And historically the societies that follow such an empty view of human freedom, because they undermine the development of virtue in their citizens historically those societies tend to lose the freedom that they do have…

...Rev. tephen Hellman


50 posted on 09/08/2012 10:05:24 AM PDT by SumProVita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-253 next 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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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