Posted on 09/29/2007 6:27:47 PM PDT by Tahts-a-dats-ago
Much has been made of the “right” of homosexuals marrying, so much so that activist judges have taken it upon themselves to mandate actions that the people have not been supportive of. In all, twenty seven states have some sort of ban on gay marriage and not one state has approved of a law, via legislation, allowing gay marriages.
Liberal activists have claimed that anybody should be free to love whomever they choose. They point to the high divorce rates found in normal marriages, the inability to obtain insurance through their partner’s employer plan, and a fictitious proximity to racist practices of the past.
None of their claims have merit; they weren’t designed to be an intellectual argument based on sound facts or solid reasoning. Such claims are based on emotional whims and the belief that they deserve an extra helping of rights.
Most of us grew up with parents who actually dared to tell us no. Lines were drawn and they were not to be crossed. No amount of pleading, whining, or begging could budge those lines that were deeply drawn; our parents had experiences, and the knowledge that comes with experience, that we simply could not comprehend.
The gay agenda is not the first to attack traditional values in America: that path had been blazed long before they dared to take on such a task. Religion or rather – freedom of religion – had been attacked successfully long beforehand. Our courts declared a newly discovered phrase in our Constitution – separation of church and state – that hadn’t been there during the previous 15 (plus) decades, thereby mandating freedom from religion.
Once this door had been kicked in, traditional values were attacked in a vigorous manner. Men were belittled, told they weren’t needed, and society was informed that children could do without a father. Woman-power had arrived and with it came the sexual revolution. Responsibility was thrown out in favor of sex without consequences, or so we thought. But there were repercussions, women became little more than unpaid concubines, and men were transformed into casual sperm-donors who became ATM machines if the “union” resulted in a child that wasn’t killed prior to birth.
This irresponsibility, championed by the left, affected far more than the two consenting adults. The resulting children suffered – oh how they suffered. Growing up in a one-parent household, being juggled back and forth between parents, and not hearing the word ‘no’ nearly as often as they should, had severely negative impacts on those children. As a result, crime rates among teens skyrocketed and society took a downward step yet again. These children began having sex at earlier and earlier ages, after all they had grown up watching their parents hop from one bed to another all too often. The practice had imprinted upon them and they sought “love” in the only manner they knew how.
Our daughters became “ho’s” and our sons became “pimps” in an anything goes society. Weary mothers, too tired to intervene, simply looked the other way. Fathers, all too often absent from their children’s lives, simply couldn’t find the time and moved on to other conquests, creating a legacy of failure that haunts society today.
Marriage isn’t about two people coming together for the convenience of obtaining insurance, it isn’t about lust that wanes over time, nor is it only about a mutual respect and admiration for each other. Sure, vows are undertaken when two people join in matrimony - words such as “love,” “cherish,” and “honor” are vocalized - as a means to cement the bonds between husband and wife.
But it isn’t just about the two people coming together to form a union, if it were there would be no need for marriage to be recognized by either religion or state. Two people could simply choose to be together as they wish; legal documents are readily available for the transfer of property should one of the partners happen to die.
The state recognizes marriage – as does religion – for one specific reason; children. Our nation’s future does not fall upon the union of two people; it falls upon the shoulders of our children. Tomorrow’s society is their choice; they will decide what becomes of this nation.
Hillary Clinton wrote a book called “It takes a village.” In that book, she pushed the idea that parents are disposable and the greater community is best able to effectively raise children. She is wrong; it takes a mother and a father, living together with a commitment to the greater cause, to raise a child into healthy adulthood. Both parents are necessary, study after study has borne this fact out. But studies aren’t needed to realize this bit of common sense; previous generations knew, going far back in time.
Various framers (of our Constitution) made comments – displaying a wisdom that appears to be lacking in today’s politicians – equating freedom with a moral society. An immoral society quickly delves into slavery or anarchy – neither of the two is compatible with freedom. Society has the right – nay, the responsibility – to police itself in regards to a standard based on moral values. Nearly all of our laws are the result of moral judgments, and are set in place in order to safeguard a free society that can sustain itself over time.
Long ago we recognized the importance of granting our children the best opportunity available in which they could grow into healthy, moral adults. The sanctity of marriage is a commitment to the family – specifically children – that best insures the survival of a free society.
Today our future is being eroded by an agenda striving to undercut traditional values. The Democrat party has been hijacked by extreme leftists who push this vile propaganda upon our society. That desire to invalidate traditional values has permeated our politics, our schools and our churches. We are under attack and your family is dependant upon your willingness to become informed about the politicians you help to elect. Does that person represent your children’s best chance in life, or does that person best represent an extremist agenda that is hell-bent on destroying the fabric of society? It’s your children’s future, do something about it.
Precisely.
Society recognizes marriage between a man and woman because only that coupling can perpetuate society.
What exactly can society derive from same sex marriage? Nothing, same sex marriage can only take from society because those relationships will never give society back a future generation. Even if a marriage between a man and a woman result in no children there is at least to society a possibility, no matter how small, children could result from such a union.
For same sex relationships society recognizes the possibility for that union to create children is simply impossible.
(Thank you, Margarette Sather.)
Who was it that said, “If the government loves my children so much, let them tell me — what are their names”?
I hadn’t heard that, so I don’t know, but it is cute!
BTTT.
Excuse me - I don’t know if you were using sarcasm in your comment, but two women can NEVER “have” children together, any more than two men can produce a child. Never have, never will. It will be sold as a contrived reality, sure, but intelligent people know better.
To this country's disgrace, one state legislative body has approved of a law allowing gay marriage - California did so this past year, but the Governor vetoed it.
Most of them are so wrapped up in their own polemics that they have become nothing more than pathetic anti-Christians with the same false hypocritical philosophy. They just slap a new label on it hoping nobody will notice - - they replace the idea of "avoiding sin" with "morals."
Morality and all of its associated ideals are rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior. Today, "morals" are a religious pagan philosophy of esoteric hobgoblins... Transfiguration is a pantheon of fantasies as the medium of infinitization. Others get derision for having an unwavering Judaic belief in Yahweh or Yeshua, although their critics and enemies will evangelize insertion of phantasmagoric fetishisms into secular law.
Mosaic Law (of which the Ten Commandments is just a part) is the foundation of Western Civilization. Genesis is the primary focus of the Declaration of Independence, from where our Constitutional rights are derived. The Ten Commandments are the foundation of our judicial system.
Moses wrote Genesis. This is why such people will jump up and down screaming when the Ten Commandments are displayed or the Creationist idea of monogamy from the book of Genesis is introduced.
The latter (Genesis) also ruins the illogical and non-biological arguments of homosexual monogamy. In a secular sense, homosexuality is an idolatry of perversion. It is in no way an anatomical function of the human organism, but a phantasmagoric creation from within the mentally disturbed human mind, a social psychosis, naked and on full exhibitionist display.
This is the whole crux (pun intended) of their attack on creationism - - they are really frustrated by Genesis, but cannot destroy the axiomatic state of procreant human biology, it does not fit their religious agenda.
Homosexual monogamy advocates seek ceremonious sanctification of their anatomical perversions and esoteric absolution for their guilt-ridden, impoverished egos.
Neither of those will satisfy their universal dissatisfaction with mortality or connect them to something eternal. With pantheons of fantasies as their medium of infinitization, they still have nothing in them of reality, any more than there is in the things that seem to stand before us in a dream.
Homosexual deviancy is really a pagan practice (and a self-induced social psychosis) at war with the Judaic culture over what is written in the book of Genesis (1:27, 2:18).
This is exactly what the National Socialists were at war with... so, when someone uses the term "Gaystapo," they might not realize how close to the truth they really are. (Especially when you consider the National Socialist eugenic breeding programs.)
Many will seek ceremonious sanctification and esoteric absolution in some type of marriage rite, but that still fails to give them a connection to the eternal in both a religious and temporal, procreant sense - - the union does not produce offspring.
Dissatisfaction with inevitable mortality only feeds the impoverishment of the ego further. Homosexuals really hate human life; their whole desire is rooted in the destruction of it...
Thanks for your comments. The suggested changes have been made and the article has been forwarded for consideration by several conservative publications.
Thank you for your comments. I was attempting to make the point that marriage is fundamental to a free, and moral, society. I was trying to drive home the point that undermining that bedrock would ultimately result in a loss of freedom for us all - a consideration that is not made by those advocating additional rights for gay activists.
The government would answer: 123-45-6789, 353-45-7585, etc.
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.