Posted on 10/08/2007 7:59:28 AM PDT by SmithL
As I've said here several times in the past years, (and it still holds true) calling homo unions a marriage changes a non-ambiguous term into an ambiguous one and promotes confusion, and is tantamount to marketing horse piss as Coca Cola. Can't do it! The word is trademarked by law. And the word 'marriage' is trademarked with a specific definition as well.
So the argument over this is broader than what most people think. Judges and legislatures cannot give your trademark to another person.
What the commercial leaves out is the poor children whose lives are devastated by forcibly being raised in a homosexual environment. I seem to remember one young boy (Jessie Dirkhising (sp?)) who was murdered by his homosexual ‘fathers’. The media rarely mentions what a tragedy this is for the innocent kids.
I’ll consider it when they stop prancing down the street like trick ponies, naked.
It’s unfair to stereotype people as you’ve done based on isolated examples. Far more heterosexual people kill their kids.
There is simply no need to make invalid projections in opposing gay marriage. There are so many valid ones.
The need for it to be officially sanctioned exists in the minds of the homos. The mere fact that they are demanding the word is an admission that they feel guilty in what they do. Knowing they aren't going to be sanctioned by the church (or the laws of God) they are forced to have their guilt mitigated by having society, through law, recognize their union as on parity with heteros. So their God has become the state.
or having government get out of the marriage business entirely. ...easier said than done, but yup, you're right,
Except for one thing: forcing priests/ministers and organized religion to marry them is the next logical step on the campaign. ....you're right on that one, as well. I'm curious (not in a good way, but more in a 'watching a train wreck' sort of way) to see how that one shakes out. Libs have pretty firmly established that religion has no place in affairs of state, wonder how they'll rationalize that the state should interfere with religion? Or, will that pesky Constitution get in way?
....These are the things I wonder about when I can't sleep at night....
The need for it to be officially sanctioned exists in the minds of the homos. The mere fact that they are demanding the word is an admission that they feel guilty in what they do. Knowing they aren't going to be sanctioned by the church (or the laws of God) they are forced to have their guilt allieved by having society, through law, recognize their union as having parity with hetero marriages.
In essence, demanding that the state be their 'god' and grant them acceptance, removing the stain of sin and its attendant psychological/spiritual consequences.
I’m concerned about the attitudes of people born after 1970. Unless a lot of young ‘uns change when they begin marrying and having children, we could very easily end up with gay marriage in who knows how many years.
I’m concerned about the attitudes of people born after 1970. Unless a lot of young ‘uns change when they begin marrying and having children, we could very easily end up with gay marriage in who knows how many years.
They won’t be satisfied with civil unions. They view them as insulting, not the whole enchilata, so civil unions will be used to secure gay marriage. Once they get gay marriage, that will be used to secure other legal/political/social goals...
Happiness lies within, and these folks don’t understand that. Everybody else has to change for them; don’t ask them to change. If you ask that of them, then you’re a racist and a bigot, etc., etc.
This issue is NOT about getting into the marriage business (or out).
This is about FORCING an edorsement of a sexual act. If it was just “a contract issue” then the homosexuals could have gone to their local Officedepot, Staples, or OfficeMax and bought the legally binding cohabitation agreement for $24.95. (free if you look online) This would allow two homosexuals to cohabitate without there needed ANY legal identification as to what they do in the bedroom.
Keep in mind the ONLY thing homosexuals are about is the sexual act. That is it.
Society rewards the institution not the individual. Marriage is a benefit to society’s future and it is rewarded with promotion and protections. Homosexuals do nothing to further society. They only self reward their hedonistic needs for sexual orgasm and attention.
Make no mistake, the topic at Bar Conventions bothh local and national IS about breakingn down marriage from the “breeders”.
Yes, that is the bottom line. Well-said!
I agree. The whole thing is not about marriage per se. It is about forced acceptance of a sexual persuasion.
I’m actually fine with gays ... don’t really care (or want to know) what they do in private. But I don’t want anyone to FORCE me to accept ANY private behavior on principle.
“Keep in mind the ONLY thing homosexuals are about is the sexual act. That is it.”
So true. I used to read a Conservative columnist, Andrew Sullivan, until I found out about five years ago that he is a homosexual (and totally unrepentant). And as can always be predicted, he turned against Bush as soon as he endorsed the Federal Marriage Amendment. No matter what a homosexual says are his political views, in the final analysis they decide based on their bedroom lifestyle - every time.
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.