Posted on 12/21/2008, 11:29:46 PM by tcg
Here I want to correct the assumption made by Meacham and Miller that the case against same-sex “marriage” must be a Biblical one. Instead, both by faith and by reason one can see that genuine marriage must be heterosexual, that sexual acts outside of marriage are immoral, and that the state, therefore, should not declare any same-sex unions “marriages,” nor actively encourage sexual acts outside of marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.org ...
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
The world has gone MAD!
I'll pass on the delusion of a HOMOSEXUAL “union” or mockery of “marriage”.
GEESH!
“Eww” and “WTF? Seriously. Men marrying men? LOL. Let’s wear socks on our hands.” are good reasons too in my opinion.
Now that marriage is government property, there is no legal way of excluding any two people who promise to engage in the desired behavior in return for a cookie.
Who would have thought the President (however bad he will be) would have to defend having a prominent Christian say a prayer at his inauguration.
“Now that marriage is government property, there is no legal way of excluding any two people who promise to engage in the desired behavior in return for a cookie. “
The one glitch in your otherwise factual prediction is that the government if of the People, by the People, and for the People.
When the People remember that things will change.
I thought it was both horrible and funny when Boston Legal had Justice Scalia marry William Shatner and James Spader.
Better yet, where would he find a mainstream Christian who approved of homosexual marriage?
Nah, never mind, don't answer that.
There is are three very good biological reasons for marriage.
Males have the prerogative to provide their DNA to many offspring. Females have the double prerogative to get the best male DNA, and the best male to help raise their offspring. If there are many males, these will often not be the same male.
Marriage, as a binding social contract, tells others to keep “hands off” the married couple, or else. Thus, it promises the male that the children are his, in exchange, for the female, that he will be monogamous with her and help provide for the children. And the benefits to the children of having two providers is obvious.
Unfortunately, over time, marriage was corrupted by other things, in an effort to turn it into an economic arrangement. This is why many sought and still seek to undermine marriage—because they do not grasp its important biological function, and think it is just a religious convention. They strongly advocate destroying marriage because they only see the bad parts that were added to it.
But with the downfall of marriage, government has had to intervene to try and replicate the advantages of marriage through the secular court. These advantages are vital to society.
There is no, zero, biological purpose to homosexual marriage. It is an act of resentment and hatred against heterosexuals, compounded by trying to also get government entitlements given to married heterosexuals, to encourage them to breed and raise children.
“Better yet, where would he find a mainstream Christian who approved of homosexual marriage? “
I didn’t think Rick Warren approved of homosexual marriage?
IMO you can’t support homosexual marriage and be a mainstream Christian.
My point was that had he not picked Warren, any other picks would also be against homo marriage.
The legal institution of marriage as it stands is already available to gays. Any gay man and any gay woman can marry. So the question isn’t really access to marriage. The question is changing the definition of marriage.
“My point was that had he not picked Warren, any other picks would also be against homo marriage.”
Not all would be unfortunately.
Marriage also relates to those objects called “children”. These objects grow up more balance in a household where there is a woman and a man. Both sexes are important in a child’s development.
bookmarked
Wonder what Rev Wright’s position on this subject is.
Fourty years ago, marriage was declared unnecessary. Living together was ok as long as you were sincere. The marriage license was just a piece of paper. The shack up became normal.
Today, marriage is the most important thing you can do, but only if you are gay!
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.