Right on. People who want government to impose their will, can not be conservatives.
Dutch tried to tell them .
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/06/ronald_reagan_t.html
Posted on 07/31/2010 8:07:55 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
So you agree with polygamy?
To the best of my recollection of 6th grade biology, marriage isn't required to propagate the species. All it takes is, well, you know. Marriage serves only to extract money out of the donating male after the biological act has been completed and his presence is no longer desired by the female.
check an old dictionary for the meaning
of both words and you find that the words
gay marriage = carefree-happy male-female relationship
so in actuality what is that they really really want?
check an old dictionary for the meaning
of both words and you find that the words
gay marriage = carefree-happy male-female relationship
so in actuality what is that they really really want?
Right on. People who want government to impose their will, can not be conservatives.
Dutch tried to tell them .
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/06/ronald_reagan_t.html
They are going to lose their souls, they might as well lose their money to the state.
You silly fornicating sinners, the state is just trying to save you./sarc
you are confusing divorce law with marriage.
two different things entirely.
I think the free market has shown very little regard for the legalities or ethics of marriage. It’s become a tax dodge for the most part. Government should allow people to freely enter into contracts and provide no incentive or penalty for their choices.
Anyway, the state should not presume to redefine marriage, and is not perhaps required to privilege it in any way (favorable tax policy or whatever) but it ought to recognize and reasonably accommodate marriage, not a Sacrament but as the natural first cell of every human society.
Exactly what form this recognition and accommodation should take, I do not know. As I said, it need not amount to a list of legal cut-outs and perks. But to not recognize and accommodate natural marriage in some way, would seem to undermine the natural parent-child relationship, esecially the father-child relationship.
WHich is already screwed-up legally, but I wouldn't want it to be moreso.
Your thoughts?
It is part of or fallen human nature that we have imperfect wills, and rarely will anothing absolutely whole-heartedly and irrevocably, either good or evil. We weigh, we dither, we chug and sputter against the tide or drift along with it, we go back and forth on things. Some of us try to know, love, and serve God absolutely whole-heartedly, but you know as well as I do that that we fall short every day.
So yes, we try to persuade to the good. It's that, or abandon the whole field to the enemy.
I disagree with lots of religions, but I don't want government picking which religious ceremonies (like marriage or baptism) to do for me or anyone else.
Marriage is religious. Government is banned by the Constitution from interfering in it.
No. The government shouldn't be defining baptisms, bar mitzvahs, or marriages. The government shouldn't recognize them.
Religion is off limits to government interference. Get the government out of marriage.
If I pinged you twice, I truly apologize. I'm at a different computer and I don't know what I'm doing. =:o/
Furthermore it is a significant unit at least inasmuch as it defines a link between a father and his recognized child, who has a right to derive his identity and support from his presumptive father.
No, marriage doesn’t exist outside of religion naturally...only where government has intruded.
Get government out of religion (i.e. marriage).
Welcome to marxist thought. Everyone has their price. Your price is that you want the government to enforce child support. To get that, you're willing to tolerate government interfering (by recognizing religious ceremonies like marriage) in religion.
Lennin was looking for people who would sell out.
Sigh...
From a cultural anthropological point of view, the majority of societies historically have recognaized polygamous marriage; a substantial number have recognized monogamous marriage (either lifelong or serial monogamy); a very few recognize polyandrous marriage.
Noted Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin declared in "The American Sex Revolution" that he found virtually no culture which failed to restrict marriage to a man and a woman has survived. Cambridge anthropologist Joseph D. Unwin stated nearly the same thing in "Hopousia, The Sexual and Economic Foundations of a New Society": "In human records, there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition which does not insist on pre-nuptial and post-nuptial continence."
No society whatever, primitive or modern, however irreligious or even anti-religious, has taught its children that they may have sexual relations with whomever they want, however they want, starting whenever they want--- nd has survived.
This is not religion. It is a universal law for the workable transmission of life, property, and culture beyond one generation.
You are leaving without comment the evidence that natural marriage exists independent of religion, i.e. independent of the sacraments or ceremonials or binding strictures of a cult, sect, or church.
As soon as Americans realize they can be paying a “surviving spouse” benefit to a gay man of 20 because his gay “spouse” of 20 died of AIDS, this conversation will end; fiscally conservative but socially liberal people will desert them en masse.
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.