[Mrs. Don-o]

This article is absolutely worth you time to read in its entirety. It is from a pont of view of secular society and the significance of marriage as a natural (not necessarily churchly) reality. It spotlights the emergence of compelling secular, social, and public-policy arguments which respect the indivual homosexual person and yet defend the permanent public value and significance of natural marriage.

[cranked]

Interesting read, but one thing that came to mind during the reading: When is the Catholic Church going to excommunicate those libtard idiot Catholics advocating same-sex marriage along with abortion (pro-choice), etc.?

[Quix]

GREAT POST.

THANKS MUCH.

—

STILL PRAYING, BTW.

[Tribune7]

Something else to point out is that civil marriage has nothing to do with love or God but is solely a matter of government and its major purpose is to provide access to divorce court.

This bit of government is necessary for a union of man and woman since it is not unknown that after the fire dies, selfishness and irresponsibility rear their heads, and consequences affecting far more than just the couple have occurred.

But why should it be necessary for a pair of homosexuals?

[Guyin4Os]

Re the headline: Limbaugh is not in favor of same-sex marriages. Although he does support civil unions. This is a substantive distinction. SS Marriage makes the statement that homosexual behavior is good. CUs don’t.

[Steve Van Doorn]

my argument and they 'kinda' agree. Government shouldn't have anything to do with Marriage. Marriage shouldn't be a privilege as what a licenses creates.

Marriage should be by contracts mostly given out by large institutions such as the church.

That why we could have different types of marriages and everyone is happy.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

Nice reasonable and logical, warm and fuzzy discussion gently expressing tolerance for the violently intolerant.

I prefer the old:

“You already have it, a gay guy has as much right to marry a woman as does the next guy.”

[Mrs. Don-o]

Ping-a-ling

[Southack]

KISS. Keep it simple. The problem is more fundamental. There is a federal ban on government being involved in religion, and marriage is a religious ceremony and institution.

Marriage should be left up to churches. End of story. The government should have no say in the matter.

[kbennkc]

I am surprised when people of great faith do not seem to really believe in the existence and influence of evil. The evil ones can never be persuaded, they can never be trusted, they can not be bargained with, they are not satisfied with anything less than the complete destruction of all that is good. Other than that good luck .

[kearnyirish2]

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.

[fwdude]

Excellent article overall. But I have to disagree with:

3. Talk about Children's Rights

There are some people who often don't come up in discussions about gay marriage, but should: children.

I hear homosexual activists constantly bringing children into the conversation by saying their "families and children" deserve their right to "marry." They always demand the "right" to adopt on par with regular, married man-woman couples. They constantly want to "reach" our children in schools with the most despicable pornographic learning material imaginable. It's always about children because the survival of the homo-anarchist's world view depends on them being able to tarnish the next generation's view of perverted sexuality and bring them more around to their own world view of perversion-as-normalcy.