Skip to comments.The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage
Posted on 08/19/2010 6:18:04 AM PDT by throwback
click here to read article
Ping to post 100
“so the other half that succeed can appreciate the Blessing ???”
-Now that is a wonderful response. Thank you.
I agree. The constitutional arguments are very strong based upon our country's history and traditions and the intent of the Founding Fathers.
I was making the point that the acceptance and promotion of homosexuality is destructive to the morals of a society and has never been accepted in any civilized society in the history of the world.
“Your beliefs are leftist progressive.”
-Thanks for the label. I am a Catholic, but not a Gutierrez Catholic. I have seen my share of hypocrisy as I grew up in the Archdiocese of Boston. Don’t forget that the pedophile scandals really burst into public view there. But behind the scenes, the real scandal that some writers have written about was that his Emminence, Richard Cardinal Cushing was actually laundering money for old Joe Kennedy while all this was going on. For a hefty fee, the Cardinal washed the money and built churches and schools. Nice work if you can get it.
I also have a terminal degree in Divinity on the post-graduate level. The more I learn about the world I am in, the more I have learned to question it. I don’t know about leftist progressive but I like to look at all institutions with a jaundiced eye because I was raised on lies and hypocrisy. When you are raised that way, you develop a keen eye for those who are actually seeking the truth. None of us will get there but a few of us are honestly trying.
All institutions will out in the end for their particular brand of hypocrisy. I just want to help usher that along. Does that make me leftist progressive? I don’t know.
“I have been married for forty years. We still hold hands.”
-God Bless you and congratulations. Hold hands as often as you can...if not for you (which I am sure it is), then but also for the rest of us. We need more shining examples of true love and marriage as an honest and sacred institution.
You’re welcome johnny...i learned awhile back that everything I *thought* was important in life were the very things that were killing my happiness and serenity...coming full circle, i KNOW that all the bitter darkness in my heart was preparation, to be able to enjoy the rest of my imperfect days, and do some real work in ‘the world’...
The Creator is not a religion He is reality. And some people on this planet who disregard who literally is in control will just have to learn the hard way. Apparently Mr. Olsen joins the majority of the inhabitants on this earth in doing things their own way.
It truly amazes me for people to be blessed to live in the most blessed nation in all of recorded history to willingly ignore what granted US this stature, because it certainly is NOT because we are better than any other peoples around this globe.
“How could a politically active, lifelong Republican, a veteran of the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations, challenge the “traditional” definition of marriage and press for an “activist” interpretation of the Constitution to create another “new” constitutional right?”
Ted, you answered your own question. You are a lifelong REPUBLICAN, NOT a lifelong conservative. And as Juan McCain and many others have taught us over and over, there is a MONUMENTAL difference.
I believe you are right. On the subject of what is a marriage? I believe it is whatever your faith defines it as. It is a religous term. I am a Roman Catholic. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I also believe that the real mistake in Olson’s reasoning is the use of the term ‘marriage’ itself.
Homosexuals should be fighting for all the rights granted in any other civil union allowable under the U. S. Code and reinforced by the individual state codes. The government out of marriage argument I believe is the best answer. By not recognizing any religious sacraments or rites, the government puts all citizens on equal footing. We already get a marriage license from the justice of the peace. Why isn’t that a domestic partnership license that is confirmed by a document and necessary signatures instead of a ceremony. This mixes religious rites with civic process. There is where the problem lies. Religious rites and sacraments take place in churches and synagogues and yes, mosques too I suppose. Civil contracts like domestic partnerships take place in goverment offices.
In my opinion, every marriage in this country should be confirmed by a domestic partnership contract. Every domestic partnership contract does not necessarily need a marriage. Marriage contracts per se should go away but church based Marriage Certificates should remain. All citizens should have access to a domestic partnership contract that is exactly the same for all (polygamy, age of consent, ability to consent etc. can be worked out through debate and discourse).
"The foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; ...the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained..." George Washington, First Inaugural, April 30 1789
"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams
“This is the crap that you are pushing as normal and moral.”
-I am not advocating the Folsom Street Fair and quite frankly saying so is both immoral and grossly unfair. If I were pushing no to civil unions of any kind to homosexuals, would they then post a link to the father in Vienna who kept his daughter in a secret apartment under his house for 20 years raping her every day and having four children by her? They were heterosexual. To do so would be grossly unfair, just as I find your post to be.
Finding the worst example of any class of human being and holding them up as the quintisential example is wrong...deeply wrong and not constructive.
Hogs do not wash in pure clean water, they love the murkiest sewer water they can find.
You are comparing the established and Heavenly sanctioned union with what 'hogs' do. By the way, divorce is not the unpardonable sin, even though it is considered a sin. And furthermore, in 'spiritual' terms in what the purpose of the union is to serve, even the Heavenly Father divorced the House of Israel because they in 'spiritual' terms when whoring after other gods...
Jeremiah 3:8 And I saw when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.
Show me any society in all of recorded history that preserved themselves when they made homosexuality the norm. I know that I alone will not stop the perverseness of where flesh intends to take US, but I will speak out and say, people will not like where their actions are taking US.
It is constructive because you advocate giving them special rights. THEY are the ones demanding them. THAT is who you are defending. The Folsom Street Fair gang and others like them are the vocal ones and you are defending special rights for them. You can't hide them and pretend they aren't there. They declare that they are gay, proud and in your face. They call heterosexuals "breeders". This IS who you are defending.
If you want to redefine marriage as not between a man and a woman, but between ‘two individuals’, then I would like to know why you would not approve of the marriage between 4 individuals or between a baker’s dozen of enlightened individuals?
You know, I never have really delved into that question and its a darned good one. Where does it end? When it comes to children and animals, the answer is easy: The state has already drawn a line around the abilty to consent and the age of such consent. The same holds true when speaking about the mentally handicapped.
However, when it comes to consenting adults in full possession of faculty, what happens to polygamy? Well, we know the Bible has many examples of men with many wives (but none of women with many husbands as far as I know). You will see from my other posts on this thread that I really do not believe marriage should be redefined as anything but a union between one man and one woman. Where it gets tricky is if you do substitute state recognized marriage for state recognized civil or domestic unions or partnerships. Is that two people or more? Well, if it is a pure contract, then many many people can be involved. A private limited partnership can have hundreds of individuals if not thousands.
I think if you follow this line of thinking, what would eventually end up happening is that the government would draw the line on true focused commitment and practicality at a certain number (for tradition’s sake and for trying to get my head around it, I would definitely prefer just two). However, wherever that number might land, once over the limit that is adopted for a domestic partnership, any who seek additional numbers would be classified as something else like an LLC, LLP etc.
That’s my best guess...there could be years of discussion on just this topic alone.
That’s all I got on that one.
” yep, the knee jerk accusations are usually made because humans dont want to acknowledge the SIN involved in their actions...I dont demand that anyone toe the line for my theology [unlike muzzies] but the institution of marriage predates our society, as does ‘divorce’...
any tinkering with it by man is simply for greed, or to attempt to avoid repentence for their own past & current sexual indiscretions...”
“Youre welcome johnny...i learned awhile back that everything I *thought* was important in life were the very things that were killing my happiness and serenity...coming full circle, i KNOW that all the bitter darkness in my heart was preparation, to be able to enjoy the rest of my imperfect days, and do some real work in the world...”
Your post deserves to be repeated in its entirety. It brought tears to my eyes. This is what we learn gradually as life beats us up day after day. I am in my forties now and have recently come to learn the truth as well. For some reason, the passage from the bible I most often go to is, “I lift mine eyes to the hills from whence commeth my strength.”
Even as truth and fairness and justice eludes us day after day, I firmly believe that somewhere out there, ahead of us, there is a better world...and I stay fixated on the horizon and just keep steeping forward. Thanks for your post.
The nature versus nurture argument is a good one to defend a position of denial. I think its the best one. You assume homosexuality is a choice. I equally and strongly believe that it is predetermined (as does Olson). At that point, there is no real constructiveness to further discussion because we will never come to common ground as long as each believes what he/she believes. There it is just best to agree to disagree.
But without opening a new line of debate because we did all that over the gays in the military thing last April. I still wonder why someone would CHOOSE to be denied jobs, denied respect, forced to live a secret life, choose to never be married, never have children, denied housing, publicly mocked, ridiculed, arrested, beaten and in many cases killed...it just does not sit with me that someone would ever CHOOSE that life (other than Christ who offered himself up for us all).
“Show me any society in all of recorded history that preserved themselves when they made homosexuality the norm.”
-At this rate, Sparta which utilized homosexuality actively may well outlive the United States...sorry to say.
Why does that even matter? Existing anti-discrimination laws cover both inborn traits (race) and choices (religion).
“It is constructive because you advocate giving them special rights. THEY are the ones demanding them. THAT is who you are defending. The Folsom Street Fair gang and others like them are the vocal ones and you are defending special rights for them. You can’t hide them and pretend they aren’t there. They declare that they are gay, proud and in your face. They call heterosexuals “breeders”. This IS who you are defending.”
Actually I thought I was defending the proposition that all men are created equal and endowed with the same rights...even when we don’t like them, their behavior is abhorent, they lay with other men, their skin color is different from mine, they belong to a religion that advocates the destruction of my faith.
In that regard, the right to build a mosque in lower Manhattan becomes defensible as well. Denying that right would be wrong. However, the desire to build that mosque is in the poorest possible taste and the most insensitive thing I have ever seen. It deserves our scorn but not our denial. As much as I hate it, to deny it, would be to give up a part of our central beliefs...we loose a heck of a lot more than a mosque in lower Manhattan with that decision. We lose the better angels of nature, our raison datre.
Such it is with the Folsom Street Fair and its uglier but less known sister, Dore Alley (look it up). Why the city of San Francisco allows this to go on with indescency statutes on the books is beyond me. It is disgusting. But for us to override the State of California and the City of San Francisco and have the Federal Government intervene when both the City and State allow it, would again destroy more than two disgusting street fairs. It would destroy a piece of hard fought and well established state and municiple rights while expanding Federal reach to dangerous levels.
I advocate neither mosques or fairs. I advocate simply for the true rights of man.
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.