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.
“Why does that even matter? Existing anti-discrimination laws cover both inborn traits (race) and choices (religion).”
True but things like patient access, exempt inheritence, death tax, hospital access etc. are not. Beyond the label “marriage” those are the areas of concrete inadequacy that need additional law.
I don't. I have a gay brother. I have met his friends. I know why they CHOSE to be gay. I heard the stories.
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).
They are NOT denied all of that. Leave out the melodrama, ok? They claim it because being a victim suits the special rights they are trying to get. You don't get special rights unless you are a victim minority. This was all mapped out in the 1970's. And it's working. They liken their behavior to being black and the civil rights of blacks. Something that you fell for. They mapped out being victims. The victim card works like the race card.......right up until someone sees the Folsom Street Fair.
Their status depends on behavior. They are not "born this way".
As to the exact causes of homosexuality, the medical jury is still out. But the baseless claim, promoted by Justice Michael Kirby and others, that gays are just born that way, is given no support by the American Psychiatric Association. Their Fact Sheet on Sexual Orientation (2000) sums it up: "There are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality".
In 1993, Columbia University psychiatry professors Drs. William Byne and Bruce Parsons examined the most prominent gay gene studies on brain structure and on identical twins, and published the results in the Archives of General Psychiatry. They found numerous methodological flaws in all of the studies, and concluded that:
There is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory. [T]he appeal of current biologic explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data.1
Simon LeVay, whose brain study in 1991 jumped from the pages of the periodical Science to The New York Times and Time, then to CNN and Nightline, and from there to the dinner tables and offices of the country, according to writer Chandler Burr, was quite open in his assessment of the possible impact of his work. [P]eople who think gays and lesbians are born that way are also more likely to support gay rights.
So, which is it, you leftist loon?
“It can be safely said that the attitude of the Founders on the subject of homosexuality was precisely that given by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws—the basis of legal jurisprudence in America and heartily endorsed by numbers of significant Founders. In addressing sodomy (homosexuality), he found the subject so reprehensible that he was ashamed even to discuss it. Nonetheless, he noted:
“’What has been here observed . . . [the fact that the punishment fit the crime] ought to be the more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence of a still deeper malignity; the infamous crime against nature committed either with man or beast. A crime which ought to be strictly and impartially proved and then as strictly and impartially punished. . . . I will not act so disagreeable part to my readers as well as myself as to dwell any longer upon a subject the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature [sodomy]. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law which treats it in its very indictments as a crime not fit to be named “
It appears to me, Johnny, that the founding fathers had NO use for homosexuality, rather a profound hatred for it.
The government isn’t in the “marriage business.” Where do you get this idea? From the left?
There you go again with the behavior pap. People can CHANGE their behavior. Their skin color cannot be changed. You are buying, lock, stock and barrel the path laid out by radical gays in the 70's and 80's . Play the victim card, use Civil rights as it worked for Blacks. It worked for Blacks because they were discriminated against because of something that CANNOT be changed. Behavior can.
You are too lost in the gay propaganda. I learned from my brother and his friends all the tricks and everyone of them worked on you.
Exactly. I am copying that for future reference. Marriage has always been recognized in some legal fashion throughout history.
I will use it with your name!
If you see homo-trolls let me know. I’m keeping track. About six banned so far.
Actually they do have the same rights as everyone else. What they want are special rights. They have the right to marry the opposite sex, just as I do. They want to force others to condone their deviant behavior with hate crime laws. You can stand in the street and cuss out granny but don't call a deviant a "Poofter" or a "queer", you'll be arrested for a hate crime. That is SPECIAL rights and raises up one American above another. THAT is what you are supporting.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Pinging both lists because "gay" marriage is a moral absolutes issues in the broadest sense, Ted Olson used to be considered conservative and apparently still calls himself that, plus he came out (no pun intended!) in favor of the mosque in NYC, PLUS this thread is larded with trolls pushing homosexual agenda lies. The fight against the homosexual agenda is getting white hot - since there is a closet homosexual in the White House, who said before the election that he and his thugette wife would be the "best friends gays and lesbians ever had" and is proving that to be true (people have posted a list of all the homosexuals he's appointed or hired to influential fedgov positions - it's unbelievable!) - the homosexual agenda pushers are energized.
If we don't fight for the truth, we lose. Sitting back insures defeat.
The three of us were right in our prediction that the California decision would bring out the agenda trolls. It happens every time.
Homosexual acts are unhealthy, immoral, unnatural and anyone who practices them has a mental illness.
Homosexual acts should not be enshrined as marriage - not now, not ever.
Your support for socially destructive deviance is abhorrant. Homosexual acts wrong in every way using the lens of truth and objective reality. Comparing abhorrance for sodomy to ignorance of the shape of the earth is pathetically weak.
Are you a homosexual yourself, btw?
I am not, just for the record.
Yes. But they are being told to leave as FR does not support the homosexual agenda.
More than half of all marriages ending in divorce is a figure inflated by people who marry, divorce, marry again, divorce again, etc.
ANd just because marriage is in trouble because of social breakdown is not a reason to throw gasoline on the fire!
Pathetically weak, standard issue homosexual agenda talkging points. Can’t you come up with something original?
Of course the Government needs to define marriage and for more reasons than the benefits that come from marriage.
Without a legally recognized definition of marriage the government could not make prohibitions on marriage or make determinations as to the conditions people can marry.
Without the involvement of the law and government people could
Marry their own children, grandchildren, brothers, sisters or 1st cousins.
Children could be married off to adults - a common practice in some parts of the world.
Two children could be married, even those as young as 6 years old - another common practice in India, Nepal and a few other countries.
People would be free to commit fraud against another by committing repeated acts of bigamy.
Polagamist marriages would be legal and while a good argument can be made that they should be based on our 1st Amendment, community standards of the country dictate that these unions are not acceptable. Which brings us to your next questions, what gives the Government the right to define marriage.
First is the obvious answer, in order for the Government to become involved in any matter they must have a codified legal definition of said matter. The obvious need for this is to bring uniformity for the law and within government. This prevents, as in the cases we have now, one state from claiming marriage can be homosexual while the majority says only heterosexual.
We give the Government the right to define marriage.
Marriage must be defined so that any prohibitions on marriage can be made, since the government is charged with both making those prohibitions and enforcement of them, they must define marriage.
As long as the Government recognizes the marriage union as a right in which certain other rights stem from (inheritance for instance) they must define marriage to determine who qualifies.
To those who believe that the Government should simply get out of the marriage business - have you considered the real implications of just that happening?
If you learned a man in your community announced that he had married his 12 year old biological daughter, that now she is no longer his child but his wife and she is now pregnant with his child, would you be comfortable with allowing that under the law?
Without defining marriage, you’d have to.
Their own “marriages” already are meaningless. Figures show that they last less than 3 years and are practically never monogamous anyway.
It truely amazes ME that we still have people, in this day and age, who think that everyone else must follow THIER religious dogma! This country was founded on a principle that EVERYONE was free to believe in, and live according to THIER OWN religious beliefs - not YOURS.
IIRC - acceptance of the Christian God requires a voluntary choice to follow Him, not some worldly government that forces people to live according to His laws - but not believing in them!
Can you provide ANY legitimate LEGAL argument for your position?
And to think that suposedly good christian men and women were making the same lame arguments for keeping fellow human beings in chains, just 150 years ago in your neighborhood.
Most black people find it highly offensive to have their race, which is neutral and immutable, compared to a group of people who practice same sex sodomy, which is neither.
I have a good friend who is black who is disgusted and outraged when people compare her to someone who practices same sex sodomy.
Another lame, pathetic, weak standard issue homosexual talking point.
There are countless numbers of FORMER HOMOSEXUALS. There is not one former black person in the history of the world. Being a “homosexual” is based entirely on voluntary acts which can be engaged in or not, and the attraction to do those acts can be cured in many cases.
It is a mental illness, not an “identity”.
Homosexual activists have asked for this:
1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: “Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit.”
[Also among the demands was the elimination of all age of consent laws.]
Of late they have hushed up the elimination altogether of the age of consent (the public isn’t “ready” for that yet), but have consisently pushed for lowering it.
He quotes “endowed by their creator” but forgets what that creator did to Sodom and Gamorah because of this very subject. Go figure.
Hahaha, amazing. I see what you did there.
Also, why would I even have to worry about supporting something that should be none of the courts business anyway? Separation of church and state! Remember that? MARRIAGE is a religious thing, not a legal one, if they want to be legally hitched, that’s fine, but they had better stay out of the church. Also, I think this should apply to people who are not religious, don’t marry using a bible and a church if you don’t believe in the entities behind them. Civil partnerships for anyone who has no religious connections.
Yes, it does. Words cannot convey the sickness evidenced in those photos.
Jim - maybe mods are busy this morning - this guy is consistently pushing the “gay” agenda nonstop!
that said, i believe that the founders, as well as most cultures of history began with the moral judgement against the homos, knowing that its counterproductive to anything 'normal' and healthy for society...
we are, i believe, simply witnessing the pattern of every fallen society...pick any 'sin'...the practice thereof doesnt necessarily bring immediate physical judgement, so it gets tolerated and spreads into the culture, and imperfect humans that desire to insult the Lord [at least subconciously] and/or demand 'gimmes' from society and/or ones just seeking a lil cheap thrill, willingly rush down the road to perdition...
a few generations and all bets are off, the government is a reflection of the decomposition of the culture, and those who have turned towards the Will of God are ridiculed and pitted against each other...and we search for the few that will grab the lifeline we are called to throw out into the midst of it all, while tip-toeing thru the minefield of 'the world' that is laid before us...
I'm prolly rambling at this point, suffice it to say that we all have our crosses to bear, and in the Lord's eyes, all sin is an abomination...but how we accept His Will and Plans for our redemption, which includes repentence not found in legitimizing/legalising the behaviors or attitudes, is what makes the difference in society...
by condoning the behavior, we are refusing to be good witnesses to His Glory, whether they 'hear' or 'see' what we are saying matters little, except to God...
San Francisco values at work.
I agree with you.
-Then set your energies to putting your own house in order before you start after the house across the street. You collectively have made a mockery of the sacrament of marriage and now you come before us to defend it. You collectively should all be ashamed of yourselves.
“You”? Meaning us normal people? My house is in order, thank you very much. I have not made a mockery of marriage. Legalizing “marriage” between two people of the same sex is mocking marriage. It’s like calling day “night” and night “day”. Words have instrinsic meanings. Natural law is natural law. Your deviant desires or twisted world view cannot change Reality. Objective reality exists apart from your twisted mind. Objective reality says that “marriage” means between a man and a woman. Not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. Never has, never will.
What "rights" are you giving? IIRC the government has no power to do that under our system ...
"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams
I notice he didn't specify which religion, I wonder why?