Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

No, Mr. President, Same-sex Couples Cannot Marry
The New American ^ | 16 May 2012 | Selwyn Duke

Posted on 05/16/2012 12:49:29 PM PDT by Paladins Prayer

In case you’re wondering, I’m using the word “cannot” properly in the above title. No, I don’t mean “same-sex couples should not marry” — rather, they aren’t capable of doing so. What am I talking about?

Barack Obama’s coming out party notwithstanding, the question in this debate should never be one of rights. It should be one of definitions. If we accept that marriage is, by definition, the union between a man and woman and nothing else, the faux-marriage-rights argument is moot.

For you cannot have a right to that which doesn’t exist.

This isn’t just semantics. If social engineers insist on pushing faux marriage, we must demand that they first attempt to redefine the institution.

“Have you gone off your rocker, Duke?! This is precisely what we’re fighting!” some will now say.

Actually, no, it isn’t.

This is because there is no widely accepted and professed alternative definition to fight. For the Left has not sought to redefine marriage.

They are “undefining” it.

(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: gay; homosexual; marriage; obama
This article is brilliant. It's a completely new and novel argument. A must-read.
1 posted on 05/16/2012 12:49:31 PM PDT by Paladins Prayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

“For if you cannot say what marriage is, how can you be so sure about what it isn’t?”

Excellent article! Controlling the definition...I liked this point that was made as well...
“This is why states err when proposing laws and constitutional amendments limiting marriage to a man and woman. Instead, their measures should state, “Marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman.” Again, this isn’t just semantics. When these measures go to court and judges are left to rule on the constitutionality of limiting who may marry, they can easily rationalize that such laws violate the equal-protection clause. But if the law is framed as I suggest, this argument becomes illogical, as no one is being denied anything. After all, a homosexual certainly can — and may — marry just as anyone else may; he may form a union with a member of the opposite sex. As for heterosexuals, they cannot form a legally sanctioned union with a member of their own sex any more than anyone else can.”


2 posted on 05/16/2012 12:59:02 PM PDT by An American! (Proud To Be An American!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer
For if you establish boundaries — anywhere — you’re excluding and discriminating against whoever lies beyond them.

I have been making that argument for years now. So, whenever the issue of gay marriage comes up, instead of arguing against it I just say that I am for it as long as polygamy is allowed also. And not only traditional polygamy but gay polygamy, bi polygamy, and incestuous polygamy. That usually shuts the discussion up quickly, and I get to be seen as incredibly tolerant. In other words, I out liberal them into silence. Its fun.

3 posted on 05/16/2012 1:00:41 PM PDT by HerrBlucher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.


4 posted on 05/16/2012 1:01:34 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty - Honor - Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

“undefining it” - exactly what I’ve been saying is their goal all along.


5 posted on 05/16/2012 1:03:19 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer
RE :”Barack Obama’s coming out party notwithstanding, the question in this debate should never be one of rights. It should be one of definitions. If we accept that marriage is, by definition, the union between a man and woman and nothing else, the faux-marriage-rights argument is moot.
For you cannot have a right to that which doesn’t exist.

Can they reproduce naturally? How about changing the laws of nature? Do it 'for the children'

6 posted on 05/16/2012 1:04:15 PM PDT by sickoflibs (Romney is a liberal. Just watch him closely try to screw us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer
(Article) For the Left has not sought to redefine marriage. They are “undefining” it.

Exactamundo! And it's not really "news" that they are trying to do this, since Andrew Sullivan and Michelangelo Signorile both gave the game away almost 20 years ago when they railed against the heteronormality of traditional marriage.

Traditional marriage underscores and brilliantly illuminates the perversity of homosexuality, and that is the burn that homosexuals are trying to make go away, by making marriage itself go away.

"Gay marriage" is not an establishment of anything, but rather a disestablishement of the institution of marriage as it has been practiced and sanctioned for over 8000 years.

7 posted on 05/16/2012 1:06:10 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
Can [sodomites] reproduce naturally?

Of course. Where do you think we get lawyers?

8 posted on 05/16/2012 1:07:38 PM PDT by Zakeet (Obama loves to wok dogs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer
Many have said the Left’s bastardization of the language is the basis for many new “rights.”
9 posted on 05/16/2012 1:07:44 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

Why are you opposed to the gubmnt making those nice gay people happy?

Chris Matthews wants to know :)


10 posted on 05/16/2012 1:08:19 PM PDT by sickoflibs (Romney is a liberal. Just watch him closely try to screw us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SandRat
Try also the short Epistle of St. Jude; it's very concise and to the point.
11 posted on 05/16/2012 1:08:29 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consummation


12 posted on 05/16/2012 1:08:41 PM PDT by j_hig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer
But wiser heads should refuse to discuss the issue as what it isn’t: a matter of rights.

Many, many years ago, I listened to a wise Biblical scholar discuss homosexuals demanding special rights. He said a big mistake people make is trying to rationally argue the merits against the homosexual position. He said we need to treat them like we would a bratty two-year old who wants something you don't want them to have. The case against homosexual is so plain and obvious there is no need to discuss it. The solution is to simply tell them, "No" and be done with it.

13 posted on 05/16/2012 1:09:55 PM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

The democrats real objective is not to redefine ‘marriage’ or to ‘undefine’ it either. These are just means to a greater end. The democrat party seeks to redefine ‘civil rights’. They seek to make a mockery of our Constitution. The precedent here is to have a person’s behavior considered on the same level as a person’s race from a legal standpoint.

The party of the KKK seeks the power to control an issue they had lost up until today. It is amazing that they are now so close to accomplishing this.


14 posted on 05/16/2012 1:09:56 PM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

No, Mr. President, Same-sex Couples Cannot Marry
________________________________________

Selwyn have you met Willard ???

Willie Mitty tell Selly how you did it in MASS...


15 posted on 05/16/2012 1:10:13 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana (Why should I vote for Bishop Romney when he hates me because I am a Christian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

new “rights” and the loss of true rights,
by twisting the language.


16 posted on 05/16/2012 1:10:28 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

You can call a giraffe a “crocodile”. You can put it on a ballot, and get a majority vote that a giraffe is a crocodile. You can get court rulings that giraffes are crocodiles. You can pass legislation redefining (or undefining) “crocodile” so that giraffes are included.

None of that makes a giraffe into a crocodile.

There is no such thing as “gay marriage”. You can call gay relationships “marriage”, you can take polls, you can get votes, you can get rulings, you can pass legislation.

None of that makes it a marriage.

SnakeDoc


17 posted on 05/16/2012 1:10:41 PM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("I've shot people I like more for less." -- Raylan Givens, Justified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
Many have said the Left’s bastardization of the language is the basis for many new “rights.”

And it's very carefully premeditated, and lies at the core of what the Left does. Orwell was very explicit about this, and it was why he insisted on clarity in writing.

On the night before the Bolsheviks stormed the Winter Palace in 1917, the big-hat Bolsheviks (Trotsky, Lenin, Zinoviev, the whole bunch) stayed up all night. They weren't prepping the troops or reviewing their plans -- they were arguing about what to call the government ministries after the Bolsheviks took them over .... because controlling what people thought about the ministries was just about their top concern. Thought control through language control. They were already "governing" .....

Scum in action. Read, watch, and learn.

18 posted on 05/16/2012 1:12:43 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor

Reality bites.
Reality is not kind to leftist ideology.
True, objective, “what is”, Reality.

That’s why they deny its existance.


19 posted on 05/16/2012 1:14:30 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer
Marriage is the union of two individuals for the purpose of creating a family. Procreation is something that homosexuals CANNOT perform.
20 posted on 05/16/2012 1:16:57 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud dad of an Army Soldier who has survived 24 months of Combat deployment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad

Oh, then we’ll just re(un)define “family”.


21 posted on 05/16/2012 1:22:28 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: An American!

By extension it seems that heterosexuals would have to be extended the same “right” or else it could logically be said that heterosexuals were getting different and limited treatment under the law. Interesting. (Alternately, deny homosexuals to marry anyone of the OPPOSITE sex and then everybody is getting treated similarly)? So, once a person declares their sex, remembering that this is being based on “being born that way”, they may marry only in agreement with one definition. Heterosexuals are then allowed only to marry people of the opposite sex and Homosexuals are allowed only to marry people of the same sex. Well...this would certainly mix the argument up. I rather like it.


22 posted on 05/16/2012 1:23:01 PM PDT by Anima Mundi (ENVY IS JUST PASSIVE, LAZY GREED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MrB

They’ve already gone there, sadly!


23 posted on 05/16/2012 1:23:25 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud dad of an Army Soldier who has survived 24 months of Combat deployment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: HerrBlucher

I too have done this and the response was that they got furious at me. I don’t think there is a rational argument and that infuriates them.


24 posted on 05/16/2012 1:27:43 PM PDT by Anima Mundi (ENVY IS JUST PASSIVE, LAZY GREED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer
This is Merriam Webster's Online definition of marriage as of now (read carefully!)
25 posted on 05/16/2012 1:31:25 PM PDT by Rona_Badger (Heeds the Calling Wind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer; Zakeet; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; DoughtyOne; calcowgirl; Gilbo_3; Impy; ...
Jonathon Capehart is MSNBC's office gay commentator (and expert on homo-phobe-ism and getting beat up by bullies like Romney) and he has been on almost every single show there since Biden came out on NBC/MTP.
If you go on a show there and give any opposition to SS marriage he will be squaring you in the face asking: "Why shouldn't I have the same rights as you? Are you a bigot?? Your hatred and bigotry is not an acceptable discourse. ". He really does look like he was picked on too, I would like to take a punch LOL.


26 posted on 05/16/2012 1:34:30 PM PDT by sickoflibs (Romney is a liberal. Just watch him closely try to screw us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Make it a “left” hook : )


27 posted on 05/16/2012 1:37:20 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

Acceptance of the ‘one man, one woman’ still leaves a problem.

What is the definition of a man/woman.

Genetic? Adaption? Thinking of transgenders here.


28 posted on 05/16/2012 1:43:31 PM PDT by Vinnie (A)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker
His head was about to explode after Biden came out before Obama did. He whines in this high pitch tone :”He has to, he has to make his words match is deeds. We need Obama to tell the truth.”

‘Deeds’ is another pseudo-religious sounding term that libs use.

29 posted on 05/16/2012 1:46:22 PM PDT by sickoflibs (Romney is a liberal. Just watch him closely try to screw us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

Love it!!! So rational. Thanks for posting.


30 posted on 05/16/2012 1:47:35 PM PDT by savagesusie (Right Reason According to Nature = Just Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

The government needs to be removed from marriage completely. How does government have the right to re-define an institution not of their making? So much for separation of Church and State - but we all know that concept is a one-way street.


31 posted on 05/16/2012 1:59:29 PM PDT by Shethink13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shethink13

I’d be happy with such a development. However, if the government is going to be involved, it has an obligation to institute policies that are for the betterment of society, not those that do it violence.

Having said this, removing government wouldn’t stop a sick culture from diminishing marriage. We’d still have freaks pretending to marry and the media and Hollywood acting like it was real. So this battle still would need to be fought.


32 posted on 05/16/2012 2:09:53 PM PDT by Paladins Prayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

Legitimate government rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked.

Leftist government does the opposite.


33 posted on 05/16/2012 2:11:19 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

Somebody ping Maggie Gallagher. She’s done more to lose this battle (by accepting and using the terminology and concepts of marriage-haters) than anyone else I know of.


34 posted on 05/16/2012 2:21:14 PM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vinnie
What is the definition of a man/woman. Genetic? Adaption? Thinking of transgenders here.

Chaz Bono was female at the instant of her conception, and will remain female until she dies.

Horribly mutilated female, but female nonetheless.

35 posted on 05/16/2012 2:30:33 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

” His head was about to explode after Biden came out before Obama did “

LOL!!


36 posted on 05/16/2012 2:51:30 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool

Don’t expect depth from females. They’re about feelings, not ideas.


37 posted on 05/16/2012 3:12:31 PM PDT by Paladins Prayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad

Careful with that. What about a man and a woman that do not want to have kids? They love each other, and enjoy sex, but take precautions (condoms, contraceptive implants, ect) and never get pregnant? In your mind, are they married?


38 posted on 05/16/2012 8:26:08 PM PDT by christx30 (Freedom above all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: christx30

The question regarding the institution of marriage must be viewed in the broadest scope of that institution. Specific instances should never be considered when looking at a much broader issue. What about couples who find they can’t become pregnant? Or, a woman who contracts a disease which renders her incapable of bearing children? Or, a man who becomes injured such that he can no longer produce sperm? We can play the “what if” game all day, but this only muddles the issue, rather than bringing clarity. No. The focus should be solely on the procreation aspect of maintaining the population through nature’s (and, thus, God’s) design.


39 posted on 05/16/2012 8:39:36 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud dad of an Army Soldier who has survived 24 months of Combat deployment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs; fieldmarshaldj; BillyBoy; GOPsterinMA; NFHale; Perdogg; stephenjohnbanker; ...

Aww, poor guy.

How about a butch white woman? You can marry her “Jonathon”. His parents must have known he was gay at birth to spell his name like that.


40 posted on 05/17/2012 2:56:35 AM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson