Please Help To Keep The
"Conservative News and Views"
On FR Coming By "Clicking Here"!!
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 08/05/2012 9:53:20 AM PDT by TurboZamboni
There are ten premises in this debate that most conservatives, opponents and supporters of gay marriage alike, probably share:
(1) Marriage benefits society, and so anything that harms marriage harms all of us, whether married or not.
(2) Marriage directly benefits the individuals married.
(3) It is on average better for children to be raised by two married parents than to be raised by single parents or by unwed cohabiting partners.
(4) Because of the benefits identified in Premises 1-3 above, marriage should be encouraged by public policy and specifically should retain its privileged position in the law.
(5) It is socially preferable for gay persons to be in committed relationships than to be promiscuous.
(6) If any significant change to an important social institution like marriage is undertaken at all it should occur slowly and incrementally, state-by-state, rather than in one fell swoop (as by court-ordered, nationwide gay marriage), so that we can assess the impact of the change and adjust the direction of reform or completely halt the reform...
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Nope. Gay marriage is not acceptable or conservative.
So yes, there can be gays who are married. Like Michael Jackson was married to Lisa Marie Presley. There is no sexuality test as a component to marriage. But no, two guys or two gals are not able to marry each other - it's not the union of a man and a woman.
And I absolutely refuse to support the homosexual bias against polygamy and incest. These bigoted people have got to stop excluding those with alternative lifestyles from the debate, treating them like second class citizens..
A little tongue in cheek aside, Mitt Romney made the worst mistake ever in not replying to the Massachusetts Supreme Court that 'Since the court has decided that it no longer wants to recognize what marriage means, then I accept their decision that the state can no longer recognize or regulate marriage. Every marriage in the state of Massachusetts is now deemed to be unconstitutional in the eyes of those who sit on the court and can't be bothered to open a dictionary and read what the word marriage means.'
I agree with you.
Premise #5 can be solved by civil unions, get rid of #6.
No sale.
(5) It is socially preferable for gay persons to be in committed relationships than to be promiscuous.
Why? It’s not so obviously true to me. I think society is more or less indifferent to how this 2% of the population lives.
(8) Proponents of change in an important social institution like marriage bear the burden of persuasion.
Absolutely right. I never see a gay marriage advocate even attempt to do this. It’s fair, it’s our right, we want it is just not good enough.
Usually they take the attitude that their point of view is the default and should proceed unless WE can convince them otherwise.
Bfl
If Atheists or same-sex couples want the same legal benefits from the state, let the States decide (ie. their citizens) one-by-one if they want to recognize Godless or same-sex civil unions.
But these are not Marriage, never will be, never can be. In spite of the messages liberals have been feeding kids for far too many years: you're all winners, you can do/be whatever you want, you're special, you're important, etc. etc. The cold hard truth is we are not all winners, we cannot in fact do/be whatever we want. We can work towards it, but there is absolutely no guarantee - by anyone, including the government - that we will succeed. So you're not all going to win Olympic gold, you're not all going to live in the hills of Malibu, you're not all going to be or marry a rock star. And yes, that means you atheists and homosexuals are not going to get married. Learn to live with limits.
Here's the sticking point. God gave kids a MOM and a DAD because that is what kids need. They do NOT need two men or two women pretending to be their "dads" or their "moms," like Elton John and his "husband-wife." That is sick and evil and harmful to kids. End of story.
With liberals, conservatives all too often concede fallacious basic premises to liberal arguments, then spend fruitless efforts to combat the huge edifices they build on those flawed premises.
This would be a prime case in point. The very first premise, that we "probably" share premises, is false.
They are speaking about homosexual marriage, and conservatives refer to traditional heterosexual marriage. That is a non-sequitor right there. Unless they specifically state "In speaking of heterosexual marriage, we belive the following premise" then we cannot find common ground.
In the case of premise #3: "...It is on average better for children to be raised by two married parents than to be raised by single parents or by unwed cohabiting partners..." we as conservatives do NOT agree with liberal homosexual advocates, and as a matter of course, are more likely to view the raising of children by TWO homosexuals in a "married" relationship to be doubly damaging than being raised by one.
As an aside, why would you call this "an oldie but a goodie"? Perhaps you have lurked long enough to see this one come up over and over again (I have never seen it) but there is no "common ground". Agreeing in any way with homosexual marriage in any context is like being a little pregnant. You are, or you aren't for it.
Agreed. See my post above.
#5 is ridiculous
What we consider socially preferable is not homosexual reality. Since homosexuals have no desire to be monogamous and love their promiscuity. The total destruction of the institution of marriage in order to give them a piece of paper is not going to change that.
I somewhat disagree with #4
“(3) It is on average better for children to be raised by two married parents than to be raised by single parents or by unwed cohabiting partners.”
I think its better for a child that they be raised by a single parent than by 2 gay people claiming to be their parents. Children need the correct impression of famly.
I completely disagree with #5:
“It is socially preferable for gay persons to be in committed relationships than to be promiscuous.”
I think it makes no difference how those that suffer from this disease practice their sinful behavior. Indeed by attempting to behave as if their disease is normal they are in fact only compounding the illness. So perhaps it is better for them that they remain promiscuous if not abstinence.
I strongly disagree with #6 as well:
“If any significant change to an important social institution like marriage is undertaken at all it should occur slowly and incrementally, state-by-state, rather than in one fell swoop (as by court-ordered, nationwide gay marriage), so that we can assess the impact of the change and adjust the direction of reform or completely halt the reform...”
While Constitutional Law in such matters prohibits Washington’s involvement. No change in the definition of marriage is technically possible.
If leftist want to try and redefine the nature of the human race they need to invent their own institution, not attempt to hijack someone else’s. Leave barrage as it was for thousands of years.
I find #7 disagree able on the same prinsable as #6:
“Proposals for change in policy about an important social institution like marriage must take account of the social effects of the change, as observed or as reasonably predicted, not simply the “rights” and interests of those advocating the change.”
It is not the place, right, or legitimate power of government to alter, create, or abolish social institutions.
If you want something new to embrace your sinful behavioral create something new.
DO NOT HIJACK THAT WHICH ALREADY EXIST AND WHICH DOES NOT BELONG TO YOU OR THE STATE!
We do not agree I disagree with 4 out of 10 of your so called common ground. Indeed in just reading them 4 I can see the intention of the Luther to push this self-destructive idea by asserting as fact that which does not exist.
Thanks TurboZamboni.
Great pic!
That's a tactic that they always try to use. NEVER NEVER let them get away with it. They will always try to maneuver any discussion to put you into a position where you have to convince them. That's why they always start out by calling you some name, because it puts you on the defensive. As soon as you let yourself fall into this trap, you have lost the discussion. (I respond by calling them perverts. Changes the nature of the discussion, and puts THEM on the defensive) They are the ones that are trying to make the most fundamental chance to the most basic institution that exists in nature. THEY have to convince YOU, NOT the other way around.
Thank you!
(6) If any significant change to an important social institution like marriage is undertaken at all it should occur slowly and incrementally, state-by-state, rather than in one fell swoop (as by court-ordered, nationwide gay marriage), so that we can assess the impact of the change and adjust the direction of reform or completely halt the reform...
If the majority of the voters in a State approve such a change, so be it in that State; but that doesn’t mean that people in other States must recognize it.
The reason is simple — our experience with judicial fiats for affirmative action, school bussing, Roe vs. Wade, and the ramming of Obamacare down our throats demonstrate that governing against the majority does not achieve the promised benefits.
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.