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

Skip to comments.

Why same-sex marriage affects my marriage
Mpls Star Tribune ^ | September 28, 2012 | RILEY BALLING

Posted on 09/28/2012 3:31:32 PM PDT by rhema

In the marriage debate, people frequently argue that how one chooses to define marriage doesn't affect other people's definitions of marriage, and because my definition is as good as yours, it should also be promoted by society.

Many times it is stated: "What I choose to do in my marriage doesn't affect your marriage." However, same-sex marriage affects all of our marriages.

First, to explain, private actions have public effects. All our actions, both private and public, define our identity. Being human, we are motivated to impart our identity to future generations. As we have seen, and understandably so, people in homosexual relationships are trying to change society to more readily embrace and promote their view of their identity. This is possible largely due to the disassociation between sexual relationships and procreation.

In contrast, there are many who have not disassociated sex and children, and for reasons both secular and religious have incorporated heterosexual relationships into their identity. These people have generally been trying to live up to the ideal that marriage was established millennia ago to promote the raising of children in safe environments supported by their biological parents.

Sadly, we don't always live up to this ideal, and most have experienced the trauma caused by a breaking family. However, we know of marriages that practically achieve the ideal, and we see the happiness that children find in a supportive family structure. Even though some traditional families are breaking, it doesn't mean the ideal of traditional marriage is broken.

[ . . . ]

Although not all are able to participate in a traditional marriage that yields children, we all benefit by its establishment in creating strong homes for the next generation with strong direction from self-sacrificing parents. The disestablishment of this ideal affects us all.

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


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Politics/Elections; US: Minnesota
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; marriageamendment; moralabsolutes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-43 next last

1 posted on 09/28/2012 3:31:34 PM PDT by rhema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rhema

Marriage is a religious sacrament. There is no rational argument for “gay marriage”. Civil Unions would achieve the same thing they claim they are trying to accomplish.

This is about imposing their moral code on everyone around them. YOU are not allowed to disagree with their lifestyle. You must, via the power of the state, be forced to embrace their dogma. That is basically fascism. It has nothing at all to do with civil rights.


2 posted on 09/28/2012 3:40:09 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (Giving more money to DC to fix the Debt is like giving free drugs to addicts think it will cure them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema

First, to explain, private actions have public effects.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

True. For a long time, I had as my tagline...

“Yes, as a matter of fact, what you do in the privacy of your bedroom is my business”.

I had it up to indict those libertarians who (naively) would state that they didn’t care what two consenting (homos) adults would do in private. It was not anyone’s business - and not the government’s business - what they did.

WRONG! Attitudes like that have led us where we are today: Repeal of DADT, Sexual perversions in our schools, universtities and our churches, and dozens of other social illnesses directly and indirectly tied to homosexuality.

Most of us were alive just a few years ago when sodomy was illegal in all 50 states. What a great country we had then, right? Therefore we KNOW that turning a blind eye to what “two consenting adults...” has led to the moral and economic destruction of a once great country.


3 posted on 09/28/2012 3:48:44 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

It’s been a convenient secular tool. What better way to go to bat against religion than claim particular religions’ existence violates one’s own rights? It’s a distorted, and awful ideology, but that’s what one of freedom’s biggest enemies is right now.


4 posted on 09/28/2012 3:49:05 PM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

ping


5 posted on 09/28/2012 3:54:00 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema

I keep asking gays (pointedly my nephew) WHY 2 (also why not brother/sister mother/daughter etc.)?

I can give a rational basis for society supporting and subsidizing traditional marriage.

The only answer they can give is “’cauze I want.” “gay Marriage” merely means a contract between 2:n adults (for now) to share resources.

Such a contract provides no benefit to society so it won’t be promoted (all pro-family laws will be defunded) and thus will be ended (sooner or later and probably sooner).

Thus gay marriage ends marriage and with it society.


6 posted on 09/28/2012 3:55:45 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (We can’t just leave it (food choice) up to the parents. -- moochele obozo 2/12/2012 (cnsnews))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

Civil Unions would achieve the same thing they claim they are trying to accomplish.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Actually they want the complete destruction of traditional families in America. And even Civil Unions would acheive that goal.

Therefore, gays must be denied the right to marry AND be denied civil unions.

As goes the American Family - so goes America. As the homos gain more “rights” we lose morally AND economically.


7 posted on 09/28/2012 3:56:20 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rhema

One sign of how bizarre it is, is that we will have to invent a new word to describe regular “marriage” for the 99.96% of human marriage activity.

No one wants to have to wade through a 5 minute question and answer session down at the plant, just to find out what the foreman means when he says his daughter is getting married to her high school sweetheart.


8 posted on 09/28/2012 3:56:39 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009

As did in Mass. when Romney was Gov. First he instituted gay marriage then same sex adoptions. He also believes gays should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scout Program. One thing leads to another just as it has with abortion.


9 posted on 09/28/2012 3:59:47 PM PDT by brightright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

Agreed.


10 posted on 09/28/2012 4:01:24 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Demoralization is a weapon of the enemy. Don't get it, don't spread it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

“Gay marriage” as provisioned by the state forces third parties into servicing homosexual behavior.


11 posted on 09/28/2012 4:04:06 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Demoralization is a weapon of the enemy. Don't get it, don't spread it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: brightright

Then vote for O if Romney is such a poor choice.


12 posted on 09/28/2012 4:04:37 PM PDT by Imnidiot (THIS SPACE FOR RENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: brightright; Morpheus2009
As did in Mass. when Romney was Gov. First he instituted gay marriage then same sex adoptions

Well once again BR you are simply lying. Nice try Obamabot but you lose

Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts began on May 17, 2004, as a result of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that it was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts constitution to allow only heterosexual couples to marry. Massachusetts became the sixth jurisdiction in the world (after the Netherlands, Belgium, Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec) to legalize same-sex marriage. It was the first U.S. state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.[1]

13 posted on 09/28/2012 4:07:58 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (Giving more money to DC to fix the Debt is like giving free drugs to addicts think it will cure them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Imnidiot
BR is an Obamabot liar. Here are the facts

Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts began on May 17, 2004, as a result of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that it was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts constitution to allow only heterosexual couples to marry. Massachusetts became the sixth jurisdiction in the world (after the Netherlands, Belgium, Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec) to legalize same-sex marriage. It was the first U.S. state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.[1]

14 posted on 09/28/2012 4:09:11 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (Giving more money to DC to fix the Debt is like giving free drugs to addicts think it will cure them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: rhema

Here is a 2004, National Review article on how we got homosexual marriage.

“The Missing Governor” http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/210678/missing-governor/hadley-arkes

“And if it is countdown for marriage in Massachusetts, it is countdown also for Mitt Romney, whose political demise may be measured along the scale of moves he could have taken and the record of his receding, step by step, until he finally talked himself into doing nothing, or nothing much.
Against a plural body like a legislature, a single executive could act as force to impart focus and energy. But as the legislators splintered along several lines, Romney preserved a decorous silence in public, while he sought counsel, and mulled over schemes, in private. The range of things he could do in combination with the legislature was considerable–if there was a will to do them.”


15 posted on 09/28/2012 4:21:23 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

I agree that Romney has a poor record...but as I said: Vote for Obama if Romney is so bad.
I’m sure you warned everyone about Romney prior to his winning the nomination.
He is our now choice (whether you like it or not). If you are against him, you are FOR Obama.
Your cutting him down only drives people to the One.
Continue badmouthing Romney if you want Obama to win. Simple as that.


16 posted on 09/28/2012 4:23:38 PM PDT by Imnidiot (THIS SPACE FOR RENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
I have to disagree with you. Negative activities have natural negative consequences. God set the system up that way.

The problem with our culture is that we try to protect people from their bad decisions through manipulation of the rules. The problem with regard to DADT is not homosexuals. The problem is politicians telling the military the best way to conduct warfare. In the natural state of things there would be no homosexuals allowed in the the military. It is because of big government and do-gooders (badders) that they have been allowed. The problem with normalizing adultery in schools in not caused by adultery. It is caused by a nationalization of education and the grip of communist teachers unions. If left completely up to ELECTED local school boards this would not be a problem. There may be a dozen or so school districts teaching the normalization of homosexuality in Berkely or San Francisco or Manhattan but it would not be a wide spread problem like it is today.

Here is your interesting thought for the day....

We spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year to find a cure for AIDS. The purpose of which is primarily so that homosexuals, prostitutes, johns, drug addicts and primitive African savages do not have to worry about suffering the natural consequences of their actions.

FYI...

There are two types of Libertarians. One group who are atheists who believe that in the absense of God there is no such thing as "good". If there is no such thing as "good" no man has any right to tell another man how to live.

The other group of Libertarians of which I am a member believe that God created a perfect plan and a perfect system. Every punishment and every reward has been baked into the action by the creator himself. There is no reason for a man to punish a man for being bad when if the act is truly bad it will be self punishing. If the act is truly good, it will carry it's own reward. These things have been described through the centuries as "vice" and "virtue".

How much punishment should one get for sticking their finger in a light socket? My recommendation would be 110 volts of punishment. 500 would be too many and 50 not enough.

How much reward should someone get for brushing their teeth everyday? My suggestion would be that they simply get to keep their teeth. No need to give them extra teeth.

See. God knows what he was doing. Have faith.

I in no way support government recognition of homosexual unions. If you look at my tagline you will see it is the latter of the two things.

17 posted on 09/28/2012 4:26:48 PM PDT by nitzy (A just law will neither punish virtue nor reward vice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

“YOU are not allowed to disagree with their lifestyle. You must, via the power of the state, be forced to embrace their dogma. That is basically fascism. It has nothing at all to do with civil rights”.

And right out of the Communist Manifesto.


18 posted on 09/28/2012 4:32:16 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ansel12; rhema
Gay marriage, like Roe V Wade, was court imposed law. Those trying to say different here are simply lying to you.

Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts began on May 17, 2004, as a result of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that it was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts constitution to allow only heterosexual couples to marry. Massachusetts became the sixth jurisdiction in the world (after the Netherlands, Belgium, Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec) to legalize same-sex marriage. It was the first U.S. state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.[1]

19 posted on 09/28/2012 4:32:54 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (Giving more money to DC to fix the Debt is like giving free drugs to addicts think it will cure them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
This is about imposing their moral code on everyone around them. YOU are not allowed to disagree with their lifestyle.

I'll go you one further: the "gay marriage" issue is about destroying the Church. Period. Look at what's happening in the United Kingdom right now: the State Sponsored Church of England is being forced to perform 'gay marriages' under penalty of law.

Think that's not coming here if the homosexual activists have their way?

20 posted on 09/28/2012 4:32:54 PM PDT by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-43 next last

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