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 ...
1. No true Christians or Jews will be able to work in the marriage business. If a business ever denies a gay couple its services that business will be sued out of existence.
2. No true Christians or Jews will be able to work in any business that indirectly supports the marriage business. If florists or photographers or people who rent out halls deny their services to a gay couple they will be sued out of existence.
3. All Christian or Jewish organizations that make some money each year by renting out buildings they own will either have to stop renting to anyone or prepare to have their property signed over to the first gay couple that has their reception request denied.
4. All Christians and Jews will have to take their children out of public schools where the sex education teachers will be forced to teach gay "marriage" as equivalent to traditional marriage.
5. All Christians and Jews will have to take their children out of private schools. If those schools fail to teach gay "marriage" as OK then they will be closed as discriminators.
6. Christians and Jews who attempt to homeschool their children will be declared child abusers if they fail to teach their children that gay "marriage" is OK. This will be folded into the anti-bullying agenda which is quickly focusing on anti-gay-bullying and the supposed epidemic of "homophobia" that supposedly terrorizes America's youth.
7. Anyone who uses the words "states" and "rights" in the same sentence will be declared a homophobe as well as a racist.
8. I don't see Americans supporting person-animal, person-machine, or even incestual relationships any time soon. However, it will be increasingly difficult to deny people who want to engage in multiple "marriages". If gay partners are now being treated as spouses by Homeland Security with regard to deportation, then I don't see how they can deny a man entry into America along with his multiple wives if he is able to successfully claim he is a political refugee from an Islamic country. Once a few of these folks are allowed in, it will only be a matter of time before the marriage licenses, which used to have lines for Husband and Wife, and now have lines for Partner A and Partner B, will be expanded to include lines for Partners C, D, E, etc.
Yep and now I am doing everything I can to elect him. Romney may not be perfect but we don't have the luxury of waiting for perfection. By 2016 we will be so far down the rabbit hole fiscally and legally there will be no coming back
Willard is on record favoring sodomite adoption of children and allowing them to be scout masters. Yes he’ll be better on social issues than Obummer, especially religious freedom, but as far as sodomy is concerned, he’s not much better than Obummer. And, he’s already said he would not try and reinstate DADT, saying it was “settled law”. He was the only republican (I don’t call RuPaul and Johnson republicans), who didn’t care if sodomites openly serve. The man is a liberal, one that we are stuck with.
Homosexuality behavior is a Vice. It destroys the fact that there are Laws of Nature-—it violates many of them.
Promoting Vice as Virtue corrupts the next generation and destroys the US Constitution and Rule of Law—based on Virtue (Justice).
We will get “thinkers” (next generation children who are indoctrinated into thinking homosexuality is normal) who are unable to use Reason (since the Laws of Nature/Cause and Effect is where Logic and Reason and Science originate and homosexuality is unnatural/insane by every standard)——just like Marxists/muslims/pagans-—we will have no Ethical system built on Reason and Faith which is the Ethics of Christianity combined with the Nicomachean Ethics. Western Civilization will be destroyed.
The cultural Marxists—Gramsci/lukacs, etc-—devised a way to destroy Western Civilization-—they merged Marx with Freud-—to create perversion and destroy the natural family. Destroy the family-—by corrupting the children’s thought process-—which they do with Sex Ed and brainwashing on TV and movies-—and you destroy all reason and logic-——
Replace it with “urges” and “feel good” philosophy which always collapses cultures.
You will force ideology onto the next generation where “Justice” and Rule of Law will be non-existence since “Justice is a Virtue” in Western Civ and is only because of Christian Ethics and Individualism and Absolutes—which originated with the Greek Masters. Absolutes and Fixed Laws of Nature existed until Marx———and the Postmodernists who hated Christianity most. Western Civilization was shaped for thousands of years by Christianity-—which promotion of something so irrational and vile like homosexual behavior-—will destroy.
There is no “right” to sodomize another human being. It removes all dignity and reduces man to a godless beast.
Yes, and it is essentially the same argument as "Don't like abortions? Then don't have one."
People can read the 2004, National Review article linked in post 15, to learn how “gay marriage” started in Massachusetts during Governor Romney’s watch.
Here is Mitt Romney describing his personal relationship to the radical homosexual agenda.
Mitt to the left of Ted Kennedy—”I am more convinced than ever before that as we seek to establish full equality for Americas gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent.
I am not unaware of my opponent’s considerable record in the area of civil rights, or the commitment of Massachusetts voters to the principle of equality for all Americans. For some voters it might be enough for me to simply match my opponent’s record in this area. But I believe we can and must do better. If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will.”
“We have discussed a number of important issues such as the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which I have agreed to co-sponsor, and if possible broaden to include housing and credit, and the bill to create a federal panel to find ways to reduce gay and lesbian youth suicide, which I also support. One issue I want to clarify concerns President Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” military policy. I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share.”
Sincerely, Mitt Romney
Sorry MNJohnnie for the confusion...I thought the comment was from brightright. Didn’t notice the poster name change. Please forgive me.
Here is the gift of same sex marriage to my family: my homosexual brother who married his gay partner is now dead from AIDS. My other brother who practices homosexual behavior has also been diagnosed with AIDS.
Freedom. Marriage. Life. That is what God intends for us. Not homosexuality and same sex marriage, an abomination.
Never mind what the "gays" think they are up to.
It is the result of the previous cheapening of marriage, due to a generation or so of normally sexed misbehavior.
The folks posting that Romney was for gay marriage are either lying or terribly mistaken. Romney was not only NEVER for gay marriage, he tried to get a Protection of Marriage amendment on the state ballot.
________________________________________
The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the state had to allow gays to marry. Romney led the effort to get a Protection of Marriage amendment on the state ballot so that the citizens could overturn the court. The state legislature stalled on allowing the amendment, so Romney led a rally in Boston demanding that the people be allowed to vote on it. In the end, the Democrat legislature voted down the amendment and wouldn’t allow it on the ballot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Massachusetts
________________________________________
Part of Romney’s speech at the rally:
“Legislators so energized to protect the newly discovered gay right to marry had no compunction about trammeling the long established, constitutional right of the people to vote.
The issue now before us is not whether same sex couples should marry. The issue before us today is whether 109 legislators will follow the Constitution.
Tomorrow, I will send these 109 a copy of the Constitution and of their oath of office.
And this week, we will file an action before the courts, calling upon the judiciary to protect the constitutional rights of our citizens.
Let us not see this state, which first established constitutional democracy, become the first to abandon it.”
http://illinoisans-4-mitt-romney.blogspot.com/2006/11/mitt-romney-remarks-111906-democracy.html
________________________________________
Further proof - the left’s protest against Romney’s Protection of Marriage amendment:
Rally Against Romney “Bigot!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaLsE-y1TQE
Well, if those consenting adults KEPT IT in the bedroom, it wouldn’t affect anyone else. However, when they FORCE everyone else, BY LAW, to accept what they do, that’s another thing, entirely.
Yeah, well, I guess he could have tried, but considering the legislature in MA is over 3/4 Democrat, he wouldn't have gotten very far on this issue, simply because he was a Republican. But some Democrats were against homosexual marriage, and we almost got a referendum on the ballot, until Deval Patrick came along and, ahem, encouraged 5 legislators to change their minds and NOT support the referendum, and we didn't get the votes needed to put it on the ballot. So the citizens of MA were denied the ability to vote on the issue, because those who supported homosexual marriage knew it would be voted down at the ballot box.
We covered all this years ago, read the article linked to in post 15 for an example of freerepublic’s past view.
It’s going to get worse, my niece said there were girls in the seventh grade dating, these kids are seeing this behavior on TV, embraced by our politicians, our military, celebrities, they think it’s normal, and it allows for them to stand out among their peers, the seeds have been sown by the socialists, marriage between only a man and a woman will last another decade at most, the days of Noah indeed!
That is your strongest argument? That the governor who tried to pass a Massuchesetts Protection of Marriage amendment and organized a state rally against gay marriage should be actually be labeled as FOR gay marriage because he didn't disobey the state's Supreme Court?
He was even lobbying for federally protecting marriage years before that...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1917643/posts
In 2004, Gov. Romney Called For A Federal Marriage Amendment In Testimony Before The Senate Judiciary Committee. GOV. ROMNEY: "We need an amendment that restores and protects our societal definition of marriage, blocks judges from changing that definition and then, consistent with the principles of federalism, leaves other policy issues regarding marriage to state legislatures." (Gov. Mitt Romney, Testimony, United States Senate Committee On The Judiciary, 6/22/04)
I think the uglier arguments and the 6 years of evidence that we have here at freerepublic, should probably wait until the election is over.
Then we can dig up the vast number of threads here where we have covered this and destroyed every Romney argument for all these years.
There were options open to Romney after the ruling. Opponents of same sex marriage citing the States Colonial Era Constitution that gave the Governor authority over matters relating to marriage argued that the courts decision was not binding. But on March 30 2004 Romney according to his spokesman said he had not explored the Constitution section giving him power over “cause of marriage” and weather it gives him any legal power to stop same sex marriage.
Pro family leaders and conservative asked him to issue Executive Orders to block same sex marriage. There was no public comment from Romney.
April 22 2004 Rep. Goquen filed a Bill of Address for Article 8 Alliance/MassResistance to remove Chief Justice Marshall for violation of the code of Judicial conduct. Again no comment or support from Romney.
April 16 2004 Romney announced his administration is changing marriage licenses from husband/wife to party A/party B. Yet when in July 2005 when asked to change birth certificates from mother/father to parent A/parent B he said only the legislature could make those changes. On May 17 2004 Romney INSTITUTED gay marriage in Mass.
It's gotten to the point that I can't even relax and enjoy the "wedding announcements" section of the newspaper, I feel like I have to brace myself for a notice of a "wedding" other than the man-woman variety.
I was browsing through a pleasant feature story in the SF Chronicle the other day and thought it was a nice article until I came across the phrase "his husband" ---- eeek!
I think after seeing ugly arguments and 10 years of evidence on freerepublic that liars insist on lies in face of contrary evidence, I'll continue to call your posts lies.
The right does not destroy checks and balances and rule like a monarchy through the Executive branch, Obama does that. And you want to give him four more years?
April 22 2004 Rep. Goquen filed a Bill of Address for Article 8 Alliance/MassResistance to remove Chief Justice Marshall for violation of the code of Judicial conduct. Again no comment or support from Romney.
Bills of Address have to pass a majority in the legislature (85% democrat at the time) and the Governor's Council (8 democrats, 1 republican at the time). Elections have consequences and this situation is the perfect example. When you let socialist Democrats gain enormous control of the government, Republicans have very little to zero ability to stop their agenda.
April 16 2004 Romney announced his administration is changing marriage licenses from husband/wife to party A/party B. Yet when in July 2005 when asked to change birth certificates from mother/father to parent A/parent B he said only the legislature could make those changes. On May 17 2004 Romney INSTITUTED gay marriage in Mass.
Again, Romney was following the Supreme Court ruling... the birth certificates that you seem to throw out as "proof" against him is actually proof FOR him. There was a Supreme Court ruling that made gay marriage legal, there was no such ruling forcing him to change birth certificates.
This situation is a PERFECT example of why we need to drive Obama out of the White House, elections have consequences and the socialists gained control of the Mass legislature and Mass Supreme Court... unless you prefer to see this putrid corruption of society gaining even more force in our country with that communist monster as President so you can just whine and blame other people even more for the damage he'll do?
.
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.