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

Skip to comments.

Why a Good Person Can Vote Against Same-Sex Marriage (Long article)
Townhall.com ^ | October 30, 2012 | Dennis Prager

Posted on 10/30/2012 7:35:06 AM PDT by Kaslin

Next week voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington will vote on whether to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples.

Given that there are good people on both sides of this issue, how are we to explain their opposing views?

The primary explanation is this: Proponents and opponents ask two different questions.

Proponents of same-sex marriage ask: Is keeping the definition of marriage as man-woman fair to gays? Opponents of same-sex marriage ask: Is same-sex marriage good for society?

Few on either side honestly address the question of the other side. Opponents of same-sex marriage rarely acknowledge how unfair the age-old man-woman definition is to gay couples. And proponents rarely, if ever, acknowledge that this unprecedented redefinition of marriage may not be good for society.

That is why proponents have it much easier. All they need to do is to focus the public's attention on individual gay people, show wonderful gay individuals who love each other, and ask the American public: Is it fair to continue to deprive these people of the right to marry one another?

When added to Americans' aversion to discrimination, to the elevation of compassion to perhaps the highest national value, and to the equating of opposition to same-sex marriage with opposition to interracial marriage, it is no wonder that many Americans have been persuaded that opposition to same-sex marriage is hateful, backwards and the moral equivalent of racism.

Is there any argument that can compete with the emotionally compelling fairness argument?

The answer is that one can -- namely, the answer to the second question, Is it good for society?

Before answering that question, however, it is necessary to respond to the charge that opposition to same-sex marriage is morally equivalent to opposition to interracial marriage and, therefore, the moral equivalent of racism.

There are two responses:

First, this charge is predicated on the profoundly false premise that race and sex (or "gender" as it is now referred to) are analogous.

They are not.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: faithandfamily; familyvalues; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; marriage; md2012; mn2012; morality; prager; samesexmarriage; sexualmorality; ssm; wa2012
More in the link
1 posted on 10/30/2012 7:35:16 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Because its a sin and anyone who calls themselves a Christian is commanded in the Bible to have no fellowship with the works of darkness but rather reprove them.


2 posted on 10/30/2012 7:40:56 AM PDT by DarthVader (Politicians govern out of self interest, Statesmen govern for a Vision greater than themselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DarthVader

“Opponents of same-sex marriage rarely acknowledge how unfair the age-old man-woman definition is to gay couples.”

It’s also unfair to polygamists, zoophiles, people who want to marry their Michael Jackson vinyl, etc....
You can’t go around marrying whatever you want, and that is how it should be. As soon as I see the ‘gay marriage’ people march with the man who loves his horse very very much, then I’ll give them credit for consistency.


3 posted on 10/30/2012 7:46:10 AM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Since the Dawn of Civilization marriage has been between a man and a Woman.

If you can marry a same sex person, why not your horse or the coffee table? What part of society does this build up? This is more about Sodom & Gomorrah and tearing down of the standards of our civilization.


4 posted on 10/30/2012 7:49:21 AM PDT by DeweyShootem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
- Abraham Lincoln

Passing a law or a court order calling a same sex relationship a "marriage" will not change what it actually is. It is not marriage and never will be. The legal benefits of marriage are relatively minor, particularly for those who cannot have children. The social benefits of compulsory approval of gay relationships are almost certainly non-existent. The gay lobby will discover, even if they eventually win, that it's a hollow victory that will not change reality. Biology will still discriminate against them by preventing them from having children naturally. Scripture will still discriminate against them by stating that their unnatural relationship is unnatural. Their own tendencies will discriminate against them: I have had such couples as neighbors, co-workers, and relatives, and the percentage of those couples who stayed together "till death do us part" is zero. And those who are compelled by law to act as if they don't find homosexuality revolting? Even a far left liberal should be able to figure out how effectively that will win over photographers, bakers, wedding venue owners, and others compelled by force to serve the demands of the gay activists.

5 posted on 10/30/2012 7:49:33 AM PDT by Pollster1 (Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DarthVader
That works well if you have fellow-citizens who have faith in the Bible, AND who interpret the Bible exactly as you do. It probably is convincing to most FReepers.

But if you're dealing with a society larger and wider than FReeperdom, you have to either consign yourself to permanent irrelevance by using only-Biblical arguments, which are un-convincing to non-believers --- as well as to Biblicists who interpret differently than you do ---- OR you have to approach a Natural-Law argument which would prevail on the basis of evidence and reasonable inferences from evidence, pertaining to the flourishing of individuals, families, and societies.

I think that's what Prager is heading toward. And it's absolutely necessary unless you're content to get Amens from the FR Amen Corner, and that's it.

6 posted on 10/30/2012 7:56:13 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Quodlibet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Conversely,

the primary motivating incentive for a leftist is to assuage sin-guilt by proving to themselves that they are a “good person”.

This is done primarily through advocacy, less frequently through works, but never do they acknowledge that they are inherently NOT a “good person” whose works and advocacy count for nothing in the eyes of the final Judge.


7 posted on 10/30/2012 8:03:21 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; AFA-Michigan; Abathar; Absolutely Nobama; Albion Wilde; AliVeritas; Antoninus; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.

Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.

Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.

8 posted on 10/30/2012 8:06:15 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Communist goals........

http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion.

http://www.creators.com/opinion/william-murchison/the-gay-marriage-fantasy.html

.....Large realities dwarf and overshadow the tiny human figures reacting to them. You can say up is down if you want, or hot is cold, or far is near. It’s your democratic right. Saying doesn’t make it so, nonetheless, except to activists with a personal agenda. In which case, let fantasy reign.

I’m sorry, there’s no such thing as gay “marriage” — as distinguished from gay “relationships” — because marriage as understood by the whole of humanity for the whole of human time, normally under religious auspices, exists for purposes no gay relationship can satisfy.

What might those purposes be? One is the blending of the relationship between the only two human types there are — male and female. The man and the woman go together: physically, emotionally, intellectually. I mean, I’m sorry if that hurts anyone’s feelings, but Reality does get in the way sometimes when we set out to change it or make it dance to a merry new tune.

A second, genuinely urgent thing that marriage does — and no gay relationship possibly can — is project the human race into the future.


9 posted on 10/30/2012 8:12:53 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

The Bible does not need interpretation so far as homosexuality is concerned. It clearly defines it as deviant behavior. It is far past time for those who call themselves Christian to stand up for the truth. We are living in a day where God is separating the sheep from the goats and the wheat from the tares. Secular arguments for traditional marriage can be made successfully using both biblical values and secular reasons as their foundation.


10 posted on 10/30/2012 8:13:04 AM PDT by DarthVader (Politicians govern out of self interest, Statesmen govern for a Vision greater than themselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
That title is like "Why a Good Person Can Keep the Traditional Meaning of the Word 'Butter'"

The definition of the word is clear, and no ranting or screeching by homosexuals will change it. The word "marriage" means exactly what it has always meant.

Homosexual acts, with or without love, do not alter the definition of a word. Neither does political pressure.

Abortion

11 posted on 10/30/2012 8:13:23 AM PDT by TChris ("Hello", the politician lied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TChris
Abortion

LOL! My full comment got cut off.

Abortion lovers want to redefine the word "life" in a similar way. And again, the word means exactly what it has always meant, liberal ranting notwithstanding.

12 posted on 10/30/2012 8:15:17 AM PDT by TChris ("Hello", the politician lied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Both sides are asking the wrong question. The right questions is: why is the government involved in marriage, a religious ceremony, in the first place?


13 posted on 10/30/2012 8:16:41 AM PDT by RightOnTheBorder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
Good. That's the outlines of a Natural Law argument which prescinds from supernatural (revealed) law as a method of argument, but reaches the same conclusions.

That is perfectly legitimate, since the same Divine Author is the source of both the Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture.

That's exactly what I was talking about.

14 posted on 10/30/2012 8:27:23 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Quodlibet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon

Marriage is about providing children what they need to grow up - stable environment with a mom and a dad.

its not all about the partners.


15 posted on 10/30/2012 8:34:05 AM PDT by RitchieAprile (look out for the Bull!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Sad to say that the concept of marriage being based on love is a fairly recent construct (in the grand scheme of things). Oddly enough, making marriage between any two people (and why just two? that's even more arbitrary) will actually remove love from the equation entirely, as any two people who could benefit from having a marriage will then do so, and no one will think it odd.

Situations change, the marriage will end like it never occurred. Drew Carey did this on his TV show a dozen years ago to keep his boss in the country, King of Queens did it so two roommates could earn a TV, and Adam Sandler and Kevin whatsisname did it in a movie for whatever reason. The only difference was that they pretended to be gay. Change the law to any two people, and they won't even bother with that.

16 posted on 10/30/2012 8:37:34 AM PDT by Tanniker Smith (Rome didn't fall in a day, either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Simply put, without THE Basis of epistemology, there is NO basis for knowing anything, especially in the realm of right and wrong, good and evil.

Without a completely objective source to measure against,
right and wrong are just an opinion,
and those who state that Scripture is not the reference point simply don’t live that way.

Without this basis, they have no justification to call anything “wrong”.


17 posted on 10/30/2012 8:38:02 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Why a Good Person SHOULD vote Against Same-Sex “Marriage”

(More accurate...since GOOD is not relative.)


18 posted on 10/30/2012 8:38:03 AM PDT by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo....Sum Pro Vita - Modified Descartes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

One problem with same sex marriage is that it normalizes a clearly deviant behavior. Being attracted to members of the same sex instead of the opposite sex is obviously a pretty severe mental disorder IMO. Normalizing this requires that homosexuality be treated as the equivalent of heterosexuality in schools, language, TV, etc. It therefore promotes this deviancy which does not produce children (something society has an interest in). I do not agree that the present marriage law is unfair to gays. If a gay man wants to marry a woman he has the same right as a straight man.


19 posted on 10/30/2012 8:41:29 AM PDT by Brooklyn Attitude (We won't stand for biased umps fixing a ball game but we allow a biased media to fix elections.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheBorder

Legitimate government promotes righteous behavior through rewards and punishes wicked behavior.

And if you ask what defines righteousness or wickedness, you know where I’ll point.


20 posted on 10/30/2012 8:41:49 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; windcliff; stylecouncilor

I like Prager a lot, but think that he is off on this “fairness” argument.

I know that he deems it “unfair” that a blind person cannot be an airline pilot, or that a tone-deaf individual cannot become an orchestra conductor. Unfair how? That’s just the way it is.

Marriage exists primarily to give individuals some sense of lineage, familial descent and ancestry, not to provide two men, two women or a man and his pet turtle some sort of satisfaction about themselves. Hopefully love will strengthen the former, but society has no legitimate interest in whether or not it will fortify the latter.

It has been said that the more tolerant society is of homosexuality, the more of it it gets. This certainly seems true wherein as American society began to loosen these strictures we heard, “Oh, no. We’d never push for the likes of marriage. We just want to be left alone and unpersecuted for our “choice”. Yet here we are, now to be chastised and even fired from employment if the “gay marriage” mantra is not endorsed and codified and expanded.

Yet expanded to what? as the so-called “progressive” agenda is never satisfied, and must take on more and more of society’s “wrongs” until as we’ve seen even in our lifetimes as in Greece, and parts of “egalitarian” western Europe, it comes crashing in on itself toward anarchy, or even worse, Islamism from which there is no dissent.

These “economic” failings might at first glance seem divorced from homosexuality, but they are related in the permissive sense of society that progressivism endorses.

I fear for my granddaughter and the America she will have to grow up in.


21 posted on 10/30/2012 8:49:06 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

There is no such thing as “same sex marriage”, it is just two homosexuals trying to screw companies out of paying for employee medical insurance.


22 posted on 10/30/2012 8:55:20 AM PDT by CodeToad (Padme: "So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DarthVader
I completely agree that the Bible is against all homosexual acts, because that's how I interpret it on the basis of historic Christian understanding, the teaching of the Catholic Church, and Natural Law. However, for those who do not accept "historic" Christianity, the Catholic Magisterium, and Natural Law, it is not all that clear.

A counter-argument can be made in very simple terms:

(1) Did Gay Marriage exist in Biblical days? Obviously no. Therefore the Bible could not be said to refute Gay Marriage, because Gay Marriage didn't then exist.

(2) All that existed in those days, was Gay fornication, adultery, servile pederasty, temple prostitution, and the like. All the Bible teachings are against these non-marital arrangements --- but not against Gay Marriage.

(3) The Old Testament prohibitions were man-on-man sex are just like the OT prohibitions on unclean (non-kosher) foods. Not applicable under the New Testament.

(4)The New Testament prohibitions were against pederasty, prostitution, and the like, not against marriage in any form.

(5) The Epistle to the Hebrews states: "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge" (Hebrews 13:4). So marriage is honorable "to all" (not just heterosexuals) and it's only prostitution and adultery that makes it undefiled, not gay marriage.

Now I'm sure some FReepers will get on to argue as if I, Mrs. Don-o, were advocating these points: but I am not. I am completely anti- Gay Marriage, which is in itself a misnomer because the coupling of two people of the same sex is not even remotely analogous to marriage.

BUT my point is: it's really very easy to construct a pro-gay-marriage argument from Scripture Alone, --- if you don't buttress your argument with Natural Law and an agreed principle of authoritative interpretation.

23 posted on 10/30/2012 9:05:30 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Quodlibet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Prager is the textbook RINO.

He acquiesces to the cultural pressure to accept homosexual BEHAVIOR and merely draws the line at marriage. This is surrender, and the sodomites know it.


24 posted on 10/30/2012 9:06:31 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brooklyn Attitude
One problem with same sex marriage is that it normalizes a clearly deviant behavior.

So do "civil unions." And this is exactly what Prager is advocating for.

25 posted on 10/30/2012 9:09:00 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Not eating pork is unfair to pig farmers and the pork industry; but we don’t force pork down the throats of Jewish children in schools, nor encourage the schools to call their parents bigots for not eating pork.


26 posted on 10/30/2012 9:10:09 AM PDT by Albion Wilde (If God can send millions of ordinary folks to preserve a chicken store, He can fix this mess.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheBorder
The right questions is: why is the government involved in marriage, a religious ceremony, in the first place?

To protect children.

27 posted on 10/30/2012 9:14:18 AM PDT by Albion Wilde (If God can send millions of ordinary folks to preserve a chicken store, He can fix this mess.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The ads here in WA seem to run 20 to 1 against Referendum 74.


28 posted on 10/30/2012 9:19:20 AM PDT by moehoward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

I agree with you on all of these points but Jesus did define marriage.


29 posted on 10/30/2012 9:26:29 AM PDT by DarthVader (Politicians govern out of self interest, Statesmen govern for a Vision greater than themselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Instead of attacking the author and using projection , why don’t you comment on the article instead?


30 posted on 10/30/2012 9:27:08 AM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheBorder

I agree that government shouldn’t be in the marriage-recognizing business. To answer your question literally: Initially governments just struggled to get basic census-like information. It so happened that, until very recently, the overwhelming majority of folks got married, as opposed to co-habited without marriage, and open homosexual relationships were unheard of. Once marriage started to offer certain GOVERNMENT-CONFERRED advantages, such as tax treatment, inheritance issues, etc., the long slide began.


31 posted on 10/30/2012 9:35:56 AM PDT by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheBorder

“why is the government involved in marriage, a religious ceremony, in the first place?”

It gives massive control of the culture, either for good or ill.

The problem with the state’s involvement, at least in the modern era, is that the definition it uses to recognize the institution is simply whatever judges, pols or the majority thinks it is at any one time. And that’s it, and that’s all it will ever be. Combine that with the fact many have been conditioned to think marriage comes from and is defined by the state and you have what we have today. It was always a danger. Pope Leo XIII warned about it 130 years ago.

Freegards


32 posted on 10/30/2012 9:41:21 AM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o; wideawake
I do agree with your implied point above that extremists of the sola scriptura crowd can twist interpretation to any end. But the entire book of Mark 10 (NIV) makes Jesus' stand on marriage clear, which is best summed up in these verses:

"6 ...at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.’
7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
8 and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh.
9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

The key here is in the translation, of which I am not an expert.* Did the original say, "who" God has joined together, which would point to a marriage based on the love of individuals for one another, or did the original say "what" God has joined together, which would indicate that male should be joined to female, and no one should "cast asunder" this institution of the natural order of things? My vote is for the latter; and I also believe that the Commandment "do not commit adultery" had a wide scope of application, not just sexual immorality, but any sort of deliberate adulteration of Truth, or of God's purposes in the created world.

Also, in Matthew 19:29 (NIV), Jesus said, "And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life." Throughout the Bible he refers to persons in terms of their sex. He does not say "siblings", but "brothers or sisters". He does not say "parents", but "father or mother"; and he does not say "spouse" or "partner", but "wife", having already covered elsewhere that men are to be the caretakers of women and children and love them as God himself loves the Church. The only non-specific sex in this passage is "children", not because their sex did not matter, but because they are all dependents of the adults not just for their upbringing, but also for the social order in which they live and which they will inherit.

*wideawake, you know Bible scholarship. What do you say?

33 posted on 10/30/2012 9:50:33 AM PDT by Albion Wilde (If God can send millions of ordinary folks to preserve a chicken store, He can fix this mess.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Did you read the second sentence in my post? That directly address the crux of Prager’s article.


34 posted on 10/30/2012 10:05:24 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The title begs the conversed to be asked: Can a “good” person vote FOR same-sex “marriage.”

Given that they’re not deluded or coerced, I say an unqualified “no.”


35 posted on 10/30/2012 10:09:21 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheBorder

Lots of reasons, mainly having to do with children and property, since the time of Moses at least.


36 posted on 10/30/2012 10:09:41 AM PDT by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

fairness?

This is a twisting of thought, making no sense. How about the difference between evil and good?

In war we kill the enemy. But it is evil to kill another person ... one not attacking the person in self defense. What one person calls good, some will call evil. There is no compromise between good and evil.

The Holy Bible containing the Holy Writ is the standard, Almighty God gave to man to tell men/women the standard for living a good life, pleasing to God.

The fact there are atheists, does not make the Word of God any less Sovereign.

From the beginning the evil (Satan) deceived the woman and man.

The same thing is still happening and it is called good.

Jehovah God, Let us not be deceived LORD, let us sincerely repent. Forgive us our sins and lead us in the way to eternal live with Thee, in Jesus name amen.

We are to love our fellow man as Jesus has loved us.

We are to love the Lord God with all our heart, soul strength, and mind.


37 posted on 10/30/2012 10:12:13 AM PDT by geologist (The only answer to the troubles of this life is Jesus. A decision we all must make.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheBorder
Both sides are asking the wrong question. The right questions is: why is the government involved in marriage, a religious ceremony, in the first place?

Are you sure you thought this through? Maybe you are a Libertarian anarchist?

Why is society involved in marriage? Why is religion involved in marriage?

Marriage has been around since the beginning; before government. There are many things the government recognizes, promotes and protects that are inalienable, endowed by the Creator.

Government did not create marriage and therefore can not redefine it.

Not counting you and other anarchic moral pacifists there are two sides to this issue which mirrors many other issues of the day.

There are those that want to redefine and impose upon society some leftist Utopian concept of fairness versus those who want to maintain that which is time tested and successful -a result of the free marketplace of ideas and choices made freely by millions upon millions over the centuries.

Homosexual marriage is a leftist construct. To NOT oppose the left is to promote the left -pick a side.

38 posted on 10/30/2012 2:58:15 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DBeers
I have certainly thought this through but judging by your tone I doubt it will make a difference to you. This is unfortunate because I believe we both want to protect traditional marriage.

First of all the idea that less government is better government is hardly anarchist, although plenty of nanny staters who claim to be conservatives would like to think otherwise.

That said, our founders chose to protect our inalienable, creator endowed rights by placing checks on the government power to interfere. Foolishly, many have chosen to give government power over things we want to protect or promote but in doing so we ceded control, power, and legitimacy to the politicians and bureaucrats.

Giving government the power to involve itself in marriage was great... until it wasn't and now you have governments perverting marriage. Had marriage been kept out of the hands of government, two sodomites could be joined in any silly ceremony they wanted but it would not be marriage, and would have no more legitimacy than what they could convince others of. Now that same perversion can be legally sanctioned with the same benefits as a real marriage. Now we are not just facing cultural rot but government sanctioned and protected rot.

So back to my original question, why involve the government in the first place? What would it have cost us as a nation to make no laws, or regulations regarding marriage. What would it have cost us to keep the legal aspects of marriage strictly in the realm of contracts? I don't want a government definition of marriage specifically because I don't trust them not to pervert that definition. I want government out of the marriage business so I am free to shun wrongdoers without fear of government retribution. I want to protect what is good in the same way I believe our founders did, and that is to keep government away.

39 posted on 10/30/2012 4:59:02 PM PDT by RightOnTheBorder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

BTTT!


40 posted on 10/30/2012 9:20:38 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Opponents of same-sex marriage rarely acknowledge how unfair the age-old man-woman definition is to gay couples.

Opponents of same sex 'marriage' are ALSO unfair to men who want to marry their sisters - fathers who want to marry their daughters, men who want to marry their goats, women who want to marry their fathers, men who want to marry 20 women, women who want to marry 500 illegals and get a diamond ring from each of them...

The list is almost endless - those friggin conservative haters do NOT understand the 'luv' of a man for his horse...and pig and goat... or the guy who says ever since he was a young child he knew he wanted to be married to many many women... and have them all added to his company's health insurance plan.

41 posted on 10/30/2012 9:31:19 PM PDT by GOPJ ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbOuxqK2T34)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Marriage bump...


42 posted on 10/31/2012 9:41:56 AM PDT by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
The title begs the conversed to be asked: Can a “good” person vote FOR same-sex “marriage.”

Given that they’re not deluded or coerced, I say an unqualified “no.”

Exactly correct. By voting for perversion a person establishes that they are not good.

43 posted on 10/31/2012 9:42:54 AM PDT by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: John O

I’m not sure what it is FRiend, but I think you’ve got a great screen name...


44 posted on 10/31/2012 10:50:43 AM PDT by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: John O
By voting for perversion a person establishes that they are not good.

But I can assure you that Dennis Prager would say that a "good" person can.

45 posted on 10/31/2012 11:33:44 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: jonno
I’m not sure what it is FRiend, but I think you’ve got a great screen name...

I was thinking the same about yours!

The thing that amazes me though is I don't remember you yet you've been here longer than I have (and not many have)

46 posted on 10/31/2012 2:06:39 PM PDT by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | 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