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

Skip to comments.

Beware the ‘Science’ of Same-Sex Marriage
National Review Online ^ | March 25, 2013 | Kathryn Jean Lopez

Posted on 03/25/2013 7:05:17 PM PDT by neverdem

Andy Ferguson is excellent, highlighting an amicus brief filed by Leon Kass and Harvey Mansfield:

Marriage is many things, all at once—much more than a simple mechanism for stability between husband and wife. The institution that social science has been studying so exhaustively for so many years is of a singular kind, with singular features. It is an ancient practice grooved by tradition and myth, shaped by social expectations as old as civilization. It arises from the natural sexual complementarity of woman and man, and formalizes the possibility of procreation and the renewal of life. 

There’s no way of knowing what combination of these singular features of marriage confers which of its demonstrated advantages, culturally and psychologically. We do know, however, that if the state suddenly creates the institution of gay marriage by fiat, the result will lack most of the features that make marriage unique—and uniquely beneficial. It will not be the same institution that has won the unanimous endorsement of social scientists. It will be a novel and revolutionary institution owing its existence to the devaluation of an old and settled one. Should we assume that the former will confer the same social and personal benefits as the latter, the two being different in such fundamental ways? The only honest answer—the only intellectually respectable answer—is, Who knows?

Which brings us back to the central point that Mansfield and Kass make in their compelling brief: We don’t know what the consequences of gay marriage will be. (We do suspect that such a thing will be less socially divisive if enacted by popular will than by the say-so of judges.) Social science is all but mute on the subject and will have nothing useful to tell us for decades. Lacking objective evidence, suspicious of a rising political hysteria, wary of hidden motives, and unmoved by social blackmail, we would do well to submit to humility, deference, discretion, modesty—all those virtues that conservatives are said to prize. If nothing else, these should be sufficient to stay the judges’ hand, and to let the people themselves decide, if a decision must be made, when or whether tradition is to be disowned.

I do worry some conservatives, with the best of intentions, are letting themselves be bullied into picking a side when, at the very least, caution is called for. 

That humility point, too, strikes me as important. The most compelling argument advocates of same-sex marriage have is what lousy stewards we’ve been of the institution. Expand it, it is argued, and it will be strengthened. But, as Andy points out, we are now talking about something fundamentally different when we are saying marriage is no longer between a man and a woman. We absolutely need to work to strengthen marriage. Changing its nature doesn’t seem the most obvious way to do so. 

The Heritage Foundation has been doing some excellent work making the case for the defense of marriage. Here Ryan Anderson speaks to conservatives in particular (based in part on the argument he advances with Robert P. George and Sherif Girgis in What Is Marriage?):

Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces. It is based on the anthropological truth that men and women are different and complementary, on the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and on the social reality that children need a mother and a father. Marriage has public purposes that transcend its private purposes.

Marriage predates government. It is the fundamental building block of all human civilization. All Americans, especially conservatives, should respect this crucial institution of civil society. This is why 41 states, with good reason, affirm that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Government recognizes marriage because it is an institution that benefits society in a way that no other relationship does. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means to ensure the well-being of children. State recognition of marriage protects children by encouraging men and women to commit to each other and take responsibility for their children. While respecting everyone’s liberty, government rightly recognizes, protects, and promotes marriage as the ideal institution for childbearing and childrearing.

Redefining marriage would further distance marriage from the needs of children. It would deny as a matter of policy the ideal that a child needs a mom and a dad. We know that children tend to do best when raised by a mother and a father. The confusion resulting from further delinking childbearing from marriage would force the state to intervene more often in family life and cause welfare programs to grow even more.

In recent years marriage has been weakened by a revisionist view that is more about adults’ desires than children’s needs. Redefining marriage represents the culmination of this revisionism: Emotional intensity would be the only thing left to set marriage apart from other kinds of relationships. Redefining marriage would put a new principle into the law—that marriage is whatever emotional bond the government says it is.

Redefining marriage to abandon the norm of male-female sexual complementarity would also make other essential characteristics—such as monogamy, exclusivity, and permanency—optional. But marriage can’t do the work that society needs it to do if these norms are further weakened. All Americans, especially conservatives who care about thriving civil society capable of limiting the state, should be alarmed.

Redefining marriage is a direct and demonstrated threat to religious freedom that marginalizes those who affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman. We have already seen this in neighboring Canada and right here in places such as Massachusetts and Washington, D.C.

What should the Supreme Court do? The Supreme Court should not usurp democratic authority from citizens and their elected officials.



TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; samesexmarriage

1 posted on 03/25/2013 7:05:17 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Excellent article.


2 posted on 03/25/2013 7:12:09 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks (The amount of ammo you need is determined after the gunfight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

They don’t mention Natural Law Theory which is the basis of our Legal system. Natural Rights come from Natural Law. Natural Rights/civil rights come from Natural Law Theory.

To recognize anal sex as a “Good”, as something “Natural”, is teaching lies and throwing out Natural Laws and God’s Laws and Reason.

No law can exist which is not “Reasoned” and be Constitutional in the US. That is why we have “Rule of Law” which MEANS there is a Higher Law (God’s) than arbitrary laws. Reason only exists in relation to Natural Law. Without the concepts of Natural Moral Law there is no Right and Wrong. It is unjust law and unconstitutional if there is no reason-—like with recognition of sodomizing others as a “Right” from God, which is absurd.

Also-—if biological parents aren’t required by law to raise their own biological children-—then we have a system which reduces children to commodities which is intrinsically evil by both Natural Law and God’s Law.

The family (genetics) is the foundation of a civil society-—destroy the family by making children into objects to be bred and sold is evil and Orwellian.

Marxism-—this “radical egalitarianism” which makes women and men interchangeable, is a provable, scientific Lie-—like all Marxist ideology. It is antithetical to a Constitution built on the “laws of nature and nature’s God”.


3 posted on 03/25/2013 7:24:13 PM PDT by savagesusie (Right Reason According to Nature = Just Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

1) Marriage should be a decision for the States. I do agree that these decisions need to be determined by the State Legislature.

2) The Supreme Court should not have any decision in the decisions of the States.

3) Therefore, all decision of these States are to be held supreme and not challenged by the Federal Government.

Is there NOT any decision made by the States that can be overturned by the Supreme Court these days? These days of changing attitudes seems to say YES, they can do whatever they want and adjust the Constitution as necessary.

Let us pray...or heaven help us - whatever helps these days.


4 posted on 03/25/2013 7:26:43 PM PDT by Deagle (quo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: savagesusie

Saving if you don’t mind. Excellent argument.


5 posted on 03/25/2013 7:29:04 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

Yes, good article...but how sad to have to state the obvious.
With all this evolving going on, and the polls showing movement toward public acceptance of gay marriage, I am convinced you can get folks to buy into just about anything.
Intellectual apathy I think.


6 posted on 03/25/2013 7:29:13 PM PDT by Ouchthatonehurt ("When you're going through hell, keep going." - Sir Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Deagle

But how would they sort out taxes and other issues if the homosexual marriage is recognized in one state and not another? I pray the court rules against homosexual marriage as a constitutional right, but I’m not optimistic.


7 posted on 03/25/2013 7:30:57 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ouchthatonehurt

They voted for the worst president in US history twice.

Nothing surprises me anymore.


8 posted on 03/25/2013 7:33:56 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks (The amount of ammo you need is determined after the gunfight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

Darn, what is the problem with State specific taxes, etc. They already do that! So what if they are not married in one state of another...if they wish to move to that state, that is their problem - kind of like weapons laws.


9 posted on 03/25/2013 7:37:40 PM PDT by Deagle (quo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Deagle

I wish they would all move to one state. That would be the perfect solution. Let them have California since they already do.


10 posted on 03/25/2013 7:39:53 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

One. Get the Federal Government out of marriage!

Two. Get the Government out of marriage!

Three. Well, there would be nothing left if the first two happened.


11 posted on 03/25/2013 7:40:14 PM PDT by Deagle (quo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Deagle

Well, isn’t that the ideal? Why not let the folks decide?


12 posted on 03/25/2013 7:42:45 PM PDT by Deagle (quo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Deagle

We need to get the federal government out of a lot of things - like our bank accounts - but it isn’t going to happen.

I wonder if Las Vegas is taking odds on what the court will do?


13 posted on 03/25/2013 7:43:22 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
In recent years marriage has been weakened by a revisionist view that is more about adults’ desires than children’s needs.

Redefining marriage is a direct and demonstrated threat to religious freedom that marginalizes those who affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman. We have already seen this in neighboring Canada and right here in places such as Massachusetts and Washington, D.C.

The points I would like to emphasize.

14 posted on 03/25/2013 7:43:32 PM PDT by RatRipper (Self-centeredness, greed, envy, deceit and lawless corruption has killed this once great nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

There is NO reason to give married couples benefits nor is there any reason to give same gender benefits. That is just another Federal/Local tax benefit. Get rid of it!


15 posted on 03/25/2013 7:46:18 PM PDT by Deagle (quo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Deagle

Sounds good to me but we know it won’t happen.


16 posted on 03/25/2013 7:47:13 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NewJerseyJoe

P4L


17 posted on 03/25/2013 7:47:13 PM PDT by NewJerseyJoe (Rat mantra: "Facts are meaningless! You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: savagesusie

The Orwellian aspect is they can change the definition of anything as the will. A bike is a boat. I rock is a roll. If I’m holding up 4 fingers and I tell you it’s five you better see five.

And if I’m holding holding up four and you don’t see five, Big Brother Help you.


18 posted on 03/25/2013 8:02:19 PM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Good post.

The problem with Same Sex Marriage is it is it furthers the deconstruction of the family pushed by radical leftists/feminists. I know most young “conservatives” are often too lazy to even research what the goals of the radical left and radical homosexuals have been for the past several decades but their number one target has been the “patriarchy” as they call it. Also the norming of homosexuality makes it easy to extend the damage done with the advent of no fault sex (ie birth control) coupled with the rise of massive government services. They no very well that the ultimate intention is to make sexual orientation increasingly ambiguous and gender increasingly androgynous which is why we’ve seen the rise of the gender neutral classroom and the re-defining of maleness in the traditional sense as a disease (ADHD). Once gay marriage is achieved it will increasingly become a requirement that homosexuality as well as other forms of sexual orientations not just be taught but encouraged. Kids will be told that they should explore and experiment to find out what their “true” orientation is and that their fulfillment of that “true” orientation is essential to their mental health. If you don’t believe me research some of the crap that is being implemented in Blue states and even within some red states. Anyone who thinks that gay marriage is just about equal rights is in denial just as one who believes that homosexuality is primarily inborn.
Thomas Sowell put it best “Gay Marriage is the product of Sloppy Thinking”.

Here is the article if you desire to read it.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell032400.asp

The unfortunate thing is that this “sloppy thinking” has infected conservatism or rather mostly Progressive Republicanism masquerading as conservatism. The reason it has made it so far is through intimidation and silence of those who disagree but have been made to feel they have no right to express it.


19 posted on 03/25/2013 8:18:22 PM PDT by Maelstorm (This country wasn't founded with the battle cry "Give me liberty or give me a govt check!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

Yes, unfortunately that is true of almost everything that is wrong with the Government! We can bitch and complain but it does no good - the power of the Federal Government will and does overcome all of our complaints (especially when most of the population needs them to exist).

That alone should be enough to rouse a complaint but alas, it will be too late, such is history. Yes, we are doomed, we just don’t realize it yet.


20 posted on 03/25/2013 8:28:27 PM PDT by Deagle (quo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

I share yor prayer and concern. The Constitution says nothing about marriage and a court with any integrity would acknowledge this is a matter for the states to decide. Unfortunately, we have several justices who have no integrity and will weasal word some interpretation lurking in some unseen penumbra we mere mortals cannot see. It will likely go 5-4 one way or the other.

Some of my Conservative brethren claim we “can’t legislate morality” but we sure do a heck of job legislating (or adjudicating) immorality.


21 posted on 03/25/2013 8:29:24 PM PDT by trubolotta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Deagle

What happens to marriage by common law——better not have a roommate for very long!!


22 posted on 03/25/2013 8:35:41 PM PDT by RightLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RightLady

Common Law is established by States therefore it will be determined by States...don’t see the problem. Now if the Federal Laws undermine these laws, well that is the problem isn’t it?


23 posted on 03/25/2013 8:39:49 PM PDT by Deagle (quo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RightLady

Just because of your comment...

I really hate the current laws regarding co-habitation. It does seem that again the man takes the brunt of the after effects.

Why does the woman get the benefit of the doubt when two people live together? Why is it not the default that these folks take what they had before joining and take half of what is accumulated during the the so called (time together - marriage). I do not have a problem with this as long as it is as long as at least a few years - (I can leave this up to the Courts).

Today - Men would be foolish to co-habitat with any women if they take their financial future into account. Do so at your own peril. The laws are so against men that it just does not make any sense whatever!

I’m sure that it is not what you want to hear but RightLady, your response did require a correct rebuttal.


24 posted on 03/25/2013 8:53:11 PM PDT by Deagle (quo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

bttt


25 posted on 03/25/2013 9:26:57 PM PDT by Techster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deagle

who takes the brunt when two men are habitanting? I agree with you on common law.


26 posted on 03/25/2013 9:34:39 PM PDT by RightLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
There’s no way of knowing what combination of these singular features of marriage confers which of its demonstrated advantages, culturally and psychologically.

Six thousand years or more recorded history have taught us nothing? Right, got it.

27 posted on 03/25/2013 11:23:54 PM PDT by itsahoot (It is not so much that history repeats, but that human nature does not change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Marriage predates government. It is the fundamental building block of all human civilization. All Americans, especially conservatives, should respect this crucial institution of civil society. This is why 41 states, with good reason, affirm that marriage is between a man and a woman.

I would say that marriage is built into the human psychology, much like the bond of a woman for her infant (another human trait that the left has been relentlessly attacking). This reduction of human biological imperatives into self-indulgencies has not had a good effect. Trying to make marriage into something it isn't, that is not hard-wired into our brains, is a bad idea.

28 posted on 03/26/2013 4:52:40 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deagle

The entire premise of homosexuals is that their behavior is beyond their control or environment. Homosexual behavior, they propaganda, is an immutable trait.

For the court to find a “love test” in marriage requires that marriage be ONLY about adult sexual satisfaction.


29 posted on 03/26/2013 7:21:26 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy; Joe Brower; Cannoneer No. 4; Criminal Number 18F; Dan from Michigan; Eaker; Jeff Head; ...
Freeper Doctor Raoul Has Died

SDI at 30, Part I

Will We Get Another 11 Million Illegals after an Amnesty?

Scam Cell - California’s embryonic stem-cell research institute fails to deliver.

Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

30 posted on 03/26/2013 9:22:15 AM PDT by neverdem ( Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
[Art.] If nothing else, these [modesty, etc.] should be sufficient to stay the judges’ hand, and to let the people themselves decide, if a decision must be made, when or whether tradition is to be disowned.

The problem with this suggesting is that the strategic attack platform is Article IV of the Constitution, the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

In a 1981 interview, Lambda Legal lead trial attorney Evan Wolfson laid out the strategy: By hook or by crook, get "gay marriage" </ off oxymoron > legalized or decreed in one, just one, State, and then sue all 49 of the remaining States with their 97% heterosexual Peoples into submission in the Supreme Court using Article IV as the battering ram.

An amendment to the Constitution will (would) be necessary to forefend this outcome and defend the rights of the People and the dignity and legitimacy of representative democracy and self-government.

That need was foreclosed by President George W. Bush's refusal to take DOMA to the stage of constitutional amendment. When he endorsed DOMA, he and his RiNO allies were actually playing to throw the game, the same thing they did in their Heller brief on the Second Amendment, which they strewed with back doors to future regulation and future effective bans on ownership and/or use.

31 posted on 03/26/2013 1:30:18 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
The entire premise of homosexuals is that their behavior is beyond their control or environment. Homosexual behavior, they propaganda, is an immutable trait.

Called "essentialism". It's purely a legal strategy, science need not apply. (The search for a "gay gene", undertaken by homosexual scientists, has been fruitless .... so to speak.)

At the same time the homolawyers were pleading essentialism, their gay bretheren in the performing and social arts were swearing up and down that sexual orientation is situational and fluid, mutably mutable, gradational, notional, any sort of whiffenpoof word you liked ......... clearly, they were not on the same page as the attorneys. Which conveniently gets forgotten about when homopleading sociologists and psychologists like Judd Marmor take the stand, to lay down the essentialist Party Line.

Think of it as the latest iteration of Lysenkoism, and closely related to Anthropogenic Global Warming: More politically-motivated b.s. from Moonbat Central.

32 posted on 03/26/2013 1:36:57 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm
The problem with Same Sex Marriage is it is it furthers the deconstruction of the family pushed by radical leftists/feminists

Exactly. "Essentialism" draws for the intended audience (SCOTUS justices) a direct parallel (incorrect but direct) between the homosexual movement and the civil-rights cases of the 1950's and 1960's. Black skin is now supposed to be exactly analogous to sexual perversion.

Michelangelo Signorile, when it comes to marriage, laid it out in a benchmark essay in the Village Voice in, iirc, 1994, in which he explained that the political and moral function of SSM </cant, pls excuse the oxymoron> is not to establish anything, but to remove the moral authority of marriage and, in the long run, to destroy marriage as a heteronormalizing institution.

I mean by that, that marriage demonstrates the normality of heterosexual bonding and reproduction and contrariwise shines a pitiless light on the pointless copulations and cavortings of deviant sexuality.

Therefore Signorile and the rest of his hostile, sociopathic conspiracy undertook to "establish" SSM </cant> precisely to destroy marriage for the rest of us.

33 posted on 03/26/2013 1:47:17 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

I don’t recall any science of immutability during the oral arguments.


34 posted on 03/26/2013 7:09:00 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Thanks for the ping!


35 posted on 03/26/2013 7:43:21 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Acceptance and promotion of homosexuality and homosexual "marriage" means the end of the free exercise of religion, period.

This is already ABUNDANTLY CLEAR in places like Massachusetts.

36 posted on 03/26/2013 9:02:58 PM PDT by AnalogReigns (because the real world is not digital...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory; lentulusgracchus

The problem lies with the (purposeful) confusion between “orientation” (another word for desire) and practice—and the muddying of the waters that has brought about.

Homosexuals widely attest to the fact that they “never chose this orientation,” and I think they are being honest. None of us really chose to be attracted to girls—its something natural we just grew into. Homosexuals (whether they were sexually abused by a homosexual adult as adolescents or not—and a majority, I’ve read studies show, actually WERE.) also “grew into” same-sex-attraction, without consciously choosing it.

Somehow we as contemporary Westerners think this then MUST give license to practice homosexual acts—when logically, ethics NEVER work that way.

Many “grow into” wanting possessions they didn’t pay for—but if they PRACTICE that “orientation” toward theft...they go to jail.

Many “grow into” wanting to cheat on their wives—but if one acts out that “orientation” —she divorces him.

All pathologies tend to have some unconscious element of desire-one-didn’t-choose. SO WHAT? Ethics by its very nature is controling wrong desires, destructive orientations.

Somehow—building on (or falling further down from) the sexual revolution of the ‘60s—we in the West now assume, that sexual desires MUST be acted on, and if government or other institutions restrict such actions—that’s discrimination and bigotry.

While this attitude hasn’t extended to your typical heterosexual cheating spouse yet (I couldn’t HELP it dear, I’ve ALWAYS been oriented toward blondes!) the pitiful poor despised homosexual (the class sissy...) somehow gets a pass ....as we simply are blind—to the social evils associated with sodomy.

This even after (and during) the AIDS “epidemic.”

Christian spokesmen too, didn’t do themselves any favors by not being clear—that it was the BEHAVIOR, not the DESIRE, that people do indeed choose, and the BEHAVIOR—sodomy—(yes it is an ugly word) is what is objectionable, and destructive—to individuals, and to society.

To me this is why homosexual “marriage” is so destructive...as among other aruably positive things—like “love” and “friendship”, it is a commitment—to commit sodomy, a commitment to continue in and extend perversion.

This is why it is comparable to incest or bestiality—things we still, as a society, agree are perverse and wrong. No one yet in the mainstream...argues that “orientation” toward incest or bestiality—excuses people who practice these sick evils.

I really don’t get it. Except to say propaganda does work. Over the last 20 years there has been nothing comparable historically or at present to all the propaganda—from all sources, educational, governmental, entertainment, the mainline churches—about the “oppression” of poor little homosexuals... (who on average are much wealthier and better paid than any other group...).

Behavior as a civil right? NO.


37 posted on 03/26/2013 9:45:05 PM PDT by AnalogReigns (because the real world is not digital...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces. It is based on the anthropological truth that men and women are different and complementary, on the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and on the social reality that children need a mother and a father. Marriage has public purposes that transcend its private purposes.

True, and too many have ignored it's importance for too many years. That's the only reason the idea of 'homosexual marriage' has even been able to take hold.

38 posted on 03/27/2013 7:00:10 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

Marriage (by definition) is an act of commitment by man and woman to each other (generally to God, religious if you look at the past) - supposedly for life. Now you can say the same could happen between homosexuals but without the religious connotation since it is against most religions. That alone changes the current definition of marriage.

The definition of marriage has been standardized for Centuries so to change it at this point would be stupid! Love is a consequence of two people (man and woman - see definition of marriage) who decide that they want to live their lives together.

While their is love between two other people (there are many types), it has nothing to do with marriage.

Trying to change the definition of marriage is what is being contemplated, not the actual union of man and woman. Seems today that our vocabulary is being bastardized to the point that it is meaningless.


39 posted on 03/31/2013 9:26:38 AM PDT by Deagle (quo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | 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