Skip to comments.Yes, Marriage Will Change--and Here’s How
Posted on 06/08/2013 3:30:45 PM PDT by fwdude
The sexual permissiveness of men will emerge a winner in the contest of ideas as same-sex marital norms begin to shape the larger institution of marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepublicdiscourse.com ...
Stop inviting big brother into your institutions and you won’t have these problems. It’s like dealing with the mob...you need to be very careful who you let do favors for you.
The goal of the homosexual lobby is to DESTROY marriage. Only 7% of homosexuals have relationships lasting beyond three years. Promiscuity is not a stereotype, it’s a reality.
It won’t change the institution. It will break society.
Seems we can’t stop them.
They are everywhere ....
That is a pretty enlightening article, some new facts and thoughts.
I don't understand that thought, we are in a political battle, or else gay marriage and polygamy would have always been legal in America, there has never been a time when a universal authority did not define marriage in every culture, that I know of.
If you dance with the devil, don't fool yourself into thinking you'll change him.
America was not an experiment that included gay marriage and polygamy and every religion and individual definition of marriage being accepted, or else it would have been included in our federal legislation involving marriage in 1780,””The first national pension legislation for widows was a Continental Congress resolution of August 24, 1780””
“”The time limit for making claims under the Continental Congress resolution of August 24, 1780, which promised half-pay pensions to widows and orphans of some officers, expired in 1794. For many years thereafter, unless a private act of Congress was introduced on her behalf, a widow of a veteran was limited to receiving only that part of a pension that remained unpaid at the time of her husband’s death. By an act of Congress approved July 4, 1836 (5 Stat. 128), some widows of Revolutionary War veterans were again permitted, as a class under public law, to apply for pensions. The act provided that the widow of any veteran who had performed service as specified in the pension act of June 7, 1832, was eligible to receive the pension that might have been allowed the veteran under the terms of that act, if the widow had married the veteran before the expiration of his last period of service.””
The US constitution went into effect in 1789. Still waiting for the article 1 section 8 citation. The constitution wasn't written for a cafeteria, where you get to pick and choose the parts you like and ignore the other parts.
Read the rest of that post, it went well beyond 1780 and marriage benefits were always offered, but not to anything other than what the federal government accepted as as married, I don’t think that a man would have succeeded in pleading that his man was also his ‘widow’, just because you want that.
The constitution was not written to allow Islam and Mormonism to introduce polygamy, and the Episcopal church to create “gay marriage”.
Those who oppose gay marriage are not the ones inviting big brother into their institutions. And as we have seen over the last couple of weeks, Big Brother is perfectly capable of inviting himself in.
Then you can cite the part in article 1 section 8 that gives the feds any power over the institution of marriage, one way or the other?
No, the invitations happened a long time ago. Now they are just wanting big brother to bless their interpretation of an institution that it didn't have any authority over in the first place.
I'm confused. Don't we keep reading that men are the losers in our current socio-economic environment? Is this a "can't win for losing" thing? I never understood that ...
I think that it would be more interesting for you to explain why the first decades of the founding Americans and all following generations were so anti-constitutional that they were defining what a legal widow is, for federal benefits.
Do you think that they were giving out widow pensions to homosexuals and lesbians and multiple wives?
They can do what they want, and they can call it whatever they want.
The problem is they want ME to say and agree and endorse that they are “married” and it’s some kind of “Holy Institution”.
I will never do that.
And not just me, but you and everyone you know will be under the same pressure/threats.
Don’t expect me to excuse people who abandoned their belief in the clear wording of that document. This is where people who do believe in it should have an epiphany as to why reading things into it that plainly are not there is a bad idea and shouldn’t compound the error. People seem to have to learn things the hard way, and in the end miss the entire point of the lesson.
You might want to read the article before jumping to conclusions.
One thing that this “study” fails to take into account, with all this talk about multiple partners and easy divorce amongst homosexual couples, how will the kids stuck in these “families” make out? Having multiple mommies and no daddies or vice versa has to be hard on a kid. I really think that we’re raising a twisted generation of kids once these fake marriages really become commonplace.
Why? Posting without reading the article is a time-honored FR tradition.
I don't think that's the primary argument. Most people recognize the STATES' rights to define marriage according to local values and traditions without federal meddling. What happens in reality is that states which adopt a warped definition of marriage want to impose their skewed redefinition of marriage on EVERY OTHER STATE through Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution, known as the "full faith and credit clause."
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
That liber(al)tarian types like you cannot understand this very real danger seems to be a type of self delusion. Wake up.
Someone must officiate. And the obvious solution is provided in the second part of this section of Article 1:
And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
THERE is the rationale for getting the federal government involved, not in DEFINING marriage that others must recognize, but in PROTECTING states rights to do so within their jurisdiction. Without DOMA we would now have NATIONWIDE recognition of the same-sex "marriage," along with all the Gaystapo nastiness that comes with it.
Well, the 1780 and 1790 Americans could be wrong, or you, the internet guy in 2013, might be wrong, maybe all of history is wrong if you think that polygamy and gay marriage should be allowed if the Mosque or some gay church wants it.
We still have to deal with marriage in the military.
“Between 1792 and 1858, Congress enacted approximately seventy-six public law statutes granting cash subsidies to large classes of military widows.”
“starting in the 1810s, Congress gradually began providing pensions to widows of rank-and-file soldiers, thus deviating from the class-salient approach of eighteenth-century widows pensions both English and American which
had privileged the widows of officers.”
LOL, yep, it can sure make a difference what the excerpt says.
I don't know if you're familiar with the author, Regnerus, but he has just published a groundbreaking, extensive study on just this issue of concern, for which he was viciously attacked by the homo-Mafia.
Here is the link:
Sorry, guys. Public Discourse limits what amount of material can be posted to an excerpt, and the leading one seemed to be the best synopsis. Yes, Tax, read the entire article.
In Colonial America, ALL THIRTEEN COLONIES had capital punishment for homosexuality.
In most, this penalty was reduced, but it was more than a decade after the Constitution was ratified.
Clearly, the States granted the federal government NO JURISDICTION WHATEVER in this issue.
and of that 7%, 100% of them have cheated, or had thursday nights off, open arangements for strange.
I know you don't like it, but you guys lost this one a long, long time ago. It was probably lost before either of us were born.
the quality of thought is very high
thank you for posting
That was rambling with some contradictions mixed in, I don’t know what you were trying to say, but we need to fight to preserve marriage and protect it from the Muslims, the Mormons, the Episcopalians, and the libertarians and Massachusetts.
Good luck with that.
I will accept that as sarcasm from your side of the culture war.
No, it’s the only reply I have for someone who wants to fight off lung cancel by switching from regular cigarettes to menthol. You didn’t come here to have your mind changed and I’ll only try putting lipstick on a pig so many times.
ugh...cancel = cancer.
Whatever that is supposed to mean, I guess it makes sense to you somehow but we will continue to fight you on homosexual marriage and polygamy.
Yeah, somehow you think I’m defending those. I’m through trying to convince you otherwise. I have more important things to concern myself with. Like how will the last episodes of Breaking Bad end or which load of laundry I should do first tomorrow or anything else I can think of right now. You seem to be defending big brother having the power to force homosexual marriage and polygamy down your throat or to cast them into the lake of fire. Like I said...good luck with that.
Allowing Islam and the homosexuals to define marriage, does not save it, nor “cast it into the lake of fire”.
Like I said...good luck with that.
As the article implies, gay male standards of permissiveness in sexual relations will bleed over to all men. I believe it will ruin straight women’s lives worse than any pre-Women’s Lib patriarchy could have ever dreamed of doing.
Then their tax-exempt status will be revoked and established Christian churches will be broken up and their followers driven underground.
Public expressions of Christian faith will continue to be called "oppressive" and hate speech toward "minority" atheists and Muslims.
Muslims will then start doing what they're now doing in Paris.
And that’s just one aspect of it. Introduce the “acceptability” of non-monogamy into marriage, and STD’s go through the roof. Who wants to subject children to that?
I do not wish you luck in your fight against conservative America.
I’m not fighting anything. You seem to be having a hard time getting your head aroind that.
You have to be a libertarian.
Only libertarians can make post after post for hours or even days, and remain so vague and evasive while opposing something, and not promoting anything, seeming to be fighting for something, and yet deny that they are.
You say that like it’s a bad thing. But seriously, if you want to “defend” marriage you need to do it on the individual level. Make sure yours is good. If so you’re doing better than half of the others. If it’s not, you might want to look somewhere other than the homersexuals or ebil muslims. It wasn’t either of them that gave us no fault divorce, the un-earned income tax credit or nationalized child support enforcement. Or you could keep bitching about the crab grass in the front yard when the roof and foundation of the house have caved in.
Ditto on that. The acceptance of homosexual marriage will have an adverse affect upon the institution of marriage itself. It will eventually destroy marriage except for the few Christians that honor marriage as a divinely created institution intend only for the union of a male and female.
That’s what I thought, polygamy, gay marriage, whatever dude.
1.3 Personal Relationships
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.
So you’re saying fedgov has that authority? Again, I’m waiting for that article 1 section 8 citation. You can’t find it because it’s not there. Just admit you don’t believe in the constitution and be done with it. At least embrace the hypocrisy openly.
As I look at your posting history I see that we have had this fight before, with you promoting homosexual marriage, you are passionate on the topic.
You haven’t explained how the founders of this nation managed to deal with a definition of marriage in regards to military pensions, do you think that they would give them to polygamists and homosexuals if they had read the constitution that they just created, while they were also giving pensions to “widows”.