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.
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.