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 ...
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:
http://www.familystructurestudies.com/
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.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=englishfacpubs
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.
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.