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 ...
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”.
Here is a ping, in an effort to get us back on the correct thread.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
You don’t seem able to explain the Continental Congress defining widows in 1780 and 1794 and so on as you promote homosexual marriage and polygamy in the name of the constitution and the Founding fathers, etc. etc.
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 examples of acts granting pensions to officers’ widows only, see: Act of
June 7, 1794, ch. 52 § 1, 1 Stat. 390 (awarding a five-year half-pay pension to
widows of commissioned officers killed in the line of duty); Act of Mar. 14, 1798,
ch. 15, 1 Stat. 540 (extending the 1794 Act’s widows’ pension to the widows of
“commissioned officers of the troops of the United States, and of the militia” killed
in the line of duty); Act of Mar. 16, 1802, ch. 9, § 15, 2 Stat. 132, 135 (providing a
five-year half-pay pension to the widows of commissioned officers of the United
States killed in the line of duty); Act of April 12, 1808, ch. 43, §5, 2 Stat. 481, 483
(extending the Act of 1802 widows’ pension provision to the regiments raised
pursuant to this statute); Act of Jan. 2, 1812, ch. 11, § 4, 2 Stat. 670, 670 (extending
the Act of 1802 widows’ pension provision to troops raised pursuant to this statute);
Act of Jan 11, 1812, ch. 14, § 15, 2 Stat. XXX (providing five-year half-pay pensions
to widows of “any commissioned officer in the military establishment of the United
States” killed in the line of duty); Act of Jan. 20, 1813, ch. 10, § 1, 2 Stat. 790, 790-
91 (providing five-year half-pay pensions to widows of “officer[s] of the navy or
marines [who] shall be killed or die, by reason of a wound received in the line of his
duty”); Act of Jan. 29, 1813, ch. 16, § 1, 2 Stat. 794, 794 (providing five-year halfpay pensions to widows of commissioned officers of the military establishment of the
United States killed in the line of duty); Act of Aug. 2, 1813, ch. 40, § 1, 3 Stat. 73,
73-74 (providing five-year half-pay pensions to the widows of “commissioned
officer[s] of the militia, or of any volunteer corps” killed while in “actual service of
the United States”); Act of Mar. 3, 1815, ch 79, § 1, 2 Stat. 224, 224 (extending the
Act of 1802 widows’ pension provision to troops raised pursuant to this statute).
There were occasional departures from this trend. In 1802, two years after the naval
vessels Insurgent and Pickering were lost in a storm during the undeclared war with
France, Congress awarded pensions to the widows and orphans of “officers, seamen,
and marines” who died on board, thus reaching the widows of men of all ranks, not
just those of officers. Act of Apr. 29, 1802, ch. 33, 1 Stat. 170. And in 1812,
widows of “officers and soldiers, of the volunteers or militia” killed in encounters
with “hostile Indians” were awarded a five-year pension. Act of Apr. 10, 1812, ch.
54, § 2, 2 Stat. 704. A report of the Committee of Claims produced in 1836 confirms
that the Act of April 10, 1812 was “the first act that granted half pay to the widows
and orphans of non-commissioned officers and soldiers, being volunteer or militia,”
adding that the act was “retrospective in its operations.” H.Rep. 415, 34th Cong., 1st
Sess. 3 (Mar. 3, 1836).
44 The legislative debates concerning subsidies for widows of soldiers evidence
a pronounced concern for family equality. See Collins, supra note 17, at 1795-1801.
The Truth About the Homosexual Rights Movement
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3650#.UWB7zEpxboY
And it isn't homosexual 'marriage' that has caused this, but the attitudes towards sex that have changed since the 'Summer of Love', in 1967. This article mentions mens' permissiveness regarding sexual relations, and that has always been the case, but it was WOMEN who were able to somewhat channel that by withholding sex until marriage. Since most unmarried women don't seem willing to do that anymore, the norm among men today is how my Daddy always described it; "Why buy the cow, when you can get the milk for free?".
Women have the power to change that, but it remains to be seen if they will do so.
You don’t seem to be able to find that authority anywhere under article 1, section 8. Come back when you can find it. But don’t feel too bad about finding out that you don’t believe in the constitution. The entire democrat party and much of the gop doesn’t believe in it either.
How you find homosexual marriage and polygamy in the constitution is beyond me, but is is an incredibly lame argument to use to promote the homosexual agenda.
For you to claim to believe that homosexual men and polygamist widows could collect federal widow benefits before, during, and after the writing of the constitution, from the federal military benefit legislation written by the founding fathers in 1780, 1794, 1798 and 1802 and forward, if they simply told the feds that they had their own personal definition of marriage because it was constitutional, is craziness.
Your dedication to pushing homosexual marriage on freerepublic leads you to say the most bizarre things.
I have believed for many years, decades in fact, that when they invent a simple birth control pill for men, that is safe and simple enough to become routine, then women will rediscover their source of courting control, and will once again come to depend on it.
Once men can indulge in all the sexual permissiveness available, with no consequences, not courts, not child support, no pregnancies, no coerced marriage or financial burdens, and they can circumvent all of the modern sex traps that the law and government have built into the courting game, then women will have to find a way to regain the upper hand, they will only be able to do that by withholding sex and using that to guide the relationship to the result that they desire, just like you mentioned.
That never happened, but you know that. It must be hard for you to go through life as a compulsive liar.
For you to claim to believe that homosexual men and polygamist widows could collect federal widow benefits before, during, and after the writing of the constitution, from the federal military benefit legislation written by the founding fathers in 1780, 1794, 1798 and 1802 and forward, if they simply told the feds that they had their own personal definition of marriage because it was constitutional, is craziness.
Put up or shut up. Post where I said anyone should be able to collect any federal benefits. Not later, now. Find it and post it. Your bullshit has been called.
Great, now you are cussing as you promote homosexual marriage.
Your homosexuals and polygamists couldn’t collect widow benefits from the federal government in the 1780s and 1790s, because the federal definition of widow didn’t allow it, don’t you think?
Your pro-gay marriage argument is that the founding generation was wrong in interpreting the constitution, and should have allowed each individual to define marriage for himself.
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.