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

Skip to comments.

A Gay-Wedding Crasher [Homosexual Rights=Rights of Polygamists!]
LATimes ^ | July 30,2011

Posted on 07/31/2011 2:47:45 PM PDT by Steelfish

Edited on 07/31/2011 5:23:27 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

EDITORIAL A Gay-Wedding Crasher A law professor attempts to use a homosexual rights ruling to defend a polygamous family in Utah.

In this file photo, (pic in URL) Kody Brown poses with his wives Janelle, Christine, Meri, and Robyn for TLC's reality TV show, "Sister Wives." The Browns' attorney, Jonathan Turley, filed a lawsuit challenging the Utah bigamy law that makes their lifestyle illegal.


(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: culturaldecay; culturaldecline; homosexualagenda; huntsman; jonathanturley; jonhuntsman; lds; marriage; mittromney; moralabsolutes; mormonism; polyamory; polygamy; polygyny; romney; sexualimmorality; turley; utah
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-113 next last
To: Gondring

Here’s a concept... let’s get the government out of the marriage business altogether!

- - - — - -
Are you really advocating the dissolution of the legal entity of marriage?


51 posted on 07/31/2011 6:11:40 PM PDT by reaganaut (Ex-Mormon, now Christian - "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY

Did the change not go through a couple of years ago?


52 posted on 07/31/2011 6:28:16 PM PDT by Gondring (Going d'Anconia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle; little jeremiah
Marriage will become a private matter ....There will be no government sanction to the marriage itself.

Which is a major objective of the homosexual movement's attack on marriage.

What they hate is the heteronormative nature of marriage, and government's recognition of same.

They want the churches to "take it all back" and government to "take it all back". How dare anyone say the truth, that homosexuality is a paraphilia, and inherently deviate?

They want so-called "hate-crime" (thought-crime) legislation on the books so that their lawywers like Evan Wolfson and that queer crowd at ACLU and Lambda Legal can march into court to make individual Christians and Jews, and indeed entire congregations, "take it all back" or give up their jobs, houses, savings, and property in retaliation -- exactly, by the way, what the Southern Poverty Law Center did to a rancher who tried to defend his property against Mexican illegal trespassers by calling in, as a last, desperate resort, a private ranch-rescue operation.

Eventually, of course, the official policy must become one of persecution, and of requiring little gestures of ..... good faith ..... along life's road, for everyone in society.

53 posted on 07/31/2011 6:30:00 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus (Concealed carry is a pro-life position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; reaganaut; Religion Moderator

How about those who want Government to quit corrupting the institution of marriage, and reserve it as the holy sacrament as God gave to the Church, who do not want marriage to be confined by what the Government dictates is acceptable or not?


54 posted on 07/31/2011 6:31:17 PM PDT by FromTheSidelines ("everything that deceives, also enchants" - Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: FromTheSidelines; Jim Robinson; Admin Moderator

But that isn’t what you said over on this thread, n00b (7-10-2011), where I expressed concern for advocating such a position on a pro-family site:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2756400/posts?page=18#18

To: RecoveringPaulisto

Just more proof that Government should get out of the marriage business altogether. You legitimize things by officially recognizing them - so don’t recognize any of them.

18 posted on Saturday, July 30, 2011 7:32:19 PM by FromTheSidelines (”everything that deceives, also enchants” - Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

To: RecoveringPaulisto

Most legal systems in history have recognized slavery and polygamy, too...

I’d be interested to hear the negative consequences of not legally recognizing marriage at all. Is it the breakdown of the family? Fatherless households? Out-of-wedlock children? All those things we have now - with our legally recognized marriage?

22 posted on Saturday, July 30, 2011 7:55:06 PM by FromTheSidelines (”everything that deceives, also enchants” - Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

I am a supporter of getting Government out of the marriage business, since we’re at the situation where Government either recognizes - and thus legitimizes - gay marriage, or just drops recognition altogether. 25 posted on Saturday, July 30, 2011 8:16:54 PM by FromTheSidelines (”everything that deceives, also enchants” - Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

I have no problem keeping the gays out of my religion, that does not mean that we should abolish the LEGAL entity of marriage.


55 posted on 07/31/2011 6:53:42 PM PDT by reaganaut (Ex-Mormon, now Christian - "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: FromTheSidelines; Jim Robinson; reaganaut; Gondring; KrisKrinkle
How about those who want Government to quit corrupting the institution of marriage,...

The only ones "corrupting the institution of marriage" are the relativists (such as yourself, Gondring, and KrisKringle) who DEFEND AND CHAMPION the redefinition of marriage.

IBTZ, you three pathetic POS's!

56 posted on 07/31/2011 7:08:40 PM PDT by Flycatcher (God speaks to us, through the supernal lightness of birds, in a special type of poetry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut; Jim Robinson; Admin Moderator

So because I believe Government should keep its nose out of the sacrament of marriage (look where Government involvement has gotten us already), then I must support gay marriage and the destruction of marriage?

Do you support Government dictate regarding prayer? If not, then you support destruction of prayer and support for satanic sacrifice.

Wanting Government OUT of something that was set up by God and given as a sacrament is NOT the same thing as wanting to see the opposite flourish and succeed; it is trying to keep Caesar doing what is Caesar’s, and God in charge of what is God’s.

I have been quite explicit in stating I want Government out of marriage; we see what Government involved in marriage has wrought (the breakdown of the family, out-of-wedlock births, gay marriage) and as a result the holiness and respect for the institution as a whole has been lowered. We can try to fight to put the genie back in the bottle, or simply take the bottle away from Government in the first place.

Government has NO RIGHT to tell me that my marriage is only acceptable and real because they issued a piece of paper to me; it was made real and holy when I pledged in a Church to God and those fellow believers gathered. I don’t need a Government to bless and condone what I do with God and the Church.


57 posted on 07/31/2011 7:13:50 PM PDT by FromTheSidelines ("everything that deceives, also enchants" - Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Flycatcher; Jim Robinson; reaganaut; Gondring; KrisKrinkle

PLEASE! Can you show me where I say marriage should not be between a man and a woman?

On the contrary, Government is trying to say it can be perverted to be between two men or two women, or many of each. That is evil, heretical, and wrong.

Since Government insists on ignoring the Biblical basis of marriage, then do not allow it any control or power over marriage it all. Reserve it for the Church.

Don’t address what you think I said, don’t address what others claim I said - address my words HERE. The Government has no power or dominion over marriage other than what we choose to give it. I choose to not give it any control, because it has shown it is willing to pervert and destroy that insitution.

Should the Government be used to certify and condone other sacraments of the church? Should Government weigh in on baptisms, and communion, confession and last rites?

No? Then why should it have any say over marriage?

How is giving Government power over a sacrament given to us by God, a good thing? How is it in any way acceptable? If Government is aligned with the will of God, then Government can come along side. The second it is no longer aligned with the will of God, Government should be shunned from any involvement in that aspect of life.

I choose not to lower my faith, my church, and my God below the power and authority of Government.


58 posted on 07/31/2011 7:19:42 PM PDT by FromTheSidelines ("everything that deceives, also enchants" - Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: FromTheSidelines
I choose not to lower my faith, my church, and my God below the power and authority of Government

Isn't government you and I?

Why can't we sanction marriage?

Do you understand Natural Law?

Natural Law has always been applicable in the state-sanctioning of marriage. Why isn't Natural Law applicable here?

Do you realize the Founding Fathers ALL believed in the application of Natural Law?

Have you been zotted/banned before and now rejoined FR under a new name?

Will you answer all these questions honestly?

59 posted on 07/31/2011 7:30:12 PM PDT by Flycatcher (God speaks to us, through the supernal lightness of birds, in a special type of poetry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: FromTheSidelines; Flycatcher

I am all for keeping the Government out of my religion, in fact the first amendment requires it. However that has nothing to do with the LEGAL ENTITY of marriage.

You seem to be equating to different things. My husband and I got married in a church, we made a covenant before God, however we needed a license and signatures in order to have it legally recognized. Separate things entirely. You do not need the former (ceremony) to have the latter (legal marriage). THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS.

The dissolution of the legal entity of marriage (which you are advocating) is destructive to civilization. Legal marriage was created to provide protection of women and children and still forms that function which is why we are fighting so hard to keep it. The legal function of marriage dates back to the earliest laws and legal systems.


60 posted on 07/31/2011 7:30:33 PM PDT by reaganaut (Ex-Mormon, now Christian - "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla

In case you were wondering, we are over here now. See post #40 & 41.


61 posted on 07/31/2011 7:35:39 PM PDT by reaganaut (Ex-Mormon, now Christian - "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Flycatcher
Isn't government you and I?

It is you and I, and all in this thread, and - unfortunately - that gay couple in Maine. It is all of us. And we all have equal voice - that is how the system was set up.

Why can't we sanction marriage?

We can, as long as that sanctioning is kept in line with the Biblical foundation on which it is based. Once Government moves away from that, then it is no longer marriage. It is a Government-recognized union, it is a party, it may be some pronouncement - but it is NOT marriage. Even if Government tries to call it the same.

Do you understand Natural Law?

Yes I do.

Natural Law has always been applicable in the state-sanctioning of marriage. Why isn't Natural Law applicable here?

Does Natural Law allow gay marriage? No? Then why can Government call and sanction gay marriage, "marriage"? What Government is sanctioning is NOT marriage in any way as defined in Natural Law. Thus I refuse to cede the word marriage, and all it encompasses, to Government.

Do you realize the Founding Fathers ALL believed in the application of Natural Law?

Yes, as do I. And I do not believe they would condone or accept gay marriage at all. They would call it abhorrent and evil, and NOT marriage as God intended. It would not be marriage.

Have you been zotted/banned before and now rejoined FR under a new name?

Nope. Been lurking for about 6 months before I joined.

Will you answer all these questions honestly?

Already did. Now will you answer some of mine?

1. Why should Government get to dictate what is marriage?

2. Why should a marriage only be proper if Government accepts it?

3. Should the church accept a marriage of a gay couple, just because the Government says that marriage consists of gay couples?

4. Why should we leave an institution to the hands of Government if Government will misuse and pervert that institution?

62 posted on 07/31/2011 7:38:42 PM PDT by FromTheSidelines ("everything that deceives, also enchants" - Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut; Flycatcher
I am all for keeping the Government out of my religion, in fact the first amendment requires it.

Unfortunately, we're seeing the Government consistently ignore the Constituion, and redefine the Amendments and restrictions at it sees fit. Thomas Jefferson said it best:

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground."

However that has nothing to do with the LEGAL ENTITY of marriage.

I do believe it does.

My husband and I got married in a church, we made a covenant before God

Did the Church consider you married at that point? Do you believe at that point God considered the two had become one?

however we needed a license and signatures in order to have it legally recognized

So you signed a contract with the Government that told the Government about your commitment to each other. Did that complete your marriage sacrament? Or was it an afterthought, a notice to the Government of your actions already taken in the church before God?

Separate things entirely

YES! ABSOLUTELY! It is when Government tries to use the same name as the sacred that the sacred is reduced and profaned.

The marriage happened in the church, before God. The registration of your marriage - the civil union you created - was for the Government only.

You do not need the former (ceremony) to have the latter (legal marriage). THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS.

PRECISELY. Which is why they should NOT have the same name AT ALL. The former - the ceremony in front of believers and God, is the marriage. The latter is a simplified legal contract with implied rights and responsibilities, no different than most legal contracts with those powers and responsibilities spelled out.

Giving them the same name demeans the institution of marriage; in no way is Adam and Steve proclaiming their commitment to each other in front of a judge a marriage. It's a union, it's a commitment, it's a contract - it is NOT marriage, however.

Legal marriage was created to provide protection of women and children and still forms that function which is why we are fighting so hard to keep it.

Except that, I would argue, as society has fallen (as is its natural tendency and ultimately must happen prior to the return of the Son of God), so too have the blessings that used to be associated with the civil side of the ceremony.

It used to be that morality dictated no sex before marriage. A man would take care of his wife and children, a woman would stay faithful to her husband. However, we've seen that all decay and rot over the last 40-odd years. "Marriage vows" are now quickies done for fun in Vegas. They are something many change with regularity, like drapes.

Government has not done its role of shepherding and guarding the institution of marriage; it has enabled the decay we see in it today. And with the push of gay marriage, we see that decay increasing and spreading.

So my solution: take marriage back from the Government. It belongs in the church - that ceremony before God and all gathered.

Let Government do its "civil union" thing, let it register and control civil agreements and contracts as people desire, for it does that in all other aspects of life (joint ownerships, partnerships, LLCs, trusts and wills, etc).

Get Government out of the marriage thing altogether. Give it back to the church whole and intact, for the church to control. It is the only institution that can be trusted to keep the sacrament pure and holy.

THAT is my argument. It is not about granting gay marriage, or making it easier for them - it already IS easy! Gays can get "married" now - today! It is about realizing the truth of Government, the rot and decay that exists, and breaking out that which is holy and good and preserving it as such. Do not let the stench of Government evil corrupt it, but refusing to let Government even touch it.

63 posted on 07/31/2011 7:51:31 PM PDT by FromTheSidelines ("everything that deceives, also enchants" - Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut
Are you really advocating the dissolution of the legal entity of marriage?

I'm suggesting that the government not be brought into the "marriage" business at all. IF marriage is religious, then let it be a religious ceremony.

64 posted on 07/31/2011 7:53:12 PM PDT by Gondring (Going d'Anconia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: FromTheSidelines

One has nothing to do with the other. You are claiming that we should do away with Legal Marriage and seem to think it will make everything better. It won’t.

The legal entity of marriage does not degrade the religious rite. That sort of twisted thinking leads to polygamy which leads to abuse. The legal entity of marriage protects men and women and children. To do away with that is not only stupid but borders on insanity.


65 posted on 07/31/2011 7:56:10 PM PDT by reaganaut (Ex-Mormon, now Christian - "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: FromTheSidelines; Flycatcher

The Government doesn’t take away from the religious rite of marriage, it can’t so your whole line of reasoning is fallacious.


66 posted on 07/31/2011 7:57:02 PM PDT by reaganaut (Ex-Mormon, now Christian - "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut; Colofornian; dfwgator; Gondring; FromTheSidelines; Godzilla; Jim Robinson; ...
As information for Jim Robinson, savagesusie, Admin Moderator and Religion Moderator


Addressed to the rest.


The last I heard, this is a discussion forum.

The other day on another thread I made the same proposal.

savagesusie responded much as she did in post 14 above.

The pertinent part of my response to her was:

-----------

Not too bad for a quick response. At least you’re thinking.

In reality, I would expect that debate on my proposal to get government out of marriage would include a discussion on why government is involved in it to start with. Properly done, that should inevitably lead to a conclusion that marriage is male-female in it’s essence, and should be supported as such by government.

Such a debate has to be supported by something more than unfounded assertion and opinion.

And such a debate may reveal that government is involved in marriage in some ways that it need not be.

In any case, I don’t see that on the whole the public discussion is on the right track. The public discussion needs to reestablish the basics, and go from there.

--------------

Too many contribute only unfounded assertion and opinion to the discussion.

Far too many prefer provocative disparagement to productive discussion.

If we are to prevail we must do better than that.

I repeat: the last I heard, this is a discussion forum.

67 posted on 07/31/2011 7:57:02 PM PDT by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

Marriage is BOTH. Two separate entities, one religious one legal.


68 posted on 07/31/2011 7:58:10 PM PDT by reaganaut (Ex-Mormon, now Christian - "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle; Colofornian; dfwgator; Gondring; FromTheSidelines; Godzilla; Jim Robinson; ...

repeat: the last I heard, this is a discussion forum.

- - - -
A conservative, pro-family discussion forum.

The calling for the dissolution of legal marriage is neither conservative or pro-family. It is exactly what the libs want.


69 posted on 07/31/2011 8:00:19 PM PDT by reaganaut (Ex-Mormon, now Christian - "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: FromTheSidelines
1. Why should Government get to dictate what is marriage?

Government doesn't dictate what is marriage. The dictionary does.

2. Why should a marriage only be proper if Government accepts it?

Because "proper" means; "fulfilling all expectations and criteria."

3. Should the church accept a marriage of a gay couple, just because the Government says that marriage consists of gay couples?

No. Red herring. And no theologically based churches do.

4. Why should we leave an institution to the hands of Government if Government will misuse and pervert that institution?

Strawman. No one is "leaving" the institution of marriage to the hands of government. Marriage has always been, and will always be, a sacrament celebrating the union of a man and a woman. For legal purposes, all governments -- even secular ones -- recognize it as so.

Now one more question to you: What does a gay couple in Maine have to do with marriage?

70 posted on 07/31/2011 8:04:11 PM PDT by Flycatcher (God speaks to us, through the supernal lightness of birds, in a special type of poetry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut; Flycatcher
The Government doesn’t take away from the religious rite of marriage, it can’t so your whole line of reasoning is fallacious.

Here's a little metaphor that should clarify the point:

RINOs don't take away from the message of conservatism, so they don't hurt the name "Republican" in any way, right?

You understand my point? The word and all that is associated with it is demeaned when some call an aberration by the same name.

Remember Rush's oft-used saying: "Words Mean Things". The word "marriage" means a union of two people, usually in a religious context. By giving that word over to gay "marriage" advocates to use, then we are letting them redefine what the word means.

It used to mean a commitment before God and all. Now it no longer means that, because the use of the word has been corrupted. Much like the very word "gay". It used to mean happy, joyful. Now it means homosexual - that word has been corrupted so that it can no longer carry the original meaning in any real way.

I do not want to see that happen to marriage.

71 posted on 07/31/2011 8:06:54 PM PDT by FromTheSidelines ("everything that deceives, also enchants" - Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle

It’s a pro-life, pro-family, pro-religious freedom, pro-liberty, anti-homosexual agenda discussion forum. If you can’t handle that, take a hike.


72 posted on 07/31/2011 8:06:54 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is brewing!! Impeach the corrupt Marxist bastard!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: FromTheSidelines

Here’s a message for you, keep promoting the gay agenda, your account gets the zot! Shaddup about it already!!


73 posted on 07/31/2011 8:08:08 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is brewing!! Impeach the corrupt Marxist bastard!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Flycatcher; Jim Robinson; reaganaut; Gondring; KrisKrinkle
The only ones "corrupting the institution of marriage" are the relativists (such as yourself, Gondring, and KrisKringle) who DEFEND AND CHAMPION the redefinition of marriage.

ROTFLOL! Yes, I want the definition to go back to what it was before statists like you tried to turn it into some bureaucratic, licensed affair! Let's take it back to the churches where it belongs!

Tell me, if Jesus were walking the earth today in the flesh and Congress decided to put into place some definition of marriage, would you tell Jesus that He should bow to the State? Does Render Unto Caesar include those things about which Jesus taught (e.g., marriage)?

Once again, we see that where the government gets its nose into the tent, we soon get the hump.

74 posted on 07/31/2011 8:11:40 PM PDT by Gondring (Going d'Anconia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

I haven’t read the thread, but I’m guessing that KrisKrinkle and FromTheSidelines expressed views similar to mine, and since you gave them a warning, I imagine I should take it as directed toward me, too. (I didn’t see those until after my last post.)

But I don’t at all support gay marriage. My point is that it’s the government pushing gay marriage, and if marriage were left to the churches, it wouldn’t be an issue.

But if that’s out of bounds, then okay.


75 posted on 07/31/2011 8:15:23 PM PDT by Gondring (Going d'Anconia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle; FromTheSidelines

Sorry I didn’t ping you here when I mentioned you.


76 posted on 07/31/2011 8:16:48 PM PDT by Gondring (Going d'Anconia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Flycatcher
Government doesn't dictate what is marriage. The dictionary does.

So you support gay marriage. From Merriam Webster's dictionary:

1: a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

3: an intimate or close union

The dictionary now defines marriage to include same-sex unions. Do you accept marriage as that? I do not.

Because "proper" means; "fulfilling all expectations and criteria."

Is a commitment in the church, before God and all gathered, not fulling all the expectations and criteria of God and the church? No? We need to wait for a signed piece of paper from the Government to complete it?

Then we have, in fact, given Government dominion and power over marriage.

No. Red herring. And no theologically based churches do.

But the dictionary - which dictates what marriage is, according to you, does. So the church is wrong, because it disagrees with the dictionary?

Now one more question to you: What does a gay couple in Maine have to do with marriage?

Because for a short time, gay marriage existed in Maine - per the dictionary definition of the word.

I refuse to recognize such unions as marriage; they are a union, and a civil one at that, but they are NOT marriage. Am I "hung up" on a word? Perhaps. But words mean things. If we use one word for marriage, and the evil, abhorrent thing that Government does uses the same word, then it becomes that much harder to draw a line between Christ, the church, and the secular world.

Words have meanings. Reserve and protect those which relate to the most sacred that we have.

77 posted on 07/31/2011 8:17:07 PM PDT by FromTheSidelines ("everything that deceives, also enchants" - Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

WHERE did I promote the gay agenda? Can you let me know where I erred? Show the words I wrote that do that which you accuse me of?

Seriously, I’m interested to know...


78 posted on 07/31/2011 8:20:36 PM PDT by FromTheSidelines ("everything that deceives, also enchants" - Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: FromTheSidelines

I’m not going to argue with you about this. Either get off the topic or get lost!


79 posted on 07/31/2011 8:23:20 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is brewing!! Impeach the corrupt Marxist bastard!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Gondring; reaganaut
Yes, I want the definition to go back to what it was before statists like you tried to turn it into some bureaucratic, licensed affair!

Priceless!

Whenever social conservatives such as myself (and Reaganaut) defend the traditional institution of marriage, we can always count on at least one atheist libertarian calling us "statists."

Congrats!

You did your duty.

80 posted on 07/31/2011 8:27:13 PM PDT by Flycatcher (God speaks to us, through the supernal lightness of birds, in a special type of poetry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus; KrisKrinkle

The argument “get governemnt out of marriage” is a Libertarian ploy to implement no holds barred faggotry and perversion. It’s that simple.

Governments of whatever sort have recognized marriage for millenia. Inheritance, legitimacy, protection of the family unit specifically children and wives - all depend on governments recognizing marriage as a specific relationship and institution.

It’s a prybar to destroy marriage with and insert their favored perversion and sexual vice as being equal to monogamous marriage between a man and a woman.


81 posted on 07/31/2011 8:29:49 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Flycatcher; Gondring

Yes, I want the definition to go back to what it was before statists like you tried to turn it into some bureaucratic, licensed affair!

- - - - -
You want to go back to before there were written laws? Marriage laws have been on the books since Ancient History.


82 posted on 07/31/2011 8:33:10 PM PDT by reaganaut (Ex-Mormon, now Christian - "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; FromTheSidelines

Sir, you may want to take a look at FromTheSidelines page.

Quote:

What’s the point... FR is clearly run by an irrational group who refuse to actually read words, and will accept lies from others.

No wonder it’s no longer relevant...

http://www.freerepublic.com/~fromthesidelines/


83 posted on 07/31/2011 8:35:56 PM PDT by reaganaut (Ex-Mormon, now Christian - "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: FromTheSidelines

I tried to warn you...


84 posted on 07/31/2011 8:37:02 PM PDT by reaganaut (Ex-Mormon, now Christian - "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut
Marriage is BOTH. Two separate entities, one religious one legal.

But they are entirely different animals, are they not?

Calling the legalistic, bureaucratic bond "marriage" is putting a relgious term at the mercy of temporal whim.

If this licensed affair were tied to the religious, then we wouldn't have to deal with its perversion into "gay" marriage. TRUE "MARRIAGE" IS MAN AND WOMAN, no matter what your legal definition says.

85 posted on 07/31/2011 8:37:42 PM PDT by Gondring (Going d'Anconia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut
You want to go back to before there were written laws? Marriage laws have been on the books since Ancient History.

Thank you for your rational replies. You make good points, and I don't want to get caught up in the semantics.

"'Marriage laws' on the books since Ancient History" imply laws that are divorced from religion. I agree that there's a legalistic "marriage" in addition to the religious one. And in history, there have been "perverted" versions of "marriage" allowed, haven't there? Many of your "legal" marriages have included polygamy.

I'm suggesting that if we choose to have the government involved in bonds between people, for whatever reason, we shouldn't pervert "marriage" to do it.

86 posted on 07/31/2011 8:42:01 PM PDT by Gondring (Going d'Anconia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Gondring; Flycatcher

If this licensed affair were tied to the religious, then we wouldn’t have to deal with its perversion into “gay” marriage.

- - - -
Logical fallacy. They have different origins and serve different purposes, getting rid of legal marriage won’t ‘give’ it back to the Church, since it never took it ‘away’ from the Church. It will only serve to promote gays and polygamists and further lead to the degradation of society.

And we should keep marriage between a man and a woman -LEGALLY. If we do away with legal marriage then the gays have won.


87 posted on 07/31/2011 8:42:49 PM PDT by reaganaut (Ex-Mormon, now Christian - "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: FromTheSidelines; Jim Robinson
On FromTheSidelines' profile page, and considering his signup date is a few days ago, he's probably been here before with another name:

What’s the point... FR is clearly run by an irrational group who refuse to actually read words, and will accept lies from others.

No wonder it’s no longer relevant...

88 posted on 07/31/2011 8:42:54 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut
Ha ha!

He'll be zotted, but I'm sure he'll be back under a new handle.

Sad thing is, he was actually kind of likable...

89 posted on 07/31/2011 8:43:02 PM PDT by Flycatcher (God speaks to us, through the supernal lightness of birds, in a special type of poetry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: FromTheSidelines; Jim Robinson
On FromTheSidelines' profile page, and considering his signup date is a few days ago, he's probably been here before with another name:

What’s the point... FR is clearly run by an irrational group who refuse to actually read words, and will accept lies from others.

No wonder it’s no longer relevant...

Ooops, now it's correct.

90 posted on 07/31/2011 8:43:31 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; darkwing104; 50mm

I’m smelling ozone

http://www.freerepublic.com/~fromthesidelines/


91 posted on 07/31/2011 8:44:00 PM PDT by reaganaut (Ex-Mormon, now Christian - "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Flycatcher; Godzilla

He started right in calling me names and attacking me. I’m not gonna miss him.


92 posted on 07/31/2011 8:44:50 PM PDT by reaganaut (Ex-Mormon, now Christian - "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Andy'smom
No, Romney was NOT for gay marriage.

Yeah Riiigggghhtttt... by their fruits you shall know them. Judge rightly.

93 posted on 07/31/2011 8:51:51 PM PDT by LowOiL ("Abomination" sure sounds like "ObamaNation" to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut
Notice his tagline. I'm sure it's an irony lost upon him that Plato was history's most elitist, statist homosexual.

Or maybe he knew that.

94 posted on 07/31/2011 8:53:59 PM PDT by Flycatcher (God speaks to us, through the supernal lightness of birds, in a special type of poetry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

“’Marriage laws’ on the books since Ancient History” imply laws that are divorced from religion.

- - - - -
Actually, the opposite is true. In ancient civilizations laws were given by God (or the gods) and a means of enforcement of His (or their) laws. Alan Deshowitz (as much as I hate him) argued that the Decalogue was the first written legal code, which while not exactly correct, does give a good example of laws coming from the Divine.

Western Civilization from the time of the Greeks have abhorred polygamy. In modern history, the Republican party was founded to combat the ‘twin relics’ of barbarism - slavery and polygamy. The Mormon church (and later breakoffs) are the ones that have argued that religious or spiritual marriage can and should be divorced from the legal entity of marriage.


95 posted on 07/31/2011 8:59:39 PM PDT by reaganaut (Ex-Mormon, now Christian - "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Flycatcher

It really bugs me when people improperly use historical quotes. Sorry, occupational hazard.


96 posted on 07/31/2011 9:01:48 PM PDT by reaganaut (Ex-Mormon, now Christian - "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
I can buy that. The point however, is that at NO time was homosexual unions ever given legal status. Even in societies that tolerated the activity to some extent, it was never legally accepted as the equal of marriage.

Would you agree with that?

97 posted on 07/31/2011 9:37:30 PM PDT by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town; Colofornian

Even in societies that tolerated the activity to some extent, it was never legally accepted as the equal of marriage.

- - - - -
That is because it wasn’t considered in the same way as we think of it today. It was more of a dominance thing in Ancient culture (esp Greco-Roman), there were rules that determined if you were a ‘giver’ or ‘receiver’, and tolerance depended upon class of the participants and wealth depending upon time and region.

The Roman Emperor scandalized and horrified Roman society by creating statues of his sex slave, Antinous. Neither the Greeks, nor the Romans, nor the Egyptians, etc tolerated polygamy and considered the practice barbaric.

Polygamy was more often practiced in areas such as Africa and Asia where there was no tolerance of homosexuality.


98 posted on 07/31/2011 9:53:39 PM PDT by reaganaut ( "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: FromTheSidelines

So because I believe Government should keep its nose out of the sacrament of marriage
_________________________________________________

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Thats one big reason the polygamous Mormons ran from state to state...

They were looking for a place they could where the US government couldnt get on their case for their extra “marriages”

There have always been laws in the US against bigamy..

It was called unlawful cohabitation and was a jailable offence..

They finally decided to go to (Mexico) Utah Teritory out of the reach of the long arm of the American law...

If they had just had one wife and obeyed the law they could have settled down and lived peacefully

The ones who stayed in MO and lived decent lives have descendants living there yet...

The Mormons regarded their polygamy as “sacred”


99 posted on 07/31/2011 11:48:57 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

This is all so blatantly discriminatory; when are we going to see the wives of diplomats, said wives being goats and sheep, invited to White House functions?


100 posted on 08/01/2011 3:24:41 AM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-113 next last

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