Posted on 05/16/2012 12:49:29 PM PDT by Paladins Prayer
In case you’re wondering, I’m using the word “cannot” properly in the above title. No, I don’t mean “same-sex couples should not marry” — rather, they aren’t capable of doing so. What am I talking about?
Barack Obama’s coming out party notwithstanding, the question in this debate should never be one of rights. It should be one of definitions. If we accept that marriage is, by definition, the union between a man and woman and nothing else, the faux-marriage-rights argument is moot.
For you cannot have a right to that which doesn’t exist.
This isn’t just semantics. If social engineers insist on pushing faux marriage, we must demand that they first attempt to redefine the institution.
“Have you gone off your rocker, Duke?! This is precisely what we’re fighting!” some will now say.
Actually, no, it isn’t.
This is because there is no widely accepted and professed alternative definition to fight. For the Left has not sought to redefine marriage.
They are “undefining” it.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
“For if you cannot say what marriage is, how can you be so sure about what it isn’t?”
Excellent article! Controlling the definition...I liked this point that was made as well...
“This is why states err when proposing laws and constitutional amendments limiting marriage to a man and woman. Instead, their measures should state, “Marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman.” Again, this isn’t just semantics. When these measures go to court and judges are left to rule on the constitutionality of limiting who may marry, they can easily rationalize that such laws violate the equal-protection clause. But if the law is framed as I suggest, this argument becomes illogical, as no one is being denied anything. After all, a homosexual certainly can — and may — marry just as anyone else may; he may form a union with a member of the opposite sex. As for heterosexuals, they cannot form a legally sanctioned union with a member of their own sex any more than anyone else can.”
I have been making that argument for years now. So, whenever the issue of gay marriage comes up, instead of arguing against it I just say that I am for it as long as polygamy is allowed also. And not only traditional polygamy but gay polygamy, bi polygamy, and incestuous polygamy. That usually shuts the discussion up quickly, and I get to be seen as incredibly tolerant. In other words, I out liberal them into silence. Its fun.
Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
“undefining it” - exactly what I’ve been saying is their goal all along.
Can they reproduce naturally? How about changing the laws of nature? Do it 'for the children'
Exactamundo! And it's not really "news" that they are trying to do this, since Andrew Sullivan and Michelangelo Signorile both gave the game away almost 20 years ago when they railed against the heteronormality of traditional marriage.
Traditional marriage underscores and brilliantly illuminates the perversity of homosexuality, and that is the burn that homosexuals are trying to make go away, by making marriage itself go away.
"Gay marriage" is not an establishment of anything, but rather a disestablishement of the institution of marriage as it has been practiced and sanctioned for over 8000 years.
Of course. Where do you think we get lawyers?
Why are you opposed to the gubmnt making those nice gay people happy?
Chris Matthews wants to know :)
Many, many years ago, I listened to a wise Biblical scholar discuss homosexuals demanding special rights. He said a big mistake people make is trying to rationally argue the merits against the homosexual position. He said we need to treat them like we would a bratty two-year old who wants something you don't want them to have. The case against homosexual is so plain and obvious there is no need to discuss it. The solution is to simply tell them, "No" and be done with it.
The democrats real objective is not to redefine ‘marriage’ or to ‘undefine’ it either. These are just means to a greater end. The democrat party seeks to redefine ‘civil rights’. They seek to make a mockery of our Constitution. The precedent here is to have a person’s behavior considered on the same level as a person’s race from a legal standpoint.
The party of the KKK seeks the power to control an issue they had lost up until today. It is amazing that they are now so close to accomplishing this.
No, Mr. President, Same-sex Couples Cannot Marry
________________________________________
Selwyn have you met Willard ???
Willie Mitty tell Selly how you did it in MASS...
new “rights” and the loss of true rights,
by twisting the language.
You can call a giraffe a “crocodile”. You can put it on a ballot, and get a majority vote that a giraffe is a crocodile. You can get court rulings that giraffes are crocodiles. You can pass legislation redefining (or undefining) “crocodile” so that giraffes are included.
None of that makes a giraffe into a crocodile.
There is no such thing as “gay marriage”. You can call gay relationships “marriage”, you can take polls, you can get votes, you can get rulings, you can pass legislation.
None of that makes it a marriage.
SnakeDoc
And it's very carefully premeditated, and lies at the core of what the Left does. Orwell was very explicit about this, and it was why he insisted on clarity in writing.
On the night before the Bolsheviks stormed the Winter Palace in 1917, the big-hat Bolsheviks (Trotsky, Lenin, Zinoviev, the whole bunch) stayed up all night. They weren't prepping the troops or reviewing their plans -- they were arguing about what to call the government ministries after the Bolsheviks took them over .... because controlling what people thought about the ministries was just about their top concern. Thought control through language control. They were already "governing" .....
Scum in action. Read, watch, and learn.
Reality bites.
Reality is not kind to leftist ideology.
True, objective, “what is”, Reality.
That’s why they deny its existance.
Oh, then we’ll just re(un)define “family”.
By extension it seems that heterosexuals would have to be extended the same “right” or else it could logically be said that heterosexuals were getting different and limited treatment under the law. Interesting. (Alternately, deny homosexuals to marry anyone of the OPPOSITE sex and then everybody is getting treated similarly)? So, once a person declares their sex, remembering that this is being based on “being born that way”, they may marry only in agreement with one definition. Heterosexuals are then allowed only to marry people of the opposite sex and Homosexuals are allowed only to marry people of the same sex. Well...this would certainly mix the argument up. I rather like it.
They’ve already gone there, sadly!
I too have done this and the response was that they got furious at me. I don’t think there is a rational argument and that infuriates them.
Make it a “left” hook : )
Acceptance of the ‘one man, one woman’ still leaves a problem.
What is the definition of a man/woman.
Genetic? Adaption? Thinking of transgenders here.
‘Deeds’ is another pseudo-religious sounding term that libs use.
Love it!!! So rational. Thanks for posting.
The government needs to be removed from marriage completely. How does government have the right to re-define an institution not of their making? So much for separation of Church and State - but we all know that concept is a one-way street.
I’d be happy with such a development. However, if the government is going to be involved, it has an obligation to institute policies that are for the betterment of society, not those that do it violence.
Having said this, removing government wouldn’t stop a sick culture from diminishing marriage. We’d still have freaks pretending to marry and the media and Hollywood acting like it was real. So this battle still would need to be fought.
Legitimate government rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked.
Leftist government does the opposite.
Somebody ping Maggie Gallagher. She’s done more to lose this battle (by accepting and using the terminology and concepts of marriage-haters) than anyone else I know of.
Chaz Bono was female at the instant of her conception, and will remain female until she dies.
Horribly mutilated female, but female nonetheless.
” His head was about to explode after Biden came out before Obama did “
LOL!!
Don’t expect depth from females. They’re about feelings, not ideas.
Careful with that. What about a man and a woman that do not want to have kids? They love each other, and enjoy sex, but take precautions (condoms, contraceptive implants, ect) and never get pregnant? In your mind, are they married?
The question regarding the institution of marriage must be viewed in the broadest scope of that institution. Specific instances should never be considered when looking at a much broader issue. What about couples who find they can’t become pregnant? Or, a woman who contracts a disease which renders her incapable of bearing children? Or, a man who becomes injured such that he can no longer produce sperm? We can play the “what if” game all day, but this only muddles the issue, rather than bringing clarity. No. The focus should be solely on the procreation aspect of maintaining the population through nature’s (and, thus, God’s) design.
Aww, poor guy.
How about a butch white woman? You can marry her “Jonathon”. His parents must have known he was gay at birth to spell his name like that.
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.