Skip to comments.No, Mr. President, Same-sex Couples Cannot Marry
Posted on 05/16/2012 12:49:29 PM PDT by Paladins Prayer
In case youre wondering, Im using the word cannot properly in the above title. No, I dont mean same-sex couples should not marry rather, they arent capable of doing so. What am I talking about?
Barack Obamas 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 doesnt exist.
This isnt 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 were fighting! some will now say.
Actually, no, it isnt.
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 ...
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 “
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.