Skip to comments.Gay marriage in Iowa sign of country's regression
Posted on 04/07/2009 10:36:11 PM PDT by DesertRenegade
The recent ruling in Iowa to permit homosexual marriage should scare all Americans. This change in thinking is indeed indicative of a countrys regression. Here in New Jersey, we sometimes forget that the country is not as diverse as we may like to believe; to consider our perspective analogous is obtuse. I agree, to us, the notion of homosexuality may not be foreign, yet that does not give us license to transcend the laws and consensus of the nation. We may harbor a more affable sentiment toward homosexuals, but that is in no way representative of the nation.
The truth of the matter is a majority of Americans oppose homosexual marriage. As per a recent CBS poll, Americans Divided On Homosexual Marriage, only a third of Americans think homosexual couples should be allowed to marry. We have seemingly or conveniently overlooked the fact that, despite Iowa, Massachusetts and Connecticut, 37 states have enacted statutory Defense of Marriage Acts, and 30 states have constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage, while two more states have strong language that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. In fact, three states Arizona, California and Florida passed marriage protection legislation just in the last year.
If Iowa does become a homosexual marriage mecca, the marriage rights bestowed upon those couples hold only nominal value in most other states and federally. As maintained by the United States Defense of Marriage Act DOMA, the word marriage means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife and [n]o state shall be required to give effect to any relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of [any] other state.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailytargum.com ...
Sodom and Gomorrah
Relax, the same thing was said when the slaves were freed, women got the vote and blacks were allowed to marry whites. No, it is doubtful that the end of the world as you know it will not be determined on penis placement.
I would expect a homosexual marriage mecca to grant automatic US citizenship to foreigners.
Whatever it is, you seem to quaff it by the quart.
“slaves were freed, women got the vote and blacks were allowed to marry whites...”
None of which was a sin, rather the contrary, particularly when the slaves were freed and marriage was allowed, God’s law was being honored.
The homosexual “marriage” farce is a grievous sin.
Somehow, I do not believe that gays getting married in Iowa, Vermont or around the corner from my house is going to have a negative impact on my country or my family.
Both are strong enough to withstand a few gays that wish to be married.
Just because you call it sin (whatever that is) doesn’t make it so and even it if what you said was true, we are a democratic secular nation not a theocracy.
But society as a whole will be effected by the acceptance of homosexuality as “normal.” This goes beyond your little neighborhood.
From the beginning of time, marriage has always been between a man and a woman. It is a foundation of all societies. Allowing the perversity of homosexuality to distort the definition of marriage is not good for this country or any nation.
That’s like saying evil is good. Talk about a confused country with no foundations....this is another step in that direction for America.
Meant to say “affected” not effected.
A sin is a transgression of God’s law. Hope that helps.
We are a republic.
We are a democracy, the republic died a long time ago. I respect your right to religion but it has nothing to do with me, respect my right of no religion.
Again, my country and my marriage is strong enough to withstand gay marriage.
“We are a democracy, the republic died a long time ago.”
I disagree with that.
As to respecting your right of no religion, most of our laws are Biblical. Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not murder. I was reflecting the other day that our bankruptcy laws, where the record is wiped clean after seven years, are a reflection of Biblical law, which requires all debts to be wiped out every seven years. Inheritance law, all sorts of laws are Scripture based.
Having laws based on Biblical morality does not disrespect your right to be an atheist. As a matter of fact, were we to strike all laws that reflected Biblical morality, we’d pretty much have no laws left at all.
No, people in many states vote, only to have despots in black robes overturn their ballots... Oligarchy of the bar associations is more accurate...
I'm an atheist.
Evolution can only happen with HETEROSEXUAL relationships.
Homosexuality is a fetish. Marriage is a fetish. Religion is a fetish. Monogamy is a fetish...
You don't respect my right of no religion, why should I give a damn about your fetish?
The primary existence of marriage is the union of a man and a woman to raise children/form a family. Homosexuals suffer from an unfortunate mental disease and what children they can get their hands on are from other sources. Any bets on what those children's lives will be like?
So, what's next? The "right" to marry a dog? a Barcalounger? Freedom for paranoid schizophrenics?
You are mistaken once again I am not an atheist just someone who refuses to be associated with religion as far as your bible goes it hold no sway over me nor will I give it any space in my life, I am a free man unencumbered by the beliefs or constraints of others.
“Relax, the same thing was said when the slaves were freed, women got the vote and blacks were allowed to marry whites.”
I’ve never heard of an African-American magically changing their skin color. The comparison of ethnicity and the choice of sexual behavior are a typical liberal lie.
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.