Oct 26 2006
Democrat Plans For Marriage
Some New Jersey judges may have done the country a favor and remind everyone what the Democrats have in mind for this country. Beyond surrendering Iraq to Al Qaeda, providing real amnesty to illegal aliens (to me, paying back taxes is a serious and deserving punishment for illegal entry and work – I dare anyone to try and pay twice their annual taxes in any year and still keep financially afloat), raising taxes across the board, etc… the dems plan to take the concept of marriage and family and reduce it to something having to do with long term sexual partners. Picture those artists renditions of families around the Christmas tree being replaced with same sex fun with mistle-toe around the tree.
I am not against same sex unions or gays at all. But long term partners is not the same thing as having and raising kids, which was the commitment that the marriage contract was originally meant to represent. The entire concept of providing special tax rates and benefits was done not to applaud having sex with the same person over many years, they were put in place to help support the families with kids who bear the burden of raising the next generation of great Americans. The fact that people who live together think they deserve access to these benefits we as a nation set up for those raising kids is telling.
This issue is tough and emotional and rife with over reaction. But the gays do deserve basic rights like visitation in hospitals, etc. So instead of fighting to steal the image of the family and marriage, they should be focused on getting the respect everyone is due through same sex union laws. Either way, the fact another unelected judge or two have imposed their views on this nation is going to get a lot of conservatives into the voting booth as we figure out what the Democrat plan is for American marriages. They plan to replace it with something totally different.
So instead of fighting to steal the image of the family and marriage, they should be focused on getting the respect everyone is due through same sex union laws.
Maybe someone can come on here and correct me, AJ, but I don’t believe it has anything to do with respect. It’s equality that the activist homosexual community wants, and they can’t get that with civil unions. (and I’m not referring to equality under the law — I’m all for that for anyone and everyone.)
I try to be fair. I listen to their arguments. I attempt to get the long view. It hasn’t changed my mind. Marriage is one-man-one-woman.
My wife works in the floral industry. Needless to say many of our friends and aquaintences are living alternate lifestyles. We don’t care. Doesn’t make me want to throw em into camps or try to re-educate them. It is their insistance that the alternate-family is as functional and fundamental as the traditional family is a fairy-tail(no pun intended) they have been TOLD to believe in. They have fallen for it hook-line-and-sinker.
MOST, not all, live a lifestyle that no child should be exposed to. If adults want to act like that, fine, but it has no place in the upbringing of a child.
I don’t know if it is biological or choice. It doesn’t matter. What matters is that the social-roots/benefits of the traditional family far outweighs what-ever wrong they feel.
The second part of this discussion is the language that traditionally describes the union between one man and one woman. In this union when a child is born that child has a mother and a father. Not parent 1 and parent 2. That child may have brothers and sisters, not siblings. The child has Grandma’s and Grandpa’s, not simply grandparents. The child has aunts and uncles not…….? In order to have neutral gender marriages the next step in all text books is to have neutral general language to describe those family relationships so as not to hurt anybody feelings. Our progressive thinkers soon will have a gender neutral, religion free, healthy only, wanted only, society where nobodies feelings are hurt. Holy cow it is easy to see where this is going. I say it is possible to do anything however some things we should not do.
I agree with your comments. Found out about it on The View this morning. Rosie could hardly contain herself. I do not watch this program, but I have an 18-year old daughter learning about the difference between conservative and liberal, and class and disgusting. We both applaud Elizabeth for her strength and intelligence.
I would like to also inform you of an organization fighting for families. I also received an email from them this morning about the news. You can go to their website and sign up for email updates. It is: http://www.familyleader.net. I will also inform them of your blog.
Also, thanks for educating us on stem cell research. It was simple and easy for any one to understand.
AJ–
Sorry to be off-topic, but Vice President Cheney talked about the waterboarding issue. The media who reported it never mentioned that he is worried about a nuclear attack. They just said things like waterboarding was used by the Inquisition, etc.
I wrote about it here and have several good links.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2006/10/vice-president-cheney-on-waterboarding.html
Well, Strata, by injecting Iraq into a post about homosexuals (and capitulating to the use of “gay” where we straights used to freely use…
the “q” word) you again expose a double-edged sword as to why America is so hopelessly and vertiginously decadent.
Leaving alone the myth you continue to expound about al Qaeda’s
power in Iraq, you simultanously demonstrate why Iraqis would sooner turn to the caliphate-resurrectors than to America to
influence its body politic. America is too liberal to suit the
Moslem world.
Rather than allow even “gay unions” a healthy government
would shut down any public institution found conducting one.
Limerick’s floral shop acquantainces example should be the
limit…”don’t ask, merely suspect,” in other words, keep it in the
closet and we won’t come after you.
What no one is realizing is that gays already have the same right to marry as straights. One man-one woman. No one is preventing gays from marrying. But our laws of marriage are designed around the concept of children. What the gay lobby is asking for is not equal rights, but special rights. Not the right to marry, but the right to marry anyone of their choice. OK, so we give gays the right to marry anyone of their choice; do we then give equality in marriage laws and allow anyone to marry anyone else OF THEIR CHOICE? Do we then say that a woman can marry her nephew, if he is of age, or her son? Or a man can marry his first cousin, neice, daughter or biological aunt who is of legal age just because that woman is OF HIS CHOICE?
Retire05 hits the salient point – gays already have the right to marry (someone of the opposite sex); what they insist on is special rights. These lefty, activist court rulings do have an effect on traditional marriage becomes it cheapens what real marriage is about. Marriage and family is hard enough with the coarseness and sexualization in today’s society. In addition to the loopy hollywood set, now we have to contend with these wayward courts imposing their lefty, elitist and minority views. Our kids are exposed to this, and it gets harder and harder to maintain traditional values when they get bombarded from all angles (TV, movies, newpapers, books, schools, ) with this garbage.
Words used to have meaning and still should. (“Role models” like Clinton — “it depends on what the meaning of “is” is — perfected the art of parsing and how to twist things inside out.) Marriage is a union of one man and one woman, period.
I have two points, well three:
First, I am new to this blog but I am so far enjoying what I read.
Second, where did Ken come from? His post here sounds more like a Tim McVeigh follower then the loony lib I thought he was. Ken sounds like he is intelligent but I question his wisdom and his judgment.
Third, now back to this thread. I agree with most of the points made here but there has been an underlying problem that drives the issue. For years Americans have degraded marriage. The divorce rate is astronomical. It is no wonder the gay community has an incorrect understanding of marriage. Most of Americans do. We let it slip from our hands and now they are trying to catch it. Sex is touted as a recreation. Our kids see it that way and feel they have a right to it. The loony libs see it that way and want open social sex at all ages and all sexes. Orgies in the street are their goals. All because we true American failed to be more committed and determined. Marriage is not some simple thing one does. It is a permanent structure not based on love but based on a common goal. It has a purpose other than the result of finding the love of your life. Just because you are in love does not mean marriage is the next step.
If we want to protect marriage then we most do so by taking back ALL of what marriage is and putting sex back in its place.
Sorry there but a little rant slipped in.
M1J….as far as I can tell he is a LePen, French National Front, party type……neo-nazi……racial purity……all that nonsense……he is here to pull our chain, nothing more
Limerick would do Strata’s audience better if he admonished him on his approval of gay unions rather than “explain” what I represent.
After all, it is this kind of decadence which the Moslem world has just contempt for, a decadence which now can seemingly be okayed by American “conservatives.”
MIJ, I have said nothing liberal on this site in my brief time
on it. And look to your poltical soul as to why you find my comments
on this post more objectionable than Strata’s affirmation of
gay unions.
m1j; Limerick was correct in his descriptions of Ken. If you already knew that Ken is an American Hating Frenchman then his remarks would not surprise you.
Let me correct one thing Ken said, he said:”MIJ, I have said nothing liberal on this site in my brief time on it.”
He meant to say:” MIJ, I have said nothing BUT liberal DRIVEL on this site in my brief time on it.”
M1j , hope that helps you understand Ken, beware of him in his future comments.
Gay Marriage Merry-go-Round…
I find this so amusing because I am simply waiting for the liberal conspiracy theorists to say that the New Jersey courts are working in cohorts with the Republican party by coming down with this decision at election time.
Anyone want to take bets o…
For Enforcement mistakes opposition to the Iraq War as
cowardice when it is wisdom. He also mistakes blind obedience to the GOP hierarchy’s neocons’ desire to have America protect
Israel for conservatism. He believes whatever is good for
the American oiligarchy’s windfall profits must be good for
America writ large. And how he hates the French-Right and Left- for being unwilling to sacrifice their youth on the suicidal altar of
US foreign policy.
Ken, buddy, simply put, you ain’t got a clue.
Ken,
you’re funny — France is so wise on foreign policy … while the country is being torn assunder by isolated & poor Muslim immigrants and socialist policies … their moral compass is broken (if there ever was one) … they can’t appease their way out of every conflict. At some point, you have to take a stand, or surrender.
Hey Ken
When you quote Noam word for word you’re supposed to give him credit, otherwise it is plagiarism.
Wiley-
“you can’t appease your way out of every conflict”
Boy are you goingto be shocked when insurgents ,including those who have killed American troops, are given amnesty by the new Iraqi government. And the US government will appeasingly acquiesce,
overtly or covertly.
Take France’s ten largest cities against America’s. Care to bet
which have the higher violent crime rate? Is Los Angeles’ Hispanic
problem, Denver’s, etc. such that yahoos on this site can point a finger at France?
France’s anti-Iraq War policy has nothing to do with appeasement,
only with prioritizing French interests in foreign policy.
Yeah, French interests include being involved the corrupt UN Oil for Food scandal and pulling the rug out from under their allies after promising aid. Where are all the French soldiers promised to Lebanon? They care so much for Lebanon and world peace. Hogwash, they only care for French interests. The whole Euro fiasco was to try to make France as strong as the US. They got the other European countries on board with promises they could not keep. They cannot even get their charter ratified by all the countries even their own. The French are out for the French and no one else ever. It is in our best interests to never forget that.
The US had all the phones tapped of UN representatives involved with the pre-war Iraq drive and Scott Ritter showed the US was using UN inspections illegally to spy on Iraq.
The US “cares so much for Lebanon and world peace” it refused to halt Israel’s barbarism there. Ask the Lebanese, even the Maronites many of whom were driven into Hezbollah’s arms by US sanction of
Israel’s attack, and financing thereof.