by yukonjasper on Tue Nov 20, 2012 9:50 am
Tman eluded to it earlier. The point is that if you and your chosen religious denomination choose not to marry people of the same sex, they should have the right to do so. In the same way a religion or the government wants to perform a wedding for same sex couples it should be able to do so. The problem comes, as with many other areas covered by Politically Correct inclusionary legislation like the ADA etc., in the area of unintended consequences. The original idea seems infinitly wise and needed to protect the rights of people who need special protection. The unintended consequence comes when a same sex couple decides they want to be married in a Catholic Church, the Church refuses - which they should have the right to do - how far off is the lawsuit to force the Church to marry the couple. The non-religious group in this country doesn't understand the distinction, its bigoted, close minded and hateful. They feel that way obviously since they don't see the need to go to church or live by any specific church teachings or moral code set out by the church - probably some left the church because they were living in a way contrary to what was being taught or believed in things that was at odds with the Church, so they reject all of the specific teachings and become - Spritual or believe in God but not all that other man made stuff they preach on Sunday. So the trampling comes at the expense of those who choose to live by the teachings of the church - the Church becomes the minority opinion that gets bowled over in the court of Political Correctness. The fact that the Church going population sees Marriage as a Sacramental Union - with vows taken in the eyed of God according to the rules of that church, seems silly to someone who doesn't believe in God. The freedom of religion was guaranteed specifically because the founding fathers saw the danger of a secular society turning to an amoral relativism that would end with anarchy. Like it or not, this country was based on Christian Ideals and a stong biblical unpinning - as were most of the countries at the time. The proponents of the Marriage amendment understand the dynamic and wanted to head this off at the past. Look at Canada and wha has happened since they passed their Gay Rights legislation. It has taken over areas tha I'm sure the Citizens never expected it to.
As far as raising children and having families goes, there are many studies that show the best environment to raise children is in a man/woman marriage. That goes for single parent families, gay families, extended family raising children etc. Sorry to say it and I know there are many anecdotal stories that people can throw out there to the contrary, but the research has been done. I'll look for the studies and post them here if I get time to look. Not saying that one man and one woman raising a child automatically makes it better - maybe those two are horrible parents, just saying that the imperical evidence overwhelming shows that mental, social and emotional development for children born and raised in a "traditional" home environment score better - consistently. not my intention to know anyone out there, just saying that statistically it has been proven. I don't think it takes myuc convining when you look at the current state of society to understand that whatever we have been doing for the last 40 years hasn't been working so well.
Deo Adjuvante Non Timendum - (with the help of God there is nothing to be afraid of)
Spectamur Agendo - (We are proven by our actions)
Non Ducor, Duco - (I am not led, I lead)
NRA Life Member
)
if i recall over 5 cases of beer and 3 bottles of jameson went missing up there too... 
)
