Freedom To Marry

[abuck76]

Please go on-line and pledge with me..............Let people in love enjoy marriage.......... :12224

https://freedomohio.com/pledge

[dazed&confused]

From Kathleen Parker- Conservative Columnist
From I Don't to I Do
Jan 30, 2013

by Kathleen Parker

WASHINGTON -- More than perhaps anyone else in America, David Blankenhorn personifies the struggle so many have experienced over same-sex marriage.

First he was agnostic, then he was against it, now he's for it.

This is to say that Blankenhorn -- a long-standing opponent of same-sex marriage -- has shifted his energies to saving the institution of marriage, regardless of whom one chooses as a mate.

If you're unfamiliar with Blankenhorn, it is because he hasn't been barking his positions on television the way so many ideologues do. And this may be because he is not strictly an ideologue but one of those rare people who agonize in search of the right thing.

As creator of the Institute for American Values, Blankenhorn initially sought to avoid the gay marriage issue altogether because it was so divisive -- and because opposition necessarily meant hurting friends and often, family. Eventually, he wrote a book against same-sex marriage and testified against it as California's Proposition 8 was challenged in court.

Then, last summer he changed his mind.

Tuesday, Blankenhorn and more than 70 diverse signatories released a letter urging Americans to end the gay-marriage war and change the question from "Should gays marry?" to "How can we save marriage?"

Joining Blankenhorn are scholars, law professors, theologians and journalists, notably his former arch-rival Jonathan Rauch. Whether one is straight or gay, they say, the challenge is to figure out how to strengthen marriage for the broader benefit to society.

Blankenhorn's journey through the marriage minefield parallels that of many Americans who, though they held no animosity toward gays, weren't sure that changing the institution of marriage was in the best interest of society.

Like Blankenhorn, my greatest concern has been the effect on our nation's children. The operative questions, posed so well by traditional marriage warrior Maggie Gallagher, were: Do we want to codify the notion that one parent, either the mother or father, is dispensable? And, what effect might this have?

We have witnessed the fallout from broken families in the past several decades, during which divorce and out-of-wedlock births have skyrocketed. These trends have been wrought not by expanding the definition of marriage but by a general lowering of respect for the institution. Blankenhorn's group suggests that given Americans' evolving acceptance of same-sex marriage, we should refocus our energies on a goal that transcends sexual orientation.

His group's focus is on the disintegration of marriage in the middle and lower classes, which, they say, is creating a new underclass of inequality. As it happens, well-educated people tend to stay married in greater numbers, while the less educated -- high school and no college -- are becoming a subculture of economically depressed, single-parent families. Studies no longer need to be cited to convince us of what we know: Children from such homes have a lousy shot at the pursuit of happiness.

Blankenhorn still believes, as do most Americans, that a child benefits most from a loving mother and father committed in marriage. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child even has designated this arrangement as a right. "Marriage," Blankenhorn has written, "is a gift that society bestows on its children."

But this gift has been badly damaged or, too often these days, withheld. Moreover, many same-sex couples today also have children. It is simply not possible to justify offering societal protections to only certain children. As Blankenhorn has recognized, it is in everyone's best interest that all children in all families have the security of parents committed through marriage with all its attendant rights and responsibilities.

In an op-ed last summer, Blankenhorn expanded on his vision:

"Once we accept gay marriage, might we also agree that marrying before having children is a vital cultural value that all of us should do more to embrace?" he asked. "Can we agree that, for all lovers who want their love to last, marriage is preferable to cohabitation?

"Can we discuss whether both gays and straight people should think twice before denying children born through artificial reproductive technology the right to know and be known by their biological parents?"

Now there's a feast for thought.

Blankenhorn's personal transformation has resulted in a welcome shift in the public debate. How clever of him to recognize that his allies in strengthening marriage are the very people who for so long have been excluded.

========

Kathleen Parker's email address is kathleenparker@washpost.com.

Copyright 2013 Washington Post Writers Group


Read more at http://www.arcamax.com/politics/kathlee ... 7OgxCqh.99

[kantuckyII]

Two people of the same sex cannot be married, it's impossible

[abuck76]

Well, tuck once again you are wrong......It is possible in Maine and New Hampshire and Mass. and Connecticutt and Maryland and Washington D.C. and Iowa and Washington State....Well how about that?...Now if you click your heels together, but you must have your ruby slippers on to get this to work, that will send you to Kansas where they do not allow two people who love each other get married.... ........But it is possible......... ............. :12224 .

[Kentucky Trojan]

Parker is a liberal.

Go save the whales.

Hunkered down in Kentucky.

Waiting for the Revolution.

[kantuckyII]

They're not married, it's impossible for two people, of the same sex, to be married.

[abuck76]

In your head, along with other antiquated beliefs, they can not.....But in reality, they are........And it is legal.....That is great!!!.........And ky, your poem is disturbing.......... :12224

[mikepike]

Please go on-line and pledge with me..............Let people in love enjoy marriage.......... :12224

https://freedomohio.com/pledge

Nope.

[abuck76]

That is o.k......Maybe you are on a diet... ........ :12224

[Kentucky Trojan]

And ky, your poem is disturbing.......... :12224

These lifestyles have happened before in the history of man and every time before it has spelled the end of that civilization.

[tarheels18]

And ky, your poem is disturbing.......... :12224

These lifestyles have happened before in the history of man and every time before it has spelled the end of that civilization.

Have any evidence to back that up?

[Kentucky Trojan]

And ky, your poem is disturbing.......... :12224

These lifestyles have happened before in the history of man and every time before it has spelled the end of that civilization.

Have any evidence to back that up?

Read your history books.

[tarheels18]

You seem to be a pretty smart person, you can't provide some examples?

[Kentucky Trojan]

You seem to be a pretty smart person, you can't provide some examples?

Be a good lad and go read your history of the world...

[mikepike]

God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, one of the reasons was the rampant homosexuality.

[mikepike]

People can eat what they want. People can do what they want. But don't expect me to support something that I think is wrong. You, abuck, stand for what you believe in, I'll stand for what I believe in. I suggest you get off of the couch next Sunday, put aside your self-developed version of Christianity, and attend a local church.

[dazed&confused]

You seem to be a pretty smart person, you can't provide some examples?

Be a good lad and go read your history of the world...

No, we are ignorant, enlighten us with your infinite wisdom.

[dazed&confused]

God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, one of the reasons was the rampant homosexuality.

Mike, that is a religious story. Believable if you have faith, fairy tale if you do not. I am on the skeptical side.

[NYBuckeye96]

People can eat what they want. People can do what they want. But don't expect me to support something that I think is wrong. You, abuck, stand for what you believe in, I'll stand for what I believe in. I suggest you get off of the couch next Sunday, put aside your self-developed version of Christianity, and attend a local church.

There are churches that are not anti-gay. There are churches that welcome gay clergy. abuck could very well attend a church that has the same views as he does on this subject.

[kantuckyII]

God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, one of the reasons was the rampant homosexuality.

Mike, that is a religious story. Believable if you have faith, fairy tale if you do not. I am on the skeptical side.

Here's a few good examples of the Bible's historical accuracy

Over the years there have been many criticisms leveled against the Bible concerning its historical reliability. These criticisms are usually based on a lack of evidence from outside sources to confirm the Biblical record. Since the Bible is a religious book, many scholars take the position that it is biased and cannot be trusted unless we have corroborating evidence from extra-Biblical sources. In other words, the Bible is guilty until proven innocent, and a lack of outside evidence places the Biblical account in doubt.

This standard is far different from that applied to other ancient documents, even though many, if not most, have a religious element. They are considered to be accurate, unless there is evidence to show that they are not. Although it is not possible to verify every incident in the Bible, the discoveries of archaeology since the mid-1800s have demonstrated the reliability and plausibility of the Bible narrative.

Here are some examples:

*The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name “Canaan” was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word tehom (“the deep”) in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. “Tehom” was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.

*The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey.

*Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon's wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and Solomon's prosperity was entirely feasible.
It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.

*Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel “third highest ruler in the kingdom” (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the “eye-witness” nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology.