Posted on 11/22/2003 11:16:24 AM PST by jethropalerobber
you may be interested in this recent post of mine from another thread...
........................................................................................................................
some months ago another anti-gay poster repeated the "gay unions only last 1.5 years" talking point and i challenged him on it.
here is the link he produced to justify his claim: http://dynamic.washtimes.com/print_story.cfm?StoryID=20030711-121254-3711r
the only problem is that the study upon which this slander was based was not a study of gay unions in vermont, or gay unions in ontario, or any other set of gay unions. in fact, it was not even a study of unmarried gay relationships in the US, or say Canada. it was actually a study of only young, unmarried, male homosexuals in amsterdam.
btw, gay marriage is legal in the amsterdam (netherlands). just how dishonest is it to use a study of unmarried gays (from a country where marriage is an option) to try to convince people how long gay unions last?
on top of that, how much more dishonest is it to use not just an unmarried sample, but one which is taken exclusively from young males living in one of the most hedonistic cities in the world?
i agree. but are you aware that many gay people are in fact fertile and do bear and raise children with their partners?
IMO, the homosexual lobby is seeking "marriage" because theirs is the only sexual sin which has not yet been approved/allowed by our society. Long ago, Americans accepted adultery and promiscuity as "no big deal," when, in fact, God calls both of them sin.
IMO, the move for homosexual marriage is just the logical last step in making all sexual sins equal.
Instead of approving and accepting homosexual "marriage," we should return to the Biblical definition of acceptable sexual relations, namely one man and one wife for life. In God's eyes, anything else is wrong, whether we like it or not.
i would not try to defend the indefensible.
you can always pull out a few fringe players from decades ago to try to scare people. but the activist groups (HRC, lambda legal, ACLU) that have broad support from today's gay community (as their fundraising records attest to) are not promoting any of the indefensible nonesense you are keen to raise.
the "agenda" of every gay person i've ever talked to is remarkably similar: to gain equal protection under the law.
no they don't but they are getting closer.
They can marry a member of the opposite sex same as anyone else.
and blacks used to be free to marry only a member of their same race just like anyone else. no problem there. and i assume you would have no problem if the law were reversed so that only gay unions were legally sanctioned, because you'd be just as free to marry someone of the same sex as the next guy. and if you find you just can't kick the "habit" of being attracted to women, all those legal forms are only $200 (btw, my marriage license cost me $40 and it only took 5 minutes).
the judges in mass did not set themselves above the law, they simply interpreted the mass constitution. reasonable people can and will disagree over the correctness of their interpretation, but it is only the court's opinion which our system of government is bound to respect.
btw, people should really be more careful when they write all this flowery language about equality and stuff into their state constitutions. sooner or later, some "leftist" judges (majority republican-appointed in this case) are going to come along and actually hold you to it. :^)
You only have three possibilities:
1) Outlaw homosexual behavior, and throw them all in jail;
2) Gays and lesbians forming temporary relationships, lasting from a weekend, to several years, with immediate breakup a distinct possibility;
3) Gays and lesbians having an opportunity to form relationships that involve committment and fidelity, that can only be broken after some cooling off period.
Some here would argue that alternative #1 is the best way, but after last summer's Lawrence vs. Texas, that ship has sailed. That pretty much leaves #2, the status quo outside of Vermont, and #3, which can be accomplished either by gay marriage and its attendant court fights under the "full faith and credit" provisions of the Constitution, or civil unions, which limit recognition of gay relationships only to those states where it is politically popular. No state without a civil union statute has to recognize a civil union status from another state.
I assume Mitt Romney is intelligent enough to figure out that this is his only alternative, at this late stage in the game.
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.