Just type the keys, it ain't hard. What are you so afraid of?
Posted on 12/23/2004 7:40:45 AM PST by Ernie.cal
I have read many messages which object to same-sex marriage but I am still waiting to learn what specific adverse consequences opponents of gay marriage anticipate to result from its legalization.
In other words, suppose same-sex marriage becomes law during 2005. By 2010 or 2015 what specific indisputable adverse consequences to society do opponents predict to occur?
With respect to those critics of same-sex marriage who refer to "God's law" and "procreation" --- do they believe that heterosexual couples who cannot have children, or who do not wish to have children, should also NOT be allowed to marry?
The essence of a free society is choice---including the option of choosing private behavior that does not cause harm to another person. The alternative is coercion, i.e. using the coercive (and punitive) power of government through laws, bureaucrats, and police to dictate what choices are permissible.
Do opponents of same-sex marriage propose that our society should begin identifying areas where choices involving human intimacy should be regulated by government entities and thus dilute our commitment to the values inherent in a free society?
Marriage has been torn apart for decades in the US. So now we're trying to get people who love each other, want a monogamous relationship for life, to stop. It will be good for them, good for public health and good for society, but we can't have that donchano. It would be ironic if it wasn't so ridiculous.
I cited several professional associations that denounced Cameron
You cited three, the first of which is only pushed and cited by Pietrzyk. Why? Because Pietrzyk is a homosexual activist.
The problem for Pietryzk and anyone pushing this lie is this: It's rather difficult for Cameron to be dropped from the APA when he had resigned, in good standing, 13 months earlier. Can you provide any credible reason why the APA would drop Dr. Cameron when he wasn't even a member and hadn't been for 13 months? I can. Politics and the politically correct crowd. If you want to get your information from that type of thinking, have at it.
Your response is to post a self-serving message by Cameron himself.
Dr. Cameron cites letters dated to and from the APA detailing
Your second and third professional organizations all refer to the same discredited information. Dr. Cameron was cleared of all complaints and resigned in good standing. You have to deal with the facts, not politically motivated professional organizations.
One of his more celebrated articles about the average life expectancy of gay men is quite illustrative of the poor quality of his research.
More Barbara Streisand. You didn't read that link I gave you, at least not in its entirely:
Response: Our methodology was good enough for the Eastern Psychological Assn convention in 1993. Dr. Charles Smith of SUNY at Buffalo, chair of the session, publicly commended our novel approach and said he was going to warn the gays at his institution about the hazards of their ways. Further, it was good enough for the refereed scientific journal Omega in 1994, a journal specifically devoted to studies of death and dying.There's more (read the link) but I'm trying to keep this short. Dr. Cameron's research also coincided with Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men. You better not be serious if you're saying at the time of Dr. Cameron's research that homosexuals were living normal lifespans. Before the advent of drug cocktails that help extend the life of homosexuals, Dr. Cameron's research was very accurate. But don't let the facts get in your way.
Even a respected Christian conservative like William Bennett dissociated himself from his previous use of Cameron's data after Bennett checked into Cameron's background.
Other than Pietrzyk, who is your source for that statement? If you're wondering, the statement about former surgeon general Koop also comes from Pietryzk. So don't post it.
In summary, everything you've posted stems from a politically motivated attack from politically correct professional organizations. This is a family friendly website that pushes conservatism, not lies. I very much encourage you not to post this information again.
In pushing this crap he reminds me of tdadams, who lied one too many times.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1307290/posts?page=481#481
troll on troll post
Thanks for the heads up. Here's what he said the last time he left (on his own, he wasn't banned)
I am now posting on Liberty Forum as bigsigh, which is my original FR name. I asked the owner of FR to close the bigsigh and breakem accounts. He probably hasn't done it just because I asked him to.While I feel for somebody who has gone through some of this stuff, some things don't add up.I have a real hatred for the owner because he treated me and my family like crap. Additionally, he banned me 6 times. Four of the times I believe were wrongful. He disrespected my daughter and my neice and he allowed other posters to disrespect war dead in my family. Recently he upheld my ban for exposing a hypocrite, little jeremiah, by asking simple questions which exposed him. So I told JR to go [deleted] himself.
I should have left long ago, but I was addicted. The site helped me through a bypass in which the doctor told my wife that I wasn't expected to survive. So my participation here had great significance to me.
I would say thanks to many of you who e-mailed me and agree with me, but just can't leave. I understand, but let me tell you, it feels better to leave. The site is just a big zotfest, republican party ad where folks who don't toe the line are banned as they sign-up. This was not what I came and stayed here for. And thanx to many of you for the engaging exchanges.
So long and best wishes. bigsigh (breakem)
I'm going to say this once and leave the thread. You said this guy lied because he posted false info. You have been confronted several times about using false and disproven information, but you weaseled around and attacked the person who pointed it out. You acted stupid instead of admitting your error.
You have no moral high ground to post this crap and attack others as trolls. Many people here know what you're up to but they are too tired of your crap to confront you.
You're not even honest enough to ask why I'm here. Instead you posted old comments which the owner himself decided not to delete. You're too cowardly to talk to me directly instead you talk about me behind my back.
That's my say. I'm out.
No amount of explanation is going to satisfy, Ernie. He has his mind made up, and sees nothing wrong with same-sex marriages. The question is, why do gays need to get married? They enjoy the same rights and freedoms as any other citizen, and they already live together with their lovers doing what they want to do. However, they aren't happy with that, they need to rub their behavior in our faces. They find pleasure destroying all that is sacred – marriage.
Even though I'm some what of a newbie, I've noticed several posters like Ernie. They just want to debate or pound their heads against the wall. They complain when people don't agree and say we're not fair. But I know that I chose Free Republic because of what it represents, not so I could change it.
It's like people who complain about how their church won't accept their personal view points. They try to change the church instead of finding another one that reflects their beliefs. Perhaps they get some enjoyment out of it.
The rest of your post is typical of you. And if you have any proof to support your statements, please do so.
You're too cowardly to talk to me directly instead you talk about me behind my back.
I'm doing no such thing. But because my time is valuable I have some standards for who and how long I'll engage some folks.
That's my say. I'm out.
I guess there's a first time for everything.
I agree. I wasn't sure at first but then quickly realized he wasn't interested in anything other than pushing his agenda.
The tens of thousands of former homosexuals would very much disagree with most everything he's said.
I totally agree.
It's to make the point that if there is nothing special about a marriage being one man and one woman, then there is no rational basis for limiting marriage to only any two persons.
What's so darn special or sacred about the number two, once the traditional definition of marriage has been smashed?
Please explain how you can redefine marriage as two men or two women, and then hold the line there, and not go beyond the number two in forming the new definition of marriage.
If two men and a woman love each other and want to be united in marriage forever, would you forbid them that "right?"
Why? On what basis?
Yep, that's true. That's always next on the homo chickenhawk agenda, dropping the age of consent lower and lower, to allow them to recruit and seduce confused children into the homosexual death-style.
The vast majority of homosexuals, when answering honestly, will tell you that they "discovered their true sexual identity" at the hands of an older homosexual man.
Homos can't reproduce, they can only recruit. Children.
Just type the keys, it ain't hard. What are you so afraid of?
I agree 100%. {Note my reply #134} But when someone has an agenda there is no debating them.
The Euro countries condoning homo marriage are govts. and cultures structured differently from the US, but with the help of our academic and media "elite", we are catching up. In every place condoning this lifestyle the following have occurred and are occuring:
1. A breakdown of marriage--i.e. more people not seeing the necessity of marrying while having children--plus a higher rate of divorce.
2. A push for the acceptance of the whole "gay" agenda as just another okay lifestyle.
3. An infringement on free speech, as those with religious convictions against homosexuality are condemned as intolerant, while intolerance of religious expression is okay and not intolerant.
4. A lowering of sexual mores and a corresponding rise in sexual diseases.
5. A rise in numbers of sexual predators and the stealing of innocence from young children.
6. As the nuclear family deteriorates, a rise in the numbers of isolated and developmentally damaged children and teens.
7. More dependence on the state as provider.
8. As people become more dependant on the state, they develop an aversion to self-reliance and responsibility, and do not want to defend said state.
9. A general corruption of society, and a self-centered outlook which I call the "gimme" attitude.
10. Stop and think how far along we already are toward this outcome. Scarey, isn't it?
vaudine
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.