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?
I counted 7 of these..???????
Why haven't you answered This simple Question Ernie?
Yet tens of thousands of former homosexuals exist and have a great deal to say about their former lifestyle. Maybe you should get to know some former homosexuals.
You also never responded to Travis McGee nor the many times I asked you sex and marriage between brothers, sisters, parents and their children, etc. You seem to be of the opinion that sex, any sex with consenting adults is perfectly acceptable.
You sure like to get off topic and denigrate those who disagree with you.
Thanks for the interesting exchange of ideas.
I don't consider responding to the same bogus arguments interesting, but that's just me.
Here's wishing you a Gay New Year. lol.
I hope you open your mind to the truth about homosexuality. Here's a great place to start:
Homosexuality and Genetics
Year |
Title |
Posted On FR |
|
|
|
|
| Abiding Truth | No | |
| Becoming Real | No | |
| Choice 4 Truth | No | |
| Christians No Longer Gay Living For God | No | |
| Courage | No | |
| Courage Online | No | |
| Desert Stream | No | |
| Eagles Wings Ministry | No | |
| Exodus | No | |
| Find Out | No | |
| Gay to Straight | No | |
| Help for Jewish Homosexuals That is Consistent wit | No | |
| Homosexuality and Gender | No | |
| JONAH | No | |
| Living Hope | No | |
| Living Stones Ministries | No | |
| Love Won Out | No | |
| Matthew Manning | No | |
| Narth | No | |
| National Listing of Help | No | |
| New Hope Ministries | No | |
| One By One | No | |
| Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays | No | |
| People Can Change | No | |
| Portland Fellowship | No | |
| Positive Alternatives to Homosexuality | No | |
| Realty Resources | No | |
| Regeneration Books | No | |
| Stephen Bennett Ministries | No | |
| Transforming Congregations | No | |
| Witness Ministries | No |
many of your remarks are not friendly nor indicative of someone who values other human beings
this constant need to assert your superiority over entire categories of other people
They may even initially think about some of the legitimate points you raise which are genuine concerns
Clearly the words of somebody who is doing everything he can to ignore what I've actually said.
Eventually, Bob married and had two daughters, but while married he found himself thinking homosexual thoughts and eventually entered into a 3-year homosexual relationship. About the time Bob broke off his relationshop with his homosexual partner, he noticed his ex-partner was slowing getting sick. It turns out his ex-partner had AIDS and died shortly after that. This was in the mid 1980s.
Unfortunately Bob got AIDS, too, and had to tell his wife and family how he got AIDS. Of course, and I'm sure you can imagine, this devastasted his family.
Still, they stayed together and their love for each other has grown beyond anything they've ever experienced. And Bob no longer has any homosexual thoughts.
There are many sad parts to the story, which offers insights and perspectives into the homosexual lifestyle never seen on TV or movies. The movie reminded me of our much needed compassion for homosexuals and how we have to reach them with the truth.
Bob is one of the tens of thousands of former homosexuals.
He left the homosexual lifestyle around 1990. Unfortunately, in 1990 Matthew was dignosed with AIDS, and three years later full blown AIDS. Then something amazing happened... In January of 1994 Matthew's AIDS went into a state of remission, and in December of 1994 something even more amazing happened, he was diagnosed for the first time as HIV negative and has consistently tested HIV negative since that time.
Matthew is one of the tens of thousands of former homosexuals.
Richard thought he was born gay. And the 12 years he lived the homosexual lifestyle he was 100% gay - he completely bought the lie. Now he is 100% recovered from, in his own words a "sick and twisted life."
How did Richard leave the homosexual lifestyle? He found some folks who really cared for him and he watched a video about the root causes of homosexuality. For Richard, his gender identity confusion came from a deep need for a father/son relationship.
Richard says: "There are many ex-gays like myself who would like to help."
Richard is one of the tens of thousands of former homosexuals.
Whoops - I forgot to include his last name...Richard is Richard Weller.
This thread has 600+ replies, all of Ernie.cal's Questions have been answered and all his nonsense has been thoroughly debunked. Yet he persists in badgering us with irrelevant questions.
Just for fun I looked up Ernies threads prior to this one. Seems he has been wearing his Tinfoil hat too tight. Thats why the truth has no chance at all getting to his brain. Furthermore, IMO Ernie has been educated far beyond his level of intelligence.
Look at this ...
While Ernie.cal may appear to be biased to the point he is unteachable, he provides a great opportunity for us to present the truth about homosexuality.
I clicked on your "question" link and there are three messages that appear on my screen. I presume you are referring to the Travis McGee questions?
I have not replied because I choose not respond to persons who are abusive and use vulgar or hateful language. To do so tacitly acknowledges that their ad hominem attacks are a perfectly normal, acceptable form of behavior. Furthermore, since none of you chastised Travis for his hateful, unChristian and libelous characterizations of me, I also choose not to reply to your reminders about his questions.
I have no problem discussing anything you want to ask me so long as we can do so with some minimum regard for civility and respect.
In general, to help you understand my values, let me put it this way: I will not respond to anyone whose message is presented using language that would offend my mother or father or my minister if we were sitting down for lunch at, say, a restaurant and engaging in conversation.
I realize that such a standard is impossible for people like Travis to meet---so I don't respond.
For what purpose? Maybe you should get to know some of the many thousands of men who posed as heterosexual for 10-20 years? Would that help you understand, simply at a human level, how many folks experience great pain in their lives due to denying their sexuality?
You also never responded to Travis McGee nor the many times I asked you sex and marriage between brothers, sisters, parents and their children, etc. You seem to be of the opinion that sex, any sex with consenting adults is perfectly acceptable.
See my previous message, just posted, in answer to Dirty Harry.
You sure like to get off topic and denigrate those who disagree with you.
Off-topic? Considering that I started this thread with a question that has turned into something else entirely, your comments are rather amusing! My primary interest has been to compile a list of problems which opponents predict to occur if gay marriage is legalized. At some future date, I hope to compare the list to what actually occurs.
With respect to your comment about "denigrate those who disagree with you". Is there ANY disagreement from your views that you DO NOT consider "denigrating"? Or, let's try some role reversal. In what DIFFERENT manner would YOU respond to the caustic comments revealed in many of the messages on this thread, if YOU were ME? I'm not referring to our substantive differences. I refer to the LANGUAGE employed.
Regardless of how you perceive the question in relation to who posed it, its still a very legitimate relevant question that you have yet again failed to address or provide an answer to.
The Report I compiled on the John Birch Society (you inserted the link into your message) is based upon 20+ years of research. The Report consists of dozens of quotations from FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and his senior subordinates (Assistant Directors and Section Chiefs within the Domestic Intelligence Division of the FBI) on whole range of topics. Since I posted the edition you refer to in your message, the Report has been revised and expanded to 35-pages.
I don't think you will have much luck trying to refute what is contained in that Report---if that is now also on your radar screen for attacking.
You are correct and I gave my reasons for why I will not answer.
However, I will say this: on EVERY controversial issue there is a natural human tendency to concentrate on the most extreme examples or hypothetical situations. Sometimes this is done merely to heap scorn and abuse on one side or the other. Other times, the extreme example is used to sharpen the focus on whatever issue is under scrutiny.
As I have mentioned before, I don't have answers to every question that can be asked. However, I know YOU do! In any event, none of you genuinely care about the questions I have not responded to. You are just looking for something you perceive as potentially useful to discredit gays.
The same thing was presented to those who predicted No fault divorce, abortion, and Prayer removed from schools wouldn't result in moral decay and negative results.
Look around Ernie, Teenage out of wedlock pregnancies stats, Abortion mills, Mass murder/suicide at the schools, juvenile sex offenders/assault percentages out of control.
See, Its like Einstein's theory of relativity only spiritually, the less morality the more immorality, There's nothing to predict. Its a force like gravity, you can deny it until me and you both are dead and gone but its still a fact.
And I suppose beastiality is OK- must be if you define freedom as anything goes- some things are wrong, period!
It's a bad assumption for you to make if you think I don't know any. There are people out there in the same situation who overcame their sexual confusion.
Just like the Bob Blackford short story I listed in post 604, which is the story of a man who struggled for years, married, then experienced a three-year homosexual affair; and then Bob overcame his sexual confusion and is strictly heterosexual now. I encourage you to checkout his video.
There are tens of thousands of former homosexuals.
You seem to be of the opinion that sex, any sex with consenting adults is perfectly acceptable. I say that for a specific reason and it's not because of hatred for anybody. You're asking who's threatened by same-sex marriage yet you consistently run away from questions that are merely taking your worldview to its logical conclusion.
Considering that I started this thread with a question that has turned into something else entirely, your comments are rather amusing!
Why stop at a marraige of two? Why not three, four, five? Why not between brothers? Sisters? Father and son(s)? Fathers(s) and son? Father and daughter? Grandparents and grandchild? As long as they're adults, why not? Is the American Family (your term) ready for that? Are you? Is that a good environment to promote and celebrate for children?
Those types of questions are certainly not off topic. You can attempt to say the thread has turned into something else entirely but you would be wrong, and the record demonstrates just that.
I can't fight your battles for you - You're the one running away from the logical conclusion of your arguments. If you don't like the heat, try answering some questions.
In post 599 you said:
And in other posts you've used the word hatred, all quite inappropriately if you actually understood what I've been saying.
- many of your remarks are not friendly nor indicative of someone who values other human beings
- They may listen to your rants about gays
- your thinly veiled disgust and revulsion for EVERYONE different from you.
You also said: In other words, their audience concentrates on the tone with which they present their arguments more than the specific content of their ideas.
Are you going to try to put your other foot in your mouth now, or are you going to wipe the egg off your face first?
The above and more (a lot more) can be found in my FreeRepublic profile.
many of your remarks are not friendly nor indicative of someone who values other human beings
They may listen to your rants about gays your thinly veiled disgust and revulsion for EVERYONE different from you.
And in other posts you've used the word hatred, all quite inappropriately if you actually understood what I've been saying.
Are you going to try to put your other foot in your mouth now, or are you going to wipe the egg off your face first?
You and I apparently have a different understanding of appropriate language and etiquette to use in debates. The quotations of mine that you cited have no relevance until they are placed in the overall context of what has transpired during the previous 600 messages.
I will try one more time to clarify this matter.
1. I began a thread by asking a perfectly reasonable question. When I originated the thread I entered a single keyword i.e. "same-sex marriage"
2. Within a very short time, numerous messages were posted which used hostile language. This type of language is NOT used by persons who wish to engage in friendly discussion or to respectfully consider another point of view. [To refresh your memory, among the terms used were: mentally ill, evil, revolting, putrid, sickening, filthy, vile, immoral].
In addition, numerous vulgar and hateful keywords were added by persons reading the thread.
Obviously, if you characterize a person or position using those terms, there is nothing whatsoever to consider or discuss. The issue has already been permanently decided. Nobody elevates anyone described in those terms to the status of a decent human being. Instead, the entire purpose of such caustic language is merely to demonize an opponent and portray him/her as low-life sub-human scum who has nothing whatsoever to contribute to the discussion.
3. Then PERSONAL ATTACKS on me commence. Why? Is the quality of your evidence or logic so poor that it requires such attacks? By contrast, some folks submit perfectly reasonable and civil comments (such as wmichgrad, message #36).
4. After an accumulation of vituperative remarks from various people, I respond by describing the language as "hateful" and I point out that such language is welcomed only by persons who seek to evoke fear, disgust, hatred, or revulsion toward other human beings.
Since you have never once criticized anyone for using such language or debate tactics and you frequently play the role of the injured party --- I must conclude that you find such language and behavior normal and acceptable.
Finally: may I share a personal observation? And I mean this sincerely.
I very much want to encourage you to continue to express your views on this subject in precisely the same manner that you have evidenced thus far. While abhorrent to me personally, it will nevertheless illustrate the quality of mind, spirit, and values underlying your argument.
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.