I refuted directly some of your statements. So if you can't refute mine, think about it and whether your concerns are all valid.
And, our society is the only one that has actually legalized homosexual marriage
Actually, Canada has legalized it as have other European nations, and nearly all have some sort of legalized same sex unions, if not marriage.
It is just recently that smokers have been penalized from puffing in public and the smoking police are even now going after smokers "in the privacy of their own homes."
I'm not sure what you are talking about here, or what smoking bans have to do with same sex marriages. One restricts freedoms and the other expands it.
You can "submit;" any cockamamie idea you want but you don't seem to grasp the psychology of advertising, which is what the homosexual agenda has been so successful at.
I do in fact grasp it, but I don't see it extending any purported successes to anything other than to gain acceptance, not to gain recruits, which is the concern of many here. I am completely open to evidence to the contrary.
They have been using great advertising techniques to get the general public to accept their agenda (buy their product).
But given all that, and I know that the front organizations are pushing acceptance of homosexuality everywhere, I've not seen any evidence of anything other than a continued acceptance by the public. I'm not aware of how this has impacted the lives of anyone else, especially married heterosexuals.
Facts in this debate are critical, not simply emotions, no matter how sincerely they are expressed.
I would like to see some actual facts that show that all of their advertising is convincing heterosexuals to change their sexual preferences. I would like to see some facts that the expansion of same sex monogamous relationships is increasing the AIDS epidemic. I would like to see some facts that homosexuals are any more prone to going after our children than are heterosexuals. I would like to see some facts supporting the need for this failed amendment. Take care.
This same-sex marriage "debate" is all about emotions and not facts. If you want facts look up your own studies, I am not going to do your homework for you. All you have to "see" is the foreign countries who have legalized same-sex marriage and what has happened. Bill O'Reilly had a show this week interviewing someone about just how traditional marriage has suffered from same sex marriage.(meaning hetrosexual couples are not getting married any more) There are many facts and figures to support this claim but just eye witnessing what is going on in our society should give you a clue. I have been warned by others in this venue not to argue with a liberal and you are a case in point. Have a nice untroubled life.
As to change, the only facts critical are the ones not found on the other side of this "legal debate".
It is only when one ignores rational basis, legal precedence, and further ignores that those wishing to turn reality; comprised of the Status Quo & Stare Decisis; on its head are the only ones burdened with presenting the "facts" does one reach the position you assert is legitimate...
Fortunately, and in direct contradiction with your persistent assertions, the "debate" does not start out equally footed between what is and what is but unprecedented and politically rejected innovation...
Why should marriage and with it the societal accommodation and privilege be limited to only heterosexual couples that wish to marry?
Simply put, because society has decided so. As evidenced in tradition, conventional wisdom, common law, and enacted law. Society -the people through elected representatives, in legislative bodies have enacted legislation that is premised alone upon the rational basis of procreation -society has decided such... Unlike those arguing for a leftist utopian socialist village ideology would suggest, marriage has never been accommodated, merited privilege, and rewarded simply to foster and promote love or even monogamous sex...
Incidental exceptions, e.g. couples who choose to contracept, do not negate the basis, they test it and in doing so clearly contrast against and specifically identify the basis that some attempt to deny as one very much existing and relevant. Case in point, Griswold v. Connecticut where premised upon a right to privacy it was decided that individuals have the right NOT to procreate via use of contraceptives...
One can clearly see that with Griswold it is that contrasted with the exception that demonstrates clearly the rule, the rational basis of procreation exists!
Regardless a legislature has not chosen to handle exceptions to the basis, e.g. those that choose to contracept, exceptionally by incorporating more rules or by changing totally the basis or doing away with ANY marital accommodation -that is their prerogative, not something for the courts to decide.
Again, as evidenced in Griswold v. Connecticut, there is no supposed heterosexual (or homosexual) right to be accommodated and rewarded by society for entering into non-procreative marriage -such marriages are exceptions incidental to the basis of procreation with such incidence being premised in the right to privacy (just as abortion is). Unlike privacy, marital accommodation, subsidy, and reward is a societal privilege premised upon legitimate and rationally based societal discrimination -marital accommodation, subsidy, and reward is NOT a right...
It is only by illegitimately ignoring the rational basis of procreation - illegitimately conflating the right to privacy (which prohibits the State from enforcing procreation) with the privilege accorded marriage (rationally based in procreation as provided for legislatively by the State) that one can even attempt to argue the ability to choose to engage in homosexual sex with another as something that merits anything from society.
In essence, homosexuals do not get a "free pass" under the privacy right like non-procreative heterosexuals do BECAUSE homosexuals objectively can not possibly ever procreate homosexually...
The ability to procreate and the possibility of procreation -something two homosexuals can not do no matter how much they try...
Some may argue -but what of no-fault divorce laws? Did not the "procreative position" as to rational basis lose most of its force in the 1970's when almost every state passed no-fault divorce statutes?
The legal impact of no-fault divorce laws could be argued both ways and I would suggest that in resolving apparent contradictions between the two ways one would necessarily find the truth as to just what the continued rational basis premising accommodation and privilege of heterosexual marriage was and even more so is now as evidenced by direct correlation to continued societal accommodation and privilege.
e.g. no fault divorce simply is an admission that love can not be legislated and as such is by default not a rational basis premising ANY accommodation and privilege (therefore promoting love via homosexual marriage is a non-starter)...
e.g. no fault divorce simply is an admission that keeping a couple together in the interest of raising children can not be legislated and as such is by default not a rational basis premising ANY accommodation and privilege (therefore promoting raising of children via homosexual marriage is a non-starter)...
IF society has not and does not reward love and child rearing with the benefits reserved marital privilege then what is the rational basis? -- The answer is obvious --PROCREATION