Posted on 07/02/2003 6:54:57 AM PDT by VRWC_minion
You are missing that the marriage contract is really a three party contract, not a two party contract. In exchange for recognizing the husband and wife's marriage contract the state puts obligations on the parties to the contract.
If the state opens up this contract to gays, it starts the process of decreased expectations on that contract. The fear is that the marriage contract will loose its meaning over time.
when I first started thinking about this issue, I had the same view you did. But as I projected into the future, the social conservatives are probably right. This will be the start of a trend that isn't good.
Their is a way to circumvent this and its to get ahead of the curve and create a form a marriage separate but economically equal. however that won't happen. The politico's won't take the income hit and eventually the courts will impose this.
It threatens the traditional family unit by giving governmental sanction instead of shame. It’s EXACTLY analogous to the “sexual revolution’s” contribution to the lost stigma and shame of out of wedlock pregnancy and its affect on society. Homosexual marriage will change the culture’s perception of what is the ideal family unit and the mores that come from that tradition by increasing the frequency of this chosen behavior. The more people taught to be homosexual the more chaos it brings to society.
This is all a distraction away from really important issues, IMHO.
What’s more important than family?
Not really, it’s a big leap to go from “immoral” to sanctioning marriage. Seems like there should be some middle ground between the two polls.
You're kidding, right? Do you really believe you can teach someone to become homosexual? I'll bet you one trillion dollars you, or anyone else, cannot teach me, or any other heterosexual, to become homosexual.
While homsexuality may be immoral and a biological disaster it is not contagious.
The Quinnipiac University poll is irrelevant because it only polled Pennsylvania voters. For some strange reason, the Quinnipiac poll has been quoted on FR over & over as if it were a nationwide poll of all adults.....
Some of us don't read history books written by the 700 Club. Imagine that!
Walter Williams is a libertarian :)
Not yet. No 'holy man' has offered up his daughters for gangbang rape by the village.
Of course. Since it’s a chosen behavior it has to be taught. How do you think so called “bisexuals” find their perversion…because they were born that way?
I'll bet you one trillion dollars you, or anyone else, cannot teach me, or any other heterosexual, to become homosexual.
Not be to prison have you? Pay up please!
biological disaster
Behavioral pathologies are are not biological.
Hey, I got a novel idea. Let's go back to making marriage entirely a religious ceremony. And get the interfering slave manufacturing government out of the picture...
This one was national, the Santorum poll was just PA.
I expected the opposite to happen. I expected that eve if it were immoral that the majority would say let them marry. Evidentally there is more going on in the descision process than whether its moral or immoral.
Voters say 58 - 27 percent that homosexual behavior is morally wrong, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. But voters say 45 -- 35 percent that homosexual relations between consenting adults should be legal.
From May 13 - 20, Quinnipiac University surveyed 952 Pennsylvania registered voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.2 percent. The survey includes 338 Democrats with a margin of error of +/- 5.3 percent.
A search I did on google that I did recently has given me pause to accept that it cannot be taught. I searched "age of consent" and about half of the hits were gay sites.
It has cause me to wonder why the age of consent is such an important topic to gays.
I too held the same idea once. After further thought I wondered why such a concept as a 3 way contract where ths state is a party came about. There had to be practical reasons.
Then I saw that the state has a vested interest in many aspects of the marriage contract which include the children's welfare and a dependent spouse.
If we remove from marriage the obligations imposed upon the spouses, the state will be forced to accept these obligations. In addition to the huge financial cost the social costs will be extensive.
I can answer this for you. Because in many states and/or nations, the age of consent laws have been different for opposite-sex & same-sex relations. It's considered another form of antigay discrimination & is a high priority at least amongst international activists (especially since many nations which have long-since repealed sodomy laws still have disparate age-of-consent laws - usually 21 for same-sex & 16 for opposite-sex - as their only remaining discriminatory statute, aside from marriage).
18 is the age of majority in all states. Why is it so important for gays to lower the ages to 14 in some states.
I would agree with you if their mission was to cause the age of consent to be raised for opposite sex sex.
Quite frankly, I think its disgusting for anyone a8 or above, same sex or not, to desire sex with someone under 18.
so, it gives me pause. What is the real motive. Aren't there enough adult partners to choose from or does havign sex with a minor bring some special excitement ?
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.