Posted on 11/26/2003 5:20:26 AM PST by Holly_P
Doing so would strengthen marriage as an institution and the culture of fidelity.
Anybody who has several sexual partners in a year is committing spiritual suicide. He or she is ripping the veil from all that is private and delicate in oneself and pulverizing it in an assembly line of selfish sensations.
But marriage is the opposite. Marriage joins two people in a sacred bond. It demands that they make an exclusive commitment to one another, and thereby takes two discrete individuals and turns them into kin.
Few of us work as hard at it as we should, but marriage makes us better than we deserve to be. Even in the chores of daily life, married couples find themselves, over the years, coming closer together, fusing into one flesh. Married people who remain committed to each other find that they reorganize and deepen each other's lives. They may eventually come to the point when they can say to each other: "Love you? I am you."
(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...
Amen? Hmm. Read this.
There have been quite a few studies on genetics and homosexuality. All of them have demonstrated there is no gay gene, have been discredited, or the text of the article were shown to be completely unrelated to the title of the article. The pro-homosexual bias can be very obvious at times.
Simon Levay has often been touted as having found the gay gene, yet he found no such evidence:
Simon LeVay, in his study of the hypothalamic differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men, offered the following criticisms of his own research:All the evidence in support of genetics and homosexuality can be similarly summarized. In regards to the APAs decision to delete homosexuality from the diagnostic manual of the American Psychiatric Association, Simon Levay further stated:"It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.
"Gay activism was clearly the force that propelled the APA to declassify homosexuality."
I quote Simon Levay because his work is often used to support something it never supported. Levay is a gay advocate.
What the evidence does support is the major factor in determining homosexuality is environment. The fact that thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle further supports the scientific studies.
The following is pulled from here:
...The following is just one of the many developmental pathways that can lead to homosexuality, but a common one. In reality, every person's "road" to sexual expression is individual, however many common lengths it may share with those of others.There are 11 additional references at the above link which I encourage everyone to read, as it's my opinion the above summarizes the homosexual factors quite well. At this time there are no scientific arguments against the above. Unfortunately we're labeled all kinds of things if we don't just tolerate homosexual behavior, but we're supposed to accept it as valid.(1) Our scenario starts with birth. The boy (for example) who one day may go on to struggle with homosexuality is born with certain features that are somewhat more common among homosexuals than in the population at large. Some of these traits might be inherited (genetic), while others might have been caused by the "intrauterine environment" (hormones). What this means is that a youngster without these traits will be somewhat less likely to become homosexual later than someone with them.
What are these traits? If we could identify them precisely, many of them would turn out to be gifts rather than "problems," for example a "sensitive" disposition, a strong creative drive, a keen aesthetic sense. Some of these, such as greater sensitivity, could be related to - or even the same as - physiological traits that also cause trouble, such as a greater-than-average anxiety response to any given stimulus.
No one knows with certainty just what these heritable characteristics are; at present we only have hints. Were we free to study homosexuality properly (uninfluenced by political agendas) we would certainly soon clarify these factors - just as we are doing in less contentious areas. In any case, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the behavior "homosexuality" is itself directly inherited.
And that's ridiculous. Stop and think about it. Not just tolerate, but accept a behavior that results in severe health hazards. A behavior that can, and should be, changed. The madness must stop. The truth must be told.
Some here don't limit the definition, as long as underage children or animals aren't involved. When you think about it they really can't limit the definition without someone calling them a bigot, so they have to leave it wide open.
How about "two objects?"
Public acceptance isn't all - they want much more than that. Public dominance is their goal. Note emerging "hatespeech" laws in other countries, coming soon here if homosexual activists and their bots have their way. We already have state "hate crimes" laws - and Kennedy and other Senators have been trying to make a federal hate crimes law including homosexuals. So if a homosexual is killed, assaulted, or whatever, it is a more heinous crime than if my elderly father with impaired eyesight is assaulted. Disgusting.
Gay activists and their helpers are not interested in partaking of holy matrimony. They want to re-make society in their image. And silence those who disagree with them. They do not want tolerance or diversity of opinion. They want to dominate and suppress. "Gay marriage" is a weapon in their arsenal. They want to dismantle the natural family as the foundation of civilization; anyone who has studied their writings knows that.
People should be asking WHY do they want to dismantle society and remake it?
There is no legal reason to deny any two people making a lifelong commitment the benefits others making the same commitment receive, simply because they meet a religious description of "marriage".
There is also no morale reason to deny two homosexuals the responsibility concurrent with legal marriage. Why should they be denied the benefits of divorce, spousal support, alimony, community property and all the other restraints imposed on heterosexuals?
These and other reasons need to be brought to the attention of everyone.
Sorry, but all they're asking for, are the same rights.
As always, equal means equal. If any two people are permitted the benefit
of a legal "marriage", they not only enjoy the benefits, but also the pitfalls
of that same legal relationship.
And that, is the point. Anything less than legally deeming it a marriage, would
insinuate a "special" privilege. The gay community does not want "special"
privileges, all they want are the same treatment under law, for the same
commitment they make to one another.
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.