How legalizing gay marriage undermines society's morals

The Christian Science Monitor ^ | December 09, 2003 | Alan Charles Raul

[little jeremiah]

Do you deny the health hazards of the homosexual lifestyle?

"Smoking and eating fatty foods kills a lot more people every year than being gay does."

If the percentage of the population that smokes and/or eats fatty foods engaged in same sex sodomy your arugment would be rational. Since the percentage for the eaters and drinkers is very high, and that for same sex sodomy practitioners very small, your argument is useless.

Why the obsession with homosexuality?

I've been wondering for some time why you are so obsessed with the normalization of homosexuality?

(I've also wondered about your obsessive hatred of religion...)

[breakem]

The more I look into the issue of the health hazards of homosexuality the more it supports my position on the matter. As I linked above, even homosexuals are admitting it now. So why don't you discourage this behavior that results in a deadly contagious disease? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I HAVE NOT ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE. WHY DO YOU KEEP MAKING UP MY POSITION. YOU DID NOT ADDRESS THE EARLIER PROBLEMS WITH YOUR OWN POSITION. GO BACK TO GOOGLE AND LOOK UP SOME MORE ARTICLES! I WILL NOT ADDRESS YOUR TANGENTIAL QUESTIONS UNTIL AND UNLESS YOU DEAL WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL ERRORS IN YOUR POSITION. STOP STALKING ME!

[scripter]

Whoops. You tried to misdirect the discussion. Are corporations in the schools telling kids to eat fatty foods, and get fat? Do the corporations you mention ask kids if they've never been obese, then how do they know if they wouldn't like being obese? Of course not. Your misdirection will be called exactly what it is.

Why don't you discourage a behavior that results in a deadly and contagious disease? Have you no compassion? Do you hate homosexuals to the point that you encourage a behavior that kills them off?

[breakem]

I agree as to what the ideal situation is. Just wanted to counter the point that a homosexual marraige could not "produce" a child.

[little jeremiah]

The traditional institution of marriage is one man and one woman.

"Whose "tradition" are you referring to?"

I would assume he's referring to the tradition of human civilization on planet earth, aside from a few forays into polygamy here and there.

Is there another planet's tradition or species' tradition you like better?

[breakem]

are you reading their answers? You're about two replies behind. A good cheerleader keeps up with the game.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Polygamy is extremely common in human societies, and de facto polygamy has existed since the beginning of western civilization.

I am not a multi-culturalist. I believe some cultures are superior to others. They are usually better due to better choices. I believe Western civilization has benefited greatly from moving to monogamous (heterosexual, it should go without saying) marriage.

What I don't understand is, if two gay people want to get married, why does that offend you so much? How is it any skin off your nose?

I do not mind if any combination of adults have a ceremony and call it, informally, marriage. It is zero skin off my nose.

What is skin off my nose is when judicial activists inject their own prejudices, rejecting centuries old traditions, and rule that the laws are wrong and must be changed.

[little jeremiah]

You are like a spoiled nasty child having a trantrum, yelling anything that pops into your small brain that sounds almost like rational speech; but all your statements are nothing but personal invective and attack. You can produce not a shred of evidence to prop up your support of homosexuality; you're just trying to "win" (in some weird childish sense) the debate by yelling the loudest and intimiating those - especially scripter - who you disagree with.

You ought to go take a cool shower and a long nap and play some soothing music to calm yourself. You are an embarrassment to this thread. Your hatred is poisoning only yourself.

[xm177e2]

The more destructive impact of the decision for society is the court's insidious denial of morality itself as a rational basis for legislation.

Insidious? It's not exactly a big secret that the liberal, Jeffersonian tradition rejects moralizing when it comes to the law, and prefers a no-harm-no-foul policy.

[scripter]

STOP STALKING ME!

You have a major problem.

In post 68 I pinged a volunteer subscription list of which you are not a member. In post 70 you responded to my post and called it propaganda. I've asked you to support your claim and you refused. In fact I've asked you to support your claims many, many times and you never do.

You continually try to denigrate the facts without any supporting evidence whatsoever. In my last post to you I said:

I'd stop posting what you call propaganda if you could actually support your claims.

So either stop calling what I post propaganda, support your statements or stop responding to my posts.

[breakem]

You should read more closly and you'd know what is going on here. I'll give you some time to figure it out. Then bring something back other than cheerleading. Goodnight.

[little jeremiah]

I'm reading their answers. Catching up. But you should stop yelling at scripter, it's not polite.

[little jeremiah]

Your response proves my point. You could also try lavender oil in a tepid bath, it's very calming to the mind.

[scripter]

Something I read years ago:

The great danger in having enemies is not what they may do to us, but in what we may do to ourselves as we allow harsh, bitter and angry reactions to develop.

[little jeremiah]

Very true. One needs to learn how to stand up for the truth without backing down or compromising with darkness, without partaking of the darkness in doing so.

There is such a thing as righteous anger - but that really isn't directed at people, but peoples' ignorance and cruelty.

[scripter]

Goodnight, my friend.

[little jeremiah]

Good night to you, and God keep you.

[weegee]

What about fugu/blowfish?

[weegee]

>>Blood related couples are prohibited from marrying because the offspring they produce could be prone to genetic defects.

>>Either the government can regulate marriage or it can't.

Your rights end where mine begin.

The right of blood relations to marry end when the rights of the unrealized issue of their union come into play.

By the way, a great number of States OK the marriage of blood relatives as long as there is an agreement, or no possibility, of any issue.

Well which is it now? Blood relations should be barred from marrying or is it okay because some states permit it?

And as to "The right of blood relations to marry end when the rights of the unrealized issue of their union come into play." Some consider bringing up children in a homosexual household causing detrimental harm to kids. This is why some people are for prohibiting sanctioning same-sex marriages and homosexual adoptions.

We can quibble over whether harm is caused in such households but you set yourself up for that one. You DO admit that the government gets a say in "non-traditional" households.

[weegee]

People are supposed to marry the person they love, not the person you approve of.

Are you a cold person? Can you not love your grandmother, your brother, or your neighbor without requiring any sort of "marriage" or sexual component to the relationship?