Posted on 12/08/2003 7:12:17 PM PST by Kay Soze
This was my point about this push (and why it is bad for society) above.
The non-traditional marriage movement seeks to remove any "approval" of marriages. Forget government "approval", I am talking "societal approval". This is a part of the culture war's attack on the family.
As I got you to admit, you still think that the government is permitted to restrict blood relations from marrying. Either they can restrict a marriage between adults or they can't.
We can argue over "who's" marriages can be outlawed but you have to settle whether the government has any say.
You believed that the genetic crapshoot of such a mating was too great a risk and that it intruded on your rights (somehow, what as a taxpayer???).
Should city employees be able to receive spouse benefits from such arrangements?
What about private employers, can they choose to support or ignore "same sex spouses"? Could they face discrimination lawsuits?
What about the inheritance issue? The courts are involved in that.
Can a church refuse to perform a same sex "union" ceremony? Would there be a media backlash against any church that dared to follow this biblical teaching?
You can "say" that you married the Universe but you will be unlikely to push for "spouse benefits/rights". Same sex partners want legal recognition (also remember that spouses cannot be compelled to testify against each other).
Sure are a lot of legal reasons for the government to be involved in determining what is a marriage and what is not.
You say that they cannot legally consent but the law in today's permissive society does permit a certain level of sexual activity (bounded only by the age of the partner although it is not set in stone). Adults (over 18) are permitted to have sex with "consenting" minors even below a legal "age of consent" of 16.
Either minors can have sex legally or they can't. Is sex with an 18 year old "better" for that 14 year old better for her/him than sex with a 21 year old?
I meant to show that the government is not restricting their private freedom. Such a declaration would have no legal bearing whatsoever.
Should city employees be able to receive spouse benefits from such arrangements [same-sex couple simply calling itself "married"]?
No.
What about private employers, can they choose to support or ignore "same sex spouses"?
Yes.
Could they face discrimination lawsuits?
No.
What about the inheritance issue?The courts are involved in that.
Private individuals are free to specify inheritance.
Can a church refuse to perform a same sex "union" ceremony?
Yes.
Would there be a media backlash against any church that dared to follow this biblical teaching?
I don't see why there would be.
You can "say" that you married the Universe but you will be unlikely to push for "spouse benefits/rights". Same sex partners want legal recognition (also remember that spouses cannot be compelled to testify against each other).
There are deficiencies in what social contracts the law permits private individuals to enter into. These should be addressed, but they are not unique to gay couples: in almost every case the same might apply to any configuration of persons that choose to form a family-type arrangement.
No one's discriminating based on sexuality. The law discriminates against beahaviors that are proven harmful to society. Such things as murder, theft, molestation, homosexual behavior etc are harmfult o society and have no place in a civilized nation.
Everyone in the USA has equal rights already.
So if you love your goat you should be allowed to marry it? What about if you love your two-year old?
Now you will probably respond that neither of those examples are valid because they are not mentally capable of entering into a marriage contract.
OK. We'll try another one. What about your severely mentally disabled friend? Or perhaps the guy who lives in the group home down the street who thinks he's Napolean. What? They aren't capable either? What about the person who struggles with severe depression or paranoia? Still not capable?
Then how can someone with a serious mental illness (Same-sex Attraction Disorder (SAD)) be capable of entering a marriage contract either?
All people are heterosexual. We all have heterosexual physiology. Any behavior that 'abuses' that physiology is disordered. Only the mentally ill practice homosexual behavior.
So why sentence the mentally ill to a lifetime (or in the case of 'gay' males, 18 months) married to someone who they only think they love because they are mentally ill. Wouldn't it be better to get them cured and have them marry someone more fitting?
Make that rather an amoral code and I dare say that many libertarians here at FR are right in step w/ them.
Wonderful point to bring up. Leads directly into the purpose of government regulation of the contract known as marriage.
Marriage as a social construct exists to provide for and protect the future of the society it exists within. That is, the society establishes an ideal environment for the raising of the next generation of citizens. It has been proven that a nuclear family of one man married to one woman is the best environment for producing and raising children. (I'm assuming you'll agree with this last point.) So society subsidizes and encourages marriages that will have the potential to result in children.
Now what about the couple that has no children or plans to have no children? My wife and I were married 14 years before we had our first child. We decided to have children somewhat later than most. I know of several other couples who married with the intent to never have kids (all of which have kids now by the way). The point is that the environment that these couples create still falls into the category of most favorable for children. Even if they have none of their own, they may adopt later. (again I know of several who have done this)
Couples who can't have children can always adopt. And in some cases (I know of a few) medical advances let them have children later.
A 'homosexual' couple will never be the best environment for children. In fact a 'homosexual' couple almost guarantees that the child will be molested at some point (either by one of the 'parents' or by one of their friends). A child should never be left in the care of a 'homosexual'
Again, society protecting the future.
Biblical precedent does support one man married to several women in the OT. However no precedent exists for one woman to marry several men. In the NT this is limited back to one man to one woman.
Interesting that you bring biblical approval into this. The bible clearly states that those who practice homosexuality are to be destroyed (OT). And that homosexual behavior is never moral (that is, those who practice it will not enter the kingdom of heaven) and that they who practice it will reap the recompence of their error.
Disagree strongly. Procreation is the only reason that any marriage law exists. They are all to subsidize the next generation. Beyond that society has no part in marriage.
Excellent info if provable, breakem. I've seen scripter's police reports, CDC statistics and other published reports on pedophillia rates so let's see your published data to support this.
And what rights for those who practice homosexual behavior are we supposed to recognize that they don't already have? They have the exact same right to marry that I do. The behvaior needs to be cured not encouraged
You know the percentage of the population that is homosexual and you know the % of pedophilia committted by homosexuals. Since most people including the police and social workers don't know these stats, you could make a lot of money selling your information.
Again, proof of this is where?
Proof?
(Or is this just a case of say a lie often enough and people will believe it?)
So it's OK for Jews to engage in polygamy?
"The bible clearly states that those who practice homosexuality are to be destroyed (OT)."
In other words, when it comes to civil rights, for instance the right not to be killed because of something the Bible says, the law supports NOT following Biblical dogma.
So then, what's the objection to same sex marriages, other than "we've never done this before".
I'm sorry, breakem, but this statement is in error. One of your neighbors has a child with a man who donated sperm. It is physically impossible for two woman to have a child. (grade school biology here. Man + woman = child.)
The second woman is an unrelated person living in the same house. The family that exists is the mother and her child.
It can't. Biology just won't be overruled that easily. We all have heterosexual physiology no matter what perversions we choose to practice.
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.