How legalizing gay marriage undermines society's morals

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

[John O]

me->"Homosexuality" is a pattern of behavior (which BTW is indulged in only by the mentally ill)"

you-> Bullsh%t...

I have the facts on my side. read scripters database.

Now, all you have to do is convince anyone that same-sex marriage can cause damage to the "general welfare"...none of your arguments will hold up, ...

All my points have already been proven. Read scripters database.

I have no doubt that we have damaged marriage more than the perverts have. However that is not a good reason to let them damage it too. Rather than throw up our hands in defeat and let perversion rule let's defend marriage and roll back the bad law that damages it (no-fault divorce etc)

Irresponsible sexual promiscuity is dangerous for everyone, marriage being an agreement between two people to be exclusive to one another sexually, is the logical solution to the deadly side effects of that promiscuity.

Except for the fact that 'homosexual' marriage does not cure 'homosexual' promiscuity. In countries where 'h' marriage is legal the average duration of a monogamous 'h' marriage is about 2 years. Most 'h' marriages are not closed, that is, the 'spouses' frequently and routinely have sex with others outside the marriage.

'Gay' marriage is no more a cure for 'h' promiscuity than letting priests marry is a cure for molestation in the church. (and both these problems have the same common cause, the disease called homosexuality)

This "promote the general welfare" argument of yours is as big a pantload as anything I've ever read in here.

You've never read the constitution? See the cited paragraphs. It's really in there and it's a duty that congress should take more seriously.

Homosexuality is not something that "popped up" a few years ago, and it's not going away, so it's not something that's dangerous to that "general welfare" you are so concerned with.

In the 40's and 50's someone who was known as a 'homo' was shunned by polite company. He had exceedingly limited exposure to children (and thusly could not recruit) and STD's were limited due to his limited exposure. Now that 'h' is more tolerated recruiting is proceeding at a breakneck pace (fortunately anti-recruitment efforts proceed as well) and STDs are killing vast numbers of the sexually irresponsible.

If we stop them from recruiting more victims, 'h' as it is known today will go away. If we treat it as a disease (as it was before the early 70's) it will go away quicker. (of course there are some social issues that we have to correct also, getting fathers to be good fathers etc)

Heterosexuals set in motion the "sexual revolution"; we swing, free-love, divorce by the tens of millions, spouse swap, cybercheat until we get the guts up to "really" cheat, fornicate, and give birth to nearly as many illegitimate babies as we kill in the name of "choice" yearly...and please, don't insult my intelligence and blame all those actions on "liberals" alone.P> With the exception of divorce I know no one who has done any of that. But then I live in a mostly Christian small town, so speak for yourself, you cannot speak for me on this.

And you don't seem to concerned with all those actions as a danger to that "general welfare" you are so concerned with, and spend your energy trying to convince others that people who have never been allowed to marry at all, will be more responsible for marriage being destroyed, than those who truly DID destroy it!

Actually I rail against all of those with the same vitriol that I rail against other perversions. The difference is that wife swappers aren't actively trying to destroy my way of life and corrupt my children. They try to keep their adulterous perverse activities out of the public's eye, not rammed down the public's throat

If you're truly so concerned about the general welfare of this society, why don't you spend your time trying to stop heterosexuals from destroying marriage, and killing one million fetuses a year to hide their irresponsible sexual behavior?

I am a financial supporter of my local right to life and the national right to life organizations. I am actively involved in my local church reaching out to bring people into a right relationship with God which will result in stronger marriages etc. So in short I am working against the evils in our society, not laying down and letting them have their way as is the habit of some.

You want deadly consequences to irresponsible sexual behavior?

We already have deadly consequences to irresponsible behavior. Haven't you read any of the health links from Scripter's database? (Ever hear of AIDS? more correctly called GRIDS.) While these results are very sad at least those people will hopefully learn from the lesson and not repeat the damaging behavior. And hopefully they will serve as a lesson to others.

God has a way of weeding out the irresponsible ones. Read Romans 1:27 among other verses. God takes sexual immorality very seriously.

[John O]

Tell me, do you remember the exact moment you chose to be a heterosexual?

Interesting question as most heterosexuals never consciously decide to be heterosexual as that is the default (natural) behavior for humans. Our physiology drives it. We are the default until we choose otherwise.

I never consciously decided to not be a murderer either. But not being a murderer is the default for humans. You need to look at the maladapted ones and figure out why they chose to be maladapted

If you turn the question around you will discover truth.

Ask the homosexuals when they first decided to be homosexuals and most of them will say "after I had sex with Mr X". After they are molested they 'discover' that they are 'gay'. It's a common psychological defense mechanism, identify with your attacker. It's commonly taken advantage of in brain washing scenarios. (How did Patty Hearst join the SLA?) If these people were never molested they'd never be 'homosexual'. Homosexuality is a disease caused by trauma and one of the great underlying traumas is molestation. (And as shown earlier in the thread as many as %73 percent of male 'homosexuals' admit to having sex with (molesting) boys)

[NutCrackerBoy]

Government is limited. Concretion is the friend of limited government. Marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman. -NutCrackerBoy, #301

[Limited government is] not what you are arguing for however.

You didn't deny my assertion that concretely defining things is a good way to reduce government's role. As an example, Article I Section 8 concretely enumerates the federal government's powers. Do you agree that that is a good thing?

You want government to have the ability to pass judgement on the matrimonial wishes of a segment of the citizenry.

Pass judgement on wishes?? No, the law must define what configuration of persons are eligible for this state-defined legal status.

Limited government would not micro-manage this issue.

Micro-manage?? Again, at this point we are just talking about the definition. Do you think the framers of the Massachusetts Constitution intentionally left it ambiguous whether or not the two participants in marriage must be of two genders?

The SJC - creating a judicial doctrine - substituted its concrete definition for the original (implicit) concrete definition. Should a judicial doctrine be so different from the plain meaning of the Constitutional text?

[breakem]

you gave the discredit yoursel. Includes people in the same age group. That's why I gave my personal example to ask you if an 18 and a 17 year old having sex is child molesting. You can't use stats to prove a point unless you define what they mean. If you're trying to say that 7 out of 10 homos walking around are child molestors. I say BS! Define the way the stats were developed or admit you don't know and are just searching for scraps.

[John O]

Addendum. After re-reading post 275 apparently you were talking -just- the "Gay Report" but I was thinking the entirety of scripter's database. My answers as such to 275 were incorrect. The Gay Report was men with boys.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"You didn't deny my assertion that concretely defining things is a good way to reduce government's role."

I want things easier, I want the definition to pertain to persons, as the Constitution does twenty two different times, never defining the gender of those persons.

The framers of the Massachusetts Constitution also made it illegal to create a second-class citizen, which denying privileges based on societal disapproval of the sexual preferences of a part of the citizenry does.

[ArGee]

The framers of the Massachusetts Constitution also made it illegal to create a second-class citizen, which denying privileges based on societal disapproval of the sexual preferences of a part of the citizenry does.

No more so than denying rights based on societal disapproval of the culinary preferences of a part of the citizenry does.

Tell me what you think of the German man who ate his lover on camera with his lover's permission?

Shalom.

[NutCrackerBoy]

The US Constitution currently has no text at all pertaining to marriage. If it did, it would undoubtedly make reference to gender. Those references will be made in the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which will be used as a political football to help elect Republicans.

We conclude that the marriage ban does not meet the rational basis test for either due process or equal protection. -Chief Justice Marshall

Applying that deferential [rational basis] test in the manner it is customarily applied, the exclusion of gay and lesbian couples from the institution of civil marriage passes constitutional muster. -Justices Sosman, Spina, Cordy

This case is not about government intrusions into matters of personal liberty. It is not about the rights of same-sex couples to choose to live together, or to be intimate with each other, or to adopt and raise children together. It is about whether the State must endorse and support their choices by changing the institution of civil marriage to make its benefits, obligations, and responsibilities applicable to them. While the courageous efforts of many have resulted in increased dignity, rights, and respect for gay and lesbian members of our community, the issue presented here is a profound one, deeply rooted in social policy, that must, for now, be the subject of legislative not judicial action. -Justices Cordy, Spina, Sosman

Which opinions do you find show more judicial restraint?

[breakem]

hoe old were the boys. What was the sample. Why are these 73% not in jail? Just think about the ones that are not being reported the number coiuld be as high as 85-90%. Do you know how ridiculous this is?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"If it did, it would undoubtedly make reference to gender."

"If it did" holds no legal water...it does not. As a matter of fact, the Constitution males no mention of gender at any point that comes to mind, it does use the term "person" or "persons" about 22 times.

"Those references will be made in the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which will be used as a political football to help elect Republicans."

You all never cease to amaze me.

Most people spend their time in here bitching about how government is the problem and not the solution, and how the Feds are taking powers that do not belong to them, but the moment a problem arises, the first thing you all think of doing is growing the power of the Federal government.

You think that the solution to this issue you have with the definition of marriage is to give the power to define marriage to the Federal government?

Remember the 18th. Amendment?

Give the Feds the power to define marriage, and eventually, they will use that power to do the exact opposite of what you want done.

I believe that the judicially correct decisions are those made with individual "persons" in mind. The decision that ended the recount nightmare in Florida was called Judicial activism by many, and the dissenting opinions pointed out that fact, however, everyone in here praised the activism, and poo-pooed the dissents.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Tell me what you think of the German man who ate his lover on camera with his lover's permission?"

Not that this has any sort of connection to this issue, but I'll point something out to you.

The German legal system did not know what to charge the man with.

Meaning, you can't possibly legislate with every possibility in mind.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"We are the default until we choose otherwise."

People are not machines, there is no "default" in us. If there is, then that "default" applies equally, and to some, that "default" is different than to others.

Now, if homosexuality is a choice, then you need to convince me that you can make yourself chose to be attracted to other men (I am assuming you to be a male based on your FR name)...I can't, but apparently, you think that you can.

"Ask the homosexuals when they first decided to be homosexuals and most of them will say "after I had sex with Mr X".

That's an incredibly ignorant statement, you obviously again believe that a heterosexual can make the choice of having sex with a member of the same sex without first being a homosexual.

If that man had sex with "Mr. X", then obviously he was a homosexual.

I have asked that question, and the answer has always been, "I have always known that I was a homosexual".

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Ask the homosexuals when they first decided to be homosexuals and most of them will say "after I had sex with Mr X".

My Lord, but that's incredibly ignorant!

I can't believe you actually hit the "Post" button on that!

So, in your world, men don't know whether they are homosexuals or not until AFTER they've had sex with a man, and decided whether they liked it or not?

Man...what's wrong with you?

[NutCrackerBoy]

I was hoping for a more closely reasoned debate. You are going off on tangents all over the place. First example:

I want the definition to pertain to persons, as the Constitution does twenty two different times, never defining the gender of those persons. -Luis Gonzalez,326

The US Constitution currently has no text at all pertaining to marriage. If it did, it would undoubtedly make reference to gender. -NutCrackerBoy,328

"If it did" holds no legal water...it does not. As a matter of fact, the Constitution males no mention of gender at any point that comes to mind, it does use the term "person" or "persons" about 22 times. -Luis Gonzalez,330

Your response is like Spinal Tap - these go to eleven! The fact that the US Constitution does not mention gender is completely obliterated by the fact that it does not mention marriage. Duh!

Second example:

[Reference to gender] will be made in the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which will be used as a political football to help elect Republicans. -NutCrackerBoy,328

You think that the solution to this issue you have with the definition of marriage is to give the power to define marriage to the Federal government? -Luis Gonzalez,330

I was simply sealing my point about references to marriage in Constitutions mentioning gender, and alluding to the popularity of the existing definition - one man, one woman.

I believe that the judicially correct decisions are those made with individual "persons" in mind.

OK, finally something on point! But you need to dig deeper. This is not as simple as gender-neutral language versus gender-specific language in a Constitution. Every rational person including the SJC majority knows that marriage has been strongly associated with actual biological procreation. (Not so say there aren't happily married couples with no children). In order to justify finding the Massachusetts marriage law unconstitutional, the court asserted that there is no rational basis for defining marriage as one man and one woman. The rational basis test is required to be pursued deferentially. If Marshall selectively squeezed the test just to make this decision, she is guilty of gross judicial overstepping. And that is in fact what happened.

The decision that ended the recount nightmare in Florida was called Judicial activism by many, and the dissenting opinions pointed out that fact, however, everyone in here praised the activism, and poo-pooed the dissents.

Tangent alert: I think it would be a waste of time to debate that aspect of Bush v. Gore. But let me say this: the central issue here is that the Massachusetts SJC usurped legislative power. The onus is on you to prove that they did not.

[Torie]

Well Luis, you are a judicial activist on steroids. What I take it you are saying is that drawing a distinction between laws that pertain to the marriage of two of the opposite gender versus two of the same gender, lacks a rational basis, and that therefore drawing such distinction is indeed unconsitutional. Wow. The court on only a couple of instances has ever stuck a law down as lacking a rational basis, and in both instances, it was because the court was being dishonest (shocking I know), and what they really meant, but didn't have the guts to say, is that the distinction being drawn was being viewed as a suspect class by the court. (One was a decision striking down a zoning law that restricted the use of private homes as old age homes, or for homeless youth, or for nutters, or something.)

Other than that, when SCOTUS or a federal appellate court applies the rational basis test, it means that the law is going to be upheld. That is because almost every legal distinction that is incorporated into law has some rational basis, because the folks that pass laws are not irrational nutters (nutters in the sense that they have no idea about what means are potentially connected to intended ends).

If you start using the rational basis test everywhere as a tool for striking laws down, then the legislature really does have an attenuated role, or should have, in our governance, on your planet.

There are of course all kinds of rational bases for one to draw a distinction between opposite sex versus same sex marriages - cost, tradition (we have always done it that way is a rational basis), the need to foster procreation in a good environment along with the attendant impracticability of sorting out the fertile from the non fertile, a concern that giving legal sanction to marriage of same sex couples might encourage homosexual behavior that is a health risk, and empirically leads to less happy lives, etc. One does not need to endorse any of these rationales for the distinction as being persuasive from a policy standpoint (and I do not), to admit that they are clearly a rational bases for the polity to draw the distinctions.

And there you have it.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Well...

I guess you told me.

In my life, I have traveled down many roads, all leading me to this point in time; along the way, and as we all have, I formed opinions on many subjects. I was not always real comfortable in expressing those opinions for fear that someone glibber, more educated, with more gravitas would put them down, and consequentially me with them; I spent a whole lot of time fretting about how I would be perceived if I chose to voice my opinions.

For a while, I merely parroted others whom I believed to be more qualified; I felt secure in behaving in that manner.

I had a discussion, an argument actually, a few years ago with my younger brother, the one place were I always felt free to express myself being around my family; we disagreed on some political issues as I found him to be too far to the left for my taste, I berated him and he left nearly in tears.

I commented to my father that I was dumbfounded that the son of people who fled Communism could have such leftist ideals, and suggested that he and I needed to bring him to our side of the issues; what Dad said next floored me, it took me months to actually figure out what he meant.

He said that he had no problem with my brother's opinion on politics, and that he was OK with his seemingly leftist leanings, "I brought you here so that you could become a Communist if you so wished".

I was floored.

Like the idiot that I am, I failed to understand that what he actually said was that he had brought us to a place where I had the freedom to choose my political ideology, and left behind a place where your only choice was to become a communist.

In my world, laws serve as an ombudsman to justice, laws without justice are immoral.

In my world, society has no rights, but individuals do. Genderless, colorless, ageless individuals, the weakest fetus to receive the same protection of his rights to life, as the oldest have their right to dignity protected.

In my world, Courts of Justice engage in the "constant and perpetual will to secure to every one HIS OWN right"; "and in a Court of Justice, where there are two parties present, justice demands that the rights of each party should be allowed to himself, as well as each party has a right, to be secure and protected by the Court."

John Quincy Adams arguing that a Court of law has the duty to gauge the impact of laws on the individual, and not on society.

In my world, I would dishonor my father by not freely voicing my opinion because of fear of disapproval from others.

But more importantly, in my world Justice is served however the circumstances require that Justice to be served, and in my world, I would welcome an act of runaway judicial activism that terminated the notion that murdering the unborn is a "right", and make abortion illegal in our country; I imagine most people in here would as well.

In my world, if I welcome Judicial activism when it suits my agenda, then I am required to equally welcome it when it doesn't, because to do otherwise, in mine or anyone's world, would amount to nothing less than monumental hypocrisy

[NutCrackerBoy]

I think certain concepts can be nuisances. My first guess when I encounter a conceptual nuisance is that there might be an excess of abstraction and/or a lack of emphasis for a telling process. Exemplifying this are two concepts present in your post: hypocrisy and judicial activism. They are phenomena, symptoms, elusive categories not descriptive of actionable offenses.

Jonah Goldberg is fond of pointing out the predilection of liberals to cartoonishly raise hypocrisy to a level comparable with genocide. Similarly, cries of judicial activism ring hollow somehow.

I think when presented with an instance where judicial activism is readily identified, to find the truth one must dig deeper than that and find the specific error. As Luis Gonzalez and Robert Bork have pointed out, activism is possible by more than one camp and those decrying it are the ones whose ox is getting gored.

The kind I am currently perceiving as a danger is the antihierarchical kind. Systematically tilting the scales of justice in favor of the perceived weakest is part of an accelerating trend where victimhood trumps all, and judges form a vortex of soft power. The solution, I think is to follow the process of justice faithfully and minimize errors.

Similarly, it is not fruitful to try to minimize "hypocrisy" per se. It is a false target. If two judgements reached by the same person are inconsistent, it will not do to bring them into conformance by arbitrarily flipping over the lighter one. One may have to actually endure the inconsistency.

I recall something else Jonah said about hypocrisy (it might relate to Luis Gonzalez' story). A parent may catch himself giving advice to his child that he himself does not follow. That may have to be endured for the benefit of the child's lesson, and quietly filed for later reflection.

[John O]

Just think about the ones that are not being reported the number coiuld be as high as 85-90%. Do you know how ridiculous this is?

Assuming that there are a large number of unreported molestations that would still not raise the percentage from this report. There probably were some respondants who lied but the sample size was large enough to account for that.

Of course we'd have to post the etire study to really disect it. We are discussing just a summary paragraph so far.

(BTW, I don't see 85-90% of 'homosexuals' as molesters being ridiculous. It lines up with my personal experience as well as the slippery slope idea (Once you break the boundary and try one perversion what's to stop you from doing even more perverted things?). Note that I think the 73% number is closer to reality however)

[John O]

Why are these 73% not in jail?

Excellent question. Miscarriage of justice? crooked ('gay') judges? or maybe just a breakdown of morals in this country.

Why is bill clinton a free man? same problem.

[Rummyfan]

Bump.