Posted on 02/17/2004 5:48:59 AM PST by JesseHousman
Legalization of same-sex marriage would be a seismic event across this culture. Nothing would ever be the same. Every young child asks his parents, "Can boys [or girls] get married to each other"? If the answer changes from "no" to "yes," homosexuality would have then achieved equal status with heterosexual conduct and marriage. This equivalence would be taught in schools, observed in the workplace and eventually imposed even on churches.
If the answer becomes "yes" there will doubtless be a dramatic increase in the incidence of homosexuality. Sexual arousal is a mystical thing, subject to conditioning. How else can one explain bisexuality, transsexuality, or those who migrate from one orientation to another? We should not underestimate the power of continued Hollywood marketing of homosexuality, the human drive for pleasure and official government approval to mold behavior in this area.
And same-sex marriage would not work. It might seem like a benign idea that would lead to more stability in homosexual relationships -- among people who, after all, are "born that way." But there is no evidence that homosexuality is genetically determined. Such relationships are inherently dysfunctional because we are not made that way. We all know that sometimes heterosexual marriage does not work either, but at least it can work and certainly provides the ideal matrix for raising children.
Moreover, it is doubtful that most homosexuals really want marriage. The mind-set appears to be abandonment of restraint, not fidelity or acceptance of a different restraint such as lifelong homosexual marriage.
By the time it is proved that same-sex marriages don't work, irreparable damage will have been done to traditional marriage, which has already been weakened by divorce and extramarital cohabitation. Damage will be compounded by the ramifications of same-sex marriage. As Georgia law presently stands, pedophilic homosexual marriages would immediately be legal if same-sex marriage were instituted today. A 50-year-old man or woman could marry a 16-year-old (and in some cases younger) boy or girl. And the very same sham constitutional privacy arguments used by the U.S. Supreme Court and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will be, and in some cases already have been, made for legalization of incestuous and polygamous or group marriages (including same-sex, opposite sex and bisexual varieties).
How about two men and three women? By the time all of this comes to fruition, the whole concept of marriage will be meaningless for all of us and it will be impossible to repair the damage.
Moreover, our democracy will be shattered if judges, our black-robed masters, are allowed to continue using the pretense of constitutional construction to impose their personal social agendas, without regard to the wishes of the majority.
The only solution, apart from a revolt against the judicial oligarchs, is a constitutional amendment. We must act soon.
George M. Weaver is an Atlanta attorney.
You have a strange obsession with other people's feces.
Because, even though we're referring to the stone age, a cave-man type would probably react irrationally and bash the homosexual stone-age man in the head with his stone mallet if his testicles were being "groped."
(Grouped is a little humor I gleaned from the Schwartzenegger campaign.)
Not I Modern Man.
Only sick SOBs shove their faces into areas where the sun doesn't shine. I am a happily practicing heterosexual Christian
Were you unaware of that additional loathsome aspect of their culture?
Turning the anti-homosexual agenda against posters on this thread is sophomoric and sycophantic.
I wonder if cave-men had the same taboos about homosexuality that we do. Historically, societies have been far from uniform in their views on homosexuality (or sexual morality in general, for that matter), so I'm not sure you can conclude that a group of primitive hunter-gatherers would have the same take on homosexuality as you do.
Plus, you said that having a gay member of the group would be bad for a group of primitive people. You still haven't said why that would be.
Unaware? No. However, I really see no need to discuss it on a (supposedly) family-friendly forum. I've known several homosexual people during my life, and none of them have ever talked about this sort of thing.
Turning the anti-homosexual agenda against posters on this thread is sophomoric and sycophantic.
You're the one who keeps making poop references....
I don't want to hurt your feelings.
I thought I'd covered that, but will make another stab at it:
There still would reside in the stone-ager's psyche--I believe--a congenital, abashed (in the eyes of some) belief that playing around sexually with another cave-guy is a bad proposition. The closest thing we have are the throwbacks found in Australia and the Amazon regions. They consider 'homosexual' activity to be a big no-no.
That being said, there's a lot we could learn from the caveman that some of us are too dense to glean from the Old and New Testaments of The Holy Bible.
Do a little research. I'm certain that homosexuals you've known wouldn't come out and tell you just what they do, besides the obvious, that would be considered despicable.
Everything I ever needed to know about politics, I learned from The Simpsons:...
You need to do a little more research.
Why would I want to inquire as to someone else's sexual fetishes? I'm sure many of my straight friends also engage in private sexual behavior that some would consider "despicable," but some things are best not discussed in private company.
You need to do a little more research.
Sigh. I guess there are two types of FReepers: Those that get the joke, and those that don't.
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.