Posted on 07/14/2004 10:34:59 AM PDT by Willie Green
Advocates of "gay marriage" or homosexual civil unions argue that promiscuity will be reduced. Such an argument overlooks two key points.
First, a embracing homosexual unions is more likely to undermine the institution of marriage and produce other negative effects than it is to make fidelity and longevity the norm for homosexual unions. Second, homosexual unions are not wrong primarily because of their disproportionately high rate of promiscuity and breakups. They are wrong because "gay marriage" is a contradiction in terms. As with consensual adult incest and polyamory, considerations of commitment and fidelity factor only after certain structural prerequisites are met.
The vision of marriage found in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures is one of reuniting male and female into an integrated sexual whole. Marriage is not just about more intimacy and sharing one's life with another. It is about sexual merger -- or, in Scripture's understanding, "remerger" -- of essential maleness and femaleness.
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
This is the end game scorcard on this debate.
Bush is a winner because he now owns this issue and can use it against most all "D"
Kerry is a looser two fold. 1. because he took the cowards way out and did not even vote (yet anther absense) 2. flip flop-able arguments are still to be used against him. He has a 100% pro-homosexual voting record. He advocates spending direct social security money on homosexuals and allowing homosexuals to file jointly.
Edwards is a looser for all the Kerry reasons, AND he is a member of the ABA which advocates homosexual marriage.
Republicans win because they have forced Dashel and co on the record. They all have this wedge issue that gains more votes and voters than even abortion and gun rights.
Democrats loose big big time. They are all now exposed as denying states rights. Passage would have meant 50 states debating on this issue not just one senate.
Dashel looser, his speech was only leagalese incorrectness saying the DMA would protect against FFC and EC (it can not). Thune can and MUST use this against him.
Senate as an institution: BIG looser because it has now given the green light to the courts as the only means of amending the constitution. The legislative branch became more weak.
The New England Rinos, in a more R rich senate they are dead politically. If thinking of jumping, remember jumpin jim and his outhouse based office.
McCain: Loco looser, presidential aspirations are dead.
Leftist Judges winners because the senate gave them a green light.
Law schools winners beause they work overtime to turnout lawyers as leftist as possible.
ABA winner because they advocate homosexual marraige in their articles and model law projects used by legislators. (ABA is voluntary)
Okay, I'm done. I see your point, we just agree to disagree.
I don't want to deny anyone a ball and chain. And if there are a couple of extra balls, so what?
/joke
Forget about the Bible for a moment, and consider the argument from a purely objective, humanistic point of view: Anything that, if practiced by everyone, would either destroy or harm humanity or that would create social anarchy is bad and/or wrong. It's really a very simple argument. What would happen if everyone stole from their neighbors? What would happen if all people were gay? What would happen if all people lied?
Government should only pass laws and encourage behavior which furthers the peacable proliferation of the human race. Based on this nonreligious argument, gay marriage is wrong.
Case closed.
Unfortunatly this is not agree to disagree issue.
This is not an issue which does not touch all.
If homosexual marriage must be acknowledged then those three states that prohibit homosexual adoption will have those laws at risk.
Employers will have health insurance skyrocket due to sex diseases. (93% of all new USA aids cases are homosexuals)
There is no middle on this. It is yea/nay no maybe.
otherwise take care.
Sadly, I disagree; we all lose- the winner is the structured forces in the horizon that stay faithful to unifying "truths".... currently that is Islam-
But why limit it to only two people? If one man and two women wanted to live together as a marital group, why should we deny them this right?
How would it be determined whether a person who wanted to get married is sterile or not?
What do you think the purpose of this vow is?
IMHO it's to create a loving and stable environment for children.
So we're down to your opinion now. Just clarifying.
There are tests that can be done. Fertility is a big industry. My point is that marriage is not just about having children.
Then you certainly won't mind when I "marry" one of my grandkids before I check out and send you the bill for Social Security Survivors benefits for 60 years or so.
Response: Yep!
Comment: So what? (not directed at you merely the indifference of elected office holders.)
In numeric reality...diseases are ceratin to follow.
At this point..its beyond some Pharmacutical money enterprise which profits from the debauchery...
It imperals the nation.
outcomes...?
Quarentine of cities...
National emergency law in effect...curfews.
The entire nation spiralling into chaos and fiscal ruin.
This homo union thing is the nightmare product of weak minds, addled by drugs, TV, and the moronic "educators" in the schools today.
"love", what a moronic yuck of a "reason" for the state to establish an institution - go indulge in your veggies.
"Since the beginning of civilization, the standard for marriage has been a bond between 1 man and 1 woman. If that standard is changed, you can be sure children will pay the price."
So how does that play in with the stories in the Bible of rulers and such who had multiple wives and concubines and the like?
Were they not civilized?
"Pretty flawed argument, as I see it. Everybody (as far as I know) eats, and everyone sleeps. Does that create anarchy?"
I should have prefaced my argument with "optional" behavior. Obviously, everyone needs to sleep, eat, drink water, and so forth to be able to live. Sex is a choice, however, and is not necessary for someone to stay alive. (Okay, some would argue with me on that last point.)
"What if the sky turned green, or pigs started to fly, or the Cubs finally won the World Series? What is your point here?"
Or, a better question might be, "What is YOUR point here?" Rather specious interrogative, I would say. The sky turning green or pigs flying or the Cubs winning the World Series really has nothing to do with anything. Your "point" is just plain silly and nonserious.
"Agreed, but I certainly don't see how you have proven that gay marriages do otherwise. Killing innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, now that's another story."
Gay marriages do not produce children. That is an indisputable fact. And as sad as innocent civilians being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan is (do you know how many civilians have been killed?), war is hell. But if I remember correctly, we did not start this war - I believe it was 19 cowardly hijackers who did. I am just glad Al Gore was not President, because he would probably still be trying to "negotiate" with people for whom this is an impossible exercise.
"Hardly."
Again, "Case closed."
certainly it is from the CDC's own statistics. It is from their 2003 data.
www.cdc.gov
Actually our society is as religious as it ever was, it is Christianity that is being driven from the public.
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.