Posted on 11/09/2004 7:17:10 PM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
Within the next 4-5 years almost every state within America will have their Constitution changed to ban same-sex marriage. This is the right path to take. Alas though, federal courts, being driven forward by radical homosexual organizations, most certainly will seek to overturn the overwhelming will of the people.
We, as a society, must not allow this to happen. The foundation of American society is built upon the fact that marriage is indissoluably the union of one man and one woman. To change this to suit the whims of radical gays will most certainly undermine this nation in which we live, and the following facts support this premise.
1.) Few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, but in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from 1-37 years, "all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for sexual activity outside of their relationships." (David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1984, pp. 252, 253
2.) Clinicians Mattison and Mcwhirter studied 156 long-term homosexual relationships, but found that not one couple was able to maintain sexual fidelity for more than five years. most maintained a monogamous relationship for less than one year. (The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop)
3.)In a study of 2,583 older homosexuals, "the model range for number of sexual partners was 101-500 (Paul Van de Ven "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Hoimosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354)
4. According to the Centers For Disease Control, 50% of male homosexuals had over 500 sexual partners (Rotello, G. (1997). Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men. NY: Dutton)
5.)For homosexual men, the term "monogamy" doesn't necessarily mean sexual exclusivity. The term "open relationship" has for a great many homosexual men come to have one specific definition: A relationship in which the partners have sex on the outside often, put away their resentment and jealously, and discuss their outside sex with each other, or share sex partners. (Michelangelo Signorile, Life Outside (New York: Harper Collins, 1997), p. 213)
6.) "Even 'committed' homosexual relationships display a fundamental incapacity for the faithfulness and committment that is axiomatic to the institution of marriage" (Timothy J. Dailey, Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk, ) http://www.frc.org/get/is01j3.cfm
7.) "Homosexuals model a poor view of marriage to children by teaching that marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in nature, sexual relationships are primarilly for pleasure rather than for procreation, and monogamy in marriage is not the norm and should be discoiuraged if one wasnts a good 'marital' relationship." (Bradley P. Hayton, "To Marry or Not: The Legalization of Marriage and Adoption of Homosexual Couples," Newport Beach: The Pacific Policy Institute, 1993, p.9)
8.) Among heterosexual couples, 75% of husbands and 90% of wives claim never to have had extramarital sex. (Robert T. Michael, Sex in America: A Definitive Survey, Boston, Brown & Company, 1994) Other studies confirm the percentage of faithful spouses between 75-81% for husbands and 85-88% for wives. (Michael W. Widerman, "Extramarital Sex: Prevelance and Correlated in a National Survey," Journal of Sex Research 34 [1977], p.2)
9.) Studies of previous civilizations reveal that when a society strays from the sexual ethic of marriage (a union between a male and a female), it deteriorates and eventually disintegrates. (J.D. Unwin, Sexual Regulatiuons and Human Behavior (London: Williams & Norgate, 1933)
10.) Paula Ettelbrick, former leagl director of the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, has stated "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so...Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society." (Paula Ettelbrick, quoted in William B. Rubenstein, "Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?" Lesbains, Gay Men, and the Law, (New York: The New Press, 1993), pp. 398, 400)
11.) According to homosexual writer and activist Michelangelo Signorile, the goal of homosexuals is : "To fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demad the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and rdaically alter an archaic institution...the most subversive action lesbian and gay men can underatke...is to transform the notion of 'family' entirely." (Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal wave," Out, Dec 1994)
Taking all of these studies into account, it is relatively clear that homosexuals will certainly ballon the incidence of divorce in America as the study of the high rate of divorce found already in Norway and Sweden among homosexuals shows. This will further weaken the institution of marriage in America. http://www.imapp.org
As well, homosexuals do not show the faithfulness that is axiomatic to the institution of marriage. Homosexuals have a strange and twisted notion of what a committed relationship truly is.
Finally, as Dr. Unwin noted in his studies of numerous past civilization, to stray from the true concept of marraige, one man and one woman, will certainly deteriorate and disintegrate our society as well...sooner or later.
When someone saks you how two gays getting married could possibly affect you, show them these facts.
First of all, dude, you have a serious problem. You are attacking me personally because you disagree with me on the silliest of subjects: whether consenting adults can have sex.
Secondly, you need to look up the word hypocrite, because you don't seem to know what it means. How am I being a hypocrite?
Now onto the content of your post: I agree with you that animals are personal property, but the fact is that animal cruelty laws are on the books. You cannot treat an animal in any fashion you choose just because you own it. Whether you agree with that principle or not, it is the law. By the way, tell your animal friends that they do not have the capacity to consent to sex.
Can you please name the states where bestiality is legal? Saying that it is part of pornography is hardly evidence. First, many porn movies are not even shot in the USA and secondly, child molestation and rape are also part of the porn industry, does that prove that those behaviors are legal?
Also, I do not care about the IQ of a 13-year-old. Intelligence is a very separate issue from maturity or age of consent. While there is no magic age of adulthood, I think most rational members of this society would agree that a 13-year-old is a child. This is how legislators determined that the age of majority in most cases is 18. Then when they created the statutory rape laws, they simply incorporated the age of majority as the age of adult consent. This was not "arbitrary law making."
I was "keeping up" with your rant about incest. I stated that the laws on the books were written with the intent of protecting children, but that they also had a secondary rationale based on public health (ie. my examples about the degree of cousins that could marry legally) so that the policy also applied to adult relatives who wanted to marry. I am not stating "my logic" nor saying that I agree with these regulations; I am merely pointing out what is already the law. I never said or implied that anyone with a genetic disease or condition should be barred from anything, again, your argument is with the statutes, not with me.
And I'll answer your question, I consider two adult brothers having sex to be pretty disgusting and certainly abnormal, but I see no reason why it should be illegal. It does not violate anyone's right to life, liberty, or property and it poses no danger to citizens or their possessions.
That being said, you still have no reason to equate people attracted to members of their own gender with people depraved enough to have sex with children or animals.
I don't know why you are so angry or feel so threatened by people of the same gender having sex. It's none of your business what people do as long as they are not endangering your or anyone else's rights.
It isn't always about you.
Even if same sex marriage will not impact society in my lifetime, it will impact society. We don't have any reason to think the impact will be good because there is no surviving society that allows same sex marriage. We have no empirical evidence that it will not hurt society, and a great deal of information as to why it will hurt society.
But it may never affect you. Get over thinking that it's all about you. It will affect your children, and your grandchildren. That's who this battle is for. It's not for you.
For posterity's sake, we must not accept the notion that homosexuality is a valid lifestyle, nor must we incorporate it into law.
Shalom.
That is a gross oversimplification generally put forth by those who don't want to recognize a responsibility to society.
Shalom.
Clint: That was intelligent.
Actually, in a way, it was. Sometimes it is foolish to argue a point that comes from a stupid premise. Have you ever tried to debate the point that electric motors run on smoke? Certainly you've noticed that when the smoke comes out of the electric motor it won't run anymore. But if the smoke is kept inside, the motor will run just fine.
When someone makes an absurd argument that he/she deems reasonable, it means that person himself/herself is absurd.
You can't argue with people who think homosexuality should be considered.
Shalom.
What benefit to society does divorce provide? None. It provides damaged children and damaged people.
We need to get rid of no contest divorce and make getting a divorce as close to impossible as we can. Divorce is ruining this country and we can trace the divorce revolution to the wanton sex drugged out hippies in the 60's.
Our children are not a means to run a social experiment, especially when the results can be so devastating to future generations.
Especially when nobody can point to a successful example.
And, while it doesn't involve homosexuality, we can all point to the example of the black community as one where a change in the traditional notion of family had drastic consequences.
Monkying with the notion of family is like monkying with the wall of your basement. You're a fool unless you ABSOLUETLY KNOW what you are doing.
Shalom.
Bump
>ancient Rome/Greece to varying degrees approved of or at
>least tolerated without persecution gay relationships
They are conquered peoples, and we don't want to emulate negative aspects of conquered peoples.
>American society is much different than it was in 1776, that
>doesn't mean that it somehow became "extinct."
Heterosexual America still stands.
>Tokugawa Japan could have continued had the West not existed
>and its fall had little or nothing to do with the sexual
>mores of the nobles.
Homosexual Tokugawa, like ancient Greece and Rome, fell.
The Greeks were conquered by the Romans.
The Romans were conquered by a bunch of barbarians.
America has worked so far with the Bible and marriage at it's center for more than two centuries.
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.