Why Allowing Same-Sex Marriage Would Be Disastrous For America. Numerous Scientific Studies Cited.

November 9, 2004

[Siamese Princess]

Also, these visitation rights, property rights, and other so called unavailable rights that Homosexuals do not have are red herrings, all of these rights can be secured quite simply by existing laws of contracts. I as a Heterosexual can have anybody visit me in the hospital as long as I am conscious, If I were to become incapacitated a living will can take the place of my conscious approval. Property transfers can be dealt with in a standard will. What I can not do is decide that I want my employer to pay for my sister, cousin, or friends health and welfare benefits simply because i state that I have a "special" relationship with them.

Excellent posts, Jim. In France, the concept of "domestic partnership" has expanded to include two widowed sisters living together or even a priest and his housekeeper. That's taking the concept to its logical conclusion.

[jim from cleveland]

regardless of costs the can of worms this idea of same sex marriage opens up is undesireable for our country period.

[Dec31,1999]

Same sex marriage would be just ridiculous. It's just too much.

[jim from cleveland]

Thank you.

The point is this type of social experimentation is not in the best interest of society on any level.

[Dec31,1999]

Same sex marriage would be just ridiculous. It's just too much.

[Siamese Princess]

Your arrow hit the bullseye. Excellent post.

One thing that I would add is that you can't separate sexual morality, or immorality, from general morality, or immorality. The "sexual revolution" is part and parcel of the general breakdown of morality. As recently as the so-called "sexually repressed" 50s, a multi-million business deal might be sealed on a mere handshake because a man's word and his honor still meant something. Who would be do that now?

In so many ways, in today's society we've redefined vice as virtue and virtue as vice. Not long ago, a man was expected to take care of himself and his own and being dependent on charity or the government was a source of shame. Nowadays, many a person loudly demands that his fellow citizens pay for all kinds of benefits, entitlements and services that benefit him.

[Indie]

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."

WTF??!!!

What a nut case!

[Siamese Princess]

It is false that all societies have rejected homosexuality, if by that word you mean sexual conduct between two members of the same sex.

There have been a number of societies which permitted homosexual activity (it's endemic amongst Muslim men) but no society has ever considered homosexuality as a lifetyle equal to heterosexuality. Men have universally been expected to marry women and sire children. In other words, homosexuality may be acceptable as a side dish, but never as the main course.

[Skywalk]

Sir,

You specifically framed the debate by stating that no society tolerated this conduct. Well, schizophrenia, mania, depression, etc all were present in societies, but they were not enshrined in the cultural norms of major civilizations.

Thus, whatever you may think of homosexuality or its attendant sexual deviations from heterosexuality, there HAVE BEEN societies in which homosexual conduct was tolerated and even encouraged.

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.

[Siamese Princess]

The point is this type of social experimentation is not in the best interest of society on any level.

There is something called "society" and it is in society's best interests that people form and maintain strong, happy and healthy families because there are astronomical social costs to family meltdown. But many don't care -- they want to do as they please and expect the taxpayer to pick up the pieces when things go wrong.

[Hetty_Fauxvert]

A strong argument against a genetic cause, however, is that such genetic variations, which disfavour reproduction in a species, would hardly survive a few generations"

I read the same article ( at http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Genetic%20basis%20for%20homosexuality) and I see that your excerpt is not exactly representative of the entire thrust of the article. It is actually quite an interesting article and should be read in its entirety by anyone who is really interested in the genetics of the thing. Here is another interesting bit, which seems to refer to the possibilities inherent in a "gay gene" being recessive rather than dominant:

"Any genetic component must be rooted in evolution by natural selection, and many non-scientists assume that a homosexual orientation would necessarily result in decreased reproduction. Gene prevalence, however, and therefore selection, can be influenced by increasing the reproductive success of individuals with whom we share genes in common. While it may be unclear to some how homosexuality could offer a selective advantage to individuals, many hypotheses exist that explain why an inherited tendency toward this orientation might offer a selective advantage to the genes they carry." (Italics mine.)

In a hypothetical situation, in a tribal society, if you are gay and you help to raise your sister's kids because you don't have any of your own, your sister's kids would receive the advantage of the extra food, attention, protection, etc., and would be more likely to live to maturity and pass on whatever genes you and they share -- which might include a recessive "gay gene." So those genes might easily survive in a population even though they are not passed on directly. This hypothesis also points out the idea that there might actually be an advantage to having these genes in a society, which would be lost to society if we ever managed to somehow get rid of the gene by genetic engineering or similar.

[Darkchylde]

Gee, mom. Have you read this?

[Smokin' Joe]

Fudge-packers focus on pleasure, not procreation. Thus, sodomites create disease, death and higher insurance premiums, because it would be discriminatory to charge AIDS patients higher rates than normal, relatively healthy people.

But tobacco users pay twice what others in their age group do, whether they are generally healthy otherwsise or not. Go figure.

[usadave]

I also see nothing in the post that explains how a same-sex relationship hurts me at all.

This is one issue where I'm relatively "live and let live". Why should I care if two people of the same sex want to have a relationship? I think that equal treatment under the law is one of the greatest things about this country and I'm not inclined to ignore that just because I'm straight.

Everybody, whether they're a homosexual or a heterosexual, already has equal treatment under the law. Any man, regardless of his sexual orientation, can marry the woman of his choice, provided that the woman is single. Any woman, regardless of her sexual orientation, can marry the man of her choice, provided that the man is single.

By the way, how do you feel about polygamous marriage? By not allowing polygamous marriage, we are discriminating against those individuals who would choose that type of marital relationship if it was legal. And just like what you said about same-sex marriage, if polygamous marriage was legalized, it wouldn't hurt you at all.

[OriginalIntent]

If you want gay 'marriage', then go for it, get yourself an amendment.

Americans have always, from the very beginning used laws to limit and even prohibit certain behavior they considered immoral.

Many absolutely hated slavery but even then they did not resort to judicial activism to rid this land of that true evil, instead they followed the law and passed an amendment.

If the nation has changed and want this new morality (even after years of leftist propaganda such as Simon Levey's bogus report) they will let you know.

If they agree with you then they should gladly have their elected officials vote for it in the amendment process.

[William Terrell]

My post wasn't framed by any one point.

Anything contrary to the way reality is actually constructed is bad to the stability of a nation of people. Homosexuality is obviously a mental condition inconsistent with reality.

Population is vital to a nation's survival and its citizens' quality of life. Anything that is contrary to the ability to produce population is discouraged.

This is the way people are wired. Programed beliefs accepted in order to be cool don't alter the way reality is put together.

Homosexuality is found whereever people are found. In the countries where it its celebrated, the culture is incontinent, degrading or dead. Homosexuality may well be an indicator instead of a cause. Whichever it is, it is not good.

The cultures that have encouraged homosexuality were on their way out. Like ours. No nation began with normalized homosexuality. It only came later and metastasized.

The reason homosexuality, and not other mental illnesses, may be celebrated is because it is about pleasure while the others are about pain.

You can pick around the edges of these points, but you can't reach their substance.

[Walkingfeather]

ping for later read.

[Quester]

I think you miss his point. I think he meant that perhaps the reason why few of these relationships resemble monogamous marriage is because they are not allowed to be married. You can't expect them to look a certain way if they cannot be that way, no?

So ... you think that public sanction is that powerful ?

So powerful that it will change gay relationships so that they much more closely resemble heterosexual marriage ?

[Quester]

... my argument wasn't that same-sex relationships are the same as heterosexual relationships. My point was, in fact, that I think it would be ridiculous for us to assume they would be the same as we've never provided any sanction to GLBT relationships.

So ... you think that public sanction is that powerful ?

So powerful that it will change gay relationships so that they much more closely resemble heterosexual marriage ?

[johnnyb_61820]

"Gays are just as intelligent, they contribute just as much to the economy...they are different only in their choice of partners. Why not treat them as equals?"

They are being treated as equals. In what way are they not?

I think you are implying that not granting gay marriage is treating someone as non-equal, which is a false assumption. We don't grant marriage to single people, or groups of three or four, but all are still treated as equals.

Marriage is for the purpose of family, procreation, and children. THAT is the only reason the state is involved. There is no treatment of someone as less than equal in this matter.