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.
... ancient Rome/Greece to varying degrees approved of or at least tolerated without persecution gay relationships.
Homosexuality & Same-Sex "Marriage" (Ancient Roman Satirist Slams Gays)
I find the statement hypocritical when our society has actively worked to discourage GLBT "committed relationships".
What has contemporary society done to discourage GLBT committed relationships ?
Is withholding a certain label (i.e. 'marriage') so much of a discouragement that it results in gay marriage-like behaviour being as rare as it is ?
She's supposed to be sending me some links to the research.
Please post the links she sends you in Scripter's "Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Revision 1.1)" thread. Thanks!
Hehehe...let me play!
I also see nothing in the post that explains how a same-sex bestial relationship hurts me at all.
I also see nothing in the post that explains how a same-sex iincestual relationship hurts me at all.
I also see nothing in the post that explains how a same-sex under-age relationship hurts me at all.
Thanks for playing...
Only fools base their opinion on anecdotal evidence.
Trust me, your stat is wrong. Lesbians make up about half of all homosexuals.
That was intelligent.
Yep you're right, they're called extinct.
Bestiality, incest, and under-age sex involve animal cruely, child abuse and statutory rape. They have nothing in common with two consenting adults of the same sex having a relationship. It is juvenile to compare that to the three things mentioned above. Those things do hurt people. Same-sex relationships don't.
I'd sure like to see any evidence for your statement. All the studies I've seen, posted and archived report a lower rate for lesbians.
The latest and most accurate study cites 2.1% of the population is homosexual. It's slightly lower for homosexual women (1.4%) and slightly higher for homosexual men (2.8%). All percentages include bisexuals so for those exclusively homosexual it's even less.
Perhaps you read a stat wrong somewhere, for there are approximately half as many homosexual women as there are homosexual men.
BS! Animals are property, if cruelty was really your crusade then you should also be lobbying against them being delicious food. I’m betting you’re either a PETA person or a hypocrite…which is it? BTW you’re welcome to prove that animals don’t enjoy having “sex” with humans, that might be interesting.
Child abuse only if they didn’t consent and guess what, plenty of 13 year olds have the mental capacity to consent…only arbitrary law prevents them. And what is the basis of arbitrary law??? MORAL JUDGEMENT!
Statutory rape doesn’t apply to consenting adult relatives so save your “moral outrage” for someone who cares. But given your logic, “Those things do hurt people. Same-sex relationships don't” then two adult brothers must be OK by YOU! Right?
Prove it.
Two things on the bestiality comment: first, raping an animal is animal cruelty, which is illegal. Humane killing of animals for food is not illegal. Secondly, there is a strong correlation between people who have sex with or otherwise abuse animals and those that go on to commit acts of abuse or other violence against people. Research most of the famous serial killers (Henry Lee Lucas and Jeffery Dahmer to name a couple) and you will find that they had a history of torturing or raping animals.
13 year olds do not have the capacity to consent to sex with an adult. That's why statutory rape laws exist, to prevent to abuse of children and teens who are persuaded into sex by predatory adults. Are you telling me that child molestation is ok as long as there is no struggle or as long as the child or teenager likes the person that is raping them?
Incest is illegal because it usually concerns parents or older siblings sexually abusing children in their homes. Adult incest is illegal because of the public health concerns with two close relatives producing offspring who are many times more likely to have congenital defects because of homozygous genetic diseases. That's why in some states, you can marry your 2nd cousin, and in others the closest relative you can marry is your 4th cousin.
Again, two consenting adults having a sexual relationship violates no one's rights to life, liberty, or property, while the above situations involve victims or public health/order violations.
When homosexual relationships have legal sanction, in whatever form, look for the schools to begin teaching the equivalency of homo and heterosexual behavior, including marriage or civil union, or whatever. The problems of legitimizing these relationships will not appear in the current generation, but two or three generations from now, you can expect to see a world in which young boys always begin their sexual experimentation with other boys (as they're simply more available and ready earlier than the girls), and the natural result of that will be more homosexual and bisexual behavior, far less fidelity in marriage, and a debased culture in which to raise children. We've already gone a long ways down that path-- the changes in the world since my childhood in the sixties and seventies are apalling. It will get worse.
If you don't believe that young boys will do this, a while back there was a case in Marble Falls, Texas, a small town north of Austin, where the teacher was delinquent and left the class each day for an hour or so. During that time period, four or five of the boys regularly performed oral sex on one another. How would you feel if one of those boys were your son?
That's exactly how I see it. Our children are not a means to run a social experiment, especially when the results can be so devastating to future generations.
Then that makes you a hypocrite. I’ve asked every animal I know and they say having “sex” with humans is much better than being food. Go figure.
Two things on the bestiality comment: first, raping an animal is animal cruelty, which is illegal. Humane killing of animals for food is not illegal.
Umm...wrong and wrong. Bestiality is legal in many states, check out the “legal” porn industry. Animals are personal property, if you want to regulate said property then maybe we should begin with your blow-up doll. Next, the very word humane implies compassion…if you think being knocked over the head with a sledge hammer is “humane” then you’re nuts.
Secondly, there is a strong correlation between people who have sex with or otherwise abuse animals and those that go on to commit acts of abuse or other violence against people. Research most of the famous serial killers (Henry Lee Lucas and Jeffery Dahmer to name a couple) and you will find that they had a history of torturing or raping animals.
You haven’t proved that bestiality is inhumane except by virtue of arbitrary law, and since it IS legal in many states then your logic doesn’t hold. I guess all those actors in the bestiality porn industry will suddenly turn to crime, you better go arrest them before they kill someone. There’s higher correlation between homosexuality and mass murder than bestiality, scripter I’m sure can put you on a cite for that. Nice try though.
13 year olds do not have the capacity to consent to sex with an adult. That's why statutory rape laws exist, to prevent to abuse of children and teens who are persuaded into sex by predatory adults. Are you telling me that child molestation is ok as long as there is no struggle or as long as the child or teenager likes the person that is raping them?
Capacity to Consent is measured by IQ, check out the death penalty statute in Texas, emancipation of adults with Downs syndrome and the process for “Power of Attorney” for the elderly. Many if not most 13 year olds have an adult IQ; the only thing not allowing them to consent is arbitrary law. So if the legislature made the age of consent 12, then by your logic, it would be OK? Or again, are you just another hypocrite with a pro-homosexual agenda?
Incest is illegal because it usually concerns parents or older siblings sexually abusing children in their homes. Adult incest is illegal because of the public health concerns with two close relatives producing offspring who are many times more likely to have congenital defects because of homozygous genetic diseases. That's why in some states, you can marry your 2nd cousin, and in others the closest relative you can marry is your 4th cousin.
I said consenting adults, keep up. If heath concern is your gig, then why couldn’t you answer my question about two consenting adult brothers, that’s OK right? Or is it just another of your hypocritical positions again?
Given your health concerns, should we regulate those with genetic defects from having sex, getting married? The CDC says they pass on their defects at a rate of 95% OF THE TIME, a much greater risk than incest. Those with Downs syndrome, Spina Bifita, cleft palate, should be barred from sex by your logic. What about personal responsibility? Condoms, the pill? What about abortion? You haven’t thought this out that far have you?
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.