Posted on 12/23/2004 7:40:45 AM PST by Ernie.cal
I have read many messages which object to same-sex marriage but I am still waiting to learn what specific adverse consequences opponents of gay marriage anticipate to result from its legalization.
In other words, suppose same-sex marriage becomes law during 2005. By 2010 or 2015 what specific indisputable adverse consequences to society do opponents predict to occur?
With respect to those critics of same-sex marriage who refer to "God's law" and "procreation" --- do they believe that heterosexual couples who cannot have children, or who do not wish to have children, should also NOT be allowed to marry?
The essence of a free society is choice---including the option of choosing private behavior that does not cause harm to another person. The alternative is coercion, i.e. using the coercive (and punitive) power of government through laws, bureaucrats, and police to dictate what choices are permissible.
Do opponents of same-sex marriage propose that our society should begin identifying areas where choices involving human intimacy should be regulated by government entities and thus dilute our commitment to the values inherent in a free society?
I am pretty sure that prior to these times it was natural for a man to take 1 wife and cling to her, support her and protect and care for their offspring together, it's just that in the Bible God blessed this practice and made it a covenant just like the covenant between God and Abraham.
I'm positive we have been trolled. ;-D
So, you would permit gay brothers or sisters to marry. Thank you for being clear. Now, how about a father and son? Father and 18 year old daughter? Please state your reasons why or why not in each case.
Also, I really don't think that there is going to be a huge push for father-daughter or brother-brother marriages. But if there are, then good luck to them.
I believe that homosexuality is a mental defect for some (they're "born" that way), a choice for others, and the rest caused by influences in their childhood.
If teens are exposed to gay influences while developing their sexual identity, I believe it may tilt them one way rather than the other.
Years ago, it was a stigma to be considered gay. Now that stigma is almost entirely gone, and in some circles, almost "celebrated". I believe that this whole new generation of youth being exposed to gay "tolerance" is having the desired effect, which is larger percentages of kids being homo- and bi-sexual. Both lifestyles are detrimental to their personal lifestyle, not to mention society.
It is up to you to prove your case to the majority, not the other way around. So far you haven't done that.
It's not up to us to PROVE the case against this radical change. It's up to THEM to convince us we're better off in they're radical new world. I'm still waiting to be convinced.
Heeeere, kitty, kitty, kitty!!!!
Breakfast time!!!
I don't think he is a troll he has been on FR for awhile. Though, as far as I recall, all his posts are about the john birch society. So he probably isn't a troll he is just a bit "off".
Wrong. The alternative to choice is NOT coercion. The alternative here is the law to FORBID. That is not coercion to DO something, that is legislation by the people to DENY one of a particular set of choices.
What happens when it does affect you? Suppose you have a daughter who gets involved in a male dominated polygamy group?
Why just couples? Would you be willing to support polygamy being legal?
Or would you simply support the end of government interference into relationships altogether?
The divorce rate may a result of divorce being too easy to obtain. You can't blame the institution for the recent rise in divorces when they became easier to get. The institution has been around longer than easy divorces.
************
Except in cases of documented physical abuse, yes.
Your questions are posed in a hostile "when did you stop beating your wife?" fashion.
If you personally perceive no benefit to yourself does that mean you are prepared to deny human rights to another person? For example, slave owners perceived no benefit to ending slavery. Therefore, should our country have outlawed "the aggressive abolitionist agenda to proceed"? Perhaps imprison abolitionists, legally forbid them to marry or own property or publish newspapers?
Your message seems to indicate that YOU are the ultimate model for all good and decent persons, i.e. we must all behave and think like you do. "What, if anything, is GOOD about YOUR agenda" for American society?
The essence of a free society is choice---including the option of choosing private behavior that does not cause harm to another person. The alternative is coercion, i.e. using the coercive (and punitive) power of government through laws, bureaucrats, and police to dictate what choices are permissible.
The essence of your arguement is that homosexuals cannot pursue their private passion behind closed doors and that somehow government resistance to the redefinition of marriage constitutes "coercion". It does not. It only perpetuates the current situation and codifies the one man one woman concept of marriage.
When seen as another step in the political correctness arguement, it amounts to society finding ways to not offend a segment of society that feels they are not "loved and cherished" because they must keep their experiences under wraps. Normalization of homosexuality is another step towards that place in civilization where everyone who is offended gets to have his day. I don't buy in.
What's so good about your agenda of pushing gay marriage?
That is a good question! I don't know what I would do or think in that situation. That just might change my mind. I also don't fault anyone else for their beliefs or opinions on the subject.
There is no way around it. This IS a religious matter. Marriage is a sacrament ordained by G_d. It exists to join a man and a woman into a bond that is holy. That this rubs some the wrong way is too bad.
The growing attack on religion that we are witnessing throughout the west goes hand-in-hand with the promotion of homosexuality as a "civil right". The Christian insistance on a responsible and chaste use of the sexual impulse enrages those obsessed by sex (both homo and hetero).
You: I wouldn't forbid it. People can do whatever they want, as long as it does not affect me. Also, I really don't think that there is going to be a huge push for father-daughter or brother-brother marriages. But if there are, then good luck to them.
Thanks for your honesty. Now I'll be honest. You are a sick deviant, and I sincerely hope you don't have any interactions with children in your life.
If, for example, father-daughter or father-son "marriages" were legalized and recognized, you would have numerous sick perverts raise their children for the purpose of seduction. As soon as the son or daughter hits 18, presto, "marriage." It would be a pervert's dream come true, and you support it.
Seek help.
Ping.
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.