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?
Have you ever tried to have s*x with a female? You might like it!!
A lot of men do, I think...
I'm limiting the discussion to humans. When you bring in animals, you allow the other side to focus on that issue and ridicule our side. We have plenty of arguments they can't answer, without handing them one (marriage to an animal) they can bat down. I think it just makes our side appear silly to the undecideds, and gains them sympathy as the victims of unreasonable attacks.
What if they fall in love with multiple people at the same time? Shouldn't we respect and value those members?
They're treated like singles though. Married couples are given preference.
I assume Massachusetts' Supreme Court now requires that homosexual couples be given the same preference as married couples, haven't seen anything about it though.
Yes, that is exactly correct. Note the resistance and cries of bigotry from homosexuals who are questioned about their sex lives before donating blood. Some advocate deception.
Well stated. That shoud be the end of the discussion!!
Adultery destroys far more marriages than homosexualtiy. Plus adultery made it into the top ten commandments, whereas gay sex didn't.
I think it's clear that to defend marriage adulterers, even those who only 'covet' outside their marriage, should be punished by the law in some way.
OR...we should keep the state out of the bedrooms of consenting adults.
Third time:
Stop hiding from the polygammy issue. Why do you think your marriage defintion must stop at any two persons? Why not three or five.
Stop hiding.
Third time on this issue as well.
You: GAY BROTHERS: How many gay brothers do you suppose there are in our country? If they ALL decided to marry, what adverse consequence do you anticipate occurring?
Me: 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.
Stop hiding. Why are you afraid to answer these questions?
So, when the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, despite the fact that the state electorate had recently rejected a proposal to legalize gay marriage by a large margin, decided to legalize it anyway by judicial fiat, that was OK?
The problem in this debate is that anything that the opponents of gay-marriage say is automatically dismissed as hate. Proponents can get away with the most vicious hate speech imaginable. Thus, there is no reasoned debate to be had here.
Ultimately, however, this debate is merely a manifestation of a deeper, more hateful agenda on the part of liberals. Establishing gay marriage by judicial fiat and ramming through hate crimes laws in Legislatures are the first steps in allowing the state to dictate to religions, by law, what they can and cannot believe. It is the first step in banning any political speech that liberals find "offensive". And guess what? Anything and everything conservatives have to say is "offensive" and is therefore subject to being banned. Hey, any one who could take offense at someone wishing them a Merry Christmas, will take offense at anything, right?
Let me be clear. You do not have the right to tell me what relgious beliefs I should or should not have. Your side of the issue has been telling us for years that we cannot legislate morality. OK. Why all of a sudden, then, is it perfectly acceptable for you to do the same? You want to be tolerated? Try practicing some yourself first, then we'll talk.
I have no fear of you. I have anger and dislike plenty. It's not about "expanding freedom" it's about changing laws that are the underpinning of American values and community life.
No, in Massachusetts "second-parent adoption" has been legal for several years. What this means is that one person adopts/gives birth to a child and then the second parent can also adopt even if they're of the same sex. An acquaintance of mine did it. Good point about the distinction between that and adopting as a couple. I know next to nothing about the adoption process... one hopes that God will take care of that in its time so I won't have to go that route. :)
I can't imagine that the SJC ruling would mean anything but equal treatment of couples regardless of sex. That said, individual case workers still have a lot of leeway in determining who would provide the best home for a child. Proving discrimination is next to impossible. There are way too many parents and couples chasing too few healthy babies. For older kids, on the other hand, a lot of normal couples are going to take a pass...
| 8 | “The essence of a free society is choice---including the option of choosing private behavior that does not cause harm to another person.” -- Ernie.cal |
Here is the hole in your theory using your own words.
There is no logical reason to limit your "essence of a free society" to just private behavior. If there were, there'd be no right to public free speech.
Therefore, since masturbating in public causes no harm to another person, the only way to stop such outrageous and immoral behavior would through "using the coercive (and punitive) power of government through laws, bureaucrats, and police to dictate what choices are permissible".
Don't confuse freedom with anarchy.
--Boot Hill
BTW..you might enjoy this..years ago, mid 70's.. I went to a Christmas party where one of the guests was Richard Cardinal Spellman..then Archbishop of NY..he was related to our hosts..At the time, there had been several articles advocating allowing RC priests to marry. The Cardinal was asked his opinion, and I can recall vividly his response. He took a healthy gulp from his brndy snifter, put down his cigarette, and with a twinkle in his eye, replied.."But then what would I do if they wanted to get divorced?"
Haven't had a chance to read the thread, looks like some standard issue homo agenda talking points.
lj will be gone from FR for a short while. I'm the volunteer until little jeremiah gets back online.
If you want on/off the list let me know.
YOU'RE RIGHT (the author of the article)- AND DEMOCRAPS SHOULD SPEND THE NEXT 4 YEARS MAKING THIS THEIR CORE ISSUE!!!
(please please please please please please )
You are presenting personal opinions as though they were indisputable fact.
"The same sex unit is not as stable" as "married hetero couples"? How do we know that? Wouldn't we have to first permit legalized same-sex marriage and study the results over time to see if the "stability" is demonstrably different from hetero couples?
And what if the empirical evidence revealed that gay marriages were MORE stable than hetero marriages? You would still be opposed to same-sex marriages, right?
With respect to your comment "There is no real need for gay marriage except for the few who desire recognition to make themselves feel better." Perhaps you would care to amplify your statement. What PRINCIPLES underlie your argument? We should grant rights or equal protection of law based upon what rules?
Butt Snugglers Suck BTTT
Children can't give consent. As to animals, on an emotional level many people are married to their pets, as to sex, as distasteful as I find it there seems to be little point in drawing a moral line between killing and eating something and / or having sex with it. As a meat eater I don't feel that a sheep is 'murdered' for my lamb chops, so how could I be offended by its 'rape'?
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.