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?
Fourth 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.
Fourth 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?
Well, I walked in on my so-called first husband and caught him with another man. I divorced the crazy sucker. Do I feel guilty about it? NO! I remarried six years later and have been married for over 20 years. We have our ups and downs but I take marriage seriously. I was just stupid the first time.
"and I am the Queen of England"I wonder if the Queen of England is jealous of Elton John?Elton is that you?
Troll inspection alert. This one won't respond to our initial
inquiries. Someone detected a giggle from the poster when
the issue of the Richard Gere Zot came up for discussion.Sully is refering to the article poster .....
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my Viking Kitty/ZOT ping list!. . .don't be shy.
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?
The extremely well-known and well-documented homosexual promiscuity with all the attendant disease-spreading consequences puts the lie to your conjecture. In addition, what would be the point of your proposed societal experiment if the results were shown to be disastrous for American life--would you then say, "Oh, well, too bad, I guess we were wrong" after the destruction?
I guess they can do what they want in private. I just believe that they will have to answer for their actions someday.
I don't believe it is within the scope of being liberal to admit being wrong.
I'm not hiding. I'm using the Socratic method of asking a question to answer a question --- in order to understand the issue better.
I did not state my position on the matter. I merely asked for YOUR judgment.
What would be the adverse consequences YOU would predict?
Instead of just asking us questions why not answer some of ours?
I can't stand people who answer a question with another question...
Nice try.
This is your thread, you tossed out the subject.
Now answer my two questions, or admit you're a coward and slink away.
One principal is the first amendment. For instance, if homosexuals marriage was protected BY LAW would churches be allowed to deny employment, benefits, etc. to homosexuals? One instance of this is laws proposed to FORCE Catholic pro-life hospitals and Catholic pro-life medical professionals to perform abortions if they receive any government money, even in the form of medicare payments.
You will have a hard time getting ANY conservative Christians to submit to being bound by your agenda.
But why should I (or my employer) have to either pay higher premiums or cut back coverage for others to pay for the expensive medical conditions homosexuals have. Insurance isn't about spreading costs equally; it's about allocating costs according to risks. Male homosexuals have particularly high risks.
principal s/b "principle.
The normalization of gay culture will send a message to my kids that it's OK to experience sex with other (usually much older) men. This is why gays are trying (in England anyway) to lower the age of consent to 14. Imagine a 40 year old man or pedophile having legal sex with a 14 year old. Thats what they want for my kids. Their marriage aspirations are a way for gays to beleive that it's OK, normal to be perverted.
Gays should be allowed the same right as the rest of us. They do have those rights. They just shouldn't be allowed
to redefine words or get special rights or force the rest
of the world to LOOK AT ME..SEE ME....ADMIRE MY CHOICE.
(caps because it's the in your face gay way to say)
We don't want big gov't, but we don't want small
deviant groups to define the normal thing either.
Why would that be fair. Do smokers pay the same rates for life insurance as nonsmokers? Gay employees are more likely to have AIDS and other illnesses. They should pay more, not expect everyone else to subsidize them.
consider this what you request is an amendment to current accept norms of today society. You are asking to change the Norms based on sexual preference. You create the proverbial slippery slope with that. You say that it would not have adverse effects on society, I say it does.
When you allow a change based on preferece where does it stop? pologomy, beastiality... etc...
This has nothing to do with religon or Gods law... although I do belive that those should have some impact on society. But what you ask is like ask us to allow people to murder becuase they want to.
What you do in your own house is your issue. The rest of society doesn't need to privy to it or exposed to it.
I assume you meant not "no" but "yes".
That is how all non-married couples adopt. As two singles.
I can't imagine any way their Supreme Court can justify descrimination against one type of married couple based solely on the sex of the members.
Even though their court has no need to make any legal sense, and it obviously couldn't sensibly be done legally, the political and ideological considerations they put above the law would stop them.
Likening a gays decision to be with someone else to child molesters is a bit much don't you think??
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.
