Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Same-Sex Marriage - A Threat To Whom?
12-23-04 | Ernie1241

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?


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: adamevenotadamsteve; alohamrhand; amichaeljackson; antichristian; avanityisntnews; bluestatealert; buttworms; celebrateperversity; changeamericanow; circlejerktroll; cornholezot; cryinggame; cults; culturewar; donnasummerlover; dopes; fags; felchers; fruitsmoothie; gay; gaymarriage; gaytroll; gaytrolldolls; gayvanity; georgemichael; gerbilnottroll; governmentcoercion; hedonists; homosexual; homosexualagenda; homosexuality; iknowuarebutwhatami; inthroughtheoutdoor; lesbian; liberaltroll; libertarianbs; libertines; likespussyonastick; listenstocats; littlepinkvanity; markmorfordisthatyou; mrsdoubtfire; newfeesouthpark; perverts; pervo; phantomoftheopera; plonk; polymorphousperverse; poopypals; pootrooper; porksiclelover; posterneedszot; queernation; rearwardlooking; religion; samesexadoption; samesexdesire; samesexmarriage; slurpee; snivelingpoofter; sodomandgomorrah; sodomites; sodomy; throwingahissyfit; tinkywinkyzot; trollingforbung; vanityposter; vikingkittyalert; whinygayguy; zot; zotthistroll
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 701-707 next last
To: Ernie.cal
"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 hypothetical you pose is one that will never jive with reality, bascially because such unions are so flawed to begin with that they are doomed to failure. Thus, there is no point in discussing it or considering it further.

201 posted on 12/23/2004 9:21:26 AM PST by TAdams8591 (Not to be confused with tdadams!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

I think you changed the subject on me. We were talking about whether or not same-sex couples would have relationships that were more or less stable (or equally as stable) as straight couples.

Here's my point Judith (and incidentally, I am not hostile to women as you previously suggested---I didn't "pick" you for my previous comment about hostility revealed in some messages---yours was just the next message in the queue and I decided to add comments)....

Back to my point though: Some of the messages posted have raised legitimate questions. I do not have answers to all those questions. I am interested in fostering a discussion however.

But, just for the sake of argument, suppose I DID have definitive and reasonable answers. In my judgment, most of the folks engaged in this discussion would STILL be opposed to same-sex marriage. In other words, their opposition is NOT based upon the points they are raising. Their REAL concern is NOT (for example) whether or not two brothers or sisters might marry OR a Dad-son OR two guys in military OR any of the other hypothetical nightmare scenarios.

Consequently, it would be helpful if they would just candidly say what they mean.

The fastest way to get to the REAL point is for someone to answer my previous comment -- which I repeat here:

"I am curious, however, about what role within our society these folks think is acceptable for gay men and women? Should gays be allowed to vote? Should gays be allowed to achieve prominence in their professions? Should gays be allowed to receive awards and public recognition? Aren't all of these things "an offense to God" from their point of view?"


202 posted on 12/23/2004 9:21:36 AM PST by Ernie.cal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal

The real answer is that they are evil pedophiles.


203 posted on 12/23/2004 9:21:45 AM PST by bluebunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: westmichman

I agree.


204 posted on 12/23/2004 9:21:46 AM PST by Judith Anne (Thank you St. Jude for favors granted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal

You might as well try to explain the color red to a blind man.


205 posted on 12/23/2004 9:22:06 AM PST by gogeo (Short and non offensive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slings and Arrows
I think Zia may be on to something..


206 posted on 12/23/2004 9:22:49 AM PST by trisham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal
Fifth time:

Stop hiding from the polygamy issue. Why do you think your marriage definition must stop at any two persons? Why not three or five.

Stop hiding.

Fifth 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?
207 posted on 12/23/2004 9:23:02 AM PST by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

The thing is that it's an illusion that you can cut people out of the system. Either they're on corporate health insurance, or the state is paying the bills, but most likely they're already in the health insurance system because they're employed. If they're destitute and the state covers them, up go our taxes.

Homosexuals who are dying of AIDS are among the least likely to be getting married right now; who would marry them? Anyone willing to marry a dying man just to get him health insurance could just as easily be of the opposite sex.

I think the insurance issue is something of a red herring. I live in the Gay Marriage State and very few people at my company are getting these benefits. Having one coworker with a desperately sick kid would cost me as much or more than a homosexual with a 1 in whatever chance of having AIDS.


208 posted on 12/23/2004 9:23:17 AM PST by HostileTerritory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Yonkers Finest

He/she is right on target.


209 posted on 12/23/2004 9:23:23 AM PST by bluebunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: HostileTerritory; Republic If You Can Keep It; Ernie.cal
Almost every state in the country allows single people of whatever sexual orientation to adopt.

So, does the mother giving up her child for adoption have any say in the matter, or does pro-choice only mean a choice to abort a child.

210 posted on 12/23/2004 9:24:03 AM PST by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Dan Rather's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal

"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? "

Here's what gay guys do, they stick their penises up the poop shutes of other men. That's why they get aids and a whole host of other diseases. They die young, from disease and suicide. Marriage allows them to raise children. Many similar problems exist for lesbians, though admittedly not as severe.

Ain't no way this is a healthy idea. Why don't you just admit that you enjoy playing in other peoples feces?


211 posted on 12/23/2004 9:24:27 AM PST by FastCoyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

The other problem you run into is that lesbian women don't get AIDS and are a lot less likely to have expensive pregnancies. Do they deserve insurance on cost grounds?


212 posted on 12/23/2004 9:24:39 AM PST by HostileTerritory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: HostileTerritory

It is not legal in all 50 states, and homosexuals are often put on the bottom of the list as "last resort placements"

Legal marriage will give them the opportunity to be placed at the top of the list and to demand preference for the coveted perfect newborns.

Their demands will know no bounds.


213 posted on 12/23/2004 9:24:41 AM PST by Valpal1 (The constitution is going to be amended, the only question is by whom?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: trisham

"We are Siamese, if you please..."

What beautiful kittens!

Back to business. Ah, right...

CODE ZULU OSCAR TANGO. REPEAT CODE ZULU OSCAR TANGO. IFF NEGATIVE, WEAPONS HOT, FIRE AT WILL.


214 posted on 12/23/2004 9:25:42 AM PST by Slings and Arrows (Am Yisrael Chai!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

I have no idea how state-run adoptions are done. The trend in private adoptions is for the mother to keep a lot of rights that once upon a time (when my brother and sister were adopted, pre-Roe) would have been signed away at birth.


215 posted on 12/23/2004 9:27:11 AM PST by HostileTerritory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

There are no answers because you cannot simply dress up anal sex in flowery civil rights language, and be serious at the same time.


216 posted on 12/23/2004 9:27:29 AM PST by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

You are wasting your time. Libs/progressives can only be against, not for.


217 posted on 12/23/2004 9:27:52 AM PST by gogeo (Short and non offensive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: HostileTerritory
The other problem you run into is that lesbian women don't get AIDS and are a lot less likely to have expensive pregnancies. Do they deserve insurance on cost grounds?

I'm against third parties buying insurance. It is just an artifact of the tax code and wage and price controls during WWII. Individuals and families, and self-defined groups ought to be able to buy insurance for themselves without the tax penalties of the current system.

218 posted on 12/23/2004 9:30:36 AM PST by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Dan Rather's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal

It's all about a natural tendency for most of us "normals" to look at such behavior as morally repugnant and generally useless to the preservation of homo sapiens as a species.


219 posted on 12/23/2004 9:32:57 AM PST by Paulus Invictus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal
"I am curious, however, about what role within our society these folks think is acceptable for gay men and women? Should gays be allowed to vote? Should gays be allowed to achieve prominence in their professions? Should gays be allowed to receive awards and public recognition? Aren't all of these things "an offense to God" from their point of view?"

Straw man argument, Ernie. All those things are NOT related to the basic fabric of society, family life: a marriage between a man and woman producing children and raising them together.

I note that the aggressive homosexual agenda isn't out there on the streets proposing they get more awards or be allowed to seek prominence in their chosen profession. The agenda is to change the basic fabric of American life. Not highly likely to happen, in my opinion.

And there are a number of questions here on this thread that you have not bothered to answer, particularly the ones pertaining to poor health and promiscuity, both clear concommitants to homosexual behavior. I imagine that would tend to adversely affect any stable homosexual marriage prospects, but I don't know that for sure. Maybe homosexuals aren't bothered by the prospect of marrying a promiscuous partner.

Now, you can continue to insist that other people answer your (supposedly disinterested) questions while refusing to answer theirs, but it's not a good idea. I personally think you're a troll. Others may disagree.

220 posted on 12/23/2004 9:33:52 AM PST by Judith Anne (Thank you St. Jude for favors granted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 701-707 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson