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?
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.
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?"
The real answer is that they are evil pedophiles.
I agree.
You might as well try to explain the color red to a blind man.
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.
He/she is right on target.
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.
"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?
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?
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.
"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.
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.
There are no answers because you cannot simply dress up anal sex in flowery civil rights language, and be serious at the same time.
You are wasting your time. Libs/progressives can only be against, not for.
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.
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.
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.
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.