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?
Judith: So what should be our public policy regarding men and women who are HIV-positive or have AIDS?
His silence (after five tries to get him to address my simple questions) is proof that he's just a sniveling little coward.
Sixth 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.
Sixth 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?
You are proving yourself to be a COWARD.
I agree. The whole system is a mess.
I think that until we find a way to fix it, tinkering at the edges to cut chunks of the population out doesn't really accomplish anything positive. It causes some people to cling to inappropriate jobs they'd otherwise leave, it forces others onto the state, and in the end we all pay more and things get worse.
From a secular standpoint it is unnatural to go anal. It does no benefit to the species but gratifies perverse, selfish urges. The disease rate is astronomical. The suicide rate is astronomical. The rate of INCEST/RAPE is astronomical.
From a disease standpoint: The two holes that possess extreme volumes of nasty bacterial and viral flora are the mouth and the anal canal. The rate of STDs among homosexuals and lesbians are unusual in content and volume around the mouth, throat, and anus region, with unusually high probability of disease in all areas with bi-sexual women.
Finally, homosexuals and lesbians CANNOT REPRODUCE. THEY RECRUIT. Which is the sole reason why the radical homosexual agenda seeks to undermine the family and societal agencies that allow interaction between adults and children (Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, religion, schools) without protection. They vigorously seek to overturn age of consent and sodomy laws. They also seek to destroy the idea of involuntary sex (rape for those in Rio Linda).
To quote Adam Carolla and Dr. Drew during a recent irreligious Loveline program
Adam: "I'm tired of hearing these new PSAs during AIDS AWARENESS that say that homosexual sex is the same as hetero-sex. Wait, Drew, is it all the same?
Drew: "They say it's all the same."
Adam: "Really? but Drew is it really all the same to you?"
(Drew discusses the diseases and ramifications of a homosexual lifestyle that I just highlighted).
Adam: "Yeah but this is what I'm saying...Drew when you think of all the straight people that died from AIDS, who comes to mind?"
Drew: "Ummmmm. No one?"
Adam: "No, there's got to be someone, because it's all the same Drew. That's what the PSA says. Straight people are dropping like flies."
Drew: "Uh huh. I know what the PSA says. Ummmmm. No one"
Adam: "PSA's don't lie, Drew! How about Freddie Mercury?"
Drew: "He was gay."
Adam: "No, really? Yeah but still, its all the same kind of sex. NO IT'S NOT THE SAME!!!"
If you have no fear--then what is your "anger" and "dislike" based upon.
The probability is that you currently know, like, and respect someone who, unknown to you, is gay or bi-sexual. How does his or her sexuality (currently unknown to you) challenge "American values and community life"?
Reality: Private behavior often has very public consequences. Statistics clearly show that homosexual behavior is destructive and bears high costs, not only to the individual, but to society. Homosexual behavior has implications far beyond the bedroom. Last year the U.S. government spent billions of dollars on AIDS treatment, research and programs. AIDS in the U.S. is largely a homosexual disease stemming from unhealthy sexual practices. There are many consensual behaviors that current laws and customs have deemed harmful because of their negative effect on society. Drug use, prostitution, rape and incest are examples of activities that happen in the "privacy of bedrooms."
The U.S. Supreme Court ruling (Lawrence v. Texas) decriminalizing homosexual sex has opened the door for children to be taught in public schools that homosexual sodomy is normal, healthy and the equivalent of marital sex. California has already established programs to accomplish the above. Now that homosexual sex is legal it is coming out of the bedroom and into the classroom. See Fast Facts #1-23, 35-40, 107-113
221 posted on 12/23/2004 9:37:57 AM PST by Ernie.cal
Sorry, Ernie. You've passed your free question limit, until you start answering some of those addressed to YOU.
When you do, I'll get back to you. Trust me, I have an opinion.
bump for later read
Churches can be compelled to do a lot of things. Mormons no longer sanction polygamy. In Canada they are prosecuting clergy for "hate" speach.
HostileTerritory
Can churches be forced to marry two people of different religions if the church doesn't recognize their marriage?
A court in British Columbia ruled that any public official who has the authority to marry people must marry any gay couple who ask to be married or else be removed from office. Just last week there was a thread about an Episocpalian bishop in Canada who wants to extend the duty to perform "gay marriage" to all clergy.
I can imagine that any newspaper that publishes wedding announcements will be required to also publish "gay wedding" announcemtnts. Canada after all does not have a right to free speech in its constiutution. If the leftitst have their way, the 1st amendment would be gutted for any criticism of their favorite mascots.
.....so..like if I wanted to "marry" my pet flying squirrel Molly....this would endanger who?
I'm not real clear on your point. Help me out here.
As I said above, you start answering questions I and others here have put to you, or you get no more answers from me.
Seventh 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.
Seventh 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?
YOU ARE A COWARDLY SNIVELING POOFTER.
Not to mention, a troll.
I'm doing my best to answer questions. Sorry to learn that you do not like to engage in debate (which requires asking and answering questions). Unlike yourself, however, I don't have an answer to every question. I often learn more by asking follow-up questions. Sorry that bothers you.
In addition, I am at somewhat of a disadvantage. There is only one of me and 200+ critics responding!
And if they did pay more---then would THAT end your objections?
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.