Same-Sex Marriage - A Threat To Whom?

12-23-04 | Ernie1241

[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?

[Ernie.cal]

The same argument goes for farm animals and homosexuality. Why is it so hard for people to understand that homosexuality is not a matter of skin color, choice of creed, or political affiliation, it is purely a deviant sex act with a wide ranging social/health reprecussions?

We all want to live in a prosperous and decent society. As Sully points out, gays engage in "deviant sex act(s)" and their behavior as "social/health repercussions" by which I suppose he means expensive and dangerous health problems.

So I ask everyone again to focus on the issue of why we should allow such people to have any rights whatsoever. If gays are a danger to good order, a danger to health, a danger to morals, a danger to children, a danger to all that is good in a decent society---why permit them to influence public policy by allowing them to vote or publish articles or run for office or participate in anything which might cause someone to praise them or regard them in positive terms?

As Judith has candidly pointed out, there are many employment categories that should be forbidden to gays and bi-sexuals.

As others have mentioned, homosexuality is "against God's law" -- and, thus, we presumably "offend God" by doing anything that facilitates or endorses homosexual behavior or objectives.

[Judith Anne]

Employment IS a special right. I cannot be employed as a nurse without a license, doctors cannot operate without a license. Registered sex offenders or persons with a DFS record cannot work in day care.

But apparently homosexuals want SPECIAL rights--the right to potentially infect a helpless patient, the right to change diapers or give advice to a helpless child, the right to force churches to say they aren't sinners, and the right to compel churches who do to marry them and employ them.

Question for you: Is the Bible (pick a version, any mainstream translation) hate speech?

[sully777]

How do we separate "the person from the activity" when the debate descends to such a level?

---

You call yourselves the gay community, which if logic dictates the subject matter, demands that you wrap yourself around and celebrate the activity. By every action, and by every motive, you associate yourself and identify your being with the activity of homosexuality. It's not a skin color. It's not a religion. It's not a party affiliation. You weren't born with it like someone with palsy. And you didn't lose a leg in the war. YOU ARE GAY. THAT'S WHAT YOU CALL YOURSELF. GAY=lifestyle of a particular activity. I work with people that are humans. They don't say they are gay. I have no way of knowing. I have no problems with them until they become militant. By militant, I mean that they demand to shove their vial POS agenda down my throat. They reveal their activity and revel in their activity. Their activity is who they are. Don't pull this passive-aggressive victimhood BS.

As for fear: I don't fear you as a grown man. I fear for my children. They love children because they're so innocent, unknowing, and easily-led.

As for disgust: Your activity is by very nature absolutely revolting. And I will add that hetero-males packing female fudge is just as sickening. Heteros who gravitate toward this act have unresolved issues with a past experiences IMO.

As for revulsion: Your acts would sicken the strongest constitution. Fisting comes to mind as well as S&M/fetishes, and bathhouse orgies. The gay agenda has made homosexuality in TV/movies/radio seem funny and happy. They don't ever talk about gays being ugly (but doesn't all shows reveal gays as happy, witty, beautiful, rich people), mentally unstable, irritationally violent, and/or suicidal. And they don't talk about the fact that gays have to wear diapers after their long, dark journey down the road of nightmares they call a *alternative lifestyle choice."

Please troll, give me a freakin break.

[AppyPappy]

Once again, you seem to be able to find all these "noble" reasons to support gay marriage but all those "noble" reason would also apply to polygamy. You don't fix hetero marriage, which you claim is broken, by introducing gay marriage. That's an illogical response.

We don't CARE about the stability of gay couples. They mean nothing to society.

[Travis McGee]

Ninth 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.

Ninth 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, PeeWee Herman!

[Travis McGee]

9th time try to get the chicken poofter to reply ping.

[Judith Anne]

Good luck. You're asking inconvenient questions. ;-D

Way to go!

[Paleo Conservative]

IF IT REFERS TO CLERGY, THEN WHAT WAS THE EPISCOPAL PRIEST TALKING ABOUT?

He wanted to have a law passed forcing all clergy to perform "gay marriages".

Also, why should public officials be forced to perform a marriage for anyone? Just because someone has the authority to perform an offcial act should not imply that they have no discretion. Are the only people who have any right leftist activists?

[weegee]

Tranvestitism is a sexual fetish (as are the other BLTGWITHOUTMAYO types). We are born naked. The differences in the clothes we wear are purely fashion.

The desire to wear the clothes society has deemed for the "opposite" sex is the result of cultural conditioning and sexual identity confusion. Purely psychological. There is no "wear the other person's clothes" gene.

The identity of the BLTGHOLDTHEONIONS types is firmly rooted in sexual fetishes. Why not include S&M or BD as a sexual persuasion? What about GL for girl lover and BL for boy lover?

What happens when sexual preferences overlap (like those who support NAMBLA)?

Why isn't vegan/meat eater included among "identities"? It could be made a civil rights crime to feed a prisoner a meal with any sort of animal byproduct involved.

What about those who want to eat horse meat? Horses are raised and killed in this country for meat which can be exported to other nations for food but cannot be sold to Americans. We can eat cow, buffalo, antelope, etc. The horses are already being killed. Why can't we eat horses?

Sounds like somone is being denied a civil right to eat horse meat.

[protest1]

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"?

Your question answers itself if you rephrase it slightly.

You may currently know, like, and respect someone who, unknown to you, is a terrorist. How does his or her terrorism (currently unknown to you) challenge "American values and community life"?

[Ernie.cal]

Judith: This may surprise you but I have no objection to what you have written. My interest has been to strip away all the usual smoke which this issue generates.

If you have a moment, please go back to the first postings in this debate. Principled arguments were raised. Probing questions were asked. But, as I suggested early-on, the REAL objection to same-sex marriage has little or nothing to do with those principles or those arguments.

Instead, in the last 30-50 messages we see the TRUE objection. To your credit, you have not euphemized the issue or tried to weasle your way out of the clear meaning of your words. When I pointed out that some messages in this thread were characterizing gays in terms calculated to evoke fear, disgust, and revulsion, you implicitly agreed and called me a "sissy" since I initiated this discussion.

In short, the underlying dynamic here is now obvious. You and several others here want EVERYONE to view gays with the same disgust and revulsion that YOU do. You want EVERYONE to deny gays employment. You want EVERYONE to perceive gays as diseased, sex-craved, perverted animals who have utterly no redeeming qualities and are totally un-deserving of respect or protection or rights.

So let's drop the pretense that we are having a calm, respectful, and rational discussion about Constitutional principles or about public policy alternatives. When you demonize your opponents and attribute the worst possible motivations to them (such as "the right to potentially infect a helpless patient") -- you are no longer fooling anyone into believing you are motivated by religious values.

There ARE serious questions that can and should be raised about acceptance of same-sex marriages. Some of the messages in this thread actually tried to address those concerns, and I respect that. I suspect that 50 years from now gay marriage will be commonplace in most Western nations and nobody will even remember what all the fuss was about.

[libertylass]

Geez....not this again!! What part of slippery slope don't you understand?!!! When we allow the long-standing institution of marriage to be hijacked by those who are disordered (gender identity, incestuous, bestial, polygymous, pedophiliac) then it is no longer a viable unit.

Regardless of current heterosexual marriage trends, with all its imperfections, it is still the healthiest union for children. To cheapen, or water down, the current marriage partnering with any combination besides man/woman unions will precipitate more gender identity, incestuous, bestial, polygymous, pedophiliac behaviors and abuses.

It's abnormal for two male sexual organs or two female sexual organs to try and mate. The human body is made for male/female reproduction only. Anything outside of that isn't a natural pairing and does not deserve the support of legitimacy. Is that too hard to understand?

[unbalanced but fair]

We allow plenty of people who are a danger to health, morals, children , etc. do all the things you mentioned. We allow convicted prisoners to vote. We allow just about anyone from pornographers et.al. to publish articles. And anyone with qualifications can run for office {of course they have to take the consequences of their lives being exposed.}

[Judith Anne]

Just go back and re-read your posts. You will find the "demonizing" was initiated by you.

Now, wipe your eyes, take a bite of quiche, sip that latte and tell us again how principled you are and the rest of us aren't.

By the way, is the Bible hate speech?

[Travis McGee]

STOP HIDING, PEE WEE!

The truth is, you're just a coward.

You have no answers to my questions which will not reveal the fraudulence of your "argument" (sic).

So you run and hide like a little girly-man pansy troll.

[Judith Anne]

When you demonize your opponents and attribute the worst possible motivations to them (such as "the right to potentially infect a helpless patient") -- you are no longer fooling anyone into believing you are motivated by religious values.

I am motivated by religious and OTHER values. Apparently, you know nothing about medicine, and are bent on pretending that all homosexuals are sweet, kind, helpful, friendly, honest, thrifty, faithful, obedient, etc.

[scripter]

You might find this of interest:

Africa isn’t dying of Aids
African Women and AIDS
African sexual health programmes "misguided"
Anal Sex Largest Cause of HIV in Africa (The title here is very wrong)

[HostileTerritory]

He wanted to have a law passed forcing all clergy to perform "gay marriages".

He's welcome to try, but I don't think there's any chance of that happening. It's political suicide. Who wants to see priests conduct weddings under a court order? (Who wants to have a wedding like that anyway?)

Also, why should public officials be forced to perform a marriage for anyone?

In Massachusetts, anyone can become a JP for one day with a $25 fee and a simple application, so there's no reason to force public officials to comply. If you're going to give public officials a monopoly on marriages (as states like New York does), it seems fair that they should have to fulfill the responsibilities of the job. They knew that when they signed up; presumably they have to marry people of the opposite-sex they don't like now. Bureaucracy is no place for civil disobedience. I feel very strongly about that. I don't want to give the state control over issues and then have them hand control over to some bureaucrat who may be having a bad day or who doesn't like my haircut.

[Ernie.cal]

We don't CARE about the stability of gay couples. They mean nothing to society.

Hmmm--well I have to respectfully disagree with your position. I think EVERYONE matters. If a gay or bisexual person were to discover a cure for diabetes or heart disease or cancer, would you refuse to accept it because you would be "supporting" the gay lifestyle or contributing to the idea that gay contributions to society have value?

With respect to polygamy: By nature I don't like to be judgmental about whatever love relationships people enter into. I think God is more qualified than I am to render final judgments and I am content to leave it in his hands.

I do, however, agree that the most vulnerable and powerless among us (children, disabled or enfeebled, etc) should be protected from predators (whether sexual or any other kind).

My major concern is that I prefer the least government intervention possible in our private lives because I don't think government has the wisdom or restraint necessary to make the best decisions involving human intimacy.

[Exton1]

What do broken windows and empty building due to a neighborhood? They don’t hurt anyone.

I think it is amazing that the left screams for acceptance of multiculturism, yet denies the culture of the American People, our history, our symbols, and our holidays.

Besides it’s a fake argument that gays are discriminated against. No one ask you to prove your heterosexual in order to get a marriage license. Society has established rules. You can’t marry someone too young, you can’t marry a close family member, and you can’t merry the same sex. It does not say homo’s can’t get married, just not to someone of the same sex. So where is the discrimination?