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?
Which reminds me--do you think the Bible is hate speech? You haven't bothered to answer, but now that you've invoked your God...
My argument does not depend upon citing "all homosexuals" or "all" of anything. If we were limited to making decisions or judgments based upon "all" of a category -- we would never decide anything of significance.
During the civil rights debate in the 1950's and 1960's, segregationists raised many of the same type of objections you raise about gays. There were ministers (including Jerry Falwell and Billy James Hargis) that wrote or spoke about segregation being "ordained by God" and they claimed it was based upon "Biblical principles". There were racists who objected to being described as racist because they claimed to know "some Nigras" who were good neighbors. ("They're not ALL bad"). There were very prominent politicians, businessmen, and newspaper publishers who organized and financed "White Citizens Councils" to thwart integration and they portrayed themselves as "anti-Communist patriots" and "defenders of Christianity".
I merely suggest that the tone of your remarks betokens a quality of mind and spirit that falsifies your pretended "religious and other values".
I'm quite interested in your perspective on this. I don't understand why you think there is some sort of "slippery slope" involved here.
Please return to my original message. Suppose same-sex marriage becomes law in 2005. How will YOUR marriage be adversely impacted? Will your behavior toward your spouse change? Will you talk to one another differently? Will you love each other less? When your children reach marrying age, how will a married gay couple down the street adversely impact the decisions made by your kids? If you and your wife teach YOUR values to your kids and they assimilate those values and pass them on to their kids, then what difference does it make if they know there is a law permitting same-sex couples to be married?
*AHEM*
Homosexuals are more likely to be beaten up by a partner than by "homophobes" committing "hate crimes." Many times more likely. There is no "straight Gestapo," as one acquaintance of mine put it. Your cries of being oppressed are little more than a transparent attempt to garner sympathy.
Homosexuality WAS outlawed or did you forget the judicial activism that granted this sex act constitutional protection (but still prohibited incest and prostitution between consenting adults in private).
I'd be for reinstating the laws against this aberation. Would you?
I understand what your saying.
I'm just not sure what part of my retort to the original poster is being retorted by your retort.
Care to retort?
Sorry....my comments weren't directed at you, just at the article.
My church will be impacted as they have to defend themselves from ACLU lawsuits for refusing to violate biblical teachings by refusing to perform same sex ceremonies. Some churches will embracy sodomy and run off faithful church members who find problems with homosexuality and abortion advocacy in church.
My society will be impacted as same sex couples push for adoption of children they might have been denied in the past. Those adults may consent to live in an alternative lifestyle but that child has rights too and they will be ignored so that a homosexual couple can have a kid. Decades later many of them will still be going through counselling.
The "third" figure in the Texas sodomy case was the caller who was an abused lover of one of the two men. He had even filed charges against that man but was assaulted and murdered in an unsolved case before the abuse case came to trial.
The 2 men who were caught in an act of anal sex are not together any more.
Such is the life of a drama queen.
"No replies."
How true, how true...
Why not permit polygamy? To deny this marriage arrangement means telling bisexual people that they would have to chose ONE lover of ONE sex.
If they can "choose", then it isn't a birthright.
This has been an excellent thread. Very thought provoking.
What, exactly, is the flaw? Both movements triggered very emotional and often nasty exchanges. Bigots claimed in the 1950's-1960's that God supported their point of view and they predicted horrendous consequences for American society if we adopted "liberal" laws being promoted by "secular humanists" and "Communist agitators", etc.
Homosexuals are more likely to be beaten up by a partner than by "homophobes" committing "hate crimes." Many times more likely. There is no "straight Gestapo," as one acquaintance of mine put it. Your cries of being oppressed are little more than a transparent attempt to garner sympathy
Since I never posted a message discussing "beatings" or "oppression" you must be hallucinating. However, several OTHER persons in this thread have been quite candid in explaining, (sometimes using code words or phrases), how THEY would like to treat gays if given the opportunity.
Finally, be careful about pretending to know anything about the "gay community" which can be quantified.
As is well known, many gays do not reveal their sexual orientation (hence the phrase "in the closet") because of the type of hostility and prejudice which some messages in this thread reveal.
I can, however, tell you this from my personal knowledge. There are numerous homeless boys and girls in our big cities who prostitute themselves for food and money or a place to stay for the night because their purported "Christian" mothers and fathers have disowned them once they acknowledged their sexual preference. During my volunteer work at a crisis center, I personally have twice had to cope with phone calls from suicidal teenagers whose mothers and/or fathers expressed their "Christian love and understanding" by throwing their kids out of the house while describing them with the same terminology used by some of the persons posting messages in this thread.
You really ARE hysterical. The fact that my values are my values doesn't imply any pretense at all. And if you don't like my "tone" that you think "belies" my values, then it just reveals your ignorance about them. I for one do not think that "hate the sin but love the sinner" is in the Bible.
By the way, you never have answered my question, just taken supercilious pot-shots. Is the Bible hate speech or not?
I have never read the entire Old and New Testaments so I have no idea how to answer your question in the context you ask it.
I am a spiritual person but not a member of any organized religion. In any event, I don't see the relevance of your question. Either answer I might give still leaves us with a decision to make regarding public policy.
We don't obey numerous "laws" or "rules" discussed in the Old and New Testaments with respect to dietary rules, clothing, sexual rights of men over women, etc. so why bother about that now?
The argument that just because a specific verse or commandment didn't ban something that it should be okay or less bad is fallacious. I find it interesting though that you use the phrase, "top" ten commandments, because as you know, there are more than 10 commandments in the Bible.
Adultery is sex outside of marriage, whether you're married or not. Also, God's law is clear on fornication.
After reading the first few responses, I am glad you posted this question. Some very good reasons are being given, which will help strengthen my arguments in favor of preservation of marriage between a man and a woman. Look forward to continue reading the responses.
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.