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?

[weegee]

Democrats are killing young people who could become voters "down the road" but they are importing new voters who are already adult.

These new voters who never grew up under America's freedoms and never attended schools here are perfectly willing to surrender Constitutional protections to things like gun ownership because they never experienced them in the first place.

Add to this a lack of fear of socialism, and the Democrats new base will continue to replenish the voters who leave the party the more they turn to the left.

Democrats have become the "antiAmerican" party but when their base is not from America, it doesn't get marked in the "negatives" column.

[Judith Anne]

Similarly, today's debate about same sex marriage sometimes brings out the worst fears and mean-spirited attacks.

I confess, that's such a liberal platitude that I am howling laughing.

Well said, sissy. Now I'm leaving town (really). Bye! Don't let the nasty breeders get you down, Percival.

[weegee]

The left has celebrated a known rapist in Bill Clinton. Even NOW stood up for him, attacked the victims, and claimed "the first grope is free".

[Ernie.cal]

Judith: You certainly have a knack for changing the subject. The issue being discussed was use of religion as a cloak for bigotry during civil rights movement --- and how, today, some people continue to use religion for that purpose.

[loboinok]

but they are importing new voters who are already adult.


I've been over to DU acouple times and I gotta tell you,I can't imagine how they could convince even foreigners to to be one.

[FastCoyote]

"I can assure you that I have some personal knowledge which makes me understand what you went through."

That's the problem Ernie, you are the problem. While this is an interesting thread and I'm sure we all appreciate your candor, what you have shown is that no degree of disease, pestilence, social disruption, child abuse or calamity will dissuade you from your desire to push the Gay agenda. Since your gay friends are no doubt of the same mind, what that means is that reason and compromise are worthless. So in the end you will have to be pushed back and "oppressed" because that is all you understand.

I am sure that is the same point as the Biblical account of Soddom and Gomorreh.

[weegee]

Licensing at times is done for safety (establish that you can pass a test and be prohibited from driving, practicing medicine, etc.).

Marriage licenses can protect against people who are closely related marrying (which could lead to health problems, but not necessarily), blood tests are administered (to inform potential spouses of possible STDs?), they can also protect against bigamy.

We have to renew our drivers' licenses (to make sure that the address is current, update the photo every 8 years or so, and collect more revenue), inspection tags verify that our car is safe to operate other drivers (and collect revenue), we DON'T have to renew a marriage license, not even when we move.

[Ernie.cal]

Is it your position that two human beings cannot love one another so much that they wish to commit themselves to each other formally through marriage? Isn't marriage a partnership? Why does anyone have to "prove" anything to anyone in order to get married?

[Judith Anne]

The think I think is funniest about liberal gay guys is that they always accuse other people of what THEY are doing. On the psych ward we call that "projection."

Oh, and PLEASE don't kill yourself on Christmas...I know you're depressed and all...just come here, and stir up stuff. ;-D

Bye.

[odoso]

ALL Homosexuals can be defined without exception as follows:

Homosexuals are aberrant, sickening, filthy, vile, perverted, disgusting and putrid individuals seeking special privileges, special status and special laws over 99% of all people living on this planet in the name of their behavior.

Get back in the closet where there's no dictating of behavioral choices no matter how vile they are & then get some help for your illness!

Do all of us a favor and in the future, don't confuse values with a lack of values, free society with forcible acceptance, intimacy with a dog eating his vomit, and the clincher - don't confuse wrong with right.

[Non-Sequitur]

You two ought to get married.

[dr_pat]

...suppose same-sex marriage becomes law during 2005. By 2010 or 2015 what specific indisputable adverse consequences to society do opponents predict to occur?

Gresham's Law may apply. See 2. and 3. below.

...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?

While I don't use that argument, I also don't agree that couples in the above position should be required to marry in order to have their union recognized by the state. Oh, wait, I guess they can! (Shack up, enter into a civil union, marry in the common law, etc...)

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.

I agree that coercion is a bad thing. Promoting the use of government to force your neighbors to label gay unions "marriage" is

1. neither a libertarian stance nor an honest one [make your choice, don't worry about what I call it],
2. not likely to achieve the effect you desire [if "marriage" includes unions of which I do not approve, am I likely to label my own union "marriage"?],
3. another way to load up the courts with disputes about who meant what when they said the other.

Marriage is hard enough between two sexes that an appreciable percentage of them fail in divorce, despite the long-documented harm that does to the children and adults involved. The most likely long-term effects of allowing same-sex marriages are an increase in both the percentage of marriages ending in divorce, and the number of court cases involved with the rights of "married" couples and any children, at all levels of the system. How is that damage in any way equal to the benefit, especially considering 1. and 2. above?

[weegee]

We'll robtax "the rich guy" to give you a handout. "We" are the party of generosity (with OPM - Other Peoples' Money). "You" are neglected and the "worker". "We'll" make things better. They sell classism and racism. All this time, what have "they" solved?

[Judith Anne]

You two ought to get married.

I know, he's obsessed with me. Problem is, I'm already married to a hetero breeder type. ;-D

No more remarks to me, I'm outa here!

[Ernie.cal]

While this is an interesting thread and I'm sure we all appreciate your candor, what you have shown is that no degree of disease, pestilence, social disruption, child abuse or calamity will dissuade you from your desire to push the Gay agenda

I am not pushing an agenda Coyote. I am merely asking questions -- because I am trying to understand what, ultimately, people fear about acceptance of same-sex marriage.

I respect critics and skeptics and I listen to what they have to say. Like Judith, you apparently find it difficult to present your views without descending into demonizing people you perceive as critics. Ultimately, I think that is why Americans will eventually be ok with same-sex marriage---because we instinctively believe in fair-play and don't want mean-spirited people to control our lives. So please keep using the terminology you used in your message so that your bile can be clear for everyone to comprehend.

[weegee]

Two homosexuals can never engage in an act of sexual intercourse. It is a simple fact. This act requires complimentary genitalia.

They can only engage in sodomy (oral/anal) and masturbatory stimulation. This is why they are known as "sodomites", from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

There are no "transexuals". Just mixed up people who have surgically altered their primary and secondary sex traits with hormones and plastic surgery to resemble a member of the opposite sex. Their DNA will remain the same. They will be unable to produce sperm or menstruate if they have "changed" sex.

Michael Jackson may have bleached his skin and altered his appearance but despite all of his efforts, he is still a black man. We can't change our race, either.

People are going to engage in such practices but it does not mean that society has to accept these outsiders who strive to be different. Our laws don't need to be changed. Our children don't need to be educated in such practices.

[ApesForEvolution]

Don't Bump Ernie.cal BTTT

[Luircin]

I guess I don't understand your definition of overt oppression and violence or why ONLY those two aspects should determine whether or not comparisons to the civil rights movement are applicable.

Well, that and the fact that most "African-Americans" think that the comparison is, to put it lightly, abhorrent.

You missed my point altogether. During a very troubled time in our history, we debated public policy matters which triggered mean-spirited and hateful exchanges among the American family.

During that time, there were people and organizations who appealed to the very worst in us and they claimed, while doing that, that they had God and the Bible on their side. Similarly, today's debate about same sex marriage sometimes brings out the worst fears and mean-spirited attacks.

With all due respect, the mean-spirited attacks are largely from the "gay" side of the debate. The language here may have been, ahem, intense, but conservatives tend to only get nasty once they've been attacked. They, especially the FR posters, will heatedly debate, but will not resort to personal attacks without provocation. On the other hand, even disagree with a "gay-friendly" person and you will immediately be called every kind of nasty name in the book, most of which don't even relate to the argument.

With respect to your discussion of "being part of the gay community" -- nothing you wrote indicates that you were part of ANY community. You were molested. Incidentally, you stated that this started at age 12. It is not clear from what you have written what you told your parents --or-- why you were molested again at age 15 and suicidal at 17.

I was part of the "community" from age 15 onwards. The molestation basically set me up. I never told my parents anything, actually, but they guessed and I didn't deny it. As for why I was molested, someone who I thought was my friend seduced me and then abused me (I really don't want to say any more; it's painful). The suicidal urges sprouted from there.

While I am reading between the lines, it sounds like you were very isolated, perhaps ashamed, and unable to reach out to anyone who could help. You were not experiencing the gay community's values, Luircin, anymore than a woman who is raped is experiencing the straight community's values. And I am very sorry to learn of your experiences. I can assure you that I have some personal knowledge which makes me understand what you went through.

I'm afraid that you were reading the wrong book. I wasn't ashamed at all; I was proud of myself and had several people around to "help" me. That is, until I disagreed that court-ordered gay marriage was a good thing. Then I was ground into the dirt by those same people who were "helping" me before. The blatant hypocrisy among the advocates of "tolerance" soured me against them, and I started my own research into it without accepting the party line, and you can probably guess what happened.

Having said all that, I still don't accept gay marriage. Also, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it will not damage society, not ours to prove that it will.