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?
Here is the ACLU intervening in an issue over private (predominantely Christian) schools
Local Muslim school taken aback by letter (Houston)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1307183/posts
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.
>>>
Do you think it's appropriate for queer men (of the "WE'RE QUEER, WE'RE" fame) to french-kiss in front of children in public, Ernie?
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.
>>>
Do you think it's appropriate for queer men (of the "WE'RE QUEER, WE'RE *HERE*!" fame) to french-kiss in front of children in public, Ernie?
YOU: Radical drop in the birth rate which is a direct threat to our society.
Huh??? If I understand your comment correctly, you are saying that as awareness of gays increases, more and more children "choose" to become gay? And, consequently, there will be a dramatic decline in birth rates?
Have you ANY evidence whatsoever to substantiate this claim? For example: in ancient Greece, homosexuality was common. Was there a sudden, dramatic decline in birth rates? Please compare Greek birth rates to other countries which criminalized homosexual behavior.
Do you honestly believe that anyone makes their personal bedroom decisions based upon whether or not they have knowledge of what goes on down the street in a gay couple's home?
And now you know; the deterrioration of society that has already happened in countries like the Netherlands. Facts are stubborn things.
Currently Americans can adopt children from China (which has a "one child" policy among families over there, leading to abortion and infanticide, often if the child is a girl).
The Chinese do not place their children into the homes of homosexual couples.
Should the program be dropped altogether or will the Chinese have to be "brought in line" with our cultural excesses?
Irrelevant to our discussion. We don't grant rights based upon what a small number of people MIGHT or MIGHT NOT do in public.
Anybody can find examples of inappropriate behavior and then use that example to DENY rights or equal protection of the law. Apparently, you are a fair-weather believer in equal protection of law, i.e. you are only interested in granting rights to people who think and behave like you do!
Push for Polygamy!
Homosexuals are already equally protected under the law. How are they not? Marriage? They already have the same rights as everyone else does, to marry a member of the opposite sex.
You deny there is a slippery slope but so did the lavender madia after the Supreme Court decision. It quickly went from being a push for acceptance of homosexuality among "consenting adults" to all ages including adult minor pairings because some states set same sex sodomy at 18 while heterosexual activity at a younger threshold. There was even an iccident soon after the decision where an child molestation case was dropped because the adult offender would have been within the "Romeo & Juliet" exception to the age of consent laws in that state.
So what happened to "consenting adults"?
Now another year on, we have seen an all out attack on our courts and legislatures to push through same sex marriage.
Sliding, sliding, sliding...
Do you find ANY of this to be a slope?
Then again, the left was denying there even WAS anything such as a "homosexual agenda".
Sexual Freedom Activists Target 'Archaic, Unjust' Sex Laws
"I've seen firsthand how the misuse of these [public lewdness] laws has ruined the lives of gay and bisexual men," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force."Few victims of this abuse ever come forward for fear of further embarrassment and the system counts on this silence. We intend to shine some light on these shameful practices."
"Get a room!"
Boy are you naive. They gay activists agenda is to force the rest of society to comply. They'll go out of their way to force all public officials to comply.
So, your position is that equal protection of the law is not a right that should apply to all Americans regardless of their station in life. Instead, we should calculate whether or not the intended recipients will behave "correctly" so that there are no added costs to society from granting the right?
Perhaps we should re-visit the Civil Rights Act and apply your formula as follows:
"The most likely long-term effects of passing the Civil Rights Act are an increase in both the percentage of civil rights disputes clogging our court system, and the animosity caused by interminable disputes at all levels of our judicial system over housing, employment, voting, use of public funds, etc. How is that damage in any way equal to the benefit?"
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.
One word... Children.
As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case. -- John Paul II, March 28, 2003
Schools will have to teach children that homosexuality is alright, and it's the same as having a mom and dad. And it's not just children, but everyone else who will be affected by the adverse consequences of it. For instance, business will face legal sanctions if they don't pay benefits and subsidize gay couples. People of faith will be persecuted for expressing their beliefs that homosexuality is wrong and immoral, because homosexuality will be protected by law - whether they keep their beliefs to themselves or face the full weight of the law.
Homosexual couples will be free to adopt and impose their will on organizations like the Boy Scouts or religious organizations. Freedom of speech will be undermined... those expressing opposite views regarding gays and gay marriages will be called bigots and hate speech.
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.
You're wrong. The role of the government is to protect its citizens. Laws are not to satisfy everyone, but to protect others from harmful behavior and to prohibit those who want to do harm. There are drunk driving, doing drugs, and prostitution laws. Even yelling fire in a crowded theater is against the law. So when you choose a behavior that harms others, it's no longer a private choice.
Do I need one?
Just my 2¢, he's trying to make a rational case and a real debate. Hardly a troll, probably a Libertarian type.
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.