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?
Try Gay Activist...
If it's ok for straight couples to enthuastically kiss in public (calling Al Gore--lol), I have no problem with gay or bi-sexual couples doing it either.
Frankly, Apes, with all the problems in the world today, public kissing just doesn't rate very high on my scale of scary events.
Frankly, Apes, with all the problems in the world today, public kissing just doesn't rate very high on my scale of scary events.
>>>
That's because you are a Queer Activist, obviously.
I am held (almost) speechless by your admission of sheer, unadulterated idiocy, in every sense and respect of the word.
Try again Weegee. As the article points out, the only reason ACLU even began to express interest in this dispute is because of the Federal funding aspect mentioned toward the end of the article.
...and the reason should be obvious to any kid who's had the "birds and bees" talk.
HOMOSEXUALITY is nothing more than PROJECTED NARCISSISM.
I haven't read the whole thread or checked his history, so give me a few minutes to catch-up.
Ok...it gets good.
...slippery slope he/she/it done went and fell off of...
Hate to disappoint you Apes but I'm not a queer activist. In fact, this is the first time in my life that I have ever posted a message on this issue.
I know this is controversial. Obviously, this issue touches a special nerve. I am not trying to insult anyone or deny the legitimacy of the concerns expressed in this thread. I've tried to be polite and I've tried to answer serious questions as best as I can.
I repeat a previous observation: 50 years from now---nobody will even understand why we had this debate. Gay marriage will probably be commonplace and we all will have moved on to new disputes and controversies.
Have a good time folks---gotta take my puppy for a walk.
Ciao
Perhaps we should re-visit the Civil Rights Act...
Homosexuality goes to the conduct of an individual and not to those things that can't be changed or chosen as in race, nationality, ethnicity, sex, and age. Homosexuality as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary means:
1.of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex.
Civil rights don't protect conduct or behaviors, but protect individuals from discriminations due to the unchangeable way they were born.
How would anybody know whether a heterosexual couple who wished to get married couldn't have children or didn't want to have children?
Um, I live here. It's been seven months since they started marrying. Let me know when they sue to force mayors to conduct ceremonies.
The Governor already requires clerks to issue the marriage licenses, which seems right to me.
What about if 3 or 4 or 5 adults want to marry each other? Would you care?
That certainly is news to me Victoria. As I type this, I am reading my copy of Civil Action 2181-N dated 3/17/65 which is an action by civil rights activists against Gov. George C. Wallace and Sheriff James G. Clark (Dallas County Alabama) and Albert Lingo (Director of Public Safety for State of Alabama).
The portion of the Court decision pertaining to Sheriff Clark states that the...
"evidence in this case reflects that, particularly as to Selma, Dallas County, Alabama, an almost continuous pattern of conduct has existed on the part of defendant Sheriff Clark, his deputies...of harassment, intimidation, coercion, threatening conduct, and, sometimes, brutal mistreatment toward these plaintiffs, and other members of their class who were engaged in their demonstrations for the purpose of encouraging Negroes to attempt to register to vote and to protest discriminatory voter registration practices in Alabama. This harassment, intimidation, and brutal treatment has ranged from mass arrests without just cause to forced marches for several miles into the countryside, with the sheriff's deputies and members of his posse herding the Negro demonstrators at a rapid pace through use of electrical shocking devices (designed for use on cattle) and night sticks to prod them along." ...
In short, the Court decision discussed "conduct of individuals" which was in violation of civil rights statutes. The Court was protecting the right of a class of people (civil rights demonstrators) who were despised by the political and law enforcement authorities in Alabama.
The Court was not concerned about "the unchangeable way they were born" --- except insofar as they were born as American citizens. The law was construed to protect their CONDUCT and BEHAVIOR as demonstrators for equal voting rights.
Marriage does not discriminate. Even folks who are infertile can marry as long as they are of the opposite sex, of certain age and not born of the same womb or close to it so to speak.
Appy keep asking: why limit marriage to two? Why just couples?
Maybe I should've specified it for you.... “HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT.” Homosexuality is a conduct and not a civil right. Homosexuality isn't part of the immutable characteristics people are born with.
I hate Natty Boh.
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.