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?
If the woman is in her 50s or older, or if either one of them has had surgery.
So, if it could be established to your satisfaction that homosexuality is not chosen conduct but a pre-disposition one is born with --- then you would no longer object?
We all know that's not the case. Try again, Ernie.
Male homosexuality is not about companionship anyway. The average male homosexual has hundreds of partners because hedonism is the driving force of male homosexuality. The push for gay marriage is not because they want to get married, they want acceptance. Very few gay men would ever get married.
Exactly right. They only want marriage to be an option for purposes of recognition as a normal healthy life style, thereby allowing them to teach that to kids, and to flaunt it anywhere, anytime they want. So instances like the one that happened at the Y outside of Chicago, in their minds, will be common place, will be legal, and again in their minds, accepted. Marriage is not the only part of their agenda we are against, and just the beginning of the harm to society!
But you consider yourself an open-minded, rational person, correct? Thus, you are willing to consider new data as it becomes available--correct? So, in the future, if it were established that homosexuality is pre-determined by hormonal or chemical factors in our bodies which, obviously, we don't choose, then you would no longer object to bringing homosexuals under the protection of civil rights laws?
Meanwhile, however, I am still trying to figure out your scheme of things. Who should be protected by our civil rights laws? As I noted in my previous message, the Court decision in Alabama protected all civil rights demonstrators (irrespective of their "immutable" birth characteristics).
Do you oppose that Court's decision, i.e. do you think civil rights demonstrators don't genuinely fall into the category that should be protected because we aren't discussing any "immutable" characteristics that is "unchosen" behavior?
Ernie, would you object to Americans of Irish descent being able to marry, platonically of course, their grandkids in order to endow them with Social Security Survivors benefits in perpetuity? If not, why not?
Why do you assume that heterosexuals are "afraid" of homosexuals or of homosexuals marrying? There are many other adjectives that may apply: disapprove, dislike, disgust, etc. I theorize that most people are simply uninterested until the issue is forced. Why did you assume fear?
You paint such a nice little picture for perversion and immoral conduct.
It's not commitment that gays who are pushing for marriage want. They already have that. It's not the freedom to live as they wish, they already have that. They want it "normalized" so they can teach it, openly display it, and pipe it into our homes in every way, and at every opportunity they get. They want an immoral society that says anything goes sexually. It is not the governments place to endorse any of these things. And the American people won't. No matter how many laws are passed.
(1) How did you arrive at that "hundreds of partners" figure?
(2) With respect to "hedonism is the driving force of male homosexuality", (a) how do you know that? and (b) why do you exclude women from that conclusion? and (c) Is there some biological difference that accounts for the purported lack of hedonism in women? (3) "Very few men would ever get married". How do you know that conclusion is accurate? Please let us know how many gay men and women you have discussed this with.
""Adultery destroys far more marriages than homosexualtiy. Plus adultery made it into the top ten commandments, whereas gay sex didn't.""
Adultery is a sin, same gender sex is an abomination. Bug difference.
""I think it's clear that to defend marriage adulterers, even those who only 'covet' outside their marriage, should be punished by the law in some way. ""
Wrong, adultery is not punishable by law, but is not given legal status by the government, or endorced by the government. In fact, the government condones it. Same sex relationship........same thing.
""OR...we should keep the state out of the bedrooms of consenting adults.""
now that one you got right, so why do gays insist on bringing them into their bedrooms. Do want you want, but the government should never endorse immorality.
I haven't been painting a picture of gay perversion or immoral conduct. I have been asking questions regarding how law should apply to people in a free society and how and when government should intervene in matters of human intimacy.
Should our laws protect all of us? Including those who may not have majority approval?
It is easy to stand up and fight for something that the majority approves. Nothing is in jeopardy. No principles are tested. No good will is lost or integrity questioned.
How many of you have ever stood up to defend an unpopular cause or person--and risked community disapproval or worse? Should American law protect only non-controversial and conventional beliefs?
That's not the case, and it will never be, but just for the sake of argument since you seem to be enjoying... If that was the case, I will reassess my opinion and get back to you.
Meanwhile, however, I am still trying to figure out your scheme of things. Who should be protected by our civil rights laws?
Oh man, are you always that difficult? If you read post # 392, I made clear that civil rights or “natural rights” are to protect people from discrimination due to the unchangeable characteristics they were born with. This is in accord with the perception of moral code. Homosexuality, isn't part of the moral code. You can't equate slavery with homosexuality. By the way, Ernie, in case you have forgotten, homosexuals enjoy all the rights and benefits every person has. What they want is special treatment beyond the rights they already have.
Going to the petshop, my chameleon's lamp just broke. Yikes.
Back later.
Why do I "assume fear"? I am not "assuming" anything. I'm just reading some of the messages in this thread. Gays are described as animals, akin to terrorists, sex perverts, evil, sick, etc. etc. That is something qualitatively more visceral than mild "dislike" or "disapproval".
I "dislike" and "disapprove" John Kerry and Edward Kennedy but I do not find it necessary to demonize them and characterize them in terms calculated to evoke hatred, revulsion, disgust, and fear.
The same question could be asked of pedophiles.
It's complicated and you have to be open minded to the truth behind homosexuality, but if you were to ask a former homosexual they would tell you it's a choice. Tens of thousands of former homosexuals testify to this fact.
Who ever told you people that ideology is reality??? Ideal for you is hell for others
You said that same-sex individuals should be able to get married. You must therefore establish how two males or two females can join together as husband and wife in order to demonstrate how they can get married. Words mean things, you know (or at least they used to).
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.