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?

[Ernie.cal]

Let's cut to the chase.

In message 549, the first link you provided included the following comment about the state of research:

"Research data

Heterosexual parenting is the normative model upon which most comprehensive longitudinal research on childrearing has been based. Data on long-term outcomes for children placed in homosexual households are very limited and the available evidence reveals grave concerns."

They start by pointing out that "data on long-term outcomes...are very limited."

Suppose that over the next 10 years there is an explosion of research into the topic of gay parenting. Suppose, further, that the researchers involved are considered by your side of this argument to be knowledgeable, honest, trustworthy, fair-minded people of integrity.

Then, suppose the research results DO NOT SUPPORT your present position. Would you then post a message on FR saying that you have changed your mind and now believe that gay adoption opponents were wrong?

Almost certainly --- you would NOT!

Why not? Because, in the final analysis, you couldn't care less what research studies show---unless they conform to your current derogatory judgments about gays.

You are very fond of inserting links into your messages and referring to articles and studies but how many of those studies or articles have you actually read? And, then, what independent research did you do?

For example: if Paul Cameron cites some specific item to substantiate a negative conclusion, did you then obtain a copy of the material he referenced to determine whether or not Cameron accurately cited it? Or to determine if an alternative interpretation was possible?

Similarly, when you folks accuse scholars and researchers of "bias" or "pushing an agenda" ---- do you ever actually independently research whatever is in dispute? Do you write letters to the researchers to ask questions about their methodology or to request copies of documents? Do you travel to wherever the raw data has been archived so you can review it for yourself to see if the interpretation of data was honest and credible--albeit not favorable to your views?

Or do you simply start with a conclusion (i.e. gays are perverted) and then search the Internet for anything that coincides with your conclusion---so that you can insert that link into your next message?

What I find amazing is the extent to which you accuse researchers of "bias" and "pushing an agenda". Apparently, you believe that these folks are in some sort of conspiracy, and that they are all chronic, habitual, and pathological liars.

Let me ask you this:

Can you identify 2 or 3 researchers into gay issues that you consider honorable, decent, honest, legitimate scholars---even though their articles or books contradict your point of view?

OR, is it your position that ALL truthful, factual material about gays originates from YOUR SIDE of this argument?

That, somehow, every single researcher that specializes in fields pertaining to the topics we have discussed (psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists, social workers, medical doctors, etc. etc.) and who presents what you perceive as pro-gay results is ALWAYS, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, unreliable, biased, and incapable of discovering and accurately reporting data?

[scripter]

simply asserting that someone is biased or inaccurate isn't sufficient...You make it sound like there is always ONE self-evident true conclusion and anyone who disagrees must be "pushing an agenda".

That's most likely because you're apparently not willing to accept that opposing viewpoints may be correct and you're forgetting the bigger picture. What do former homosexuals have to say?

[Ernie.cal]

You are being inconsident as you contradicted yourself in this post. You don't use the term perversion to libel entire groups of people, and then you say "Forcing sex upon children, for example, would be perversion". Is that an entire group or just some?

Apparently you're of the opinion that consenting adults can never engage in perversion - you're tossing the dictionary definition of perversion, tossing the definition used for thousands of years and making up your own definition.

Scripter: I understand where you are headed with this semantic trickery but I don't buy your false argument. Yes, words have commonly accepted meanings. And if one applies that commonly-accepted meaning to a category of people, then obviously a conclusion is being made about an entire group.

Someone convicted of a crime (such as sexual abuse of children) has been found guilty of something that a dictionary would describe as "perversion". That criminal caused harm or injury to another human being and society exacted punishment.

By contrast, there is the separate matter of group defamation. Group defamation can occur when you characterize persons whom you DO NOT KNOW and whom have not caused harm or injury to anyone, and whom have not been convicted of any crime, and whom consensually engage in intimate acts in private --- characterize them in terms designed to evoke fear, hatred, disgust, and revulsion. History is full of examples where group defamation ultimately resulted in violence against persons perceived as "sub-human" and undeserving of respect or kindness or protection of law.

What you seem to be suggesting is that terminology first used centuries ago (and perhaps even applied differently) MUST continue to be APPLIED in exactly the same manner throughout all times and all circumstances. In short, history and knowledge and human experience are irrelevant to contemporary humans. We need only consult what was first decided 2000 or more years ago.

Shall we start invoking practices discussed in the Bible which we would never find acceptable today --- but, in your scheme of things --- we should be mindlessly implementing because, after all, that was THEIR definition of "moral" behavior?

[Hardastarboard]

Like divorce, same-sex "marriage" will legitimize untraditional families to the detriment of children raised in those families.

Exactly. THAT'S who's harmed.

[scripter]

I understand where you are headed with this semantic trickery but I don't buy your false argument.

You are being inconsistent in your logic and I'm pointing that out. While I can understand why you don't like it, that doesn't mean I'm doing anything other than pointing out your inconsistency.

Do you consider the following sex perversion: brother/brother, sister/sister, father/son, mother and 3 three sons, grandfather and 4 grand daughters?

You brought up the Bible - I'm staying on topic.

What do former homosexuals have to say on the matter?

[DirtyHarryY2K]

Let's cut to the chase.

Good idea.

The factors that determined the decision of the APA to delete homosexuality from DSM-II had absolutely nothing to do with any research or evidence that proved homosexuality was indeed immutable, the decision was based entirely on politics.

Here's more about the politics of the APA

Former APA President Condemns APA for Barring Research

Former APA President Supports NARTH's Mission Statement, Assails APA's Intolerance of Differing Views

You see Ernie, the Psycobabble pushers have a $$$$$$pecial interest in "homoadoption".

How many children as a result of social experimentation will need psychological help in the future???? The shrinks are creating a "GOLD MINE" for themselves.

Now the ball is in your court. you have to Prove homosexuality is a normal immutable prolific attribute and NO you cannot sacrifice children as pawns in any social experiments.

[Ernie.cal]

That's most likely because you're apparently not willing to accept that opposing viewpoints may be correct and you're forgetting the bigger picture.

Totally false premise and conclusion. On several occasions in this thread I have acknowledged that I do not have answers to all questions being posed. I also acknowledged that I discovered ideas from critics that I had not previously considered. I explicitly thanked those contributors who were actually trying to engage in a conversation as opposed to a jeremiad against gays and I explicitly acknowledged that there were "legitimate concerns" being discussed.

I have no problem acknowledging factual data that contradicts what I believe. But here are the differences between you and I.

(1) I have seen up-close-and-personal how language and "research studies" can be used to injure good and decent people and how it is possible to poison the environment necessary for civil discourse in our society.

Back in the 1950's there were "scientific studies" that "conclusively proved" the inherent "genetic inferiority" of blacks. There were clergymen that emphatically proclaimed that "segregation was ordained by the Bible" and they announced that anyone who disputed their conclusions was a "Communist agitator or dupe". The membership applications and Constitutions of the various KKK groups proclaimed their devotion to "protecting Christian values" and their "patriotic" motivation.

(2) "Factual information" can be used to enlighten and increase understanding of an issue OR it can be used as polemic to defame entire categories of people to cause hostility and facilitate violence and discrimination. As I previously noted, contributors to this thread have employed language which does not facilitate calm, rational, respectful discussion. That is the "bigger picture"....Examples:

15 = threat to society at large, disgusting

40 = lust-driven perverted lifestyle

48 = mentally ill

105= mental defect

119= sick, deviant, perverts

203= evil

283= revolting

305= disordered

331= warped and destructive

350= aberrant, sickening, filthy, vile, putrid

441= useful idiots of the left

497= limp wristred sniveling little pansy boy, coward

541= fag lovin freak

Merely proclaiming your superiority to other beings isn't sufficient for me to acknowledge your superiority.

[Ernie.cal]

Still waiting for your answer to this:

Can you identify 2 or 3 researchers into gay issues that you consider honorable, decent, honest, legitimate scholars---even though their articles or books contradict your point of view?

OR, is it your position that ALL truthful, factual material about gays originates from YOUR SIDE of this argument?

[DirtyHarryY2K]

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

This is a re-ping to a thread that is ongoing for some time now. Ernie.cal is bent on reeducating us FReepers, he has started a class called "The normalcy of homo-adoption 101" for anyone interested todays subject is "biased research"

If you want on/off the list let me know.

[bvw]

Ash Alert!

[SQUID]

"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?"

Your gay movement people are the ones using the government to push their agenda not the other way around. By teaching little Johnny in the schools that family is made up of mommy and mommy, daddy and daddy, mommy and daddy is using the state to push an agenda that is attempting to normalize a behavioral defect.

By the same token, you have no clue how positive the effects will be as well. If there are any. You are certainly not going to outline any negative effects so there goes that.

So, let me ask you, if two consenting adults, Mother and daughter wanted to get married would you be all for it? How about father and son marriage...or...grandmother and grandson marriage. Hey man as long as they are happy it's okay right? Where would you draw the line or would you? Why would you draw any line? It's a free society right? How about I get your daughter into my harem of 20 women I am sure you would be okay with that right? If she is consenting then you have nothing to say. Why can't we marry 30 women and have 160 children? I also want the government to recognize all of my wives!!

[bvw]

He would not be answering you or that post. He's a ski-daddiler. A teaser.

[bvw]

No man could answer "which 2 or 3 legitimate researchers who would contradict" his opinion that the sun will set at night and rise the next morning.

Yet since it hasn't happened yet a teaser like you would claim it is debatable.

[scripter]

On several occasions in this thread I have acknowledged that I do not have answers to all questions being posed...

Unfortunately for you, your posting record is available for all to see.

You are ignoring questions that challenge your position, and not just mine. Travis McGee asked you some questions 10 times and you never answered. Your continued use of misdirection has not gone unnoticed.

I'd like to be wrong here, but it appears you have no problem with sex between siblings, parent/child, grandparent/grandchild, as long as everybody is a consenting adult. Most folks call that perversion, and that mindset doesn't belong at FreeRepublic.

The bigger picture is to look at all the facts which includes what former homosexuals have to say on the matter.

[NYer]

5. Homosexual "Marriage"

True marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Legal recognition of any other union as "marriage" undermines true marriage, and legal recognition of homosexual unions actually does homosexual persons a disfavor by encouraging them to persist in what is an objectively immoral arrangement.

"When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral" (UHP 10).

Vatican Document On Homosexual Unions

“Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involving a grave lack of respect for human dignity,(15) does nothing to alter this inadequacy.”
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

Catholic Ping - please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

[Quix]

Given that it's all a 99.9999% sham . . .

It would appear that the major damage is to the definition of family and of marriage.

The number of homosexuals who marry is relatively miniscule.

The number who stay married is even MORE miniscule.

So, it seems that it's mostly a scam of the puppet masters to trash the traditional definitions of family and of marriage.

Must be they are really interested in shredding society to make it easier for them to control individuals and society without that awful parental authority getting in the way.

[jonrick46]

You must be doing an imitation of that mythical bird that sticks his head in the sand. Well, maybe you have your head stuck where the sunshine don't shine.

Now that I have insulted you enough that you will not read any further, you can go away somewhere else and not learn anything more than your ignorance shows.

I do have a hint for you, if you want to click a mouse around on the Internet a few. Check the out of wedlock birthrate in Sweden. Check out the same thing in Holland. Both these countries have allowed gay unions.

For your homework assignment, find out why gay unions have affected the out of wedlock birthrate. Also, answer the question, "Is out of wedlock births good for a nation?"

[26lemoncharlie]

Why has it taken so long for the Vatican to start to uphold the Laws of God? They are over 40 years late, let's hope they are not to late!

[MegaSilver]

So, in your judgment, divorce should also not be permitted because it causes harm to children?

I would say so. If you're going to stand at the altar and promise, in front of God and all your relatives, to remain faithful to your wife and to love her for as long as you both shall live, you ought to have a DAMNED good reason for dissolving that covenant (which is [supposed to be] the case with the Catholic Church's annulments--though nowadays, in the spirit of ecumenicism and non-judgmentalism, wimpy bishops throw around annulments like there's no tomorrow).

[MegaSilver]

Massachusetts has allowed same-sex couples to adopt for years, so has New Jersey. Marriage followed adoption rights. Also, isn't surrogacy legal for everyone?

That all needs to end. In Florida, same-sex adoptions are illegal, which is how it should be.