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?
You are trying desperately to play some victim here and you apparently want to enlist my help in fighting battles you've created. All of this is just more misdirection on your part.
From reading your last post it appears you've understood very little of what I've said.
You've incorrectly used "hateful" and "revulsion" in regards to me. Apparently you're not interested in learning what other people think, you just want to denigrate those who don't accept homosexuality (behavior) as normal.
And thank you. I'll continue to express myself as I have. And I'll continue to point out the fact that you don't answer some questions. Here's a replay:
You seem to be of the opinion that sex, any sex with consenting adults is perfectly acceptable. I say that for a specific reason and it's not because of hatred for anybody. You're asking who's threatened by same-sex marriage yet you consistently run away from questions that are merely taking your worldview to its logical conclusion.
Why stop at a marraige of two? Why not three, four, five? Why not between brothers? Sisters? Father and son(s)? Fathers(s) and son? Father and daughter? Grandparents and grandchild? As long as they're adults, why not? Is the American Family (your term) ready for that? Are you? Is that a good environment to promote and celebrate for children?
The quotations of mine that you cited have no relevance until they are placed in the overall context of what has transpired during the previous 600 messages.
Then perhaps you should direct them at somebody who never made the comments.
Squid: We both know that you were not asking a serious question. It was merely a rhetorical device to express your opposition to gay marriage.
I don't believe we can resolve serious problems by proposing the most extreme scenarios.
As fallible human beings, we cannot always arrive at perfect answers. Nor can we always anticipate EVERY consequence.
But we can propose that we live by general principles that apply to us all equally and, then, if a problem or unintended consequence develops, we can address them.
In another debate on another website on a different topic I used the analogy of telling General Motors, Ford, etc. that they will no longer be allowed to manufacture or sell vehicles because, repeatedly over decades, their vehicles have been recalled for serious defects---and some of them have caused death and severe injury. So despite 100 years of effort and innovation, we haven't perfected our cars, trucks, buses, etc. but no one suggests the answer to the imperfection is to prevent the automotive industry from operating.
What your scenario proposes is that we permanently reject ALL same-sex marriages because some unknown and unknowable number of other Americans whom may be objectionable subsequently might also request marriage status. In short, because heterosexuals were first in line when marriage statutes were developed, they should have a permanent monopoly.
I understand your concerns. I don't have an answer to every nightmare scenario you could suggest. I just don't think we should adopt a principle that states same-sex couples shall be treated differently from heterosexual couples based upon EXTREME HYPOTHETICAL OBJECTIONS. And I trust my countrymen to resolve whatever future problems or unanticipated consequences might develop.
Argh. That should say "perhaps you shouldn't"...
"Whats next? How does 3 people getting married to each other affect me or you? It doesn't. But that does not make it right."
Don't forget, next would be 3 people, a dog and two goats getting married while the kids watch. (sarcasm) After all it's PC freedom of expression. Now excuse me while I barf down the slippery slope of liberal/libertarian hell.
You seem to be of the opinion that sex, any sex with consenting adults is perfectly acceptable. I say that for a specific reason and it's not because of hatred for anybody. You're asking who's threatened by same-sex marriage yet you consistently run away from questions that are merely taking your worldview to its logical conclusion.
Why stop at a marraige of two? Why not three, four, five? Why not between brothers? Sisters? Father and son(s)? Fathers(s) and son? Father and daughter? Grandparents and grandchild? As long as they're adults, why not? Is the American Family (your term) ready for that? Are you? Is that a good environment to promote and celebrate for children?
Scripter, I have the same answer for you as my reply to Squid.
What, ultimately, is the reason you raise these nightmare scenarios? Is it:
(1) you just want assurance that marriage will NOT be permitted for those specified nightmares?
If so---laws could be written to exclude those options. But would you then be OK with same-sex marriage? From everything you have written thus far, the answer is a absolutely NO!
So why even bring up those extreme scenarios and expend energy debating them? It just confuses the basic issue if you have no intention of saying yes to same-sex marriages under any circumstances!
(2) Consequently, I interpret your questions to be merely a debating strategy to raise the spectre of unimaginable horror so as to permanently preclude consideration of any less-scary and more typical options---by conflating the two. In other words, the slippery slope argument.
(3) Incidentally, have you done much research into how France, Netherlands, and Denmark have dealt with the nightmare scenarios in their countries? Has there been an explosion of fathers marrying sons, siblings demanding to be married, grandparents and grand-children etc.?
For that matter, in our own country, is there evidence that domestic partnerships have resulted in the odd couplings that you have proposed as being a likely end result?
Nightmare scenarios is a good description. As I've said many times now, it's merely taking your worldview to it's logical conclusion. Either you don't want to recognize where your worldview leads or your worldview prevents you from realizing where it leads. If you think that's a nightmare then perhaps you should rethink your position.
You said earlier in the thread that same-sex marriage was between two consenting adults. Well, what about three or more? They are consenting adults. Why not siblings and cross generational family members? If they are all consenting adults, why is it a nightmare scenario?
Who is harmed by this? Try asking former homosexuals. Ask former homosexuals to describe their former lifestyle. Richard Weller thought he was born gay. And the 12 years he lived the homosexual lifestyle he was 100% gay - he completely bought the lie. Now he is 100% recovered from, in his own words a "sick and twisted life."
Richard is one of the tens of thousands of former homosexuals.
To whom are these nightmare scenarios a threat?
Quote from another Freeper...
Once gay marriage is legal, gays will lose interest. The point is to destroy marriage and force complete acceptance and legitimization of homosexuality. Once gay marriage is legal, homosexuality as a normal choice will be taught in schools (Homosexual indoctrination of children will be applied by law) and parents will have no standing to object.
Emphasis mine.
This is absolutly correct.
Case in point. FL has had its ban on homosexuals adopting children upheld three times in the courts. Twice at the FL supreme court and once at the 11th Fed. DCA with cert denied to the USSC. Now two homosexual women challenge the same adoption law AGAIN based on the prohibition against homosexual marriage because of FL's marriage definition law is discriminatory. They cite the lawrence decision and the Mass homosexual marraige decisions.
Over 27 states prohibit homosexual sex partners from adopting children. No heather has two momies there. However if the homosexual marriage is imposed then those laws will be immediatly challenged.
Once gay marriage is legal, gays will lose interest. The point is to destroy marriage and force complete acceptance and legitimization of homosexuality. Once gay marriage is legal, homosexuality as a normal choice will be taught in schools (Homosexual indoctrination of children will be applied by law) and parents will have no standing to object.
The 3000+ same-sex couples who "married" in San Francisco did not do so because they "wanted to destroy marriage". Instead, they want the same benefits and responsibilities that heterosexual couples enjoy.
Personally, I am opposed to teaching anything in school (grades 1-12) about homosexuality EXCEPT to mention, when appropriately applicable, that many of the world's most famous personalities have been gay or bisexual.
The mention would simply be to offer an insight into their lives: perhaps, for example, so that students could seek to understand the motivations behind their accomplishments (such as the basis for writing a moving novel or poem or song) as well as understanding the problems they experienced in their lifetimes. The same things I would expect to learn about any prominent or accomplished figure in history.
If, however, even that is too onerous from your perspective, then perhaps private schools are the best option for those among us who find all kinds of objectionable stuff being taught in public schools. For example, I had a neighbor who strenuously objected to schools teaching anything about Martin Luther King Jr. until documents sealed by court order until 2027 are released.
I suppose, from his point of view, our schools were wrongfully "indoctrinating children" about King and the civil rights movement.
You are delusional. But then, I'm just adding a faggot to your insanity's fire.
"Nightmare scenarios" can be "logical conclusions" but totally false or gross exaggerations. I recall, for example, on 9/11/01 that CNN reporters and (ABC News I think it was) were reporting that, typically, the World Trade Towers would have 12,000-15,000 workers and visitors at the time the planes hit. So there was speculation that we should prepare ourselves for 5-digit death tolls as a "logical" scenario.
But you danced around my question. Why raise the "nightmare scenarios" at all? Shouldn't we focus on what I describe as "first principles" instead and not be diverted into pointless arguments about extreme hypotheticals?
As I sit here writing this to you, a Boeing 747 might crash into my home. I live fairly close to our airport. But I don't organize my thoughts and everyday behavior or decisions around that "nightmare scenario".
You repeat the same questions that I previously addressed, i.e. your concern about limiting the number of people who can be "married" to each other. But, your real problem is NOT the "number" of people. It is the TYPE of person.
Whether the marriage is between only 2 people or 100 is irrelevant because your FIRST PRINCIPLE is that no same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. Period! End of discussion. Correct?
Nor is your real concern what their blood relationship might be: Father and son; brothers, sisters, etc. Again, you simply are opposed to SAME-SEX marriages. Period.
Incidentally, I've never thought about this before, but it just occurred to me that Adam and Eve had children. Whom did THEY marry -- if not their own siblings?
But you danced around my question. Why raise the "nightmare scenarios" at all?
I did no such thing. If same-sex marriage is not an issue for you, what about brothers marrying their own brothers, fathers marrying their sons? That's a logical conclusion given your interest in same-sex marriage.
And since same-sex marriage, by definition, is completely redefining the word marriage, which by definition means a man and a woman, why stop at same-sex marriage? Why stop there and block brothers from marrying each other?
Why are they extreme examples?
To whom are these nightmare scenarios a threat?
And since same-sex marriage, by definition, is completely redefining the word marriage, which by definition means a man and a woman, why stop at same-sex marriage? Why stop there and block brothers from marrying each other?
You ask these questions as though they genuinely concern you. And as if you genuinely are open to some explanation which would cause you to re-think your position on same-sex marriages.
But we both know that is NOT the case. This is merely a rhetorical device on your part. Or, to use a term from other messages, it is MISDIRECTION.
However, if we took your questions seriously, we could propose via law that only persons NOT RELATED BY BLOOD could marry each other. We could further stipulate in law, that ONLY single couples (i.e. 2 people) could be married. That would address both of your immediate concerns.
But we both know that neither stipulation makes any difference because neither addresses your primary objection which is your ultimate "deal-breaker".
So raising these objections yet again does NOTHING WHATSOEVER to either clarify the dispute or help to move the discussion forward. Consequently, I do not see the value of discussing extreme hypotheticals---except, perhaps, as an intellectual exercise to hone debating skills.
You obviously have a hangup about what you often describe as "logical conclusion" of a position or the "natural progression" of an argument.
Human beings try to be consistent and make decisions based upon fixed principles and values. But we all confront circumstances in our lives that force us to choose between a rigid idea versus how that idea should be applied to flesh-and-blood beings in circumstances we may not have anticipated. [I am acquainted with someone, for example, whose life-long political views have been "extreme right". He previously told me that most contemporary government functions are unConstitutional and he opposed much of what the Federal Government spends in our name. After he got married, he and his wife had a child who has Down Syndrome. Suddenly, his politics changed because he doesn't see political ideas when he looks into the eyes of his baby nor does he want to engage in abstract philosophical arguments when he needs to comfort his wife. Consequently, now he sees a role for Government that never was apparent or thinkable before.]
Now please DON'T read into this next comment more than what is intended. We have a word in the English language for persons who NEVER make exceptions. Who NEVER compromise their beliefs or positions. Who ALWAYS insist on strict adherence to a particular set of principles or ideas. That word is "fanatic".
My position derives from two "first principles":
(1) I want minimum government intervention in the lives of my fellow citizens. I choose that principle because I do NOT believe that government has the wisdom or restraint to always make the best judgments about personal and private behavior. I arrive at that conclusion from my reading of history.
(2) I believe that whenever and wherever possible we should strive to be inclusive---i.e. not search for entire categories of people to exclude from the benefits and responsibilities of being a member of the American Family. I choose that principle because I think EVERYONE has value and I think my country will be stronger when all of its sons and daughters know they are valued members and have something to contribute.
I understand and respect those who have different views--especially when based upon their religious beliefs. But this issue has other dimensions. And just like we do not preclude atheists from getting married, we cannot always apply particular religious conventions to all of our public policy questions.
Finally, I'd like to briefly address previous messages which refer to me "promoting an agenda".
We ALL have "agendas". Want lower taxes or tax simplication? That's an agenda. Want to limit abortion and make it extremely rare? That's an agenda! Want your kids to go to good schools and have opportunities to be whatever they can be in life? That's an agenda!
Are you folks so convinced of your goodness and righteousness that you block out even the remotest self-awareness of YOUR OWN AGENDA? Do you honestly believe you and you alone represent everything that is good and decent, fair and just in this world?
Why is it an extreme example?
To whom is this nightmare scenario a threat?
The term "nightmare scenario" is what I am using to characterize what various folks in this thread have repeatedly used as examples to express both their hostility toward gays and their absolute refusal to consider doing anything whatsoever to change current marriage laws.
You ask: "Why is it an extreme example?"
The answer is because we have no evidence from our own country or anywhere else that siblings seek to marry one another. So proposing that example as deserving our immediate attention in order to resolve the larger issue is phony argumentation.
You ask: "To whom is this nightmare scenario a threat?"
I presume you have some ulterior motive for this question. Obviously, all of the folks in this thread who constantly use these extreme hypothetical examples see them as "a threat" to their monopoly on marriage. Otherwise, why would we even be having this discussion?
Now, I then tried to specify how such concerns as these could be addressed in any proposed changes to our law. But you are still unalterably opposed---correct? So why do you even bring this stuff up since it is NOT your real concern about this matter.
Obviously we do, as you have consistently misrepresented my position as if you're ignoring everything I've said. Also, you've consistently and quite incorrectly presumed my position, and you use words like hate and revulsion.
Now you define a nightmare scenario as one without any evidence. That's an interesting term to describe the situation.
If you're arguing for same-sex marriage, why would you want to pass laws to prevent brothers from marrying each other?
I presume you have some ulterior motive for this question.
It's merely a question based on the title of your thread here. Did you have an ulterior motive when you posted this thread?
To whom is this nightmare scenario a threat?
Sorry, Scripter, you have totally lost me. You posed several questions in your message regarding so-called "nightmare scenarios" -- i.e. what limitations (if any) there should be on same-sex marriages. I then specifically answered those questions. Now you say I am "ignoring everything" you have said. To the contrary, I specifically addressed what you said. How have I "misrepresented" your position?
You also say that I have "consistently and quite incorrectly presumed" your position. But you don't specify to what you are referring.
I have said that YOUR position is that YOU OPPOSE same-sex marriage under ANY circumstances. If I am wrong, then please correct me now and do so in clear, precise language---i.e. under what circumstances would you agree to legalize same-sex marriage?
If you're arguing for same-sex marriage, why would you want to pass laws to prevent brothers from marrying each other?
Because I am willing to listen to and address the concerns which you and others have raised in this forum. You seem to be simultaneously criticizing me for both (a) responding appropriately to your stated concerns and (b) not responding to your concerns. Which is it?
Now you define a nightmare scenario as one without any evidence. That's an interesting term to describe the situation.
Apparently, from the intensity of the comments made in this thread, many opponents believe that huge numbers of siblings (or fathers-sons; grandfather and grandson, et al) are going to rush out and attempt to get married. Furthermore, numerous three-somes and four-somes etc. want to be married. Where is the evidence to suggest that is true?. What experience have European countries had in this regard? Or how about domestic partnerships in the United States?
Many critics of gays have said that domestic partnerships is merely "step 1" on the "gay agenda" toward marriage.
OK, if that is true, then let's hear about your evidence regarding siblings that have sought to register as domestic partners. What other evidence do you have re: domestic partners registrations that illustrate the other "nightmare" scenarios that have been predicted in this thread?
After I posted my last message, I went back to review all of your comments and questions to me since message #618 on January 5th. Here is a summary of what I found:
Questions and concerns you indicated you wanted addressed:
621: Why stop at a marriage of two? Why not between
brothers, sisters, fathers and sons, etc -- as long
as they are adults?
My answer to you appeared in #628 which essentially repeated my answer to Squid in #626. I stated that I had no problem limiting marriage to two persons not related by blood.
627: You describe "nightmare scenarios" as "taking
your worldview to its logical conclusion."
I responded by pointing out that "nightmare scenarios" can be posed as "logical conclusions" but, nevertheless, be TOTALLY FALSE or GROSS EXAGGERATIONS. I gave an example of how that false reasoning worked with respect to 9/11.
I suggested that we should concentrate on "first principles" instead of hypothetical extreme examples which cannot even be quantified as a prediction of what MIGHT happen.
634: You repeat your concern that I already answered in
message #626 re: allowing siblings or others to
marry. You ask "why are they extreme examples?"
I responded in message #635 by repeating that we could limit marriage to two persons unrelated by blood.
I then answered your question about why such examples should be considered "extreme", i.e. because they do "nothing whatsoever to either clarify the dispute or help to move the discussion forward."
In message #623 to Squid and #626 to you I discussed the same topic. I pointed out that raising such concerns is just a debating strategy to raise the scariest possible scenarios in order to prevent discussion of the most likely scenarios.
I asked for evidence you had concerning other countries which would confirm that such "nightmare scenarios" ACTUALLY OCCUR after gay marriage or legal recognition of other same-sex couples arrangements have been approved. You PROVIDED NOTHING.
636: You repeat YET AGAIN your concern about siblings
being allowed to marry. You ask, AGAIN, why is it
an extreme example?
I replied YET AGAIN in #637. This time I deliberately arranged my answers in a specific format which I thought would end the repeated inquiries. I said:
"You ask: 'Why is it an extreme example'?"
and I replied: "The answer is because we have no evidence from our own country or anywhere else that siblings seek to marry one another. So proposing that example as deserving our immediate attention in order to resolve the larger issue is phony argumentation."
"You ask: 'To whom is this nightmare scenario a threat?'
and I replied: "...to all of the folks in this thread who constantly use these extreme hypothetical examples" because they "see them as 'a threat' to their monopoly on marriage."
Now, don't you think we pretty much exhausted that topic?
Nope!
Because in #638 you AGAIN REPEAT THE SAME QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS WHICH I HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED 4 TIMES!
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.