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.
Ernie,
In fact you used the term “fear” twice in your post 160 and in at least one other post. I have just reread this thread and do not find that fear is the motivating factor of the respondents. There are objections based on religion, aesthetics, desire to protect children from “chicken hawks,” disgust, and health issues, but “fear” does not appear to be a factor.
To your question:
Changing the definition of marriage in society is major. The ramifications are not likely to be perceived by you or me.
Once the determination of who can marry is changed from one man one woman to “people who love each other” then other issues arise including the very real issue of the limitation of marriage to the number two. In many societies throughout history (and even today), the limitation of two was considered bizarre. Lifting the legal definition of marriage from the number two would certainly be welcomed by the Mormons who were severely persecuted for polygamy. And who is to say that the Arab custom of multiple wives should not be emulated? Are we so bigoted as to deny the values of other cultures? And, to repeat you question: “…what specific adverse consequences opponents of [polygamy or polyandry] anticipate [do you expect] to result from its legalization?”
I understand why you wanted to limit the topic to gay marriage because you have an agenda and wished to use the issues of “fairness,” civil right and equal treatment under the law as a wedge. But the real subject is the re-definition of marriage, and – like a new constitutional convention – the consequences can’t be so neatly limited to your favorite hobby horse.
For whatever reason, the gay activist movement has moved to a position that now has generated a push-back by ordinary Americans. I suspect this was because – like the far left – the community does not really understand the mainstream. The mainstream does not hate gays. It does not discriminate before the law. It is not out to beat you up. It even admires the arts and aesthetics that gays excel in.
Here’s a life lesson: don’t confuse tolerance with indifference. The Dutch were not tolerant of Arabs, they were indifferent. Until the murder of Van Gogh.
By demanding that Americans equate the marriage of a man and a woman to the mating of two men or two women, you have demanded that we abandon thousands of years of custom and law … for what? YOU have to give a very compelling answer, and frankly, demanding that we justify our position is not going to get you very far.
Peace and love.