One Man, One Woman -- Only

Washington Post ^ | May 10, 2009 | HARRY R. JACKSON JR.

[La Lydia]

When the D.C. Council passed a measure to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, council members...violated the sacred trust of their office...a strange brand of reverse bigotry is being perpetrated. Defenders of virtue and protectors of family and age-appropriate education of children are being called "bigots." ...

The institution of marriage is unique in our society. It is the one institution that binds women and men together to form a family, serving incredibly important societal purposes. There is little doubt that the best environment for raising children is by a loving married mother and father.

Advocates of same-sex marriage purport that their form can peacefully coexist alongside traditional marriage. But same-sex marriage laws will create conflict between people who fervently believe in traditional marriage and the law. Those conflicts would always be resolved in favor of same-sex marriage because there can be no "conscientious objectors" to the law....

-- You can teach your children that marriage is between a man and a woman, but your children's D.C. schools will teach them that marriage includes same-sex couples.

-- You can teach your children that there are important spiritual and societal reasons to believe only in traditional marriage. But your children will be told that gay marriage is a civil rights issue, and that those opposing it are akin to the racists of history ...

-- You can be a counselor, physician or attorney who believes in traditional marriage, but if you act in concert with your beliefs, you could lose your professional license...

-- Your church can teach that same-sex marriage is not appropriate, but if you are too active politically on the issue, your tax exemption may be revoked.

These are not hypothetical conflicts. They have already emerged and will become increasingly frequent...

[tnlibertarian]

the surviving mate
even visit his mate in intensive care

"You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means" - Indigo Montoya.

[AustinBill]

I realize we're in violent agreement here, but consider that marriage is a voluntary commitment. Just because a gay man has the same right to marry a woman as a straight man doesn't mean that he'd choose to do so (though historically this was commonplace).

But the fact is this has nothing to do with marriage. The whole "gay rights" movement has long since become just another branch-office of the radical left. Try finding any disagreement between front organizations like the "Human Rights Campaign" and any other leftist lobby. It's the same "class struggle" message, repackaged to suit the brand preferences of whatever "aggrieved" subgroup comes calling.

Here's the real answer to this "problem". Many companies today provide benefits to same-sex couples. All it will take is for a few major corporations to change their HR policies to require that these same-sex couples get married in states which recognize same-sex marriage in order for these benefits to continue. This is a reasonable argument since no company provides benefits to live-in unmarried girlfriends. Such a move would stop things dead in their tracks since the truth is that very few gays really want to get married even though the (very vocal) minority gets all the press.

[Hodar]

Whether they ‘like’ the connection or not is irrevelant.

Birth defects affect ~3-4% of the population. Strangely, this is about the same percentage of gay people. Being Gay is not a favorable result, as this percentage is less likely to replicate - which is the entire purpose of having reproductive organs.

For years, the Gays insisted that they were a much larger percentage of the population, but recent surveys place the number back into the 3-4% range.

I do not subscribe into the ‘brainwashing’ idea. No amount of social pressure will make me lust after another man. No amount of social pressure will make me sexually desire another man. This is a hard-wired, hormone driven yearning. I do think that the gay community could foster ‘experimentation’; but at the end of the day - I do not think a ‘normal’ man could become a ‘gay’ man. Possibly bi-sexual; but not gay. IMHO, a ‘bi-sexual’ person is a person who simply wants their jollies and doesn’t particually care how they get them.

[Hodar]

All it will take is for a few major corporations to change their HR policies to require that these same-sex couples get married in states which recognize same-sex marriage in order for these benefits to continue. This is a reasonable argument since no company provides benefits to live-in unmarried girlfriends.

I like the way you think!! If they want 'equality' I say we give them exactly what they want. Add to this mix the whole 'Divorce', 'Custody', 'Division of income and property' that the rest of us get to enjoy - and let's watch that movement come to a crashing halt.

[Bryan24]

People choose to do things because they WANT to do them. If you physically cannot control yourself, then you need to be institutionalized.

If you CAN control yourself, then do so.

Homosexuality has been condemned by God since the beginning of time. It is a sign of moral decay and hedonistic decadence.

No matter what urges you have, it is still a choice. And it does NOT deserve special rights or recognition.