Posted on 11/26/2002 10:18:01 AM PST by Mike Fieschko
This seems to me to be the crux of the biscuit, STS. When I was married, I never once felt in the least bit threatened, swayed, influenced or otherwise effected by same-sex couples wanting to marry, or at least have a civil ceremony.
Hetero marriage has been around for eons. This little blip on the radar won't do a thing to change it, and it's at least a little disengenuous, IMHO, to maintain otherwise.
Well, it will turn it upside down, overthrowing thousands of years worth of tradition. But (seriously) how do we know that's bad? I would say that it is very bad indeed, and here's why: It completely changes the financial and child-rearing basis for society. It's a giant leap.
As others have pointed out, you can have a tax return with 50 spouse deductions. You can avoid inheritance taxes by marrying your grand-daughter. Is the government going to like having these financial rules changed?
How about children? Homosexual activists like to pretend otherwise but the statistics are clear: homosexual relationships do not last very long (VT is already dealing with gay divorces), and partner-abuse is higher in gay relationships than in hetero relationships, and child molestation is higher among gays than straights. Children lose big-time if their parents are gay.
So, we overturn one of core religious tenets holding our society together, and in return we get financial chaos and more disrupted childhoods. Great deal.
Really? I've never seen one proponent of gay marriages argue that heterosexual marriage should be amended for heterosexuals or done away with.
But (seriously) how do we know that's bad? I would say that it is very bad indeed, and here's why: It completely changes the financial and child-rearing basis for society. It's a giant leap.
As others have pointed out, you can have a tax return with 50 spouse deductions. You can avoid inheritance taxes by marrying your grand-daughter. Is the government going to like having these financial rules changed?
These extreme examples seem a wildly hyperbolic to me. Gay marriage is not polygamy, nor is it incestual, as far as I can tell.
How about children? Homosexual activists like to pretend otherwise but the statistics are clear: homosexual relationships do not last very long (VT is already dealing with gay divorces), and partner-abuse is higher in gay relationships than in hetero relationships, and child molestation is higher among gays than straights. Children lose big-time if their parents are gay.
I would think that marriages for gays would contribute to their being 'corraled', so to speak, and work counter to the promiscuity so often decried in the heterosexual community. As many married couples seem to know, marriage can definitely lead to sexlessness.
So, we overturn one of core religious tenets holding our society together, and in return we get financial chaos and more disrupted childhoods. Great deal.
Why would you assume that about 'religous' tenets? A civil ceremony is not in the least religous.
You're dead wrong. The GOP won't have to do anything but insist that the issue should be decided by elected representatives. Turning this into some kind of morality play is something the country doesn't want, nor need.
Americans oppose the recognition of gay marriage by the state, and they will vote against those who promote it. But they also don't like people who "preach it" in their faces.
If the GOP is smart, they'll allow people to voice their disapproval (vote) without voicing their disapproval.
A key point that I and others have been making is that there is no line. Either marriage is an institution between a man and a woman which has children as it's likely (though not assured) biological outcome, or else marriage is anything people want it to be. As far as I'm concerned, being in favor of gay marriage is exactly the same as being in favor of polygamy or incestuous marriage. On what basis would YOU say gay marriage is OK but polygamy is not?
I would think that marriages for gays would contribute to their being 'corraled', so to speak, and work counter to the promiscuity so often decried in the heterosexual community. As many married couples seem to know, marriage can definitely lead to sexlessness.
It doesn't work that way and people with open minds know that. I've known 3 gay couples that went through "commitment" ceremonies. All three broke up within a year. VT allowed gay marriages about a year ago. They are already dealing with gay divorces. It is true that heterosexual marriages often result in divorce - but gay relationships break up far more commonly. In my book, it's just rank dishonesty to pretend otherwise.
This is no time for rational questions. Just get on board the "tolerance" bandwagon.
Dead wrong? These pro-homo initiatives are gaining ground everywhere, accompanied by the studious silence of the GOP.
Only pro-family groups are out there fighting it. And the public is apathetic.
Americans oppose the recognition of gay marriage by the state, and they will vote against those who promote it.
Doubtful.
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.