How does gay marriage damage 'marriage'?

crosswalk ^ | April 13, 2004 | Mary Rettig and Jenni Parker

[RichardEdward]

In Scandinavia, illegitimate birth rates exceed 50 percent. The majority of Swedish and Norwegian children are born out of wedlock, and 60 percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Meanwhile, marriage rates subtly decline while, in some countries, divorce rates have skyrocketed to nearly 80 percent

[spunkets]

" Of course there's a right to privacy; it just isn't in the Constitution."

It's in the Bill of Rights and is the implied right of concern in the forth and fifth Amendments. The court redefined that right to be some sort of corrupted sovereignty of will. Various lower fed courts have tried to incorporate the new concept in their rulings and have noted that it is extremely nebulous and tortured. As long as it's a "popular liberal issue", the stretch of concept will be applied. The right to privacy has been lost and the title applied to a new imaginary concept of choice.

The real right to privacy has no bearing on law, except as it refers to searches and fishing expeditions. It can not be used to justify ruling a law unconstitutional, unless the law itself only refers to methods and grounds for search.

"Is there a "right" to healthcare? "

Yes. That right consists of an individuals right to choose to pursue what particular, if any, health care by his own means. The means refers to ability to pay the asked price, or the ability to provide the care himself. The right does not guarantee effective healthcare, and it does not entitle anyone to have it provided. Their is no right to have it provided on the grounds that it is needed. It's important to note that rights are not entitlements to goods and services that satisfy needs.

Rights are claims of sovereignty over an individuals life and will. There is no justification to infringe on rights if there is no corresponding infringement of someone elses rghts occuring. In the case of abortion the kid's fundamental right to life is being infringed upon. The SCOTUS in Roe skirted this by declaring baby a nonviable tissue mass, 'till it exits out the door. In the case of rubber sales there is no justification for the law, other than the tyranny of the majority.

"there isn't an absolute right to voting either. Otherwise felons, non-citizens, infants and mental patients would all be permitted to vote. "

The right to vote also finds it's roots in an individuals sovereignty of will. The persons listed are not capable of exercising that sovereignty of will raitonaly. In the case of the felon their are questions of punishment and honest intent to address. Otherwise the presumption is that the citizen holds an absolute right to vote and is rational and capable.

" To say that the Creator is the source of certain rights means we deny to governments or to the mob the authority to issue or take away these rights."

In all cases it is men claiming what is and what is not a right, regardless of the source of those rights is. I'm sure the mullah's of Islam also claim the creator as their source. A claim of source does not render something true.

There can be no contratrdiction regarding what is and what is not a right. There is only one truth and it must be logical, rational and form a complete inerrant picture. There are contradictions within the concept of rights stated by men claiming God as a source. Rational analysis is the only way to dicern what is and what is not the truth. There are no mysteries.

"The rights of Soviet citizens were bestowed by “the people” and they were frequently arbitrarily stripped by “the people” as well."

History is replete with God given rights that were denied in His name. Only honest rational analysis can be used to discern the truth. In all cases that deny the sovereignty of will of the individual-Freedom, sans given justification for restriction and sanction, there will always be found a particular, unique, self centered will of men that seeks to impose it exclusively for their own purposes. Regardless of what figure, or idealism is pointed to as the source of claims, authoritarian dictates are always from men and the only wills that count are those of the imposers. Freedom has no imposing tyrants, it occurs when the gift of life and the will of the individual is honored and respected.

[Porterville]

What does marriage have to do with anal sex?

[Porterville]

What does marriage have to do with anal sex?

[nightdriver]

"I am looking for additional information on how gay marriage hurts/destroys marriage.. I am specifically looking for non-religious based reasons"

"Gay marriage" does not exist.

Just saying that a same-sex couple is "married" does not, by definition, make it so any more than you can plug a 3-prong light cord plug into another 3-prong light cord plug.

[spunkets]

"You didn't provide any studies to support your claims while I provided numerous links to studies, all of which support my statement that the major factor in determining homosexuality is genetic."

I gave you first hand observation. You can believe whatever your collection of agenda driven writings promote. I will believe what I witnessed and the case histories I've seen.

" health hazards"

Gettin' out of bed is hazardous. It is irrelevant to the biological pattern of the sleep/wake cycle.

" According to those involved with the APA, homosexual activism was the driving force behind removing homosexuality as a mental defect. "

According to the gun grabbers, NRA activism was responsible for reversal of their gains.

" "Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence" - John Adams."

Ditto John!

"The facts don't support your position."

LOL!

[NutCrackerBoy]

Life and Freedom are gifts that have no contingent conditions, or purposes attached, except that one honor the rights of others.

How does one know what the rights of others consist of, without reference to some purpose?

[spunkets]

The purpose of the claims of rights and the moral code that protects them is to protect and maintain the very essence and nature of the being(s) that created them. The purpose for their existence and life does not have to be addressed, only the fact that each of them holds that their life and will are of immesurable value. That valuation must apply to the rest if there is to be any universal rights and moral code, regardless of what any of them hold is the purpose of their life. or any particular details of valuation.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Section 53-32: "Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than one year or be both fined and imprisoned."

OK.

That falls under the "stupid law" category.

Here's the Luis Amendment to that law.

"Any person caught checking whether me and the wife are using drugs, medicinal articles or instruments that may lead to conception while engaged in an act that may lead to such conception, will have their asses roundly kicked."

'Nuff said?

The law prohibits the use of contraceptives, and the subsequent law makes any person who "assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any offense", equally liable.

It doesn't make it illegal to either sell, or buy a contraceptive...just to use one.

Stupid, unenforceable law.

[smcmike]

Ok, I don't like gay marraige, but even if the government let me, for some reason i don't think i would be gay... How many freepers would "turn gay" because the government said it was ok?

[smcmike]

If you are refering to Greece or Rome, I have to call you on this one. (if you have other examples, go for it). Both societies practiced pedophilia, but that really has nothing to do with their political downfall. It's disgusting, but if you look at it, Rome fell after she bacame christian...

[stylin19a]

The premise of the article is ridicuous. That gay marriage destroys traditional marriage.
The thread starter asked the key question:

I am looking for additional information on how gay marriage hurts/destroys marriage.. I am specifically looking for non-religious based reasons

When I got married, it never crossed my mind to "co-habit" instead, because legalizing gay marriage makes traditional marriage no longer special

If I get divorced, it wont be because of gay marriage

If there are children out of wedlock, it wont be because of legalizing gay marriage.

These are all personal, individual choices that requires one to take personal responsibility for the action - which the mention of is absent in the article.

My initial response was just as the article was. Goofy !

[scripter]

In other words you have no scientific studies to support your statement that homosexuals are born that way. Which is consistent with the facts. That is: the major factor in determining homosexuality is environment.

You can close your eyes to the facts but facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be your wishes, your inclinations, or the dictates of your passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. You are wrong and you apparently don't care. Not only is that sad but it speaks volumes about your bias.

Regarding homosexuality and genetics:

"[His 1991 research] made the unassuming LeVay one of the most misunderstood men in America. "It's important to stress what I didn't find," he points out with the courtly patience of someone who long ago got used to waiting for the rest of the world to catch up. "I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are 'born that way,' the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain--INAH3 is less likely to be the sole gay nucleus of the brain than part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and women's sexual behavior. My work is just a hint in that direction--a spur, I hope, to future work."

Source: Interview with David Nimmons (March, 1994) "Sex and the Brain", Discover, Vol. 15, No. 3, p. 64-71.

In 1973 the APA (American Psychiatric Association) declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. According to LeVay, it wasn't science that propelled the APAs change, he said

"Gay activism was clearly the force that propelled the APA to declassify homosexuality."

Source: Simon LeVay, Queer Science, MIT Press, 1996, p. 224

Dr. Robert L. Spitzer played a pivotal role in the 1973 decision by the APA to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder. Spitzer used to believe homosexuals couldn't change but after studying the results of therapy he now believes homosexuals can change:

"I thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted--but that no one could really change their sexual orientation. I now believe that's untrue--some people can and do change." Spitzer completely changed his mind whether or not some homosexuals can change. And then Spitzer concluded with:

"the mental health professionals should stop moving in the direction of banning therapy that has, as a goal, a change in sexual orientation. Many patients, provided with informed consent about the possibility that they will be disappointed if the therapy does not succeed, can make a rational choice to work toward developing their heterosexual potential and minimizing their unwanted homosexual attractions."

Source: Spitzer made the above comments at an annual APA meeting, May 9, 2001. The study was reported in the May 9, 2001 issues of The Washington Post, The New York Times, USA Today and it was also released to many local newspapers via the AP. ABC, CBS, FOX and MSNBC all reported the study.

Check your bias - the facts don't support you.

[smcmike]

there is, in fact, a third alternative. that is to allow sham marraiges... now im not necessarily for this, but think about it a bit... what if the government leaves true "marraige" up to the churches. what if government developes a whole range of "partnerships" to encourage people to work and live together, for instance as siblings... what is wrong with a couple of old siblings who live together and want to file their taxes together, etc? On the other hand, the purpose of government endorsed marraige is to encourage the traditional family, the strongest building block for our nation....

[No Truce With Kings]

"what if the government leaves true "marraige" up to the churches. what if government developes a whole range of "partnerships" to encourage people to work and live together, for instance as siblings... "

Go back to my original post on this thread. The privileges of marriage cost the government significantly. Governments extend these privileges *because* they get something in return -- stable families for children to grow up in. That saves the government more than the government's costs of marriage. If we extend these privileges . . . ah . . . promiscuously . . . the government gets an identical return at a much greater cost. From a cost-benefit standpoint, the privileges of marriage are now a net loss to the government -- not a net gain.

Governments tend to be rational in the aggregate. If they cease receiving benefits from a policy they abandon the policy. So the benefits of marriage will be reduced. By reducing the benefits, the utility of marriage is reduced, removing incentives to marry *before* having children.

Over time marriage will be dominated by the religious and by romantic idiots. Since society is marginalizing the religious, the image of marriage will be shaped by the romantic idiots -- those seeking their "soul mates," who cut and run when the going gets tough because that does not match their romantic image of marriage as flowers and song. In other words, the Hollywood marriage will become the norm in secular society. Marriage will be reduced to a short-term partnering a la entertainment stars (who by and large strike me as children that have never grown up.

Of course, this will lead to miserable situations for the real children in society, but that's what happens when you forget that marriage is primarily an institution designed to care for children rather than a ritual to allow adults to "affirm" their beliefs.

[little jeremiah]

Thanks for the verse - I stayed up and read until late. I read the Bible but not enough to know what verse is what!

Pearls... so many lurkers!

[little jeremiah]

"... How many freepers would "turn gay" because the government said it was ok?"

How many kids get influenced to experiment with same sex behavior since it was promoted in school as normal and natural, and they should try it to find out if they are "gay"?

How many kids are told by counsellors - often at school or school bsaed clubs - that because they've had one "gay" thought they ARE "gay" and can't change?

How many kids have been molested or seduced by an older homosexual, and then become convinced that they, too, are "gay" and can't change? How often was that older homosexual a teacher or other person in a position of authority?

How many kids have been convinced that because the teachers or principles in school say that "gay is good" have become convinced that sexual behavior that may likely kill them is normal and natural?

[little jeremiah]

"the government already allows marriages that some find offensive to their religious sensibilities (interracial marriage..."

What religion, pray tell, finds interracial marriages offensive?

Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism don't find it offensive. Buddhism is ok with it. Maybe Shinto, since it's primarily ancestor worship? I've seen interracial Sikh couples, hmmm - even interracial Muslim couples. I wonder what religion you're thinking of?

[slimer]

"the institution of marriage"

First define what marriage is. It is an institution between a man and a woman, recognized by the government, for the purpose of establishing and maintaining a family unit.

The guiding principle is that the family unit is the backbone of our society. Ideally, it provides the structure and security necessary to raise and educate productive citizens in order to advance and continue the society.

When the family unit breaks down, and more importantly, when the principles that support the structure of this unit are eroded, the society begins to break down and it's future becomes limited.

History demonstrates this over and over but it appears that the human condition is incapable of saving itself from this dilemma.

For a spiritual perspective see Romans 7: 14-25

[scripter]

Not too many folks know that verse by reference, I just threw out the reference to be cryptic. ;-)

[Dimensio]

Judge Leon Bazile seemed to think that interracial marriages were religiously offensive:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."