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?
Is divorce bad? Yes, does it harm children, yes as well as other close to the family.
Is it against the law, no, but it is against the teachings of several churches.
Is Marriage a government thing, no, should it, no. It is a church thing.
The gay marriage issue is about money. Taxes and inheritance. that is all. Homos already have equal rights as any straight.
I agree he's anti-female. I'm the one he chose to characterize as hostile, despite all the "hostile" male posters here replying to him.
This isn't about me, it's about HIM. I don't buy into the aggressive homosexual agenda, he clearly is promoting it here.
I'm straight, and I vote.
"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?"
My wife's best friend for many years had always said that she will not marry and will not have kids. She lived in sin for 10 years with her boyfriend with no kids. Guess what - she finally married him 2 years ago and their son will soon be 1 yr old.
The point is that there is always the potential to bring children into the world in a heterosexual relationship, and a traditional marriage on average gives the best chance for the kids to be raised with healthy relationships and values. When people chip away at the traditional family because they want to feel better about their own perversions it harms society down the road.
Second time:
Stop hiding from the polygammy issue. Why do you think your marriage defintion must stop at any two persons? Why not three or five.
Stop hiding.
Alot things don't affect me but they are still, thankfully, illegal. Spousal abuse springs to mind. Though I am sure there are other similar crimes that "don't affect me".
*************
Good question. In my opinion, a woman or man should know their prospective spouse well enough before marriage that the inclination toward adultery would be apparent. Once children enter the picture, only the most egregious behaviour should be considered in ending the marriage.
(What about adultery?)
Divorce is not needed in those instances.
Only a gun:)
HEHE
You: GAY BROTHERS: How many gay brothers do you suppose there are in our country? If they ALL decided to marry, what adverse consequence do you anticipate occurring?
Me: So, you would permit gay brothers or sisters to marry. Thank you for being clear. Now, how about a father and son? Father and 18 year old daughter? Please state your reasons why or why not in each case.
Stop hiding.
Government does not regulate human intimacy between two consenting adults. Period.
This argument on the part of the gay community is worthless. The fact that 'gay marriage' is not recognized by virtue of a legal ruling does not stop gay people from living their chosen lifestyle.
It's an attempt to garner public sympathy but creating the illusion that they are somehow being persecuted which is simply not the case.
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?
This statement is self defeating as far as your agenda is concerned.
You say that government has no right to regulate choices involving human intimacy while at the same time intimating that it is somehow essential that 'gay marriage' be a legally recognized and government sanctioned activity.
I will say that I agree the government has no business involving themselves in the act of human intimacy but I would point out that intimacy and marriage, in the eyes of the law, are not the same thing
Or 5 persons and their dogs? Where does it stop?
I am not sure that two people who love each other and want to show that love by getting married should not be allowed.
The gay lifestyle is not healthy, mentally or physically, and this fact is apparently forbidden to be discussed in public schools.
Also, I've read studies showing that, as boys go from 12 years old to 25, the number who *think* they might have attractions to boys steadily goes down. Leave them along, and they'll grow out of it. Unless, of course, they engage in gay behavior.
When schools will point out, 'look, this matter is settled. It's legal', and when so-called hate laws forbid teaching of the health facts and the moral traditions, then we've callously knocked down the fences to many people who would otherwise not fall into homosexuality.
-- Joe
Yup, a gay activist troll.
I agree.
Will all due respect, you asked for opinions and that's what you get. They aren't going to come to your house and make you watch Davey and Goliath or anything. That's simply why they believe what they believe.
There is no real need for gay marriage except for the few who desire recognition to make themselves feel better. The government offers benefits to married hetero couples because the government views them as the most stable family unit. A same sex unit is not as stable nor does it need the benefits because it cannot produce children without outside interference. Children do not occur naturally to the relationship. Also those relationships are viewed as less than proper for obvious reasons. There is no NEED for government-sanctioned support for those relationships. When marriage was instituted eons ago, women needed men to care for them especially as they grow older. Stability helped women survive.
In the 21st century, there is only one debate: Marriage or no marriage. You cannot start creating "new" marriages to add on.
Yes it hurts someone directly but the woman chooses to stay with the guy who beats her.
Though now that I think about it, if the woman doesn't press charges I guess the guy doesn't go to jail. I think. (I am not really sure)
Good questions, ShandaLear.
I would initially answer this way.
I believe that America needs all her sons and daughters.
I believe that our destiny as a country is to demonstrate how good and decent people can live and prosper together and do so irrespective of race, religion, gender, wealth, or sexual preference.
It is never easy to expand freedom to those categories of people we may fear or dislike. And there will always be Americans who use that fear and dislike to attempt to convince us to not live up to our ideals.
I believe that our society and our children benefit by learning that a free society respects and values ALL of its members----including those who happen to fall in love with someone of the same sex.
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.