Same-Sex Marriage - A Threat To Whom?

12-23-04 | Ernie1241

[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?

[Luircin]

Your references to civil rights are still flawed because there IS no overt oppression, and the violence is largely inter-movement.

I know about the gay community because I was part of it for several years. Here's my own personal experience:

Molested by an older sibling at age 12.

Sexually abused by another older male at age 15.

Suicidal at age 17.

Both came out of the closet and got saved at age 18. My parents did NOT disown me; in fact, they were too "accepting" for comfort.

Came out on FR at age 18 as well. Was immediately hit with prayers and friendly encouragement and absolutely no anger or disgust or hatred.

And also at age 18, I politely disagreed with a "gay friendly" person I know in regards to marriage and was immediately called a hater, a Nazi, and every other rotten name that I'm sure that most of the other people on this thread can recognize.

Now, I have a thick skull, but the message eventually pounds through.

As for your other comments, I am not afraid to admit that I have no experience and so have no response; I'll let the other participants on this thread tear 'em up.

One more question. How old WERE these "homeless boys and girls"?

[Lesforlife]

Read this month's WND Whistleblower magazine - that is if you
are sincere in you desire to understand the harm, which I doubt.

[Ernie.cal]

My church will be impacted as they have to defend themselves from ACLU lawsuits for refusing to violate biblical teachings by refusing to perform same sex ceremonies. Some churches will embracy sodomy and run off faithful church members who find problems with homosexuality and abortion advocacy in church.

My society will be impacted as same sex couples push for adoption of children they might have been denied in the past. Those adults may consent to live in an alternative lifestyle but that child has rights too and they will be ignored so that a homosexual couple can have a kid. Decades later many of them will still be going through counselling.

Frankly, I don't think ACLU would be involved in such matters because the argument concerns what civil authority does, not religious institutions. In the history of the ACLU, can you tell me of any case where the ACLU has intervened when the dispute was entirely within a Church as opposed to a religious issue involving expenditure of public funds?

With respect to adoption: as I am sure you know, gay couples already have a track record with respect to raising children---both their own children or adopted children.

Perhaps you can contribute to this discussion by citing some studies which establish that gay parents are less likely to produce happy, well-adjusted, successful children and, instead, they produce troubled kids who require counselling? For example, can you cite any studies that show children raised by gay parents are more likely to drop out of school or use alcohol and drugs or engage in criminal activity, etc. etc?

Incidentally, just out of curiosity, does anyone have an explanation for why so many prominent families known for their conservative and Christian beliefs nonetheless have gay children? Some examples that spring into mind: Phyllis Schlafly's son, John Schmitz's son, Dick Cheney's daughter.

[Judith Anne]

What, exactly, is the flaw? Both movements triggered very emotional and often nasty exchanges. Bigots claimed in the 1950's-1960's that God supported their point of view and they predicted horrendous consequences for American society if we adopted "liberal" laws being promoted by "secular humanists" and "Communist agitators", etc.

Well, there IS the *small* matter of 40 million aborted babies since the liberal Roe V Wade decision. You may not consider that a horrendous consequence. But the liberal party IS the abortion party.

[Luircin]

Incidentally, just out of curiosity, does anyone have an explanation for why so many prominent families known for their conservative and Christian beliefs nonetheless have gay children? Some examples that spring into mind: Phyllis Schlafly's son, John Schmitz's son, Dick Cheney's daughter.

Youthful rebellion and indoctrination.

Of course, the expection often proves the rule...

[superskunk]

My church will be impacted as they have to defend themselves from ACLU lawsuits for refusing to violate biblical teachings by refusing to perform same sex ceremonies.

Your church has no legal obligation to violate it's own beliefs. Never fear the ACLU Nazis. Contact the ACLJ at They specialize in this kind of thing and I believe their services are free of charge, but their resources are limited.

[superskunk]

My church will be impacted as they have to defend themselves from ACLU lawsuits for refusing to violate biblical teachings by refusing to perform same sex ceremonies.

Your church has no legal obligation to violate it's own beliefs. Never fear the ACLU Nazis. Contact the ACLJ at aclj.org They specialize in this kind of thing and I believe their services are free of charge, but their resources are limited.

[AppyPappy]

With respect to polygamy: By nature I don't like to be judgmental about whatever love relationships people enter into. I think God is more qualified than I am to render final judgments and I am content to leave it in his hands.

OK. So far you support gay marriage and polygamy. Please explain me why you support government support of marriage. Why should government be in the relationship business?

[hosepipe]

[ Same-Sex Marriage - A Threat To Whom? ]

Its a threat to logic.. Gay marriage is as queer as queerdom is..

Its queer Ern..
Like Richard Simmons in a chicken suit..
preaching save the chickens in a Cornel Sanders QUEER..
And you know it..

Marriage is primarily about children not sex...
Queerdom is primarily about sex not children..unless its sex WITH children..

Both can be morphed into something they ain't..
Marriage of queers is Queeriage squared.. not marriage..

With Queers wanting be married is about money not children..
With the normal people marriage is about creation of life..
Queers will never do that, even lesbians..
A Lesbian haveing a child is an aberration..
Good for the lesbian, maybe, but the child gets ripped off..
Like divorce rips kids off, so does a dyke having a kid..
Even little kids know queers are queer.. always have always will..
Why?... because its OBVIOUS... its queer..
Even queers know their queer, thats why they are queer in the first place. They LIKE queer..

[Judith Anne]

Frankly, I don't think ACLU would be involved in such matters because the argument concerns what civil authority does, not religious institutions. In the history of the ACLU, can you tell me of any case where the ACLU has intervened when the dispute was entirely within a Church as opposed to a religious issue involving expenditure of public funds?

Ahhhhh....public funds....who funds the ACLU? Mostly small municipal governments they have sued, after carefully cherry-picking the local liberal judges....I note that when the ACLU loses the expensive litigation, they do NOT reimburse the winner for legal costs....but demand to be paid when THEY win....

Yes, the good ole ACLU...

[FastCoyote]

So I ask everyone again to focus on the issue of why we should allow such people to have any rights whatsoever. If gays are a danger to good order, a danger to health, a danger to morals, a danger to children, a danger to all that is good in a decent society---why permit them to influence public policy by allowing them to vote or publish articles or run for office or participate in anything which might cause someone to praise them or regard them in positive terms? You got a great point there, Ernie. There isn't much reason to allow them a voice, other than a sense of civility. As you (and others like you), push the position that anal penetration which leads to the mixing of sperm, virii, bacteria and feces is a "normal" activity, there may come a time when civility is exhausted. Not only is that physical act destructive, but the mentality of those engaged in it is also warped and destructive. So ernie, I hope you continue to push your gay rights agenda until you are crushed by the backlash.

[Republican Wildcat]

Please explain to me how two people of the same-sex can join together as husband and wife. That is what must be proven in order for gay "marriage" to be a reality. The burden of proof is on you, and I await your explanation.

[lodwick]

What business does the state have licensing ANYTHING, except to generate income for itself?

[weegee]

Actually many of those runaways are drug addicts and libertines. They participate in same sex acts because chicken hawks will pay them for sex or even give them food and drugs. "Whatever it takes to survive".

If it was a woman paying those young boys to have sex, I doubt they'd turn her down.

Dee Dee Ramone was one such "punk" (male prostitute). He didn't engage in same sex relationships once he left the streets.

[loboinok]

Suppose children perceive the "gay lifestyle" to be a "valid choice". What specific demonstrable harm to society do you predict will occur?


Radical drop in the birth rate which is a direct threat to our society.He!! even the communists recognized that 80 years ago.
European countries are waking up to the fact that they have a serious birth problem due to lifestyle,abortion,killing the old and useless citizens.Coupled with the massive influx of Muslims,they are seeing a potential explosive situation.
This country is going to see the same thing.Abortion is slowly killing this country.We are killing our future productive workers who are taxpayers and contributers to society.Which incidentally is why I believe the Democrats are going to keep losing.THEY ARE KILLING THEIR VOTERS.
Couple that with the Homosexual lifestyle and it is even more dangerous.They basically become parasites.They want to have a deadly lifestyle that produces no children.Which means they are not replenishing the resource.
On top of that,they take the children of others and indoctrinate them into being parasites.
They don't like what I say about it so they want to make it a "hate crime" violating my Constitutional rights yet wanting "special rights" for themselves.
Like anything else evil,they won't know when to stop.Next it will be marrying 3 or 4 spouses,marrying your relatives,pedophilia,beastiality and on and on.
History has shown us what happens to civilizations who give into to that crap...they are HISTORY!
Now you tell me why they SHOULD be entitled to something that they can't perpetuate and sustain.
/rant off/

[OKIEDOC]

Just a further deterioration and perversion of morality and society as a whole. Other than that little overlooked concept I guess not much.

[weegee]

From Monty Python's Life Of Brian:

FRANCIS: Yeah. I think Judith's point of view is very valid, Reg, provided the Movement never forgets that it is the inalienable right of every man--

STAN: Or woman.


FRANCIS: Or woman... to rid himself--


STAN: Or herself.


FRANCIS: Or herself.


REG: Agreed.


FRANCIS: Thank you, brother.


STAN: Or sister.


FRANCIS: Or sister. Where was I?


REG: I think you'd finished.


FRANCIS: Oh. Right.


REG: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man--


STAN: Or woman.


REG: Why don't you shut up about women, Stan. You're putting us off.


STAN: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.


FRANCIS: Why are you always on about women, Stan?


STAN: I want to be one.


REG: What?


STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.


REG: What?!


LORETTA: It's my right as a man.


JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?


LORETTA: I want to have babies.


REG: You want to have babies?!


LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.


REG: But... you can't have babies.


LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.


REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!


LORETTA: [crying]


JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.


FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.


REG: What's the point?


FRANCIS: What?


REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!


FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.


REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

[Ernie.cal]

Your references to civil rights are still flawed because there IS no overt oppression, and the violence is largely inter-movement.

I guess I don't understand your definition of overt oppression and violence or why ONLY those two aspects should determine whether or not comparisons to the civil rights movement are applicable.

You missed my point altogether. During a very troubled time in our history, we debated public policy matters which triggered mean-spirited and hateful exchanges among the American family.

During that time, there were people and organizations who appealed to the very worst in us and they claimed, while doing that, that they had God and the Bible on their side. Similarly, today's debate about same sex marriage sometimes brings out the worst fears and mean-spirited attacks.

With respect to your discussion of "being part of the gay community" -- nothing you wrote indicates that you were part of ANY community. You were molested. Incidentally, you stated that this started at age 12. It is not clear from what you have written what you told your parents --or-- why you were molested again at age 15 and suicidal at 17.

While I am reading between the lines, it sounds like you were very isolated, perhaps ashamed, and unable to reach out to anyone who could help. You were not experiencing the gay community's values, Luircin, anymore than a woman who is raped is experiencing the straight community's values. And I am very sorry to learn of your experiences. I can assure you that I have some personal knowledge which makes me understand what you went through.

[OKIEDOC]

Yes that is funny.

[Judith Anne]

LOL! I had forgotten that until you posted it! Well done. ;-D