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?

[longtermmemmory]

Homosexuals are just the useful idiots of the left. They will be the first ones shot if the left ever takes dictatorial control over society.

[superskunk]

It does start out that way. But strident attacks and outlandish actions don't work. It wasn't the Black Panthers who accomplished equal civil rights. It was the many, many peaceful activists. I often wonder if Gays are their own worst enemy.

I agree. We must defend against violent enemies violently, but the only way to eradicate ignorance is to educate. That must be don't both peacefully and patiently.

[superskunk]

That must be DONE both peacefully and patiently.

[doctora]

AMEN!

[gidget7]

If it's ok for straight couples to enthuastically kiss in public (calling Al Gore--lol), I have no problem with gay or bi-sexual couples doing it either.

Frankly, Apes, with all the problems in the world today, public kissing just doesn't rate very high on my scale of scary events.



Then you have absolutely no morals.

[Ernie.cal]

The first link you provided is material authored by Paul Cameron who claims to be a psychologist.

FYI:

On December 2, 1983, the American Psychological Association (the largest professional organization of psychologists in the U.S.) sent Paul Cameron a letter informing him that he had been dropped from membership. Early in 1984, all members of the American Psychological Association received official written notice that "Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists" by the APA Board of Directors."

At its membership meeting on October 19, 1984, the Nebraska Psychological Association adopted a resolution stating that it "formally disassociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron in his writings and public statements on sexuality."

In 1985, the American Sociological Association (ASA) adopted a resolution which asserted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism" and noted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has repeatedly campaigned for the abrogation of the civil rights of lesbians and gay men, substantiating his call on the basis of his distorted interpretation of this research."

He doesn't seem like a very reliable source of information to me.

[dr_pat]

I will continue to extend to you the assumption that you are seeking a serious debate, and not simply trolling for debate or dispute.

My argument was preceded by three points, which you omitted in quoting me (without the grace of an ellipsis): Promoting the use of government to force your neighbors to label gay unions "marriage" is

1. neither a libertarian stance nor an honest one [make your choice, don't worry about what I call it],
2. not likely to achieve the effect you desire [if "marriage" includes unions of which I do not approve, am I likely to label my own union "marriage"?],
3. another way to load up the courts with disputes about who meant what when they said the other.

So, your position is that equal protection of the law is not a right that should apply to all Americans regardless of their station in life.

No, my position is that government has no more business forcing me/anyone to hire someone because the law says I must, or forcing me/anyone to recognize qua marriage a civil union between partners of the same sex because the law says I must, than it has forcing me/anyone attend (or fail to attend) a religious ceremony.

[unbalanced but fair]

I have to ask since you haven't replied to any of my comments, do you support equal rights for Gays?

[DirtyHarryY2K]

The movie reminded me of our much needed compassion for homosexuals and how we have to reach them with the truth.

Yes we do need to have compassion for them, this reminds me of the APA and how they discourage any help at all for homosexuals and advise only encouragement.

There was an article posted a week or so back about the former president of the APA and how he stated that it was unprofessional of the APA to not support the help groups.

Did you catalog that link by the way?

[gidget7]

Should our laws protect all of us? Including those who may not have majority approval?


Our laws already protect all of us. Gays have the same right anyone else does. Should they receive special laws? NO

How many of you have ever stood up to defend an unpopular cause or person--and risked community disapproval or worse? Should American law protect only non-controversial and conventional beliefs?


Contrary to what you think, any one of us here would be the first, and in fact in most cases we have been the first, to stand up for someone who's true civil rights were being violated. Same sex marriage, IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHT! Neither is sex with the same sex. Not against the law, and civil rights, are two very separate things. Laws are made to bring a society together. Not separate them.

[weegee]

Shut that mouth. It is codified in the law. Explicitly stated.

Texas Penal Code: CHAPTER 21. SEXUAL OFFENSES (TITLE 5. OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON)

(3) "Sexual intercourse" means any penetration of the female sex organ by the male sex organ.

Fight for your right to change sex. Might as well hold your breath until the sky turns bright yellow.

[loboinok]

That's why I don't understand why you folks are so upset about all this.

Hell, I don't know. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that in all my 50 years and this countries 228 years,this went from an underlying non-issue to major-issue.and I sure as hell haven't changed anything.So where do you imagine the point of contention may be?
Why are you folks so upset about all this?

[weegee]

If people are born bi-sexual, then certainly THEY exhibit some form of "choice" in sex partner.

[gidget7]

If you aren't an activist, you sure are doing a great impersonation!

I, I will have you know, am probably one of the most informed people on the planet, on this issue. So there will be no pulling the wool over my eyes, no desensitizing me.

No one wishes death on gays, that is just out and out lies! Further it's blatantly ridiculous to even suggest. Gays are not a race either, so "negros" as you put it (how PC of you) have nothing to do with it. And just for the sake of saying so, some of my dearest friends are black.

I repeat, there is no witch hunt, death wish, or any other destructive plan for gays in America. Talk about drama!! I am surprised you even post here. DU is more your style.

[Ernie.cal]

I was addressing the second portion of your message which seemed to indicate that rights should be subject to a cost-benefit analysis and not applied to all members of society equally.

However, I happen to agree with the sentiment that we should minimize government coercion in our lives.

Unfortunately, the problem is this: laws, by definition, are government coercion. There are laws you and I like and there will always be laws we don't like.

It seems to me that laws should seek to advance the greatest good for the greatest number and they should express our ideals. Marriage should not be limited to heterosexuals because that would deliberately exclude millions of Americans for no sufficient reason.

[weegee]

Not you, that is why the phrase you should use in such an instance is in quotes.

[weegee]

Flake off troll.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/user-posts?id=87986

[gidget7]

Thank you for posting that, I have it saved but can't find it :)

[longtermmemmory]

"Gays" is a behavior not a status. The question posed is an effort to compound via implication that homosexual behavior is an imutable trait like skin color. Just point the very Goebles like propagada trick.

I agree with the former APA president. Those that engage in homsexual behavior must be advised of ALL options regarding homosexual conduct. In ANY other profession such an omission would be actionable as malpractice or even culpable negligence.


As for the APA they have very little credibility capital. Especially since their humiliation of having to back track on their removal of pedophilia from the DSM update. (they removed it and then put it back in after they were publicly exposed via issuing an adendum)