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]

Marriage is about children. That is more than enough sufficient reason.

Homosexuality is ONLY about recreational sex.

Marriage law is not about feelings or love.

The 11th DCA in upholding the rights of states to limit or prohibit homosexuals from adopting (there are six states with such restrictions) cited societies interest in how children are raise as sufficient reason to prohibit those in the homosexual lifestyle.

In marriage society rewards the institution not the individuals recreational orgasm.

[durasell]

I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY ON THE SUBJECT. I JUST WANTED TO BE PART OF A THREAD THAT TOPS 500.

THANK YOU.

[gidget7]

true so true. I have things to do, can't sit here all night "castin pearls among the swine" Freepers gave some good sound arguements though, ^5 to all of you!

[scripter]

Not this again. The information you cite regarding Dr. Cameron has been discredited on FR many times, as well as the author who pushes it, Pietrzyk. FYI: Dr Cameron resigned from the APA in good standing.

A rebuttal to the accusation that Dr. Cameron was dropped from the American Psychological Association (APA).

[MeekOneGOP]

Good grief! How many "untouchables" have we here on FR???

[Ernie.cal]

No one wishes death on gays, that is just out and out lies! Further it's blatantly ridiculous to even suggest.

You really need to do some reading into Christian Reconstructionism and their position on the application of Old Testament law. Check out some writings by R.J. Rushdoony and Gary North

[scripter]

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.

It's cataloged (in the wrong category but I'll fix that) here: Former APA President Supports NARTH's Mission Statement, Assails APA's Intolerance of Differing Views

[dr_pat]

...rights should be subject to a cost-benefit analysis ... 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.

Rights: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... Not: marriage, recognition, insurance, employment, respect nor even the achievement of happiness.

Let's not slide the definition of "rights" around in the service of the demand to redefine "marriage".

So, again, I don't argue the "right" of same-sex couples to enter into a union. It isn't marriage. It won't be marriage even if you do succeed in passing a law to call it that.

A Merry atheist Christmas bump to you, and all who read my post.

[weegee]

When the cats are away, the Rats will play.

[weegee]

Could you explain just why it is that you infrequently even come to FR?

From your posting history it appears that you have a pissing contest with the John Birch Society, don't have a problem with Communists, and are now pushing for advancement of the homosexual agenda.

Just what is it that you come to FR for?

[Ernie.cal]

Not this again. The information you cite regarding Dr. Cameron has been discredited on FR many times, as well as the author who pushes it, Pietrzyk. FYI: Dr Cameron resigned from the APA in good standing.

Genuine researchers do not use the type of inflammatory rhetoric that Cameron routinely uses when he discusses gays.

I cited several professional associations that denounced Cameron (not New Republic contributor Pietrzyk). Your response is to post a self-serving message by Cameron himself. Even if Cameron's claims about his APA standing are true, isn't it significant that the largest professional organization of psychologists in the United States (plus the other professional associations that I cited) went to such lengths to disassociate themselves from one individual?

There is also a court decision which rejected Cameron's data and conclusions as "mosrepresentations". See, Baker v. Wade, 106 Federal Rules Decisions 526 (N.D. Texas, 1985). The Court referred to Cameron's "misrepresentations", as follows:

(i) his sworn statement that "homosexuals are approximately 43 times more apt to commit crimes than is the general population" is a total distortion of the Kinsey data upon which he relies--which, as is obvious to anyone who reads the report, concerns data from a non-representative sample of delinquent homosexuals (and Dr. Cameron compares this group to college and non-college heterosexuals);

(ii) his sworn statement that "homosexuals abuse children at a proportionately greater incident than do heterosexuals" is based upon the same distorted data--and, the Court notes, is directly contrary to other evidence presented at trial besides the testimony of Dr. Simon and Dr. Marmour. (553 F. Supp. 1121 at 1130 n.18.) n30",

Cameron's "research" is rarely cited by any reputable researcher. One of his more celebrated articles about the average life expectancy of gay men is quite illustrative of the poor quality of his research. Even a respected Christian conservative like William Bennett dissociated himself from his previous use of Cameron's data after Bennett checked into Cameron's background.

[unbalanced but fair]

Maybe Ernie will reply to you. He ignores me. I suggested he "put his money where his mouth is" so to speak. {see post#432} Get out and do something instead of posting for hours. And any argument about majority government obviously carries no weight with him. I also caught that history with the Birchers too. This guy has way too much time on his hands.

[jwalsh07]

Marriage should not be limited to heterosexuals because that would deliberately exclude millions of Americans for no sufficient reason.

Ernie, no matter how often you repeat a lie, it is still a lie, Josef Goebells not withstanding.

[Ernie.cal]

Could you explain just why it is that you infrequently even come to FR? From your posting history it appears that you have a pissing contest with the John Birch Society, don't have a problem with Communists, and are now pushing for advancement of the homosexual agenda. Just what is it that you come to FR for? Weegee, your message is so silly I doubt it deserves a reply. (1) I do have a problem with genuine Communists---but I spoken out against attacks on, and defamation of. good, decent, and patriotic Americans who are described as Communist. Perhaps you've heard about God's commandment against "bearing false witness"? (2) Frequency on FR: I must have missed the memo about minimum requirements for reading or posting messages. Care to enlighten me? (3) Homosexual Agenda: I'm not "pushing" an agenda. I'm asking and answering questions. Is your position so weak that you have to fabricate enemies to attack?

[FastCoyote]

"I respect critics and skeptics and I listen to what they have to say. Like Judith, you apparently find it difficult to present your views without descending into demonizing people you perceive as critics. Ultimately, I think that is why Americans will eventually be ok with same-sex marriage---because we instinctively believe in fair-play and don't want mean-spirited people to control our lives. So please keep using the terminology you used in your message so that your bile can be clear for everyone to comprehend."

I believe Ernie to be a sophisticated troll, someone who has been taking talking point classes from the left. Note how Ernie is unable to make ANY moral distinction without a qualifier.


He begins with "I am not pushing an agenda." That is either an utter lie or a sign of delusion. I don't fall for that crap anymore, Ernie is pushing an agenda as clear as day.


He follows with "I respect critics and skeptics".

No you don't Ernie, that's another lie. If you respected those of us who don't believe in buggery and lesbianism, you would have conceded at least a point or two along the way. But, you are all for promoting the gay agenda, including it's associated disease and destruction without a hint of responsibility for the problems it causes.


"Like Judith, you apparently find it difficult to present your views without descending into demonizing people you perceive as critics."

No Ernie, I demonized people who insert their penises into fecal matter and then swirl it around with sperm, bacteria and blood and call that marriage. Now if you feel demonized by associating yourself with, and promoting, boy buggerers who play with fecal matter, then may I suggest the problem is with you and not with me. Get used to feeling demonized, it is a demonic association you have made.

"because we (Americans) instinctively believe in fair-play and don't want mean-spirited people to control our lives."

Now you've stabbed deep, you've called me mean spirited, and if I gave a rat's behind what you think of me, maybe I would care. But "fair-play" doesn't mean letting soddomites control everyone elses lives because we have to give in to your sissy fits. In fact, fair play is trumped by what is right, and what is right is to not allow people who play in feces and revel in the aberrent ruin the rest of our society.

I recognize the word tricks you use, they are sophisticated tactics used by trained agitators. If fair play was all this world was about, we would have given Hitler the codes we cracked because it would only be fair to fight that way. Instead, we bombed the Germans back to the dark ages, and it was the right thing to do, though it was certainly not fair. Think about that the next time you make reference to "fair play".

[weegee]

Marriage should not be limited to heterosexuals because that would deliberately exclude millions of Americans for no sufficient reason.

That is ADVANCING the Homosexual Agenda. Thank you for playing.

[MeekOneGOP]

Yeah, really.

[FLCowboy,]

You ask the question of what bad will happen if same sexes marry? What benefit to society will occur if they are allowed to marry, beyond that which is available in civil unions?

[longtermmemmory]

you don't even need civil union or changes in law. A cohabitatio agreement will do the same job for homosexuals.

[weegee]

What benefit to society will occur if they are allowed to marry, beyond that which is available in civil unions?

Or available in contractual agreements.

Some loons give their estates to their pets. Doesn't mean that people should be allowed to MARRY their pets.