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?
To the World, as they spread AIDS.
Ops4 God BLess America!
The essence of a free society is choice---including the option of choosing private behavior that does not cause harm to another person.
Homosexuality is a choice. You cannot not give special status to people for a choice they make.
To push it even further, I like the libertarian stance: Why is the govt. involved in the marriage business anyway? Homos can get "married" if they want to, and they can form their own gay church that worships a gay god to preform the marriages. But it's not about that, is it? It's about getting the govt. to force the people to recognize gay relationships.
-keep in mind reality -these arguments are pointless and really just mental exercise in futility because at the basis of these arguments is argument for 'rights' and 'laws' that are impossible.
If the 'rights' and 'laws' you suggest were inalienable they would not be clearly and authentically denied by the Creator.
If the 'rights' and 'laws' you suggest were not inalienable they would require to be enacted in contradiction to 'natural law' by the government.
Who is the government? -the government is the people that will never enact the 'rights' and 'laws' you suggest.
Judicial fiat, e.g. Massachusetts, is only temporary detour and delay to the will of the people.
Very true. When you really think about your time, it's your most valuable gift so why waste it on time wasters and game players. Mosts of my posts are directed not towards the bozos who waste our time, but to many of those who are reading FR, whether they're members or not.
I'm glad to hear your sons were never pulled into the homosexual lifestyle by those two Nambla members.
Thanks for the comments on my son. Yes, he's happily married and a proud father. If more people were exposed to the seedy and depraved side of so much of the homosexual life style, they'd think twice about their support. Got to go for tonight. Early Am work.
Well said.
I think it's clear that to defend marriage adulterers, even those who only 'covet' outside their marriage, should be punished by the law in some way.
OR...we should keep the state out of the bedrooms of consenting adults.
Comparing the gay lifestyle to adultery is an excellent comparison. Bravo. But nobody is trying to normalize adultery. We can all agree it is a bad thing. Yet, you are trying to normalize the gay lifestyle, and turn a bad thing into a good thing. And that's what we don't like!
Marriage isn't limited to just heterosexuals. Today, any individual who wants to get married can get married. But there are limitations on who an individual can marry. I can't marry my sister. I can't marry my neighbor's wife. A homosexual man can't marry another man. But that homosexual man can marry a woman, just as I can. Just because a homosexual man chooses not to marry a woman doesn't mean that he doesn't have equal rights when it comes to marriage.
even n Mass. the will of the people will be heard. (in 2006)
thank you.
You forgot one of the Big 10:
"Thou shalt not covet...Thy neighbor's wife...thy neighbor's ass...nor anything that is thy neighbor's"
No sex (gender, for those of you who use the word incorrectly) differentiation is made here. I believe the prohibition against coveting would include "...your neighbor's anus..."
(And I'm not trying to be crude or crass with that comment)
Hey Trav.
You've got your basic Homosexual Activist Log Cabin Republican RAT RINO "We're Queer - we're here...blahblahblahwaaaaah" Gay Marriage Perverted Troll here, right?
Am I missing something here?
I asked a simple yes/no question of 'Ernie' 10 times and got the "Yep, french kiss'em if you gott'em..." response, right?
I know disgusting when I see it, to paraphrase a famous USSC Justice...
I don't know which post of mine you are talking about but my favorite is Dirty Harry Y2K's Post #440.
#440 is a bombshell!
As long as nobody is coerced, no, I really don't care. You could argue that any multiple partner marriage is unfair and has an element of coercion, but that's the job of a lawyer to argue, not me.
Look, marriage for the church and marriage for the state are totally different animals. Church marriages are about sanctity and tradition and what have you. In the eyes of the state, marriage is a contract that confers rights, privileges and obligations on the parties. The role of the state is to certify and hold parties liable to their contracts. If two (or more) competent adults willingly enter into a contract, why should I care? It's when you set up the state to be some kind of nanny to judge the morality of its citizens, THAT'S the threat to society.
And yes, I am married. And my marriage has never been affected by gays marrying in SF, or by Elizabeth Taylor getting divorced for the 8th time or by Britney Spears getting married for 36 hours. Why do you care?
Ernie,
In fact you used the term “fear” twice in your post 160 and in at least one other post. I have just reread this thread and do not find that fear is the motivating factor of the respondents. There are objections based on religion, aesthetics, desire to protect children from “chicken hawks,” disgust, and health issues, but “fear” does not appear to be a factor.
To your question:
Changing the definition of marriage in society is major. The ramifications are not likely to be perceived by you or me.
Once the determination of who can marry is changed from one man one woman to “people who love each other” then other issues arise including the very real issue of the limitation of marriage to the number two. In many societies throughout history (and even today), the limitation of two was considered bizarre. Lifting the legal definition of marriage from the number two would certainly be welcomed by the Mormons who were severely persecuted for polygamy. And who is to say that the Arab custom of multiple wives should not be emulated? Are we so bigoted as to deny the values of other cultures? And, to repeat you question: “…what specific adverse consequences opponents of [polygamy or polyandry] anticipate [do you expect] to result from its legalization?”
I understand why you wanted to limit the topic to gay marriage because you have an agenda and wished to use the issues of “fairness,” civil right and equal treatment under the law as a wedge. But the real subject is the re-definition of marriage, and – like a new constitutional convention – the consequences can’t be so neatly limited to your favorite hobby horse.
For whatever reason, the gay activist movement has moved to a position that now has generated a push-back by ordinary Americans. I suspect this was because – like the far left – the community does not really understand the mainstream. The mainstream does not hate gays. It does not discriminate before the law. It is not out to beat you up. It even admires the arts and aesthetics that gays excel in.
Here’s a life lesson: don’t confuse tolerance with indifference. The Dutch were not tolerant of Arabs, they were indifferent. Until the murder of Van Gogh.
By demanding that Americans equate the marriage of a man and a woman to the mating of two men or two women, you have demanded that we abandon thousands of years of custom and law … for what? YOU have to give a very compelling answer, and frankly, demanding that we justify our position is not going to get you very far.
Peace and love.
Homosexuals getting married would cheapen the word "marriage" for me. Homosexuals are more inclined to "divorce" than heterosexuals (I will try to find the numbers for you), and are much more promiscuous than heterosexuals. The video "It's Not Gay" is profound in its message of dysfunction and devastation of lives, and that homosexuality is severely unhealthy without even going into the disease aspects. The video was produced by an abstinent AIDS sufferer. I believe he has since passed away.
Why do homosexuals deserve to be given the right to utilize this heterosexual institution? To me it would then mean that any disordered combination would then fight for THEIR right to marry also (hence, the slippery slope).
Those of you who support invasion of marriage between men and women, which has worked for so long even with its imperfections, don't seem to understand that all-inclusiveness is not a right to be handed down just because it's politically correct.
Your question to me would be a "no." At least I cannot come up with anything, as I write this post, that would impact me persoanlly, but it would initially devasate my belief in fairness and common sense. I can guarantee you that scenarios will arise that would turn my no into a yes.
When homosexuals were given the right to adoopt, no one could come up with a bad reason for it. "Homosexuals were willing to adopt the children no one else wanted, etc." Now, we're hearing about issues that couldn't have been foreseen as this "right to adopt" has become more common; lots of weird scenarios that weren't imagined initially.
It been proven that heterosexual children who are adopted by homosexual couples have a higher incident rate of becoming or adopting the homosexual lifestyle that they experience in their new family.
I do not believe homosexuals are born, except in hormonally imbalanced individuals or morpnodite-ism (?). I believe they become homosexual due to imbalance in their early environment, molestation, early titillation from exposure to pornographic behaviors and materials. Just check out www.malesurvivor.com. Read some of the posts of those men who act out homosexually and who are very disturbed by their early molestation. The numbers of men who are molested as young boys is almost as high as young girls, but is not nearly talked about enough. The impact is horrendous on their lives. Molestation plays a big part, but homosexuals don't talk about it. They don't want to give fodder for argument to heterosexuals.
God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
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.