[wmichgrad]

Here are a couple of good article that may help you understand some of the issues. I am not for a U.S. Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. But I am happty that I live in a state where the people have enough sense not to allow it.

Answering Advocates of Gay Marriage

So how could marriage be harmed by adding a few gay couples? A good question, especially when you consider the deplorable state of marriage right now, which has been caused by hedonistic and irresponsible straight people.

Marriage is a complex institution. It must do several things (and, from an anthropological and historical perspective, fostering the emotional gratification of two adults is the least important). It must foster the bonds between men and women for at least three reasons: to encourage the birth and rearing of children (at least to the extent necessary for preserving and fostering society); to provide an appropriate setting for children growing to maturity; and — something usually forgotten — to ensure the co-operation of men and women for the common good. Moreover, it must foster the bonds between men and children, otherwise men would have little incentive to become active participants in family life. Finally, it helps provide men with a healthy masculine identity based on a distinctive, necessary, and publicly valued contribution to society — fatherhood — especially when no other contribution is considered acceptable.

Without public cultural support for a durable relationship binding men, women, and children, marriage would initially be reduced to nothing more than one "lifestyle choice" among many — that is, it could no longer be encouraged in the public square (which is necessary in a secular society). In fact, doing so would be denounced and even challenged in court as discrimination — the undue "privilege" of a "dominant" class, which is a breach of equality as defined by Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But discrimination in this case should be allowed — and could be under the Charter — in view of the fact that marriage, as a universal institution and the essential cultural complement to biology, is prior to all concepts of law.

In short, redefining marriage would amount to a massive human experiment. Some experiments work, it's true, but others don't. Remember that an earlier experiment, changing the divorce laws, set in motion social forces that would not be evident for forty years. This new experiment would be unprecedented in human history, and yet we haven't taken the time to think carefully about possible consequences. Instead, we've allowed emotion to sweep aside all other considerations.

A Defining Moment: Marriage, the Courts, and the Constitution

For thousands of years, on the basis of experience, tradition, and legal precedent, every society and every major religious faith have upheld marriage as a unique relationship by which a man and a woman are joined together for the primary purpose of forming and maintaining a family. This overwhelming consensus results from the fact that the union of man and woman is apparent and manifest in the most basic and evident truths of human nature.

Marriage is the formal recognition of this relationship by society and its laws. While individual marriages are recognized by government, the institution of marriage pre-exists and is antecedent to the institution of government, which in turn presupposes and depends on the institution of marriage. Society's interest in uniquely elevating the status of marriage among human relationships is that marriage is the necessary foundation of the family, and thus necessary for societal existence and well-being.

The basic building block of society is the family, which is the primary institution through which children are raised, nurtured, and educated, and develop into adults. Marriage is the cornerstone of the family: It produces children, provides them with mothers and fathers, and is the framework through which relationships among mothers, fathers, and children are established and maintained. Only in the context of family built on the foundation of marriage can the sometimes competing needs and interests of men, women, and children be harmonized.

Because of its characteristic relationship with the family, marriage is uniquely beneficial to society. Based on existing studies comparing two-parent and single-parent households, social science overwhelmingly demonstrates that children do far better when they are raised by two married parents in a stable family relationship and that children raised in other household structures are subject to significantly increased risk of harm.

Evidence further suggests that one reason children do better in a married household is not just the stability of having two parents, but the fact that a male and a female parent each bring distinctive strengths, perspectives, and characteristics to the family unit that benefit both children and the parents. Although we have little information concerning children raised in households with same-sex parents, what we do know is that marriage between a man and a woman provides unique social, economic, and health benefits for children, adults, and society in general.

Moreover, because of the shared obligations and generational relationships that accrue with marriage, the institution brings significant stability, continuity, and meaning to human relationships and plays an important role in transferring basic cultural knowledge and civilization to future generations.

In the end, despite all the changes that law and cultural trends have wrought concerning marriage — despite the laws concerning prenuptial agreements, divorce, tax, and property that treat marriage as a contract — it has never before been, nor is it now completely, the case that marriage is a mere contract. Society has changed the form, but never the substance, of marriage; and it is the substance of marriage — its very nature, definition, and purpose — that creates and justifies its unique position as a social institution and continues to give lawmakers strong and reasonable arguments for upholding traditional marriage and protecting it in law.

[Sarastro]

Marriage qualifies a heterosexual couple for specific religious, economic, and legal benefits from society — for the purpose of motivating heterosexual couples to form stable, childrearing families.

If society confers the same benefits on homosexual couples, it ipso facto eliminates such motivations to form stable, childrearing families. In that case, it might as well eliminate the benefits for all couples, since there is no longer the desired motivational effect. Thus, in the long run, legitimate married couples could be deprived of such benefits.

[truthandlogic]

What next, multiple marriage partners, pedophilia, bestiality? Who can say that other forms of marriage are not worth valid consideration. If gay marriage is accepted as “normal” it opens the door to other lust driven perverted lifestyles to become “normal.
How about the health aspects of gay sex? No one should wish this type of destructive behavior on society as “normal”

There is no reason to redefine marriage to include anything other than one man and one woman.

Let me ask this: How would gay marriage benefit society?

[westmichman]

Marriage was instituted by God in the Bible. Homosexuality is condemned in the same Bible. Why do you think you need have the blessing of God and the church on something that goes against what they both stand for? Go ahead and do what you want, just don't expect to have the blessings of those who disagree with the whole concept.

[Melinda in TN]

including the option of choosing private behavior that does not cause harm to another person

This is where I object. I don't have a problem with civil unions (I do personally, explained below) as long as they don't harm another person but any lawful union between same sex couples that opens the door to allow them to adopt children should be forbidden. IMO, homosexuals shouldn't be allowed access to children any more than any other sexual deviant, such as a child molester. This includes teaching in schools, working in daycare centers or anywhere else there are children. I'm also not in favor of one same sex partner providing insurance for the other partner unless they purchase the coverage themselves. I don't like to see them included in a group plan that the rest of us help pay for. I would support psychiatric help for them though if it would change them because I truly believe they are mentally ill and I have compassion for anybody that is sick.

My personal feelings about civil unions come from a moral point of view. I feel it's wrong for heterosexuals to live together in an unmarried state also, but I don't impose my views on them. If a same sex couple wants to live together, I wouldn't say anything as long as there aren't children involved. I will never support legal marriage for them. I never really had a huge problem with them until they started getting in our faces and trying to push their agenda on us. If they stay in the closet and leave normal people alone and they will be much better off.

[FastCoyote]

"what specific indisputable adverse consequences to society do opponents predict to occur? "

1) Can two gay brothers marry?
2) Gays would then have the same priority for adoptions. Does anyone in their right mind think Rosie O'Donald is an acceptable parent?
3) Many increased costs to insurance and retirement funds.
4) Gays in military - no ask no tell would eventually collapse. Could two gay soldiers in the same unit be married?
5) Can a father marry his son? No offspring would result, after all.
6) If marriage is not defined as between a male and female, what about with your favorite monkey?

The results of legalization are in the long term very disruptive.

[unbalanced but fair]

"The essence of a free society is choice." Well, we don't live in a totally free society. We live in a majority governs republic. There are many "choices" we don't legally allow. If the majority believe that Gay marriage is not a choice that they want to legalize, then so be it. All you have to do to change this is to get the majority to agree with you. It has been done by other minorities. But you have to convince them that the change would be for the better and not be detrimental. You seem to want them to figure this out on their own.

[nothingnew]

You have been taken in by the "circular reasoning" crowd, and have abandoned His gift of discernment. Have a Merry Christmas.

FMCDH(BITS)

[El Gran Salseron]

Same-sex "marriage," in my view, has absolutely nothing to do with religion or "God's law."

It simply does not allow people to keep the species going. Call that procreation if you want to do that. I call it reproduction. Are you saying that reproduction is wrong? Are all women who have gone through menopause supposed to get divorced or be put to death? Using your reasoning toward married couples who can't reproduce I suppose that is the way you feel.

It is amoral and disgusting to see two women or two men in public who are supposedly "in love," when in reality they are just "in heat." They all should have stayed in the closet. Personally, I don't care who does what behind closed doors. Just keep it behind closed doors and everything will be cool.

I don't want children anywhere to have to witness such behavior.

As an aside, every homosexual, both male and female whom I have known, and taking the homosexuality completely out of the equation, had huge mental issues above and beyond the deviance. I don't want to see the deviance, let alone the other mental issues they all suffer, exhibited in public.

( I also note that just a few months after same-sex marriage was approved in a couple of places the same-sex divorces have already started. The "heat" wore off. So now the promiscuity amongst "those people" has been exposed. Now they can spread diseases even further amongst the population. )

Oh, and there's no such thing as "homophobia." Heterosexual men don't fear homosexuals.....we are just disgusted by them.

One more thing, I think you are going to get ZOTTED or at least get a suspension of posting privileges for a few days. :-)

[sully777]

FWIW This Requiem For A Rump Ranger VANITY was placed by this troll in the following categories: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events.

---

I clicked on this "news" item because I was under the impression it was legit news, until I read the entire piece, the author's name same as poster, etc.

And the poster's profile of past trolling experiences. Loved the profile in courage question: John Birch--Was Eisenhower A Communist? Ann Coulter would be proud-NOT.

I smell ozone, or Richard Gere's tookus on this thread.

[squirt-gun]

SAME SEX MARRRIAGE?.......PARTNERS OF DIFFERENT SPECIES SHOULD ALSO BE LAWFUL....

A HORSE AND A HOM0 SHOULD WORK FINE!

[bvw]

The essence of a free society is choice

No not at all.

The essence of a free society is responsible action.

Without that, a "free society" quickly devolves into chaos, short brutal lives and painful deaths or a tyranny of the few built on the slavery of most.

How is "same sex marriage" a responsible action?

What is an excuse and what is a thoughtful explanation?

[Always Right]

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?

And for what purpose? Why do we need gay marriage? If I want everyone to call me an elephant, can I make a law? Two guys having anal sex is not a marriage.

[Teacher317]

How about the huge economic hit that the nation and employers will face? The sudden addition of almost a million (or several million, if you take the gay lobby's numbers at face value) insureds and beneficiaries will cause prices to go up across the board.

[Bikers4Bush]

Same-sex marriage is nothing more than an attempt to legitimize deviant behavior.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

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.

I'm sorry that you are so ignorant. Same sex "marriage" takes a stand FOR the spread of AIDS. It takes a stand for the death of men, by about age 43, if said men decide to behave in homosexual manners (smoking only kills you a few years early - male homosexuality kills you tens of years early). Are you willing to have our children take on behaviors that take tens of years off of their lives. If so you are completely heartless in your pursuit of homosexual advocacy.

It's no longer worth arguing at this point. You are a homosexual activist and will try until your death to convince people that homosexual behavior is just fine and dandy.

[Mogollon]

The netherlands et.al. tried it now marriage has no meaning there. Problem is, marriage between one man and one women is the foundation of society. Very simple.

[TommyDale]

It's immoral. It's offensive to anyone with a sense of decency.

[Teacher317]

How about the very uncomfortable precedent of government co-opting a religuious sacrament, then regulating that sacrament to become something that the religion staunchly opposes. Should government next be able to label as "kosher" any food product that is blessed by an imam and is processed in ways that are unacceptable to Jews? Next do we allow the government to declare that Islamic prayers need not be made facing east, and only 3 times per day? How about passing legislation mandating that every church feature bunny displays in place of the cross at Easter? Any harm there?

[Judith Anne]

What would be the benefit of homosexual marriage to ANY of the millions who voted in multiple states against it?

Why would conservative Christians want to allow the aggressive homosexual agenda to proceed with its plans for American society?

What, if anything, is GOOD about the aggressive homosexual agenda for changing American society?

Until you can answer those questions to the satisfaction of conservative Christians, you are not going to find a receptive audience.

Frankly, I won't hold my breath.