Posted on 11/15/2006 10:57:01 AM PST by Seven Minute Maniac
I am a student. I personally do not support homosexuality, and I find the idea of gay marriage repulsive. However, I struggle during discussions to persuade my liberal peers and professors that it is harmful. Most liberal professors and students at my college do not view homosexuality as abnormal, and treat me like I am nuts when I suggest that marriage should not be altered to include gays and lesbians. Please help to supply me with some ammunition by posting below.
Hubs and I had friends who were 'partners' for more than 25 years. Close enough that we stayed in their guest room more than once. At Christmas, even.
One night, one of the guys tells me that he walked in on the other one with their nephew performing an act of intimacy. This ruined my opinions of them because it made a sham of the relationship. However, the one who told me about it ended the friendship and has most likely convinced the town that we're homophobes.
I've since come to the decision that it is most likely not possible for two gay men to be faithful to one another. Whether they care about fidelity or not, there's no denying that this behavior is unhealthy on many levels.
Look at the first 'legal' gay married couple in MA. They're already divorced and so are the first lesbian couple. Whether lesbians are monogamous, I don't know. Of all the gay men I've known, they all cheat.
It's about the kids, kids do best in a traditional family(man and woman).A child who doesn't learn about the Yin and Yang will grow up deformed.
Gay marriage proponents are looking for "special" rights which is unAmerican.
A family headed by one woman and one man is usually agreed to be the best unit for raising well-adjusted children, one of the primary interests of the People. Therefore, it is appropriate for the State to encourage marriage. Childbearing and rearing aren't the only reasons that individuals marry, but heterosexual marriage is a package deal. The State interest is in propagating the People, and the People demand that all individuals have the right to heterosexual marriage.
Homosexual marriage is another matter. It does not generally produce children or rear them in a beneficial environment. Therefore, the State has no interest in promoting or officially recognizing homosexual relationships. The People, whenever the State deigns to ask, reject homosexual marriage -- they don't want what they consider an ancient tradition, a constitutional element of their civilization, altered by a minority that cannot explain to their satisfaction why this alteration should be made.
(I'm not arguing that gays shouldn't raise children, or that they should; only that the best method is the nuclear family, providing the integral diversity of a mother and a father. It's the responsibility of the State to encourage that best method through official recognition of the tradition of marriage.)
As a matter of civil order, marriage exists for two reasons: to identify who belongs to whom; and to create and then provide the material and psychological needs of offspring. As a matter of civil order, marriage has nothing at all to do with romance and love, even though, of course, both are helpful to reach those goals. And marriage between people of opposite genders provides for the full experience of psychological growth and patterning. There is lots more I can say, but that should serve as a start.
What civilization ever benefitted from "gay marriage"?
If they bring up "ancient Greece," make sure to point out: households run by two male lovers included female slaves kept for breeding purposes.
If all gay activity ceased tomorrow, the human race would continue to survive.
If all heterosexual activity ceased tomorrow, the human race would be extinct in decades.
I like to say: "If you're gay, thank a heterosexual." The opposite cannot be said.
It makes sense that society would construct special consideration of marriage between man and a woman as a source of procreation, child-rearing and family stability.
Notwithstanding the value of marriage is so denigrated now that the number or one-parent children has increased exponentially in 40 years.
Nobody is saying that gay people can't live together, contract their assets and arrangements together, or whatever.
But it is clear that society benefits from having special institutions to encourage mothers and fathers to live together and raise their children.
What the mainstream media WON'T write about is the appauling toll on health and longevity that homomsexual behavior creates.
If they applied the same standards to homosexuality as they do to smoking it would have been banned years ago just on health grounds.
Homosexuals are judged to lose, on average, around 20 years off their life span.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html gives a good summation.
Part of the thing is that, whether we like it or not, marraige is about PROPERTY, not love. Love is assumed, but it is not a mandatory part of the deal. Marraige is a legal issue dealing with property and family, and specifically, the legal transfer of property from one family and generation to the next. Ie: if Miss Smith marries Mr. Jones, their child will be the legal heir to the lands and property of both Smith and Jones.
The one thing two women, let alone two men, can't do that a man and a woman can, is have a child. (Let's not focus on the exceptions right this minute.) The old taunt, God did not creat Adam & Steve, has a valid point: an Adam and a Steve simply could not have a child, a valid heir, without a third party being involved. It's including that third party that boloxes everything up legally, how on earth would this third wheel fit in, what rights would they have, what do you call the odd man or woman paired with the "married" couple?
Just my two cents.
I sometimes have trouble debating with liberals on this subject as well.
As others have said before, I think that the gay marriage supporters should be required to make the case for gay marriage. We shouldn't have to defend an institution that has been between one man and one woman for thousands of years. But since there is now a movement for gay marriage, we must try, I suppose.
I think that with gay marriage come various other insidious things. Once the government announces a lenient position on gay marriage, they become lenient on other issues most Americans find morally reprehensible. These include polygamy and marrying animals. It's just like with abortion: legalizing abortion has allowed euthanasia, assisted suicide, and sometimes infanticide. Once you let them get their foot in the door, they're able to get their whole body in. They take their new "rights" to the extreme.
Liberals tend to have the upper hand in the argument over gay marriage because their persuasions produce emotions in those who are wavering on the issue. Some of their arguments: "Why can't people of a different sexual orientation than yourself reap the same benefits of marriage that you do?" and "Half of the marriages in America end in divorce. What's letting gays marry going to do?" and "Do two gays down the street getting married affect how you live? No."
Also - and I'm not exactly positive about this - Catholic/Christian priests will be required to marry gays. This obviously goes against their beliefs, the Bible deplores homosexuality. You can't ask them to do that.
I'm also not sure whether I'm for or against civil unions. I think I'm against them because you know at some point they're going to want the real deal (marriage).
I hope this helps you. ;-)
"however secular liberals do not respond in a very friendly manner when any mention of God or God's will is used in defining political ideas."
Now you know why Jesus suffered the persecution He did....and all true Christians will suffer the same.
It takes God Himself to open a person's heart to the truth. Praying for these (liberal) people would be a great help. Ask the Lord to do for them what you cannot do.
"however secular liberals do not respond in a very friendly manner when any mention of God or God's will is used in defining political ideas."
Now you know why Jesus suffered the persecution He did....and all true Christians will suffer the same.
It takes God Himself to open a person's heart to the truth. Praying for these (liberal) people would be a great help. Ask the Lord to do for them what you cannot do.
"however secular liberals do not respond in a very friendly manner when any mention of God or God's will is used in defining political ideas."
Now you know why Jesus suffered the persecution He did....and all true Christians will suffer the same.
It takes God Himself to open a person's heart to the truth. Praying for these (liberal) people would be a great help. Ask the Lord to do for them what you cannot do.
I think it is valid to argue that gays have no right to claim other people's children because they can't produce their own.
Sorry for the (is it triple???) post!!
FR was slow...and I didn't realize it was going through.
Oh well...
"The State interest is in propagating the People, and the People demand that all individuals have the right to heterosexual marriage. Homosexual marriage is another matter."
I get it!!! The only way for a homosexual couple to have children is to get one from a heterosexual couple. It negates the whole concept that they are the same or can ever BE the same as a heterosexual couple!!!
Homosexuals demand equal rights and claim minority status - but all other minorities are BORN the way they are. Homosexuals simply have a sexual perversion and are sexual addicts in a way because they turn their lives upside down with the decision to act out their perverted thoughts.
By granting them the right to marry we are in effect giving them a stamp of approval for living out their perverted behavior. Should a pedophile be allowed to marry a 5 year old? Should a zoosexual be allowed to marry a dog?
Then you get into other factors of gay marriage for example a guy marrying his brother or his father just to be able to add him to his health insurance.
This is a free country and homosexuals can act out their perversions behind closed doors, but marriage brings them out from behind those doors and parades said perversion in our faces and in front of our children.
Since they started coming out of the closet they have increased their numbers tenfold - and it is so sad to see so many people sucked into such behavior. The purpose of them trying to normalize their behavior is really an attempt to gain more recruits.
Read up about the ex-gay movement to hear some really heartbreaking stories about what the homosexual lifestyle can do to people. Homosexuality is really just a mental disorder in my book.
It's simple really. All of the so-called rights they're supposedly missing out on are already available to them except for Social Security.
Medical Power of Attorney allows them to make decisions for their partner as well as to be informed by medical professionals.
A will allows them to leave their belongings to anyone they darned well want to.
They can buy property together by cash transaction or mortgage financing.
They are free to designate who they want as beneficiaries on 401k accounts, bank/savings accounts, IRA's, etc.
There are many employers out there who provide health insurance coverage to domestic partners (mine does if I chose to go that way). They also are free to purchase health insurance if their employers don't provide coverage.
And so on...
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.