Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: PhiKapMom
I have mixed feelings about the ruling. There is an advantage to having at least one state that approves such unions -- all the gay people will flock there to sanctify their unions, so at least they'll be all in one place. Also, on the very tenuous assumption that legitimizing homosexuality is a good thing, would it be better for them to enter into exclusivity bonds like this, rather than continue a promiscuous lifestyle? At least as far as spreading AIDS is concerned? If I had to choose, I'd much prefer married gay people to gays that slept around. At least they're committing themselves, which is more mature and less self-serving than being sluts.

The real question precludes those arguments, of course: Is homosexuality an inevitable part of our culture? I think a lot of conservatives would say "Probably". Not to say that it's genetic -- merely that it is a large enough subculture that it isn't going away.

Don't mean to start any arguments on that, just making sure people know my own misgivings on the issue.

27 posted on 11/18/2003 3:20:46 PM PST by TrappedInLiberalHell (Do Muslim androids dream of electric goats?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: TrappedInLiberalHell
...would it be better for them to enter into exclusivity bonds like this, rather than continue a promiscuous lifestyle...

Marriage has never stopped anyone who wanted lead a promiscuous lifestyle from doing so, and it never will. To assume that because gays would have access to government-sanctioned marriage some would not also be promiscuous is to fail to understand human nature.

This entirely manufactured issue of "gay marriage" is not about civil rights, nor about helping people avoid promiscuity. It is just another front in the Left's roughly 150-year-old assault on traditional social mores, and further their mission to increase the scope and reach of big government.

83 posted on 11/18/2003 3:59:43 PM PST by Wolfstar (An angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: TrappedInLiberalHell
I have mixed feelings about the ruling. There is an advantage to having at least one state that approves such unions -- all the gay people will flock there to sanctify their unions, so at least they'll be all in one place.

I think you're missing the point... Marriages in one state MUST be recognized by other states. The only way around this is either a blanket amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or for each state to define marriage as between a man and a woman. But with the latter option, the Supreme Court will just declare those laws unconstitional, hence the need to modify the constitution.

137 posted on 11/18/2003 5:03:11 PM PST by SunStar (Democrats piss me off!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: TrappedInLiberalHell; PhiKapMom; Congressman Billybob
... would it be better for [homosexuals] to enter into exclusivity bonds like this, rather than continue a promiscuous lifestyle?...If I had to choose, I'd much prefer married gay people to gays that slept around. At least they're committing themselves, which is more mature and less self-serving than being sluts.

Canada permits same-sex marriages. Vermont permits civil unions. The New York Times prints "celebrations" of those unions each week, while media profiles of well-adjusted "life partners" are all the rage. If, despite all these mechanisms for commitment, homosexual men continue to be famous for their promiscuity, do you really think giving legal sanction to the additional term "spouse" will lead to fidelity?

146 posted on 11/18/2003 5:24:34 PM PST by Stop Legal Plunder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: TrappedInLiberalHell
ditto
161 posted on 11/18/2003 5:51:38 PM PST by fiscally_right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: TrappedInLiberalHell
If I had to choose, I'd much prefer married gay people to gays that slept around.

If they need a piece of paper to keep their promised commitment to each other, is it worth the fight? 99.9% of gay couples in committed relationships don't last. Its the gay life style.

BTW, is Taxachussetts an alimony state? see how quickly gays don't get married when they start experiencing alimony payments. The tough part will be the judges job of selecting which one wore the pants in the relationship.

174 posted on 11/18/2003 6:10:05 PM PST by Go Gordon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: TrappedInLiberalHell
it be better for them to enter into exclusivity bonds like this, rather than continue a promiscuous lifestyle Excuse me - you think that this will change their lifestyle? If so, you do not understand perversity! This is merely a way for these perverts to form (temporary) alliances to obtain benefits originally structured to support the socially beneficial, and costly role of spawning and raising the next generation - borne by the traditional families in this country.

Is homosexuality an inevitable part of our culture? Perhaps, but so is rape, prostitution, theft, murder, drug abuse, corruption - by your standards, I guess we should accept these "failings" because they are an inevitable part of our culture. And the practitioners should be awarded tax advantages to encourage their (anti-) social behaviors. Nonesense!

With your way of thinking it will not be long before NAMBLA wins its case in the MA supreme court, clearly composed of addle minded nincompoops. After all, the NAMBLA's only have love for the kids! They will be able to marry the child (or animal) of their choice!

227 posted on 11/18/2003 9:49:37 PM PST by GregoryFul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: TrappedInLiberalHell
There is an advantage to having at least one state that approves such unions -- all the gay people will flock there to sanctify their unions, so at least they'll be all in one place.

I wouldn't count on that. They are not really interested in marrying. They just want to be "in your face." So, once a state has adopted homosexual marriage, they are more likely to move out of that state so they can begin to influence other states!

244 posted on 11/19/2003 3:51:02 AM PST by Smile-n-Win (Let the Right do what's right, and the Left will be left behind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: TrappedInLiberalHell
would it be better for them to enter into exclusivity bonds like this, rather than continue a promiscuous lifestyle

They can do that right now in ANY state. All they have to do is go to a lawyer and have the proper papers drawn up for wills, joint ownership etc. They don't NEED the state to certify their relationship. They are determined to undermine the family basis of society and thousands of years of historical evidence that family solidarity makes liveable societies possible.

298 posted on 11/19/2003 6:14:18 PM PST by Don Corleone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: TrappedInLiberalHell
I always sez if you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything. We have let this problem fester for too long and now we may be stuck with it.
302 posted on 11/20/2003 9:34:15 AM PST by Marysecretary (GOD is still in control!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson