Posted on 11/29/2003 8:23:34 PM PST by doug from upland
Those in the radical homosexual movement are outraged when we ask --- If a man can marry another man, why can't he marry a goat?
Is the suggestion of marrying a goat outrageous? Perhaps. But who brought us to this discussion?
For most of modern human history, it has been recognized that marriage is between one man and one woman. They have children, and they carry on the species. A mom and dad raising children is generally the best nurturing environment for them.
Homosexuals want to be accepted as equals, not just in human kindness, but in all aspects of life. They want us to believe that same-sex relationships are just as beautiful as sex between a man and a woman. They are not. A man and woman are built differently for a reason. The parts fit as they do for a reason.
Most people, even those who almost become physically ill with the mental picture of sexual activity between two men or two women, are nevertheless somewhat tolerant. If gays stay out of their faces and don't have public lewd parades in front of their children, they believe in live and let live. Do what you want, but do it so we don't have to see it or hear about it.
Now that homesexual behavior is tolerated by most people, the next step is to create an equivalency. They want the government to recognize same-sex marriage as being just as normal and healthy as a marriage between one man and one woman. The next step is, of course, the equal right to adopt children. Our society is doomed when two men who want to adopt a child are treated as equivalent to a man and woman.
If such status is given, we can legitimately ask --- What next? Can a man marry two women or three women or four women? If not, why not? Can a man marry his goat or cow or donkey? If not, why not?
It is not we who have traditional values who have changed the definition of marriage. The radical homosexual activists have done that. Oh, you can't have marriage with a different species. Why not? The definition of marriage has already been redefined. We are on that slippery slope.
If homosexual marriage gains recognition as equivalent to a normal marriage, why do they have the right to then limit the definition? If the man-goat lobby becomes active and funded, why should their rights be denied?
A man who loves his goat will certainly want his goat to be able to visit him in the hospital. He will want his goat to have health benefits by his company's insurance plan. And why can't his goat go into Von's with him to choose tempting dinner entrees? Why can't the goat join her spouse at Claim Jumper and get a shot at the salad bar?
Oh, I know what is next. The goat can't give consent. Right? Who gets to decide that such consent matters? Remember, the definition of marriage has already been changed. Why can't it be further modified?
Homosexuals, just lead your life. You have the right to purchase property together. You can leave real and personal property in your will to your partner. I believe you can also direct your doctor to allow visitors in the hospital that you have identified.
But I guess that isn't good enough. Radical homosexuals want more than decent treatment. They want us to acknowledge that their love is equivalent to that of love between a man and a woman. Sorry, but it is not. I accept that most homosexuals, particularly males, are born the way they are. It is not their fault or their choice. Something has gone wrong which prevents them from being able to be attracted to the opposite sex. At times, it must be incredibly difficult for them. Who would choose that path in life?
If the definition really does change and homosexual marriages are performed and recognized by the state, it will be time for a lawsuit filed on behalf of those who want to marry multiple partners and those who want to marry their barnyard friends. Those who object will be given a warning -- don't be a goataphobe.
ROFLMAO
polygamists are excited at the prospects.
Big surprise. But there are even fewer of them than gays. I can think of one legal, secular reason to disallow polygamy - death or divorce would create a nightmare for the parties to such a marriage WRT property, disposition of children, etc.
There are also those in the homosexual circles who want the age of consent legalized.
Wha? If you're talking about lowering age-of-consent laws, NAMBLA is a red herring IMO. They have, what, 10 members in the USA? They can't even have a damned website in this country, let alone get a law passed. Those homosexuals who aren't whackos but do want a re-examination of age of consent laws are on about the disparity between the consent age for gays & heterosexuals; there still remain in many states higher ages of consent for homosexuals than heterosexuals.
It would make all sorts of horror stories legal.
Or not. Fearmongering is dishonest and unnecessary.
Snidely
While the waters are muddy enough, what about the PETA types? They practically exhalt animals over humans nowAnd they have absolutely nothing to do with this gay marriage business. Idiots, maybe, but really not germane to the issue.
IMHO, this is about tying down survivor's benefits and tapping into healthcare plans more than emotional bonding.
Got it in one, IMO. Those homosexuals who are already in long-term relationships aren't going to have the relationships themselves materially affected. It's largely about medical rights, and suchlike as you mentioned. I guess I can see where they're coming from, more or less...if I'm living long-term with a woman and want to make it honest, I head w/ her down to the courthouse - $25 and a blood test later, we're hitched, with all the rights pertaining thereto.
Call it "marriage" and they can "adopt" other gays and increase the drain on employers' healthcare plans while heterosexuals pick up the tab.
What - do gays not have to pay for their insurance? And are insurers really going to start granting coverage wholesale, without regard for pre-existing conditions or poor medical history? They sure as heck aren't now...
And really, if they're only 1% of the population, as many here claim, how much of a drain could they really put on the system?
Snidely
Employer group plans, especially government employees, often provided as part of the compensation package. Are spouses 'risk assessed'? Dependants? I guess it depends on the plan.
Now that AIDS/HIV drugs are so much more effective these people live longer, (as long as they see the doctor lots and stay on the meds)--I don't know. Marry one, adopt two, you now have 4 on the plan, could run a million or so. You can't fire them because they are gay.
A multitude of other medical conditions arise from putting things where the body was not designed for them to go. Most of these conditions would be far more unlikely in a non-gay group. They develop over time, may not be readily apparent, and, if assessed as part of the pool's risk, will cause an increase in insurance rates for everyone in the pool.
If there are 100,000 employees, the difference might not be so great. With a smaller company group, I can see where the entire group might become uninsurable for one ersatz couple's coupling.
Christianity, (and religion in general), has the most to lose by this outrageous, twisted redefinition of marriage. Your thinking is shallow, and weak. What has always kept marriages together are the vows promised at the wedding ceremony, the children that need to be raised and cared for, the recognition that Jesus said marriage is indisolvable except for adultery, and the well known fact that marriage is the basic institution and the glue that holds together all civilized societies. Human "love" waxes and wanes and is as fickle as the weather, (witness the 52% divorce rate since the first attack on marriage that arrived under the banner of "no-fault divorce").
The ancient and modern purposes of marriage are to provide vows and a contract which help protect a betrothed man and woman from straying from each other, to maintain unity and cohesion, to protect the children of the marriage, and to provide basic rules and structure for the institution of marriage in a civilized society.
Any sexual relationship between two males or two females is nothing but a filthy, disgusting, debauchery of nature and of God's obvious plan for His creation to love and honor one another and to procreate the human species on earth. Any "marriage" of two homosexual perverts is not a marriage, nor will it ever be - regardless of what four liberal, pinko scumbags sitting on the Mass. Supreme Court may have invented.
Why! indeed....
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.