The Real Impact Of Gay Marriage On Society

Fox News ^ | 3-19-04 | Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

[Indy Pendance]

WASHINGTON

[TheSpottedOwl]

the real impact of gay marriage on society is that the lawyers will get richer...

[ASTM366]

These "same-sex relationships" are not a marriage. God instituted marriage and it was clearly defined by Him as the spiritual union of one man and one woman. Secondly, it was the relationship under which pro-creation could flourish.

The sick, perverted SODOMITES of this land and trying to dupe the people of our nation into accepting their PERVERSION of what God created for good.

[Bonaparte]

"...whether the high court will insist that states recognize marriage laws in other states."

California law forbids "gay" marriage. Massachusetts now seems to almost require it. Which state's marriage law will have to be recognized? It can't be both.

[BikerNYC]

"...whether the high court will insist that states recognize marriage laws in other states."

The full faith and credit clause has never been used to force one state to recognize a marriage it did not want to recognize.

[MississippiMan]

Gee, I thought 10% of America was gay. Isn't that what we've been told forever? Now it's 1%? Why the return to a more realistic--probably still high but closer to realistic--number now? Sheesh.

MM

[onyx]

Exactly right.
And the lawyers know it.

[tessalu]

I would not want the job of telling a child why men want to marry.

[Roy Tucker]

It seems to me to quote the liberals "it's about the children." Surely, Western civilization in this time of peril needs fewer children growing up homosexual than more. Our enemies are producing like rabbits and will be the majority in many European countries by mid-century.

Why should we take steps to encourage and speed up the decline of Western civilization? I'm against it.

[onyx]

Oh Lord.
My stomach just dropped.
You are right.

[Indy Pendance]

I've been thinking about that a lot. Remember i42 and having to explain his actions to children? BTW, those kids are the ones who are in middle school/high school now who think oral sex is no big deal. Imagine what parents will have to tell the kids, and imagine what the schools will be forced to teach.

[onyx]

*SIGH*
You are so right.
Clinton and oral sex.
Now the children will learn about anal sex.
God help us.

[EdReform]

Ping

What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

The Stamp of Normality

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping --- I haven't had time to read this one yet. Take it apart if it's wrong.

Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.

[mrustow]

Rauch balked at this idea, pointing out that Scandinavia does not recognize gay marriage, just civil partnerships. He said that country doesn’t encourage marriage at all, which has contributed to the institution’s decline. That is why the argument for gay marriage works – it will encourage marriage and hold it up as a “gold standard for stable relationships.”

Scandinavia isn't a country. And what government has ever -- prior to Bush -- "encouraged" marriage? It was family and church that encouraged marriage, never the government. Or am I missing something?

[little jeremiah]

Different countries in Scandanavia have varying laws about same sex marriage, all very socialy liberal. There have been more than a few articles - especially one by Stanley Kurtz - detailing the familial breakdown concurrent with the acceptance of homosexual "marriage" in the Scandanavian countries in general.

Of course government has encouraged marriage. How so? By outlawing sodomy, especially same sex sodomy or same sex acts, by laws that make it difficult for bastards - I mean the children of unmarried parents - to inherit or have legal paternity, by having laws against statutory rape, and so on. Also, by not having confiscatory taxation, mothers didn't need to work and could therefore stay at home, take care of children, and be "homemakers"; a not unworthy occupation.

Of course, society - community and church - encouraged marriage. But in the "old days" when the establishment clause of the Constitution was not misinterpreted to mean mandatory atheism, the world was a different place.

The government cannot be values neutral. By attempting to be so, it is by default pro-sodomy, pro-homosexual, pro-libertinism, pro-abortion, pro-multi-culturalistic, pro-transvestite, on and on ad infinitum.

If the moral absolutes which were the foundation of this country are eliminated, something has to take their place. And who gets to choose what will take their place?

Why, those who hate those moral absolutes, that's who.