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

Skip to comments.

Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples
Family Research Council via Virtuosity Online ^ | April, 2004 | Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D.,

Posted on 04/11/2004 10:14:48 PM PDT by churchillbuff

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-51 next last

1 posted on 04/11/2004 10:14:49 PM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
I'm sure the "Today Show" will lead with this. Great post!
2 posted on 04/11/2004 10:29:00 PM PDT by ChiMark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChiMark
bump
3 posted on 04/11/2004 10:33:29 PM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
Most of today's prominent homosexuals and their advocates live by a clock with no hour hand and numbers that run from 1 to 15.
4 posted on 04/11/2004 10:43:20 PM PDT by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
While there are many homosexuals who have sex with anyone (I have the misfortune of knowing one), there are also those who do enter into committed relationships. And in an era when the "sanctity" of marriage at the state is violated beyond repair, what harm could allowing gay marriages possibly cause? I mean, how would you feel if they didn't let you get married? The best answer is to ignore them and hope they mind their own business.

"Government governs best when it governs least - and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality. But legislating someone's version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays." - Barry Goldwater
5 posted on 04/11/2004 10:53:49 PM PDT by KillBill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
Thanks for posting this. It's good to have some solid research to back up my gut instinct.
6 posted on 04/11/2004 10:55:17 PM PDT by ChocChipCookie (If we had some eggs, we could have bacon and eggs if we had some bacon. --unknown Freeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KillBill
A marriage is defined as the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex.

Gays can have whatever relationship they want, but it can't be called marriage without totally redefining the term.


Show 'em my motto!

7 posted on 04/11/2004 11:18:54 PM PDT by rdb3 (An inch off the plate, either way. Letters to the knees. If it's close, you better swing. <><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
Marriage, civil union, whatever. Call it the Two-Dude Fun Package for all I care. I just don't see why this is an issue other than for scoring cheap political points, and I think the only people scoring points are the civil union people right now. The article implies that anything like that is bad, and that's not what we need to be fighting about. I can name 20 things wrong with America that are more important than "gay marriage".
8 posted on 04/11/2004 11:25:59 PM PDT by KillBill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: KillBill
And in an era when the "sanctity" of marriage at the state is violated beyond repair, what harm could allowing gay marriages possibly cause?

Q: Why not give a "Congression Medal of Honor" to everyone who want one?
A: Because then they would have no value.

Same thing with marriage. You don't give marriage licenses to just any person who wants them for any reason whatsoever because then they don't mean anything. The are specific guidelines which determine what can and cannot be a marriage and if you allow those to be stretched then marriage doesn't mean anything.

I mean, how would you feel if they didn't let you get married?

I am allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex; not the same sex, nor sheep, nor pigs, nor am I allowed to marry multiple other peoples, just one, nor am I allowed to marry relatives closer than a second cousin. And yes, I'm a-ok with that.

The best answer is to ignore them and hope they mind their own business.

If you really think that is valid, why are you interjecting your own opinions instead of just ignoring the issue and hoping the rest of us traditional marriage fiends mind our business? You can't have it both ways. If the issue warrants no activism it follows you shouldn't be involving yourself in it.

Government governs best when it governs least - and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality.

The only just implemenation of the law is as a moral instrument. Murder, rape, theft, these are all moral issues. Laws which punish these are rooted in the premise that they are immoral actions.

But legislating someone's version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays.

Laws which say "homosexuality is ok" are every bit as morally loaded as laws which say "homosexuality is not ok". It follows that a law forbidding discrimination against homosexuals would in fact be "legislating someone's version of morality".

Again, you can't have things both ways.

9 posted on 04/11/2004 11:27:05 PM PDT by explodingspleen (When life gets complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: explodingspleen
If you really think that is valid, why are you interjecting your own opinions instead of just ignoring the issue and hoping the rest of us traditional marriage fiends mind our business? You can't have it both ways. If the issue warrants no activism it follows you shouldn't be involving yourself in it.

Because if everybody who felt that way did that, there would be a "silent majority" who were opposed, yet wouldn't say anything about it.

Laws which say "homosexuality is ok" are every bit as morally loaded as laws which say "homosexuality is not ok". It follows that a law forbidding discrimination against homosexuals would in fact be "legislating someone's version of morality".

Yes, but is not having a law "homosexuality is not ok" morally loaded? I'm talking about the federal government here actively taking the "homosexuality is not ok" line, and using it to spread its power and morality. If by your definition, any law or lack thereof must have moral consequenes, why not take the tack with the fewest limitations?

Legal marriage is purely a social institution between two people who "love" each other, and I defy you to prove otherwise. If you could show that a sheep "loved" you, I'd be out here arguing there shouldn't be a law against marrying sheep. But I don't think you can do that.

10 posted on 04/11/2004 11:34:00 PM PDT by KillBill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
Any "study" from an organization that screams "Support Our Ministry" (why don't they just come right out and say "Send Us All Your Money") gets an immediate red-flag from me.
11 posted on 04/11/2004 11:35:54 PM PDT by richmwill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KillBill
Marriage, civil union, whatever. Call it the Two-Dude Fun Package for all I care.

A dog is a cat. An eagle is a leopard. Black is white.

Words matter. No matter how they dress it up, same-sex relationships are not marriages. Period. End of story.

I can name 20 things wrong with America that are more important than "gay marriage".

Seeing how marriage part of the bedrock of civilization, it should be within the top 5 of your personal list. If it isn't, you would be no different than a left-winger, and subsequently, on the wrong forum.


Show 'em my motto!

12 posted on 04/11/2004 11:41:49 PM PDT by rdb3 (An inch off the plate, either way. Letters to the knees. If it's close, you better swing. <><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
Fine, let me start listing off until I get to gay marriage. Not all of these can be easily solved, but they are bigger problems than gay marriage IMO (and I hope you will agree).

NOT in rank-order.

The huge burden of entitlement programs.
The need for tort reform.
The lack of judges for criminal cases.
Unemployment.
Excess federal power over states (such as the .08 requirement recently)
A tax system that takes billions of dollars to run.
Companies that are leaving the US, both HQ and factories.
Gas Prices.
Assaults on the First Amendment.
Assaults on the Second Amendment.

Inner-city schools where kids graduate but can't read.
1 million abortions annually.
An incompetent news media.
A drug war criminalizing millions while ignoring drug-lords.

OK, I can only think of 14 right now, but my point still stands. There are more important issues than the civil union debate.
13 posted on 04/12/2004 12:06:49 AM PDT by KillBill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: KillBill
I didn't ask you to number off anything. But since you have, and marriage is not important to you, then something is definitely wrong with your personal moral compass.


Show 'em my motto!

14 posted on 04/12/2004 12:09:28 AM PDT by rdb3 (An inch off the plate, either way. Letters to the knees. If it's close, you better swing. <><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: *Homosexual Agenda; EdReform; scripter; GrandMoM; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping.

Lots and lots of info here, much relating to the sham right to "gay" marriage. Good to bookmark. Much of this info may be elsewhere as well, but it's definitely worth a read.

Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
15 posted on 04/12/2004 12:20:32 AM PDT by little jeremiah (...men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KillBill; Texasforever
"... just don't see why this is an issue..."






Start with 2000 years of civilization.
16 posted on 04/12/2004 12:22:23 AM PDT by onyx (Kerry' s a Veteran, but so were Lee Harvey Oswald, Timothy McVeigh and Benedict Arnold)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: KillBill
[W]hat harm could allowing gay marriages possibly cause?

Gay marriage is not a Conservative family value.

Legal marriage is purely a social institution between two people who "love" each other, and I defy you to prove otherwise.

Traditionally, it's been between a man and a woman.

If you could show that a sheep "loved" you, I'd be out here arguing there shouldn't be a law against marrying sheep.

You're really whacked!!

A DUmb lib just trolling?

17 posted on 04/12/2004 12:23:53 AM PDT by my_pointy_head_is_sharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: KillBill
Barry Goldwater was wrong about homosexuals. Maybe if he had known more about their stated goals and planned methods to achieve their goals, he wouldn't have had such a blind spot.

Have you read "After the Ball"? If not, you should at least read the summary which is archved on FR. Do a search on it or ping me and I'll post it again.

Homosexuals activists and their supporters do not want to be left alone. Their aim is to change society into a sexually libertine free-for-all that suits their sexual proclivities. Did you know that the original "Gay Rights Platform of Demands" in 1972 called for not only "gay" marriage but plural marriage? AND the total elimination of the age of consent? IOW, they want to legalize child/adult sex. Of course, that one quickly went under the radar screen.

Most people such as myself who are opposed to same sex marriage and the promotion of homosexuality as normal and natural - especially in schools - do not care what people do in the privacy of their own homes. But homosexuals do not want privacy. They want to invade public bathrooms, the schoolroom, the Boy Scouts, the priesthood, Big Brothers and Big Sisters, become foster and adoptive parents, and on and on.

What about "hatespeech" laws? Such laws are current in Canada and countries in Europe. Homosexual activists want them enacted here as well. Do you think that speech warning of the dangers of homosexual acts should be illegal, as it is in some other countries?
18 posted on 04/12/2004 12:29:03 AM PDT by little jeremiah (...men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: richmwill
So in your opinion any non-profit organization that has a notice asking for donations is suspect?

Would you rather they were government funded?

Or would you trust them more if they were a for-profit business?
19 posted on 04/12/2004 12:30:44 AM PDT by little jeremiah (...men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: KillBill
You're a Frosh at Iowa State?

Welcome to FR.
You have found the counter balance to your leftist professors.
You'll learn more here (no degree, sorry).
Don't let us run you off.
Sometimes we're hard on new FReepers.
Again, welcome to FR.

20 posted on 04/12/2004 12:37:19 AM PDT by onyx (Kerry' s a Veteran, but so were Lee Harvey Oswald, Timothy McVeigh and Benedict Arnold)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-51 next last

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.

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