Posted on 07/14/2004 10:34:59 AM PDT by Willie Green
Advocates of "gay marriage" or homosexual civil unions argue that promiscuity will be reduced. Such an argument overlooks two key points.
First, a embracing homosexual unions is more likely to undermine the institution of marriage and produce other negative effects than it is to make fidelity and longevity the norm for homosexual unions. Second, homosexual unions are not wrong primarily because of their disproportionately high rate of promiscuity and breakups. They are wrong because "gay marriage" is a contradiction in terms. As with consensual adult incest and polyamory, considerations of commitment and fidelity factor only after certain structural prerequisites are met.
The vision of marriage found in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures is one of reuniting male and female into an integrated sexual whole. Marriage is not just about more intimacy and sharing one's life with another. It is about sexual merger -- or, in Scripture's understanding, "remerger" -- of essential maleness and femaleness.
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
Gay marriage is wrong. What about civil unions? Gay 'marriage' in a strictly legal sense is fine with me.
Which is already happening in the teen and early twenties crowd. It's sad.
Same thing my wife and I concluded. They want Civil Unions, okay by me.
Course I phrase it a bit differently.....(grin)
If gays want to experience the joy and wonder of Divorce, who am I to deny them that exquisite pleasure?
Just a thought.....
Marriage is to be between one man and one woman....end of story....anything else puts us in the hands of an angry God....
The author loses the argument when he cites Genesis, seeing that the Bible is now considered "hate" speech.
Religion has been so skillfully driven from our society, Truth doesn't stand a chance....
simple no matter how much they try, two homosexual men, or two homosexual women , will not get pregnent from their recreational sex.
Society rewards the insititution not the individuals.
Homosexuals seek to have the institution reward the individuals orgasm.
civil unions was a vermont backdoor solution to getting out of the courts imposing homosexual marriage. This is why the mass court was very specific is saying civil unions would not do.
Civil unions have been rejected in the courts of at least four states. (FL, GA, TX, CT)
Additionally Civil Unions do not rise to federal recognition and do not gain social security or immigration benefits.
Civil union laws are pointless. 100% of what they do can be achieved by a cohabitation contract. These have been around for decades, they are open to all, and enforcable by the courts.
It allows a leagal agreement/contract between recreational sex partners regarless of sexual mental illness.
Comparing gay civil unions with bestiality is an argument beneath anyone on these boards, unless you first advocate giving Irish Wolfhounds full legal majority status. Come on now.
I have no problem with two human beings joining in a union. Makes no difference to me if they're a man and woman, two men or two women. All would help stabalize society, if the two people enter into it with the intent to make a real committment.
I do not advocate forcing churches to bless the unions, but that's not required right now for a marriage to be valid.
Marriage is about children- not about sex. If it was only about sex then I would have many, many wives....
Besides- what does anal sex have to do with marriage?
Thats why I am in favor of some kind of "civil union" that merely consists of all the above contracts, granted at once. Let them have their weddings, parties, whatever, but I am against them having legal marriages.
I think that wave is already here. A Swedish pastor got jail time for speaking out against homosexuality at his pulpit (posted here).
Since lesbians don't have anal sex then I'm assuming you're comfortable with their marriages. Just not male homosexuals, right?
Supposedly, the 'mos want the same rights as married people have...without the responsibilities, ie, of raising children. Those benefits include tax benefits, health benefits[which will rise because of their risky sexual behavior and must be borne by everyone] and the like. the reasons for those benefits is to promote stable families.
Single people should agitate for the same benefits. Afterall, what is the rational constitutional basis for excluding them from lower tax rates?
So the supposed "benefits" of marriage will be destroyed by approving 'mo marriages.
Okay, what does marriage have to do with oral sex?
Ten years ago a discussion concerning men "marrying" men would have been beneath anyone on this board.
You make my point.
Are you kidding? If two people love each other and want to show that love and commitment, why should they not be able to? How does that hurt anyone else? Gay people do not want to ruin marriage, they want to share in it. Marriage is about LOVE, not SEX.
Adder, thank you for another logical reason why homosexual "marriages" or civil unions should not be legal.
I'm so sorry to hear that you think that. Things will pick up for you. I'm sure.
If that's so, why should it be restricted to two ? And why only human beings ?
What, that just because the issues we debate here change with time, we should resort to irrelevant, nonsensical arguments?
I don't think so.
I'm sorry, marriage is about the Ideal of procreation- not love.
Then do you support outlawing marriage for couples who are sterile?
But these couples can have children as well. Yes, not naturally.
But for childless couples then, would you like to let them know that their marriage is not valid because they are not procreating?
No one brought up sex but you. First anal. Then oral.
Society rewards marriage because of the end result of the insititution, children.
The institution is rewarded not the sex act.
Homosexuality is ONLY about recreational sex. Nothing nothing else.
Love is irrelevant to the law.
Feelings are irrelevant to the law.
The homsexuals are applying classic liberalism (modern liberalism). Political power gained by feeeelings. There is no dispute for feelings.
Cohabitation contracts can do what homosexuals state they need. They do not want a solution, they want court ordered acceptances of the morality of the recreational act.
What's nonsensical about my argument?
Three women could fall madly in love with an Irish Wolfhound? And who am I to say they shouldn't? It's their Constitutional right to love whomever or whatever they choose, isn't it? And as some of my fellow posters think--marriage is just about love, isn't it?
Once marriage is redefined, anything goes. I hope you're prepared.
to have and to hold...from this day forward....for better or for worse...in sickness and in health...until death do us part.
I didn't hear anything about children or sex in there.
"They do not want a solution, they want court ordered acceptances of the morality of the recreational act."
I agree and in doing so will have succeeded in legitimatizing perversion.
Gay marriage is our punishment for turning our backs on God.
Society rewards the institution not the individual.
Even a nonproducing couple promotes the institution of marriage. (as aunt and uncle, grandmother and grandfather, as step father and step mother) It is the model promoted for producing subsequent generations.
Homosexuality exists only for recreational sex.
As a matter of history, a marriage was annuled when no sex act that would produce a child was performed, consumating the marriage. Homosexuality is likewise a nulity.
A normal couple that adopts fits the model of mother and father and the child need never know they are adopted. Children adopted in states where homosexual adoption is still legal are ALWAYS part of an abnormal sexual lifestyle based only on recreational sex.
So to answer your red hearing, homosexual advocacy argument, a man and woman who marry and never produce children do deserve reward from society because their marriage bolsters the institution of marriage.
Exactamundo!
They are Gay friends who engage in sexual deviancy why do we have to call them GAY anyways? when I was a kid I only heard people refer to them as Queers and Fruits...
"to have and to hold...from this day forward....for better or for worse...in sickness and in health...until death do us part."
What do you think the purpose of this vow is?
IMHO it's to create a loving and stable environment for children.
This is the end game scorcard on this debate.
Bush is a winner because he now owns this issue and can use it against most all "D"
Kerry is a looser two fold. 1. because he took the cowards way out and did not even vote (yet anther absense) 2. flip flop-able arguments are still to be used against him. He has a 100% pro-homosexual voting record. He advocates spending direct social security money on homosexuals and allowing homosexuals to file jointly.
Edwards is a looser for all the Kerry reasons, AND he is a member of the ABA which advocates homosexual marriage.
Republicans win because they have forced Dashel and co on the record. They all have this wedge issue that gains more votes and voters than even abortion and gun rights.
Democrats loose big big time. They are all now exposed as denying states rights. Passage would have meant 50 states debating on this issue not just one senate.
Dashel looser, his speech was only leagalese incorrectness saying the DMA would protect against FFC and EC (it can not). Thune can and MUST use this against him.
Senate as an institution: BIG looser because it has now given the green light to the courts as the only means of amending the constitution. The legislative branch became more weak.
The New England Rinos, in a more R rich senate they are dead politically. If thinking of jumping, remember jumpin jim and his outhouse based office.
McCain: Loco looser, presidential aspirations are dead.
Leftist Judges winners because the senate gave them a green light.
Law schools winners beause they work overtime to turnout lawyers as leftist as possible.
ABA winner because they advocate homosexual marraige in their articles and model law projects used by legislators. (ABA is voluntary)
Okay, I'm done. I see your point, we just agree to disagree.
I don't want to deny anyone a ball and chain. And if there are a couple of extra balls, so what?
/joke
Forget about the Bible for a moment, and consider the argument from a purely objective, humanistic point of view: Anything that, if practiced by everyone, would either destroy or harm humanity or that would create social anarchy is bad and/or wrong. It's really a very simple argument. What would happen if everyone stole from their neighbors? What would happen if all people were gay? What would happen if all people lied?
Government should only pass laws and encourage behavior which furthers the peacable proliferation of the human race. Based on this nonreligious argument, gay marriage is wrong.
Case closed.
Unfortunatly this is not agree to disagree issue.
This is not an issue which does not touch all.
If homosexual marriage must be acknowledged then those three states that prohibit homosexual adoption will have those laws at risk.
Employers will have health insurance skyrocket due to sex diseases. (93% of all new USA aids cases are homosexuals)
There is no middle on this. It is yea/nay no maybe.
otherwise take care.
Sadly, I disagree; we all lose- the winner is the structured forces in the horizon that stay faithful to unifying "truths".... currently that is Islam-
But why limit it to only two people? If one man and two women wanted to live together as a marital group, why should we deny them this right?
How would it be determined whether a person who wanted to get married is sterile or not?
What do you think the purpose of this vow is?
IMHO it's to create a loving and stable environment for children.
So we're down to your opinion now. Just clarifying.
There are tests that can be done. Fertility is a big industry. My point is that marriage is not just about having children.
Then you certainly won't mind when I "marry" one of my grandkids before I check out and send you the bill for Social Security Survivors benefits for 60 years or so.
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.