Skip to comments.Why Allowing Same-Sex Marriage Would Be Disastrous For America. Numerous Scientific Studies Cited.
Posted on 11/09/2004 7:17:10 PM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
Within the next 4-5 years almost every state within America will have their Constitution changed to ban same-sex marriage. This is the right path to take. Alas though, federal courts, being driven forward by radical homosexual organizations, most certainly will seek to overturn the overwhelming will of the people.
We, as a society, must not allow this to happen. The foundation of American society is built upon the fact that marriage is indissoluably the union of one man and one woman. To change this to suit the whims of radical gays will most certainly undermine this nation in which we live, and the following facts support this premise.
1.) Few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, but in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from 1-37 years, "all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for sexual activity outside of their relationships." (David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1984, pp. 252, 253
2.) Clinicians Mattison and Mcwhirter studied 156 long-term homosexual relationships, but found that not one couple was able to maintain sexual fidelity for more than five years. most maintained a monogamous relationship for less than one year. (The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop)
3.)In a study of 2,583 older homosexuals, "the model range for number of sexual partners was 101-500 (Paul Van de Ven "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Hoimosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354)
4. According to the Centers For Disease Control, 50% of male homosexuals had over 500 sexual partners (Rotello, G. (1997). Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men. NY: Dutton)
5.)For homosexual men, the term "monogamy" doesn't necessarily mean sexual exclusivity. The term "open relationship" has for a great many homosexual men come to have one specific definition: A relationship in which the partners have sex on the outside often, put away their resentment and jealously, and discuss their outside sex with each other, or share sex partners. (Michelangelo Signorile, Life Outside (New York: Harper Collins, 1997), p. 213)
6.) "Even 'committed' homosexual relationships display a fundamental incapacity for the faithfulness and committment that is axiomatic to the institution of marriage" (Timothy J. Dailey, Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk, ) http://www.frc.org/get/is01j3.cfm
7.) "Homosexuals model a poor view of marriage to children by teaching that marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in nature, sexual relationships are primarilly for pleasure rather than for procreation, and monogamy in marriage is not the norm and should be discoiuraged if one wasnts a good 'marital' relationship." (Bradley P. Hayton, "To Marry or Not: The Legalization of Marriage and Adoption of Homosexual Couples," Newport Beach: The Pacific Policy Institute, 1993, p.9)
8.) Among heterosexual couples, 75% of husbands and 90% of wives claim never to have had extramarital sex. (Robert T. Michael, Sex in America: A Definitive Survey, Boston, Brown & Company, 1994) Other studies confirm the percentage of faithful spouses between 75-81% for husbands and 85-88% for wives. (Michael W. Widerman, "Extramarital Sex: Prevelance and Correlated in a National Survey," Journal of Sex Research 34 , p.2)
9.) Studies of previous civilizations reveal that when a society strays from the sexual ethic of marriage (a union between a male and a female), it deteriorates and eventually disintegrates. (J.D. Unwin, Sexual Regulatiuons and Human Behavior (London: Williams & Norgate, 1933)
10.) Paula Ettelbrick, former leagl director of the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, has stated "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so...Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society." (Paula Ettelbrick, quoted in William B. Rubenstein, "Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?" Lesbains, Gay Men, and the Law, (New York: The New Press, 1993), pp. 398, 400)
11.) According to homosexual writer and activist Michelangelo Signorile, the goal of homosexuals is : "To fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demad the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and rdaically alter an archaic institution...the most subversive action lesbian and gay men can underatke...is to transform the notion of 'family' entirely." (Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal wave," Out, Dec 1994)
Taking all of these studies into account, it is relatively clear that homosexuals will certainly ballon the incidence of divorce in America as the study of the high rate of divorce found already in Norway and Sweden among homosexuals shows. This will further weaken the institution of marriage in America. http://www.imapp.org
As well, homosexuals do not show the faithfulness that is axiomatic to the institution of marriage. Homosexuals have a strange and twisted notion of what a committed relationship truly is.
Finally, as Dr. Unwin noted in his studies of numerous past civilization, to stray from the true concept of marraige, one man and one woman, will certainly deteriorate and disintegrate our society as well...sooner or later.
When someone saks you how two gays getting married could possibly affect you, show them these facts.
A must read. These scientific facts on this thread show why allowing same-sex marriage would be disastrous for America.
As well, these facts show how allowing same-sex marriage would affect you, and America. Use them to rebut someone when they ask you how allowing same-sex marriage could possibly affect you, and to show them why we need a constitutioanl amend banning same-sex marriage... because of these facts,and because we can't trust the courts to do what is right.
federal judges who try to usurp the power of the people from the states will find themselves to be "endangered species"
The Second Amendment was written to protect us from TYRANNICAL Govts --- especially if our own fell that way.
Got a link?
Point 11 is the most telling. To ask the government to license so-called "gay marriage" is to ask the government to legislate on our emotions. Let 'em do that and the next thing you know they'll be taxing them. They already legislate (unconstitutionally) hate. We want 'em to legislate love, too?
Earlier this evening I was speaking to a therapist friend of mine. She does research for a professor friend of hers. Right now the professor is writing a book about homosexual relationships and how there is zero, zilch, nada scientific research backing up the claim that homosexuality is in your genes. It gets its beginnings in ailing parent-child relationships.
I wish I could give the transcript of our conversation - it was incredibly interesting. She's supposed to be sending me some links to the research. All the more info to refute the claim that "I was born this way."
Well, my thought on this is not too scientific.
1. Fudge-packers focus on pleasure, not procreation. Thus, sodomites create disease, death and higher insurance premiums, because it would be discriminatory to charge AIDS patients higher rates than normal, relatively healthy people.
2. Gays cannot mate. They are not made to do so. 'Sexual relations' refers to two sexes. Since gays and carpet-munchers are of the same sex, they are not relating over two sexes. They cannot procreate and are the inverse of natural. They cannot reproduce and raise families, which is the base of procreation. Thus, they cannot marry, unless we accept one definition of marriage being the selfish hedonism of mutual pleasure in another of the same sex.
This is one issue where I'm relatively "live and let live". Why should I care if two people of the same sex want to have a relationship?
Same-sex relationship have existed since ancient days (as have non-marital heterosexual relationships), ... yet they have always been differentiated from the marital state.
The facts stated in this thread's text have been gleaned from over 50 years of study regarding the nature of homosexual relationships.
Save for a select few ... none of these relationships resemble monogamus marriage in the least. As even long-term male homosexual relationship regularly involve orders of magnitude more promiscuity than comparable heterosexual relationships ... they would present a distorted picture of marriage if they were to be identified as such.
They are not asking to be treated equally, they are asking for extra ordinary benefits. The institution of marriage is meant to protect society against the corrupting effects of the male sexual urge. It is meant to protect the women in society and the children that are inevitably created by the Heterosexual sex act. All Homosexuals have the exact same right to marriage as anybody else, They can marry anybody of the opposite sex that is willing to marry them and is not already married to another person. Benefits are given in the form of favorable tax status and health and welfare benefits in order to compel people to get and stay married. This leads to a stable society by giving the offspring of the sexual relationship the benefit of both male and female nurturing,leading to a stronger and better society for all. There is no benefit to society of same sex marriage, therefor their should not be government sanction of such unions.
If the left would read Blackstone, Coke, Littleton, Wilson or any other legal giant, they would find that marriage is a contract between a man and a woman AND the state. The "state" is a party to the contract because governments are instituted to secure inalienable rights. Marriage is the institution designed to secure the rights of children; responsibility is delegated to the two people responsible for bringing the child into existence: one man and one woman. Absent the possibility of children, the "state" has no reason to be a party to the contract.
This is also the fundamental basis other sexual morals. Sex outside of marriage risks producing fatherless offspring. This, however, can be rectified by a subsequent marriage. Adultery risks producing fatherless offspring without the possibility of rectification. Intentionally depriving a child of a father is amoral. The prisons are full of criminal who have been deprived of a father and the evil they have wrought on society is immense.
The response from the leftists: "don't replace the constitution with the bible." Morons
Your choices have made thee blind? I think if you paid a little closer attention to the research that was offered here, you would find that NO one was COMPLAINING that "GLBT relationships don't mirror heterosexual relationships". The data simply shows that they are not alike, which is the very point heterosexuals have made and homosexuals have tried to conceal. There wasn't a hint of hypocrisy in the information. Your attempt to distort the information won't work here.
No one would deny that brain structure and function is determined by design. But anyone worth his salt will tell you that it can be altered by environment. No evidence that I've seen proves that nature determines anything but heterosexuality. If homosexuality was a result of nature, it would end in extinction. But if it is the result of, as you put it, "ailing parent-child relationships" then it will increase as family norms break down.
Very well put...and you did it in far fewer words than it would have taken me. The equal protection argument proponets of "gay marriage" put forth simply doesn't wash.
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.