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.
God gave us rules to live by, I am willing toi accept the word of the LORD on this.
How can this be? Little Ronnie Reagan, on MSNBC, has stated that he's yet to hear a single good reason why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry.
To sum it up.
Why are you assuming that homos would be any more faithful if they were 'married'?
Allowing same-sex marriage lends legitimacy to a perversion. Also, if we allow same-sex marriages what kind of message are our youth receiving? That perversion is OK? Maybe even 'normal'?
The same argument, that of individual rights has been distorted to the resultant horror of 1 1/2 million babies being butchered each year in this country alone.
Now the homos wish us to think they have a right to take our nation further into depravity and moral decay?
No thank you, it's high time we reversed and corrected this trend.
This is an excerpt from http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Genetic%20basis%20for%20homosexuality
"Most scientists agree that it is unlikely that there is a single 'gay gene' that determines something as complex as sexual orientation, and that it is more likely to be the result of a collection of factors, some of which may be genetic. Many believe that we do not yet have the scientific knowledge to definitively determine whether sexual orientation is genetic or not, and that we may never be able to do so. A strong argument against a genetic cause, however, is that such genetic variations, which disfavour reproduction in a species, would hardly survive a few generations"
The bottom line is that the numbers are all across the board. Any of the studies that suggested a genetic component suffered from suspect protocol such as recruting twins from gay publications and extrapolating the results across the general population.
|What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda|
|Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)|
|Myth and Reality about Homosexuality--Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues"|
I think that's because the effect on you, personally, can't be explained in an egocentric way. It's has to be looked at in a cultural kind of way. Every bit of cultural change effect you in some way because you live in the culture.
I'll take a run at it. If I sound pompous, I'm just trying to be precise.
Human interactions and relationships, whether between or among individuals, have always been based on on principles. Otherwise, the law of the jungle has to rule; we gather together in nations to escape just that.
Aside from the fact that all nations, cultures, civilizations have rejected homosexuality, not to mention homosexual marriages, there is a basic principle governing this issue that connects to a bedrock foundation of life on Earth, not some abstract and changeable societal norm.
The paradigm of physical reality as applied to mammals is the male/female form. The propagation of all mammal species depends on that natural compliment which is inherent in that paradigm. Homosexuality is the antithesis of this paradign, and in defiance of it. The paradigm is the physical, not philosophical, law that governs survival on Earth.
To not only tolerate it in individuals, as we tolerate the various physical and psychological diseases that are the burden of man, but to celebrate it as normalcy and surround it with the very customs that humans use to express the Earths survival paradigm can't but have unseen consequences.
In my perusal of history, not being a historian, I have come across a number of writings describing the events present in decaying cultures prior to the fall of their civilizations. In general cultural terms, homosexuality at that time was described as a norm, whereas prior to that point it was an aberration.
Whether that condition was a cause or an indicator, I have no idea. But it was present in the cases I came across. I haven't read of all cultures in their last days, but the ones I have read that was what happened.
They, and we, depended and depend on the mass of people around us in a nation. It's the reason we are together in the first place, to gain protection, security and quality of life.
It's without argument, I think, that population is the cornerstone of that protection, security and quality of life. With the knowledge of that truth, homosexuality, as well as placing women routinely in harm's way, has been against custom. Remember, even though we may have forgotten the reason for many customs, they always have a basis in the safety of the individuals that make up a nation.
We are seeing a lot of behavior now that grows out of the forgotten gut memory of the importance of population to survival, homosexuality and women in combat being just two.
From the viewpoint of society and the interdependent and socialist way we have it structured now, homosexual marriage will impact us in a lot of ways.
Take social security. Now, if a spouse dies, their social security goes to the survivor. If there is no survivor, it stays in the system. Social security is having vast financial problems, mainly because it can't work anyway, violating as it does several laws of human behavior.
With homosexual marriages, there will be much less available to future social security claimants, burdening the system even more, until the legislative body can legitimately claim a crisis and raise FICA to unheard of levels.
Take inheritance. If a person dies intestate, his estate goes to his family, his true family, parts of his physical line. Family passes wealth down the line as a hedge against poverty and a bulwark of independence, which is itself is a hedge against tyranny, which seems to be the human condition.
If you have personal security, and you don't have to take all your time just to survive, leaving none to explore and counteract the philosophical and actual abuses of a human government, the land is safer for all.
If two of the same sex, which return nothing to society that each one independently cannot return, share in the benefits of lineage, with no mingling of the genes which assure survival as a species, family will come to mean nothing, and whatever regime in power can simply convert society's wealth and we will have lost the position to stop it.
Added to this fray is the simple and obvious fact that to gain the advantages and benefits of a married couple, two of the same sex do not have to prove they are homosexual. Two friends can "marry" to divert the natural family inheritance and government benefits flow.
If homosexual marriages are the custom, then no definition of marriage among human beings is possible. Two heterosexual couples can establish a "homosexual" marriage among the men and the women thereof. The potential for social chaos is exquisite.
There are certain doors that cannot be even cracked, lest human beings, for their own shortsighted gains and ignorance of longterm destruction, eliminate the door altogether as well as the frame and sections of wall on either side.
This has noting to do with religion or the "ick" factor insomuch as those two facial expressions are not associated with memories passed down as customs. It has everything to do with the functions of reality and laws of human behavior.
"gays are just as intelligent"?
What's intelligent about spreading AIDS?
What's intelligent about going to hell?
Bookmark for later printing.
|Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)|
|Homosexual Keyword Search|
This is an issue that conservatives need to be more vigilant on. Too many conservatives retreat to the Bible when confronted by often hateful opposition when they suggest something is wrong with homosexuality in general. Just today I heard an otherwise conservative talkshow host defend a Gay Straight Alliance in Harrisonburg VA and equating it with Civil rights clubs. The key to winning this debate is to place things in perspective provide the facts and keep one's passion in check because what "they" want is the argument to deteriorate into a clash of passions where they get to appear like the helpless victim just wanting equal rights and you the hateful bigot. They are using children now and public schools to forward an agenda which is based upon the false idea that some how kids are born gay which anyone who has reviewed the scientific evidence would know that such assumptions are not supported at all by any conclusive studies to date. It is a hard battle to fight and it is not surprising that many conservatives choose to put their heads in the sand because they can not take the heat on this often times uncomfortable issue.
To add to your points, in my own family my great aunt lived with another woman in what could only be called a gay marriage for DECADES. There was no infidelity that I was aware of, and they were two of the most loving and caring people around.
While I understand society's desire to keep the word "marriage" exclusive to one man and one woman, the idea of civil unions does not bother me at all.
And in a basic sense, it is irrelevant to me whether someone is born a certain way or not.
How does it involve equal treatment under the law? All people have the equal right to marry a member of the opposite sex. What gay activists are asking is that we change the law and even further promote open homosexuality in the public arena. I also believe in live and let live but when this involves the idea of marriage and appropriate sexual behavior being recast to make one very small group feel better about something that is not normal or preferable I will oppose them every time.
God gave YOU rules to live by, not US. You can only speak for yourself. I'm sure it warms God's heart to know that you are "willing" to go along with him.
It is false that all societies have rejected homosexuality, if by that word you mean sexual conduct between two members of the same sex.
1) Tokugawa Japan, modern West and ancient Rome/Greece to varying degrees approved of or at least tolerated without persecution gay relationships. Indeed, was it Spartans who actually encouraged fellow soldiers in certain platoons to become lovers and thus bind them more closely in soldiering?
2) In old SE Asia, transexuals(a form of homosexuality? to many on this board it would be) were often the head of local religious cults(I use the word cult without the modern connotations, merely meaning a local religious sect or group that may depend on worship or honoring of a local deity or spirit.) The prevalence of transexuals has continued in modern day Asia, especially in Thailand where it seems to have come down through the ages from that older culture.
Society is composed of individuals living in clusters of more or less densely populated geographical and socio-political arrangements.
There is no "society" apart from large groups of individual human beings. Society is itself an abstraction, though it is a convenient shorthand to describe aggregate trends in behavior or cultural mores.
Lesbians tend to be more monogamus but they also represent (if I remember correctly) only about 9% of all homosexuals. Homosexuality interestingly enough has the same distribution from male to female as most sexual disorders where as men represent the largest portion of such populations.
Well done. The homosexual activists have been trying to keep these truths from the public for a long time.
Forgot to ping the list with my last post...