Why Allowing Same-Sex Marriage Would Be Disastrous For America. Numerous Scientific Studies Cited.

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 [1977], 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.

I also see nothing in the post that explains how a same-sex relationship hurts me at all.

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.

My opinion.

But why should that be? Why shouldn't gays be permitted to have the same insurance rights? If a man with insurance married a woman, she would be covered. Why is it different if that same man's partner is another man? Two people are still being covered. There's zero net economic effect

Once again you completely miss the point, it is not a zero economic effect. It is an incredibly large economic effect, not only to the company or institution legally compelled by force of law to offer benefits to same sex couples it is extremely expensive to society. The Social security survivor benefits, tax benefits and health care benefits alone would be in the hundreds of billions of dollars over the course time. This says nothing about the downgrading of marriage as an institution, it is already in trouble because of our throw away do anything that feels good society, the approval of gay marriage would be the final nail in the coffin.

Also the additional legal costs associated with the dissolution of these so called marriages. These marriages could never be contractually entered into because by definition a marriage is only legal after consummation. Gay sex is not consummation. Consummation only occurs during penile to vaginal intercourse, impossible in a same sex relationship, A recent court ruling backs this up by stating that a husband could not divorce his wife because of adultery, she Had a lesbian affair and because no intercourse was possible, no adultery occurred.

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.