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

Skip to comments.

Why Allowing Same-Sex Marriage Would Be Disastrous For America. Numerous Scientific Studies Cited.
November 9, 2004

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 [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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: gay; homosexual; homosexualagenda; homosexuality; lesbian; marriage; samesexmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-130 next last
To: Laissez-faire capitalist
A lot of that is simply not true.

The promiscuous gay men might SAY they want gay marriage, as a banner to "fight for," but the truth is, none of them would actually want to take on the debts of one of their partners. After the initial boom, those kind of gays will not marry.

Gays and lesbians in long-term committed relationships are as monogamous as heterosexuals, with the gay men being slightly LESS monogamous than straight married men, and lesbians being more monogamous than straight married women.

Your average gay, the one you might see at work tomorrow or on the train and not know he is gay, is much like you and does not have any agenda for ruining your life, values, and conservative institutions. I know some conservative gays who are AGAINST gay marriage.

I used to think that gay marriage would be taking away from thousands of years of civilization. I have changed my mind. It would not. It wouldn't change much at all. There are heteros who certainly trash the institution of marriage all the time, in many different ways, and there are good, solid gay citizens whose unions would remain personal and would allow them to enter the world of decent family values instead of being forced onto the fringe of society, where mores are naturally more loose.

Flame away.

51 posted on 11/09/2004 9:12:49 PM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
Of course, homosexuality has always been present in the human race, like mania-depression, schizophrenia and a lesser known variety of neuroses and psychoses.

It's normalizing a condition of mental illness, more precisely, an identity crisis that's the problem.

Your examples are my examples. There is no rationalization that can fit homosexuality into the paradigms of physical existence on Earth without treating it as an illness.

52 posted on 11/09/2004 9:14:03 PM PST by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: MercCPC
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.

I argue this all the time. If an employer has 10 employees, and 5 are married with spousal coverage, what the heck difference would it make materially if the spouse was another guy? None at all. If today that gay man is single and tomorrow he is allowed to marry and get his spouse covered, how is that different from the young lady at the next desk who suddenly gets married?

And don't give me the AIDS thing. Most of the AIDS cases around here are coming from the minority populations and many of them are hetero. Maybe the guys are having bi or jail sex (AIDS is huge in prison), but when they sleep with a girl later, she gets it too. So AIDS may come from anal sex with guys but in these slovenly (criminal and promiscuous) populations they are spreading to both sexes.

53 posted on 11/09/2004 9:19:27 PM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: jla
Why are you assuming that homos would be any more faithful if they were 'married'?

Of course they will. Marriage also means taking on your spouse's DEBT. Inheriting his property. It is very serious. If you married and then cheated on the guy, you are setting yourself up for some major hurt. Ask the guy who has an affair with his secretary and loses among other things his house.

54 posted on 11/09/2004 9:21:34 PM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: jim from cleveland
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.

What, gays are 5% of the population? Max 10%? And you think they ALL will marry?

55 posted on 11/09/2004 9:22:39 PM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: MercCPC

You seem to have a mental block.
Heterosexuals don't make Homosexuals go out and have multiple sex partners. If Homosexuals were inclined to have one "partner", they would. Their failure to do so has NOTHING to do with pressure by the heterosexual community.


56 posted on 11/09/2004 9:26:30 PM PST by discipler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle
I would suggest more like 3%. The radical homosexual lobby tries to pump this # up continuously. Also pure Homosexuality is very rare. Most self proclaimed homosexuals have engaged in heterosexual sex. Very few Heterosexuals have engaged in homosexual acts. None the less this increase in $ when extrapolated out over a population of 300,000,000. is billions of $'s over the course of time.
57 posted on 11/09/2004 9:36:31 PM PST by jim from cleveland (W'04&4more)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

ping


58 posted on 11/09/2004 9:39:50 PM PST by Exton1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

INTREP


59 posted on 11/09/2004 9:40:00 PM PST by LiteKeeper (Secularization of America is happening)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jim from cleveland; Yaelle
I would suggest more like 3%

Even that is high. Including bisexuals the number is 2.1%. It's a little higher for men and lower for women.

One of these days I'll post an updated copy, but the following link may prove helpful:

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links

60 posted on 11/09/2004 9:43:49 PM PST by scripter (Tens of thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: jim from cleveland
Also, these visitation rights, property rights, and other so called unavailable rights that Homosexuals do not have are red herrings, all of these rights can be secured quite simply by existing laws of contracts. I as a Heterosexual can have anybody visit me in the hospital as long as I am conscious, If I were to become incapacitated a living will can take the place of my conscious approval. Property transfers can be dealt with in a standard will. What I can not do is decide that I want my employer to pay for my sister, cousin, or friends health and welfare benefits simply because i state that I have a "special" relationship with them.

Excellent posts, Jim. In France, the concept of "domestic partnership" has expanded to include two widowed sisters living together or even a priest and his housekeeper. That's taking the concept to its logical conclusion.

61 posted on 11/09/2004 9:46:09 PM PST by Siamese Princess
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

regardless of costs the can of worms this idea of same sex marriage opens up is undesireable for our country period.


62 posted on 11/09/2004 9:46:19 PM PST by jim from cleveland (W'04&4more)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
Same sex marriage would be just ridiculous. It's just too much.
63 posted on 11/09/2004 9:46:51 PM PST by Dec31,1999 (www.protestwarrior.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Siamese Princess

Thank you.

The point is this type of social experimentation is not in the best interest of society on any level.


64 posted on 11/09/2004 9:49:17 PM PST by jim from cleveland (W'04&4more)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
Same sex marriage would be just ridiculous. It's just too much.
65 posted on 11/09/2004 10:02:58 PM PST by Dec31,1999 (www.protestwarrior.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
Your arrow hit the bullseye. Excellent post.

One thing that I would add is that you can't separate sexual morality, or immorality, from general morality, or immorality. The "sexual revolution" is part and parcel of the general breakdown of morality. As recently as the so-called "sexually repressed" 50s, a multi-million business deal might be sealed on a mere handshake because a man's word and his honor still meant something. Who would be do that now?

In so many ways, in today's society we've redefined vice as virtue and virtue as vice. Not long ago, a man was expected to take care of himself and his own and being dependent on charity or the government was a source of shame. Nowadays, many a person loudly demands that his fellow citizens pay for all kinds of benefits, entitlements and services that benefit him.

66 posted on 11/09/2004 10:04:18 PM PST by Siamese Princess
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
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."

WTF??!!!

What a nut case!

67 posted on 11/09/2004 10:13:41 PM PST by Indie (Ignorance of the truth is no excuse for stupidity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
It is false that all societies have rejected homosexuality, if by that word you mean sexual conduct between two members of the same sex.

There have been a number of societies which permitted homosexual activity (it's endemic amongst Muslim men) but no society has ever considered homosexuality as a lifetyle equal to heterosexuality. Men have universally been expected to marry women and sire children. In other words, homosexuality may be acceptable as a side dish, but never as the main course.

68 posted on 11/09/2004 10:16:43 PM PST by Siamese Princess
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell

Sir,

You specifically framed the debate by stating that no society tolerated this conduct. Well, schizophrenia, mania, depression, etc all were present in societies, but they were not enshrined in the cultural norms of major civilizations.

Thus, whatever you may think of homosexuality or its attendant sexual deviations from heterosexuality, there HAVE BEEN societies in which homosexual conduct was tolerated and even encouraged.

Tokugawa Japan could have continued had the West not existed and its fall had little or nothing to do with the sexual mores of the nobles.


69 posted on 11/09/2004 10:17:40 PM PST by Skywalk (Transdimensional Jihad!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: jim from cleveland
The point is this type of social experimentation is not in the best interest of society on any level.

There is something called "society" and it is in society's best interests that people form and maintain strong, happy and healthy families because there are astronomical social costs to family meltdown. But many don't care -- they want to do as they please and expect the taxpayer to pick up the pieces when things go wrong.

70 posted on 11/09/2004 10:22:47 PM PST by Siamese Princess
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: 10000Taxes
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"

I read the same article ( at http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Genetic%20basis%20for%20homosexuality) and I see that your excerpt is not exactly representative of the entire thrust of the article. It is actually quite an interesting article and should be read in its entirety by anyone who is really interested in the genetics of the thing. Here is another interesting bit, which seems to refer to the possibilities inherent in a "gay gene" being recessive rather than dominant:

"Any genetic component must be rooted in evolution by natural selection, and many non-scientists assume that a homosexual orientation would necessarily result in decreased reproduction. Gene prevalence, however, and therefore selection, can be influenced by increasing the reproductive success of individuals with whom we share genes in common. While it may be unclear to some how homosexuality could offer a selective advantage to individuals, many hypotheses exist that explain why an inherited tendency toward this orientation might offer a selective advantage to the genes they carry." (Italics mine.)

In a hypothetical situation, in a tribal society, if you are gay and you help to raise your sister's kids because you don't have any of your own, your sister's kids would receive the advantage of the extra food, attention, protection, etc., and would be more likely to live to maturity and pass on whatever genes you and they share -- which might include a recessive "gay gene." So those genes might easily survive in a population even though they are not passed on directly. This hypothesis also points out the idea that there might actually be an advantage to having these genes in a society, which would be lost to society if we ever managed to somehow get rid of the gene by genetic engineering or similar.

71 posted on 11/09/2004 10:42:56 PM PST by Hetty_Fauxvert (http://sonoma-moderate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

Gee, mom. Have you read this?


72 posted on 11/10/2004 12:35:02 AM PST by Darkchylde (Resistentialism - seemingly spiteful behavior manifested by inanimate objects)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Righter-than-Rush
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.

But tobacco users pay twice what others in their age group do, whether they are generally healthy otherwsise or not. Go figure.

73 posted on 11/10/2004 12:40:16 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (I'm from North Dakota and I'm all FOR Global Warming! Bring it ON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

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

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? I think that equal treatment under the law is one of the greatest things about this country and I'm not inclined to ignore that just because I'm straight.

Everybody, whether they're a homosexual or a heterosexual, already has equal treatment under the law. Any man, regardless of his sexual orientation, can marry the woman of his choice, provided that the woman is single. Any woman, regardless of her sexual orientation, can marry the man of her choice, provided that the man is single.

By the way, how do you feel about polygamous marriage? By not allowing polygamous marriage, we are discriminating against those individuals who would choose that type of marital relationship if it was legal. And just like what you said about same-sex marriage, if polygamous marriage was legalized, it wouldn't hurt you at all.

74 posted on 11/10/2004 1:03:24 AM PST by usadave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MercCPC
If you want gay 'marriage', then go for it, get yourself an amendment.

Americans have always, from the very beginning used laws to limit and even prohibit certain behavior they considered immoral.

Many absolutely hated slavery but even then they did not resort to judicial activism to rid this land of that true evil, instead they followed the law and passed an amendment.

If the nation has changed and want this new morality (even after years of leftist propaganda such as Simon Levey's bogus report) they will let you know.

If they agree with you then they should gladly have their elected officials vote for it in the amendment process.

75 posted on 11/10/2004 1:06:29 AM PST by OriginalIntent (Clinton only fooled the ignorant and the lazy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
My post wasn't framed by any one point.

Anything contrary to the way reality is actually constructed is bad to the stability of a nation of people. Homosexuality is obviously a mental condition inconsistent with reality.

Population is vital to a nation's survival and its citizens' quality of life. Anything that is contrary to the ability to produce population is discouraged.

This is the way people are wired. Programed beliefs accepted in order to be cool don't alter the way reality is put together.

Homosexuality is found whereever people are found. In the countries where it its celebrated, the culture is incontinent, degrading or dead. Homosexuality may well be an indicator instead of a cause. Whichever it is, it is not good.

The cultures that have encouraged homosexuality were on their way out. Like ours. No nation began with normalized homosexuality. It only came later and metastasized.

The reason homosexuality, and not other mental illnesses, may be celebrated is because it is about pleasure while the others are about pain.

You can pick around the edges of these points, but you can't reach their substance.

76 posted on 11/10/2004 1:18:44 AM PST by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

ping for later read.


77 posted on 11/10/2004 1:34:58 AM PST by Walkingfeather (q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC
I think you miss his point. I think he meant that perhaps the reason why few of these relationships resemble monogamous marriage is because they are not allowed to be married. You can't expect them to look a certain way if they cannot be that way, no?

So ... you think that public sanction is that powerful ?

So powerful that it will change gay relationships so that they much more closely resemble heterosexual marriage ?

78 posted on 11/10/2004 7:33:54 AM PST by Quester
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MercCPC
... my argument wasn't that same-sex relationships are the same as heterosexual relationships. My point was, in fact, that I think it would be ridiculous for us to assume they would be the same as we've never provided any sanction to GLBT relationships.

So ... you think that public sanction is that powerful ?

So powerful that it will change gay relationships so that they much more closely resemble heterosexual marriage ?

79 posted on 11/10/2004 7:38:13 AM PST by Quester
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MercCPC

"Gays are just as intelligent, they contribute just as much to the economy...they are different only in their choice of partners. Why not treat them as equals?"

They are being treated as equals. In what way are they not?

I think you are implying that not granting gay marriage is treating someone as non-equal, which is a false assumption. We don't grant marriage to single people, or groups of three or four, but all are still treated as equals.

Marriage is for the purpose of family, procreation, and children. THAT is the only reason the state is involved. There is no treatment of someone as less than equal in this matter.


80 posted on 11/10/2004 7:43:01 AM PST by johnnyb_61820
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk; William Terrell; scripter; little jeremiah; ArGee; Bryan; lentulusgracchus

... ancient Rome/Greece to varying degrees approved of or at least tolerated without persecution gay relationships.


Homosexuality & Same-Sex "Marriage" (Ancient Roman Satirist Slams Gays)

81 posted on 11/10/2004 7:48:54 AM PST by EdReform (Free Republic - helping to keep our country a free republic. Thank you for your financial support!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: MercCPC
I find the statement hypocritical when our society has actively worked to discourage GLBT "committed relationships".

What has contemporary society done to discourage GLBT committed relationships ?

Is withholding a certain label (i.e. 'marriage') so much of a discouragement that it results in gay marriage-like behaviour being as rare as it is ?

82 posted on 11/10/2004 7:53:25 AM PST by Quester
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: kemathen7; scripter

She's supposed to be sending me some links to the research.


Please post the links she sends you in Scripter's "Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Revision 1.1)" thread. Thanks!

83 posted on 11/10/2004 8:04:07 AM PST by EdReform (Free Republic - helping to keep our country a free republic. Thank you for your financial support!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

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

Hehehe...let me play!

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

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

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

Thanks for playing...

84 posted on 11/10/2004 10:07:03 AM PST by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MercCPC
I know two same-sex couples that have been in monogamous relationships for over ten years. They seem to deal with the same issues heterosexual couples do and, in fact, their relationships are much more stable than many heterosexual marriages I know of (mine included).

Only fools base their opinion on anecdotal evidence.

85 posted on 11/10/2004 10:09:56 AM PST by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ma3lst0rm

Trust me, your stat is wrong. Lesbians make up about half of all homosexuals.


86 posted on 11/10/2004 10:17:12 AM PST by AshleyMatt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Indie
WTF??!!! What a nut case!

That was intelligent.

87 posted on 11/10/2004 10:19:40 AM PST by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
there HAVE BEEN societies in which homosexual conduct was tolerated and even encouraged.

Yep you're right, they're called extinct.

88 posted on 11/10/2004 10:22:06 AM PST by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

Bestiality, incest, and under-age sex involve animal cruely, child abuse and statutory rape. They have nothing in common with two consenting adults of the same sex having a relationship. It is juvenile to compare that to the three things mentioned above. Those things do hurt people. Same-sex relationships don't.


89 posted on 11/10/2004 10:25:22 AM PST by AshleyMatt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: AshleyMatt; Ma3lst0rm
Trust me, your stat is wrong. Lesbians make up about half of all homosexuals.

I'd sure like to see any evidence for your statement. All the studies I've seen, posted and archived report a lower rate for lesbians.

The latest and most accurate study cites 2.1% of the population is homosexual. It's slightly lower for homosexual women (1.4%) and slightly higher for homosexual men (2.8%). All percentages include bisexuals so for those exclusively homosexual it's even less.

Perhaps you read a stat wrong somewhere, for there are approximately half as many homosexual women as there are homosexual men.

90 posted on 11/10/2004 10:38:54 AM PST by scripter (Tens of thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: AshleyMatt
Bestiality, incest, and under-age sex involve animal cruely, child abuse and statutory rape. They have nothing in common with two consenting adults of the same sex having a relationship. It is juvenile to compare that to the three things mentioned above. Those things do hurt people. Same-sex relationships don't.

BS! Animals are property, if cruelty was really your crusade then you should also be lobbying against them being delicious food. I’m betting you’re either a PETA person or a hypocrite…which is it? BTW you’re welcome to prove that animals don’t enjoy having “sex” with humans, that might be interesting.

Child abuse only if they didn’t consent and guess what, plenty of 13 year olds have the mental capacity to consent…only arbitrary law prevents them. And what is the basis of arbitrary law??? MORAL JUDGEMENT!

Statutory rape doesn’t apply to consenting adult relatives so save your “moral outrage” for someone who cares. But given your logic, “Those things do hurt people. Same-sex relationships don't” then two adult brothers must be OK by YOU! Right?

91 posted on 11/10/2004 10:40:13 AM PST by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: AshleyMatt
Trust me, your stat is wrong. Lesbians make up about half of all homosexuals.

Prove it.

92 posted on 11/10/2004 10:41:18 AM PST by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Quester
So ... you think that public sanction is that powerful ?

Isn't that the whole point of resisting gay marriage...that public sanction is that powerful?
93 posted on 11/10/2004 10:58:00 AM PST by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
I am not an animal rights activist. I'm a conservative who disagrees with you. Get over it.

Two things on the bestiality comment: first, raping an animal is animal cruelty, which is illegal. Humane killing of animals for food is not illegal. Secondly, there is a strong correlation between people who have sex with or otherwise abuse animals and those that go on to commit acts of abuse or other violence against people. Research most of the famous serial killers (Henry Lee Lucas and Jeffery Dahmer to name a couple) and you will find that they had a history of torturing or raping animals.

13 year olds do not have the capacity to consent to sex with an adult. That's why statutory rape laws exist, to prevent to abuse of children and teens who are persuaded into sex by predatory adults. Are you telling me that child molestation is ok as long as there is no struggle or as long as the child or teenager likes the person that is raping them?

Incest is illegal because it usually concerns parents or older siblings sexually abusing children in their homes. Adult incest is illegal because of the public health concerns with two close relatives producing offspring who are many times more likely to have congenital defects because of homozygous genetic diseases. That's why in some states, you can marry your 2nd cousin, and in others the closest relative you can marry is your 4th cousin.

Again, two consenting adults having a sexual relationship violates no one's rights to life, liberty, or property, while the above situations involve victims or public health/order violations.

94 posted on 11/10/2004 11:00:01 AM PST by AshleyMatt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: MercCPC

When homosexual relationships have legal sanction, in whatever form, look for the schools to begin teaching the equivalency of homo and heterosexual behavior, including marriage or civil union, or whatever. The problems of legitimizing these relationships will not appear in the current generation, but two or three generations from now, you can expect to see a world in which young boys always begin their sexual experimentation with other boys (as they're simply more available and ready earlier than the girls), and the natural result of that will be more homosexual and bisexual behavior, far less fidelity in marriage, and a debased culture in which to raise children. We've already gone a long ways down that path-- the changes in the world since my childhood in the sixties and seventies are apalling. It will get worse.

If you don't believe that young boys will do this, a while back there was a case in Marble Falls, Texas, a small town north of Austin, where the teacher was delinquent and left the class each day for an hour or so. During that time period, four or five of the boys regularly performed oral sex on one another. How would you feel if one of those boys were your son?


95 posted on 11/10/2004 11:13:42 AM PST by walden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: walden
The problems of legitimizing [homosexual relationships] will not appear in the current generation, but two or three generations from now...

That's exactly how I see it. Our children are not a means to run a social experiment, especially when the results can be so devastating to future generations.

96 posted on 11/10/2004 11:29:44 AM PST by scripter (Tens of thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: AshleyMatt
I am not an animal rights activist.

Then that makes you a hypocrite. I’ve asked every animal I know and they say having “sex” with humans is much better than being food. Go figure.

Two things on the bestiality comment: first, raping an animal is animal cruelty, which is illegal. Humane killing of animals for food is not illegal.

Umm...wrong and wrong. Bestiality is legal in many states, check out the “legal” porn industry. Animals are personal property, if you want to regulate said property then maybe we should begin with your blow-up doll. Next, the very word humane implies compassion…if you think being knocked over the head with a sledge hammer is “humane” then you’re nuts.

Secondly, there is a strong correlation between people who have sex with or otherwise abuse animals and those that go on to commit acts of abuse or other violence against people. Research most of the famous serial killers (Henry Lee Lucas and Jeffery Dahmer to name a couple) and you will find that they had a history of torturing or raping animals.

You haven’t proved that bestiality is inhumane except by virtue of arbitrary law, and since it IS legal in many states then your logic doesn’t hold. I guess all those actors in the bestiality porn industry will suddenly turn to crime, you better go arrest them before they kill someone. There’s higher correlation between homosexuality and mass murder than bestiality, scripter I’m sure can put you on a cite for that. Nice try though.

13 year olds do not have the capacity to consent to sex with an adult. That's why statutory rape laws exist, to prevent to abuse of children and teens who are persuaded into sex by predatory adults. Are you telling me that child molestation is ok as long as there is no struggle or as long as the child or teenager likes the person that is raping them?

Capacity to Consent is measured by IQ, check out the death penalty statute in Texas, emancipation of adults with Downs syndrome and the process for “Power of Attorney” for the elderly. Many if not most 13 year olds have an adult IQ; the only thing not allowing them to consent is arbitrary law. So if the legislature made the age of consent 12, then by your logic, it would be OK? Or again, are you just another hypocrite with a pro-homosexual agenda?

Incest is illegal because it usually concerns parents or older siblings sexually abusing children in their homes. Adult incest is illegal because of the public health concerns with two close relatives producing offspring who are many times more likely to have congenital defects because of homozygous genetic diseases. That's why in some states, you can marry your 2nd cousin, and in others the closest relative you can marry is your 4th cousin.

I said consenting adults, keep up. If heath concern is your gig, then why couldn’t you answer my question about two consenting adult brothers, that’s OK right? Or is it just another of your hypocritical positions again?

Given your health concerns, should we regulate those with genetic defects from having sex, getting married? The CDC says they pass on their defects at a rate of 95% OF THE TIME, a much greater risk than incest. Those with Downs syndrome, Spina Bifita, cleft palate, should be barred from sex by your logic. What about personal responsibility? Condoms, the pill? What about abortion? You haven’t thought this out that far have you?

97 posted on 11/10/2004 11:47:32 AM PST by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

Comment #98 Removed by Moderator

Comment #99 Removed by Moderator

Comment #100 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-130 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