Posted on 11/09/2004 7:17:10 PM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
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.
Thanks Coleus.
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?
WOW. GROSS.
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.