Skip to comments.Same-Sex Marriage - A Threat To Whom?
Posted on 12/23/2004 7:40:45 AM PST by Ernie.cal
I have read many messages which object to same-sex marriage but I am still waiting to learn what specific adverse consequences opponents of gay marriage anticipate to result from its legalization.
In other words, suppose same-sex marriage becomes law during 2005. By 2010 or 2015 what specific indisputable adverse consequences to society do opponents predict to occur?
With respect to those critics of same-sex marriage who refer to "God's law" and "procreation" --- do they believe that heterosexual couples who cannot have children, or who do not wish to have children, should also NOT be allowed to marry?
The essence of a free society is choice---including the option of choosing private behavior that does not cause harm to another person. The alternative is coercion, i.e. using the coercive (and punitive) power of government through laws, bureaucrats, and police to dictate what choices are permissible.
Do opponents of same-sex marriage propose that our society should begin identifying areas where choices involving human intimacy should be regulated by government entities and thus dilute our commitment to the values inherent in a free society?
and I am the Queen of England
Like divorce, same-sex "marriage" will legitimize untraditional families to the detriment of children raised in those families.
Elton John is that you??
So, in your judgment, divorce should also not be permitted because it causes harm to children?
"and I am the Queen of England"
Elton is that you?
With gay marriage legal, society, and especially schools, will be continually offering the "gay lifestyle" as a valid choice. Our kids don't need that crap pushed down their throats, especially at such a young and impressionable age.
That will teach me to go though all the replies before I post
Just look at the marriage rate in the scandanvian countries that have legalized gay marriage. they have plummetted. at stake is the two-parent traditional family structure. widely recognized as the most beneficial for children.
It's just a definition of terms and the legal recognition associated with those terms. It's simply "not" marriage. Other legal "union" terms do apply.
As to the impact...it is clear to anyone with common sense. Our society as a whole is based upon strong nuclear families capable of raising strong, moral children capable of going forward and doing the same. And yes, according to the people who founded this nation, morality and religion was a predominant factor, to whit:
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."- John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798As we get further and further away from these foundational principlest, we impact society negatively. IMHO, no fault divorce is another destructive device as regards families and their ability to provied that essential underpinning and foundation of society.
Just my opinion.
Its not a matter of how it affects or hurts me. I do not want my children growing up in a society that says homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle. Its immoral and against the teachings of the bible. Whats next? How does 3 people getting married to each other affect me or you? It doesn't. But that does not make it right.
I actually agree with this. If gays want to get married, good for them, I don't care.
Great minds think alike.
It wasnt that long ago that companies would provide things like health coverage for their employees and it also covered their spouse and children.
That is increasingly uncommon today, in part due to being forced to provide benefits to domestic partners and others if you provide them for a married employee.
Now it is typical for a lot of companies to cover the employee only. If you want to cover a spouse or a child you will pay extra out of pocket to cover them.
If you appreciate things like that, find the nearest proponent of domestic-partnership and thank them.
I think it is a threat to society at large, because it is disgusting. We're talking about some very perverted, cynical behavior, and they want us to collectively condone it. I think that if we collectively condone it, there will be more of the disgusting behavior, because having society's approbation somehow gives others, who might otherwise be reticent, courage to get into the behavior. And therein lies the problem for me: there is an attempt here to degrade society, to rot it from within, and I am not willing to have it happen.
It is also very deadly behavior. Early death sucks.
Again, suppose you are correct in your assumption. Suppose children perceive the "gay lifestyle" to be a "valid choice". What specific demonstrable harm to society do you predict will occur?
What evidence do you have from countries like Denmark to support your thesis about the danger of affirming the "gay lifestyle"?
If your child is raised to believe in YOUR values, then what difference does the existence of "alternative lifestyle" make---since your kids will reject it anyway--if they honor your judgments and values.
Call me a knee jerk reactionary, but since this idea comes from the liberal left, I have to think it is a bad idea. After all, the liberal left gave us the welfare state, separation of church and state, sex education, abortion, NARAL and the ACLU.
In other words, an overt appearance is not required for there to be a demonstrable effect.
A deepening rut in our societal norms is not something to be thought of as negligible.
Its all about money , not love. You can love your dog ,Fido, if you want for all I care. Just dont expect me to offer Fido your pension or your life insurance or your health insurance.
Libertarians also want to legalize drugs, prostitution and unrestricted gambling.
They also are against metal detectors at airports, the Nativity scene on public property, etc.
What makes you think they are right on this issue?
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.