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?
How about the very uncomfortable precedent of government co-opting a religuious sacrament, then regulating that sacrament to become something that the religion staunchly opposes. Should government next be able to label as "kosher" any food product that is blessed by an imam and is processed in ways that are unacceptable to Jews? Next do we allow the government to declare that Islamic prayers need not be made facing east, and only 3 times per day? How about passing legislation mandating that every church feature bunny displays in place of the cross at Easter? Any harm there?
I was trying to figure out what Homosexual marriage has to do with the John Birch Society.
It was all those chemicals they put in the water! it turned American's GAY!!!!
Coyote:
Are your questions meant to be examples of what you predict will happen once same-sex marriage is legalized?
OK--let's assume you are correct. Now, please explain the likely consequence to society.
GAY BROTHERS: How many gay brothers do you suppose there are in our country? If they ALL decided to marry, what adverse consequence do you anticipate occurring?
ADOPTIONS: If a gay couple provides a loving, caring, nurturing home -- why is that a problem for you?
INSURANCE and RETIREMENT: Won't the gay enrollee pay the same premium or costs involved as a straight enrollee?
MILITARY: If your hypothetical two gay soldiers married, why would their marriage be more troublesome than a straight couple in the military who marry?
MONKEY: Any monkey you know asking to marry a human or vice versa?
A lot of our civil laws are taken from the laws of the Bible.
Why just couples?
Massachusetts has allowed same-sex couples to adopt for years, so has New Jersey. Marriage followed adoption rights. Also, isn't surrogacy legal for everyone?
What would be the benefit of homosexual marriage to ANY of the millions who voted in multiple states against it?
Why would conservative Christians want to allow the aggressive homosexual agenda to proceed with its plans for American society?
What, if anything, is GOOD about the aggressive homosexual agenda for changing American society?
Until you can answer those questions to the satisfaction of conservative Christians, you are not going to find a receptive audience.
Frankly, I won't hold my breath.
I don't care if you and your buddy want to shack up in your bedroom. I don't want to know about it.
Just don't get in my face about your right to do that.
When you demand that I recognize you and your buddy as man and "wife", you're getting in my face, and that I won't tolerate.
God fearing people should have shut you anal animals down a long time ago and run you back to the closet where you belong.
Any laws permitting gays to 'marry' intentionally or not condone the practice of homosexuality.
If we allow our society to degenerate to a point where the line of distinction between the sexes is irretrievably blurred then do you really think that society has much chance to survive?
So laws should be changed based on subjective feelings?
Once you have tossed out marriage being defined as the union of one man and one woman, on what basis do you stop at marriage being between any two people?
What's so special about the number two? Please discuss the rationale you have for limiting marriage to two persons. Why not three? Or five?
If a man and a woman can marry, or two men or two women, why not two men and a woman? Why not three women, or four men?
Exactly where does your bias toward limiting marriage to only two persons spring from?
Why didn't you put "Vanity" in the title?
Troll.
Mentally ill people do all kinds of abhorrent things.
I am not in favor of allowing mentally ill people to debase the foundation of civilized society in the name of anything.
Seek help, your condition is curable.
My opposition to gay marriage is based on adoption & foster care.
I think most of society agrees that children are best raised in a home with one man & one woman. True, other arrangements are possible & sometimes forced by necessity; they're just not optimal.
We (society) can choose the family environment for adoption & foster care. Let's choose the optimal environment.
Oh, I agree, but you haven't answered my main question.
But only two at a time? Why? On what basis?
Also, would you forbid two brothers marrying? A mother and a daughter over 18? Why or why not would you forbid a father and a daughter over 18 from marrying? On what basis would you forbid it?
Once the definition of marriage is destroyed, there is no basis for forbidding any of the above. They will have to be allowed, on the basis of "fairness."
So why don't you address polygamy?
I suspect we have been trolled.
OK--let's assume your premises are correct.
IF it could be demonstrated that same-sex marriages would result in more "stable relationships" -- would you still be opposed?
Straight couples have a very high divorce rate so apparently marriage has very little to do with "outlawing unstable relationships".
Suppose 99% of all same-sex partners have no interest in having or adopting children. Would you oppose same-sex marriage simply because 1% might express interest in raising children---even if they met all the same standards and requirements as a straight couple?
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.