The Unintended Consequences of 'Same Sex Marriage'

Catholic Online ^ | 5/2/08 | Deacon Keith Fournier

[tcg]

America's position on homosexual activity has radically changed over the past few decades.

Fifty years ago, every state criminalized homosexual acts under "sodomy laws." As recently as 1986, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of such laws.

In 2003 there were still 13 states that criminalized homosexual acts (though the laws were rarely enforced). That year, however, the Supreme Court ruled these laws unconstitutional. Today, laws are used to protect rather than prohibit homosexual activities.

The supreme courts in California and Connecticut are about to decide whether same-sex couples have a right to marry in those states. Massachusetts already granted homosexuals that right.

Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey, and New Hampshire all have civil unions, which are similar to marriage, but activists in those states are already pointing to deficiencies and pushing for full recognition of gay marriage.

Regardless of what it is called, legal sanctioning of homosexual relationships creates a host of unintended consequences and constitutes a serious threat to religious liberty.

[tcg]

Regardless of what it is called, legal sanctioning of homosexual relationships creates a host of unintended consequences and constitutes a serious threat to religious liberty.Courts and legislatures need to consider these consequences before committing the nation to a policy with so many potential pitfalls.

[AliVeritas]

ping

[Chode]

filthy disease ridden queers ride again...

[pnh102]

... legal sanctioning of homosexual relationships creates a host of unintended consequences and constitutes a serious threat to religious liberty.

These consequences were never "unintended." The anti-USA left has been "hell-bent" on destroying religion in this country, because it wants government to be recognized as the supreme authority, not God.

[FiddlePig]

Since the male/female aspect is now irrelevant, isn’t it unfair that these “unions” be limited to only TWO people? (are we being “twoist” ... is it time to stamp out the prejudice of “duoism”?!).

If we are going to rid ourselves of the old, outdated and traditional “chains” of male/female marriage, we are going to have to throw it ALL out and start over! But start where? All bets are off as any attempt to limit the definition is arbitrary and begs a challenge. Think what this will do for the polygamists, those folks in Texas will rightfully demand to be left alone!

In the headlong rush to destroy our Judeo-Christian roots advocates of “Gay” marriage and the like are opening a MAJOR can of worms (NO pun intended). They say “we just want to do what’s fair”, but notice when you try to please everybody, you usually just screw it up (as in FUBAR)!

[MrB]

Courts and legislatures DO consider the consequences to society, values, and traditions when ruling on these matters.

That’s why they always decide in favor of the destruction of society, values, and traditions - because that’s their goal.

[MrB]

You should see the libs twist themselves in knots trying to defend the “two people” definition.

The argument goes like this - if “one man, one woman” is some sort of “arbitrary definition” in need of changing, then how is “two people” or “two adults” any less arbitrary?

You can define ANY group of ANY beings, or even non-animate things as a “marriage” once you say that the original definition is “arbitrary”.

[MortMan]

I don’t believe these consequences are unintended.

[The Great RJ]

The same arguments given for allowing homosexual marriages can be equally applied to the polygamy practiced by cult group in Texas. Besides for them polygamy is part of their religion.

[massgopguy]

Same Sex Marriage was the vehicle by which Homosexual activists gained access to OTHER peeope’s children.

[Moleman]

Fifty years ago, every state criminalized homosexual acts under "sodomy laws."
The state has no authority to criminalize peoples sexual behaviors.

[Lou L]

That’s why they always decide in favor of the destruction of society, values, and traditions - because that’s their goal.

What this article boils down to is, "the power to tax (or not tax), is the power to destroy. When government becomes so entrenched in every aspect of our lives, there's nothing that can't be destroyed.

[wagglebee]

Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.

Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.

Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.

[purpleraine]

I was wondering how homosexual relationshsips are threatening your liberty and your religion?

[purpleraine]

a little context. 50 years ago most states forbade married couples and everyone else from performing the same sex acts.

Are you proposing state should be able to outlaw private sexual activity between those adult taxpayers?

[gitmo]

If homosexual marriages or civil unions are the equivalent of traditional marriages, you can't discriminate. If you do, at the very least you put your government benefits at risk.

I'm beginning to think churches should abandon their tax free statuses (statii?). They are being pressured daily to abandon their doctrines and to betray the teachings of the Bible.