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?
Well maybe not a complete ban, but divorce should be much harder and a lot less rare than it is now.
So too have the fertility rates except of course among Muslim immigrants. They're having so many kids that Sweeden will have a Muslim majority by 2100. I rather doubt that when the Sharia replaces their current constitution, "gay marriages" will be allowed to continue to exist. However, the lists of "gay marriages" sure will allow the religious police to track down homosexuals.
You are a sicko, maybe time for a ZOT!!
No not at all.
The essence of a free society is responsible action.
Without that, a "free society" quickly devolves into chaos, short brutal lives and painful deaths or a tyranny of the few built on the slavery of most.
How is "same sex marriage" a responsible action?
What is an excuse and what is a thoughtful explanation?
There is no reason for gay marriage. Marriages was instituted in law to foster stable relationship, outlaw unstable relationships and to foster a better environment to raise children.
And for what purpose? Why do we need gay marriage? If I want everyone to call me an elephant, can I make a law? Two guys having anal sex is not a marriage.
Ernie is taking a more libertarian stand but he will find himself trapped in his own web when he has to deal with facts rather than theory.
WHAT IS IT WITH YOU PEOPLE AND YOUR OBSESSION WITH SEX AND LIBIDO. THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT..
DUH
How about the huge economic hit that the nation and employers will face? The sudden addition of almost a million (or several million, if you take the gay lobby's numbers at face value) insureds and beneficiaries will cause prices to go up across the board.
You're a lucky man to be in the Land of Pleasant Living.
Same-sex marriage is nothing more than an attempt to legitimize deviant behavior.
I'm sorry that you are so ignorant. Same sex "marriage" takes a stand FOR the spread of AIDS. It takes a stand for the death of men, by about age 43, if said men decide to behave in homosexual manners (smoking only kills you a few years early - male homosexuality kills you tens of years early). Are you willing to have our children take on behaviors that take tens of years off of their lives. If so you are completely heartless in your pursuit of homosexual advocacy.
It's no longer worth arguing at this point. You are a homosexual activist and will try until your death to convince people that homosexual behavior is just fine and dandy.
The netherlands et.al. tried it now marriage has no meaning there. Problem is, marriage between one man and one women is the foundation of society. Very simple.
I totally agree, but there's no use saying that to someone who promotes it. But I do hate when people try to justify their causes by touting the "free society" concept. I guess they think we're all free to do as we please. Besides any group of people who thinks NAMBLA is okay has a serious moral problem.
That's not at all how it works. Lots of companies--in fact, most--choose to cover married couples but not domestic partners. Domestic partner benefits are a recent innovation and on the east coast anyway they're usually limited to people of the same sex. If a company refused to cover spouses, they'd set themselves up at a competitive disadvantage, but if they did make that choice, it seems extremely convoluted to blame it on a previous expansion that would only cover a small minority of employees.
My company has tons of married individuals but very few people who I think might be claiming same-sex domestic partner benefits.
Also, it makes me uncomfortable to see this discussion resolve to "who can we lock out of the health care system."
We will pray for them and you.
It's immoral. It's offensive to anyone with a sense of decency.
I've heard about unisex, but I've never had it. *
(* Gratuitous Monty Python reference)
I don't usually post to these threads but this statement caught my eye.
Do you really believe that pre-Christian (or pre-Abrahamic) societies had no such thing as marriage?
I myself was married in a civil ceremony. Does this not count in your eyes?
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.