How legalizing gay marriage undermines society's morals

The Christian Science Monitor ^ | December 09, 2003 | Alan Charles Raul

[jwalsh07]

Why is that?

Add that one to your list and when you find the intestinal fortitude to answer the original question I posed, I'll answer that one too.

You're all bluster tonight Luis, lets see if there is any substance.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Nope."

Of course you won't.

[jwalsh07]

And you also apparently believe that US citizens can have their Constitutional rights violated by the States.

Sure, up is down, left is right.

[jwalsh07]

Of course you won't.

Finally, you got one right.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Who are you to limit marriage to two people?"

There's your original question to me...check it out yourself.

I answered it in post #47.

Now, your turn.

Answer my questions.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I can cite you many statistics where children do best in 2 parent heterosexual married biological parents than any other 'family' configuration."

I can equally cite statistics that show that children do better with any parent than with no parents at all.

[Torie]

Hey John, do you think siblings getting married would represent a huge drain on the treasury? You seem to be giving more and more emphasis to this, to the point that one gets the impression that you are in a state of angst that this portends some fiscal specter that will complete the entitlement trinity of medicare and social security. I think that is just about the most most tendentious, probably empirically wrong, and marginal aspect of your case that you can possibly make. The financial benefits of hooking up are relative minor vis a vis the attendant financial risks. That's my financial opinion. Cheers.

And with my chalk in hand, I am happy to draw a line for you: polygamy and incestual legal unions are out, and unions of two non incestuous consenting adults are in, be they platonic or not. By the way, you seem to have ignored the "problem" of platonic adults of the opposite sex getting married for the financial benefits, which in the brave new order I suspect will continue to be the primary "drain" to the government purse. What do you think?

[scripter]

Bump and ping.

LiteKeeper - I see you're already on this thread so this is just a reminder. :-)

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1), (Version 1.0)

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Take a position, any position."

Civil unions, the rite performed by a government licensed magistrate, cannot be limited by moral values predicated by the religious beliefs of any segment of the population, the Constitution forbids the government from engaging in such restrictions.

Holy Matrimony, the rite performed by members of the clergy, is not subject to governmental regulations, and as such, Churches cannot be mandated to perform gay marriages.

Clear enough for you?

[breakem]

a reminder that we should deny these folks marraige because there are some extremists. Don't you propagandists ever get a new schtick?

[WackyKat]

The great majority of those who are strongly opposed to gay marriage are motivated by their religious beliefs.

All the "reasons" and "statistics" they cite are really just a cover to hide the true basis for their opposition

[NutCrackerBoy]

I am happy to draw a line for you: polygamy and incestual legal unions are out, and unions of two non incestuous consenting adults are in, be they platonic or not.

By in and out, we are talking about what the legal definition of marriage should be? (Not what informal unions will be tolerated by law).

What's wrong with leaving it defined as one man and one woman? This is the traditional and sensible definition, based on the fact that their sexual union may result in children that need protection. To cause the legal definition to diverge from a very well established tradition and the states' own centuries-long definition should require an enormously sound reason. What is it?

[breakem]

If we proceed under the assumption that government has a role (which I'm not sure I agree with), then I posit that you don't have to support the inclusion of polygamy. It would be the responsibility of those who would exclude it to say why government would have such power.

I await those arguments, but the people who address it just keep asking questions.

[NutCrackerBoy]

The great majority of those who are strongly opposed to gay marriage are motivated by their religious beliefs.

All the "reasons" and "statistics" they cite are really just a cover to hide the true basis for their opposition.

I've got a statistic. Number of homosexual unions which has produced a child: zero.

[tpaine]

The author is a raving, anti-constitutional nutcase:

_______________________________________


"In a republican form of government, which the Constitution guarantees for the United States, elected officials are meant to set social policy for the country.

They do so by embodying their view of America's moral choices in law.


In reality, legislatures discharge their moral mandates all the time, and not just in controversial areas such as abortion, gay rights, pornography, and the like.

Animal rights, protection of endangered species, many zoning laws, and a great deal of environmental protection - especially wilderness conservation - are based on moral imperatives (as well as related aesthetic preferences).


Indeed, some of these choices can and do infringe individual liberty considerably:

For example, protecting spotted owl habitat over jobs puts a lot of loggers out of work and their families in extremis.

Likewise, zoning restrictions can deprive individuals of their ability to use their property and live their lives as they might otherwise prefer.

Frequently, the socially constrained individuals will sue the state, claiming that such legal restrictions "take" property or deprive them of "liberty" in violation of the Fifth Amendment, or constitute arbitrary and capricious governmental action.

[But] --- no one contends that the government does not have the legitimate power to promote the general welfare as popularly defined."

---

The man is a socialist dupe, and it is incredible that a number of self described conservatives are on this thread defending his agenda.

[jwalsh07]

Hey John, do you think siblings getting married would represent a huge drain on the treasury? You seem to be giving more and more emphasis to this, to the point that one gets the impression that you are in a state of angst that this portends some fiscal specter that will complete the entitlement trinity of medicare and social security. I think that is just about the most most tendentious, probably empirically wrong, and marginal aspect of your case that you can possibly make. The financial benefits of hooking up are relative minor vis a vis the attendant financial risks. That's my financial opinion. Cheers.

I think the economic effects here are less than marriages of convenience which you cover below and which, believe me, I do not neglect. However, I can find no rational basis for denying them based on Lawrence and Goodridge. The economic effects to government from marriages of convenience can and, I believe, will be quite substantial if the trend toward redefining marriage gathers steam and it will gather steam if it is extended to homosexuals because who is to say what one does in the bedroom.

And with my chalk in hand, I am happy to draw a line for you: polygamy and incestual legal unions are out, and unions of two non incestuous consenting adults are in, be they platonic or not.

And thats why I like you, you take positions. Of course, you have drawn a line based on your moral precepts. I use that as a device to turn the tide when my opponents bring out the "who are you to draw a line based on your moral code" argument. But you already knew that. Of course I don't agree with your lines nor do I agree with redefining words but if those redefinitions are made by a republican form of government rather than judicial fiat, it becomes much more palatable. Of course, I would vote with my feet if my state redefines marriage but they won't be sorry to see me go. :-}

By the way, you seem to have ignored the "problem" of platonic adults of the opposite sex getting married for the financial benefits, which in the brave new order I suspect will continue to be the primary "drain" to the government purse.

Like I said, I haven't ignored it at all. In fact it is my firm belief that you would see many women entering into marriages of convenience and bringing their children with them. Not many men however.

What do you think?

I think we diverge on the question of redefining marriage but I think we agree that courts should not be doing it by fiat and that when courts decide cultural issues one side is always quite bitter. And I think we are good enough friends so that if the twain shal never meet on this or that issue, it's no biggie.

[Torie]

Limiting marriage to the concept of procreation went out a long, long time ago. Few argue that one anymore. As to gay marriage, the plus of encouraging fealty and stability outweighs by a large margin the rather paranoid concern that attending it will be the flushing down the toilet traditional marriage units. That is a tendentious and unproven assertion that frankly doesn't make much sense. Granted, it has a bit more interest than the green eye shade fiscal strawman argument. In any event, we will know in due time, since gay marriage is being legalized now, here, there and everywhere.

By the way, you do know that Israel lets out of the closet gays into its military didn't you? I just thought I would share that little faclet with you. Notice, I didn't mention Europe, since someone would then assert that that was what "caused" their militaries to become so enervated. Why bother going there, when one can just adduce hyper macho Israel instead.

[WackyKat]

I've got a statistic. Number of homosexual unions which has produced a child: zero.

Sorry, but you're way behind the times. Many gay and lesbians couples have children today through a variety of methods-in vitro, sperm donor, surrogate mother, adoption, already had the kid before went gay, etc.

And there are a lot of reasons for marriage other than procreation

[Luis Gonzalez]

In America today, we have a 50%+ divorce rate, higher for second marriages.

We abort one million fetuses a year, and are having more children out of wedlock than ever in the history of the nation, an embarrasing number of those from teenagers.

We swing, we swap, and cheat online until we get around to cheating at the local drive-in by the millions daily.

And we try to raise the argument that more people wanting to get married will destroy the sacred, time-honored tradition of marriage, because they are homosexuals.

I am surprised marriage has survived us heteros this long.

[jwalsh07]

Clear enough for you?

No. Tories position is clear, yours is clear as mud.

But I would caution you on making sweeping declarations about the absence of morality in law since all law is based in morality. Every law Luis, not some, every one.