Gay wedlock would lead to worse

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 2/17/04 | GEORGE M. WEAVER

[JesseHousman]

Legalization of same-sex marriage would be a seismic event across this culture. Nothing would ever be the same. Every young child asks his parents, "Can boys [or girls] get married to each other"? If the answer changes from "no" to "yes," homosexuality would have then achieved equal status with heterosexual conduct and marriage. This equivalence would be taught in schools, observed in the workplace and eventually imposed even on churches.

If the answer becomes "yes" there will doubtless be a dramatic increase in the incidence of homosexuality. Sexual arousal is a mystical thing, subject to conditioning. How else can one explain bisexuality, transsexuality, or those who migrate from one orientation to another? We should not underestimate the power of continued Hollywood marketing of homosexuality, the human drive for pleasure and official government approval to mold behavior in this area.

And same-sex marriage would not work. It might seem like a benign idea that would lead to more stability in homosexual relationships -- among people who, after all, are "born that way." But there is no evidence that homosexuality is genetically determined. Such relationships are inherently dysfunctional because we are not made that way. We all know that sometimes heterosexual marriage does not work either, but at least it can work and certainly provides the ideal matrix for raising children.

Moreover, it is doubtful that most homosexuals really want marriage. The mind-set appears to be abandonment of restraint, not fidelity or acceptance of a different restraint such as lifelong homosexual marriage.

By the time it is proved that same-sex marriages don't work, irreparable damage will have been done to traditional marriage, which has already been weakened by divorce and extramarital cohabitation. Damage will be compounded by the ramifications of same-sex marriage. As Georgia law presently stands, pedophilic homosexual marriages would immediately be legal if same-sex marriage were instituted today. A 50-year-old man or woman could marry a 16-year-old (and in some cases younger) boy or girl. And the very same sham constitutional privacy arguments used by the U.S. Supreme Court and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will be, and in some cases already have been, made for legalization of incestuous and polygamous or group marriages (including same-sex, opposite sex and bisexual varieties).

How about two men and three women? By the time all of this comes to fruition, the whole concept of marriage will be meaningless for all of us and it will be impossible to repair the damage.

Moreover, our democracy will be shattered if judges, our black-robed masters, are allowed to continue using the pretense of constitutional construction to impose their personal social agendas, without regard to the wishes of the majority.

The only solution, apart from a revolt against the judicial oligarchs, is a constitutional amendment. We must act soon.

George M. Weaver is an Atlanta attorney.

[taxed2death]

Well, yes, this is my point exactly....I do not "condone" gay action....I basically have no opinion of it. It does not concern me. For me, skydiving is not an activity I would ever partake in...I simply have no desire to do it...... And while skydiving is not mentioned in the Bible, for me...it's about the same on my "attention meter"....so to speak.

[taxed2death]

True, but a legal facet is just that. Now we've brought the whole "legality" into it....we've brought the State into it (Hetero-marriage)....so now it is LAW. And the Law says we have to treat peeps equally. That's my point. The "battle", of which I couldn't care less who wins, is essentially over, before it has begun.

[Mike Bates]

Some straight talk on gay marriages

[FormerLib]

If the only point we can put forth is that the Bible says homosexuality is bad, that means we've already lost the argument.

It isn't the only point, nor is it usually the first point raised...

...but let's just say it makes for one hell of an underline.

[spacewarp]

My biggest problem with it is that clearly from both a religious and evolutionary standard, it is wrong, and it used to be treated as an illness. Now, the left is trying to redefine the argument so far as to say anyone who is against them is the one with the illness. Disgust with the lifestyle, dislike of open PDA's and moralistic views that it is against God's law are now classified as not only "homophobia" as if I were clinically afraid of them, but also, in one of the latest ones, "heterosexist".

If it's something they are born with, then it's a defect. If it's a behavior, then it's something wrong. I know for a fact that there are decent, hard working, clean living, homosexuals who are unsatisfied with their lives as such, and would like to be "normal", but just haven't sought counselling to help them change. I also know there are sexual predator homosexuals who try to recruit. I've had one who approached me once. I explained to him that I was straight and not going to change. He pulled out a pair of handcuffs and told me that if I'd just sit still, he would prove to me that I would. I left the party as quick as I could after that.

So, why is it the left has been able to get away with redefining the argument. No longer is something where a person dislikes something or finds it abhorrent are they allowed to express that without being accused of being phobic of it. The phrase homophobe and the phrase Islamaphobe are attempts to redefine and rationalize the argument so we're now arguing on their playing field.

It's time for some politician, or in the abscence of a pricipled politician, a patriot or statesman to stand up and say "ENOUGH". Who will take the banner. I am no statesman, though I try. I will run with it, but I don't want to be the only one running headlong into their lines with sword drawn and guns blazing.

Paul

[hunter112]

Of course, many homosexuals have had children, so it's not even true that a person with a gay gene will not have offspring.

The gene could have been passed along the maternal line. Many genetic conditions do that, like hemophilia. In prehistoric times, a female would have had extremely little choice about reproducing, in the majority of historic times, perhaps not much more.

As to the original article at the head of this thread, the writer seems to think that exposure to gay people will lead to more kids becoming gay. I don't know about you, MM, but I don't think there's any amount of gay people, or even any amount of viewing their most initmate behaviors that would have caused me to find women unappealing!

[Modernman]

As to the original article at the head of this thread, the writer seems to think that exposure to gay people will lead to more kids becoming gay.

Oh, my God, they gave my son gay! LOL.

I don't know about you, MM, but I don't think there's any amount of gay people, or even any amount of viewing their most initmate behaviors that would have caused me to find women unappealing!

That's my position, too. I've never been particularly bothered by homosexuality any more than I'm bothered by people who go skydiving: neither activity is something I have any interest in, but I don't really care if other people engage in them.

Similarly, the argument that gay marriage will somehow devalue regular marriage doesn't work for me. First, heterosexuals have done a pretty good job of mucking up marriage. Second, whether or not the two guys next door are married doesn't change my views on marriage. I don't really see how MORE marriage (whether gay or straight) lowers the value of the institution. Just because there are Democrats doesn't devalue the Republican party.

[beckysueb]

But thats alot the problem. We just shut our eyes while society goes down the drain. If it was gay people going on about their business and not bothering anybody, then its between them and God but surely you have noticed how radical they have become and how they are trying to indoctrinate our children?

[beckysueb]

So what your saying is a homosexual would have to revert back to normal sex just to pass on their gene. Sort of tells it all there don't it.

[taxed2death]

Well, I just disagree with you on one point...as long as you need a marriage license....it is "inside" the law, strictly speaking....and on that point, the case for, or against gay marriage will be fought.

[PISANO]

Gay marriage was as UNTHINKABLE in the late 40's and early 50's as pedophilia and beastiality is today. The PAST being PROLOGUE depicts a incomprehensibly horrific future.

[taxed2death]

Believe it or not, I CAN see your point of view...I just have learned to pick my fights wisely. MM on post 149 mirrors my views. I say "live and let live"...Perhaps not haing kids, I'm less exposed to this "indoctrination"..You know? I don't watch any of the gay TV shows....not because I dislike gays....it's that I just cannot relate. I don't watch the "O" channel, or Oxygen channel, because of all the male bashing...I call it the "Rape" channel. I just have no interest in it. I cannot get excited about football....hmmm, to me, watching some porkers run around a feild with a dead inflated wobbly pigskin thing is just not a compelling enough reason to deserve my attention...


Now....Motorcycle road racing.....you stand between me and a TV and you risk serious bodily injury or death. Different strokes for different folks....

[beckysueb]

For one thing marriage makes it normal in peoples eyes especially kids. Kids do what they see others doing if it has been made to appear normal to them. I can tell I'm not going to convince you and you sure aren't going to convince me. For one thing I want to ask you something. I suppose you believe in evolution. Why did male and female evolve into the perfect match for sexual function? If 2 women or 2 men were meant to copulate, why are their sex organs totally wrong for each other. Thats like having 2 left shoes.

[xm177e2]

If homosexuality is really a genetic thing, then wouldn't they eventually become extinct?

That's not the argument. The argument is that it's biologically based, not genetically based. There is a tremendous difference between the two. If an unborn female child, for example, is exposed to testosterone in the womb, she might develop male characteristics (both psychological as well as physical). That is not necessarily determined by genetics, but would nonetheless be biological in nature and outside of her control.

[taxed2death]

I don't want to throw a monkey wrench in your argument....but how do you explain sea horses.....or ordinary earthworms....
Sea horses = males have offspring
Earthworms = hmmmmm what's the word I'm lookin' for, organisms that have both sexual "parts"...to put it politely...

Maybe not relevent, but perhaps food for thought...

[beckysueb]

Not having kids could be the reason for your not caring. I'm like you. I don't watch tv period.

[beckysueb]

Then she should take estrogen.