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.

[beckysueb]

Didn't think so.

[beckysueb]

well either the gene doesn't exist or I'm germ free cause I come from a long line of straight people.

[TexasCajun]

If heterosexuals can marry & If homosexuals can marry, then damn-it, I'm bisexual and want to marry myself till death do us part!

[beckysueb]

I'm sorry to sound like a hard nose but I stick to my guns. I believe what the bible tells me and it says that all have sinned but we must repent and turn away from our sin. It doesn't say that we can continue in our sin and God will look the other way. If God had created people that way, then he wouldn't call it an abomination.

[taxed2death]

Hey, I'm not tryin' to "convince" you or anything, you have you'r beliefs....I wouldn't be so arrogant as to try to change them....you stick to your guns...by all means. :)


Pertaining to this thread, it's MY opinion, for the two cents it's worth...that:
1. People CAN be born homosexual....I'm not saying that it is NOT impossible for impressionable young ones...who come from a shattered home or have been abused, to be led down a "different path". This path, God has made clear, is an abomination.
2. I think the fight against gay marriage is largely futile....since marriage is so intertwined with current laws.
3. Peeps should mind their own darned business...both hetero and homo...

A shout out to any Bible scholars out there....particularly pertaining to the pre King James version.....it would be interesting to hear about same sex matters in that version, as I've read that the pre-King James version of the Bible actually was filled with tales of re-incarnation.

Maybe I'll post over to the other Religious thread...

[xm177e2]

Then she should take estrogen

It is not always possible to repair such effects after the exposure has taken place. With studies on rats, the female mice or rats (I can't remember) exposed to doses of testosterone in the womb displayed male characteristics (and even tried to mount other females instead of making themselves available for mounting). The exposure only took place in the womb, and their levels of testosterone/estrogen were normal from then on out, but the effects lasted in their brains.

Brains form in large part before animals/people are born, and it's not a simple matter to just undo this.

When gay men (like Andrew Sullivan) take testosterone, they just become manly gay men who have big muscles. If his taking of testosterone made him any more likely to prefer women to men, he hasn't hinted at it on his blog.

[DMZFrank]

When oh when will some elected executive officer in some state or federal capacity, in fulfilling his constitutional duty to honestly interpet the constitution (federal or state) just disregard the unconstitutional rulings of any court and dare the legislature to impeach him for it? When will some legislature impeach just ONE judge for an unconstitutional ruling?

To say that the courts have the final word on the constitutionality of a law NO MATTER WHAT THEY RULE is to say that the system of checks and balances envisioned by the founders does not exist any more.

Alan Keyes gave the best summation of this issue that I've heard yet. He said that every branch of government has a duty to honestly interpret the constitution. If the president honestly feels the courts make an unconstitutional and lawless ruling, then the president should disregard that ruling and refuse to enforce the provisions that he felt were blatantly unconstitutional. If the Congress felt the president was wrong in this decision, then it was their duty to impeach him for it. If the electorate felt that the Congress was wrong for impeaching the president or the failure to impeach him, they can remove them at the next election, as well as the president for any presidential actions that they considered wrongful.

Lest anyone consider this formula has a recipe for chaos, then I submit to you there is no chaos worse than an unchecked oligarchic Judiciary. We are not living under the rule of law when judges make law up to suit their whims has they engage in objective based adjudication.

[applemac_g4]

>What about sickle-cell anemia? Before modern
>medicine allowed people with SSA to live to age
>30-40, people with full-blown SSA usually died before
>puberty. However, the gene did not get weaned out of
>the gene pool.

The very well documented, valid, scientific reason for this is that invidiuals who are heterozygous for sickle cell have greater resistance to malaria than do people who are homozygous dominant. That's also why, by the way, sickle cell affects the demographic group that it does (malaria is not originally a new world malady).

It's nothing but wild politically driven speculation to say that an individual who was heterozygous for homosexuality would be any more fit in a darwinian sense than someone who was homozygous dominant for heterosexuality.

In addition you bring up an interesting problem for the gay lobby by mentioning modern medicine. It's a well known, widely accepted fact (for everyone but the gay activist community) that homosexual activity causes serious health issues. In primitive societies that did not have antibiotics and other modern medical treatments, not only would the homosexual's genes be subject to purging from the gene pool, but any community that the individual belonged to would face a severe risk of death because of the lack of treatments for the serious illnesses that their activities caused.

I have to admit there would be one advantage to having homosexuality have a genetic link, however...normal heterosexuals could identify and abort them just like you would any other birth defect.

[tuesday afternoon]

Bump.

[FormerLib]

A shout out to any Bible scholars out there....particularly pertaining to the pre King James version.....it would be interesting to hear about same sex matters in that version, as I've read that the pre-King James version of the Bible actually was filled with tales of re-incarnation.

Huh? Cite a single example of such a tale of re-incarnation?

Pre-King James versions of the Bible? That's nothing more than saying the Greek and Latin versions or the other non-English translations. They don't contain tales of reincarnation. I know this because my Church still uses the Greek versions! You've been sold a bogus bill of goods on this one!

But let's ping some Bible scholars to correct this nonsense!

[ColdSteelTalon]

There is on thing worse than all of those gay marriages...

All those honeymoons... :)

[BibChr]

What matters is that not only does the original Hebrew and Greek text NOT contain THE SLIGHTEST HINT of re-incarnation; but in fact it flatly rules out the possibility (Hebrews 9:27).

Dan
Biblical Christianity web site

[FormerLib]

Yeah, like any of them saved it for marriage! LOL!

[biblewonk]

I have a friend who read a book about the King James controversy. I didn't read it but it discussed that there was a very well used and loved translation before the KJV. At the time the KJV came out it was not very well trusted or liked.

But the very idea that their basic content is different is just plain silly. This person seems to suggest that we just reinvent the bible with every new translation. Sure some people are doing exactly that today and one might get the wrong idea.

[BibChr]

I think the Douay-Rheims was the main read pre-KJV. But you're right: the KJV was SLAMMED when it came out. It's really funny to read some of the SCATHING reviews, in light of the fact that some today have gone over the opposite deep end and proclaimed it (the translation) the very Word of God.

Dan

[biblewonk]

Yes I was surprised to hear of the different levels of KJ-only-ism. I like the NKJV myself and have been in the fellowship of a lot of fundies that prefer the KJV. Other than that the NASB is the only one people I fellowship with use. OK there is the stray NIV (Noticably Inferior Version) user but they are milk drinkers. LOL

[FormerLib]

person seems to suggest that we just reinvent the bible with every new translation. Sure some people are doing exactly that today and one might get the wrong idea.

Well, you do have a point there. The older translations were largely done by a group of people who were dedicated to the idea of spreading the Word of God. Today, people much prefer trying to pass off their words as if they were the Word of God.

[tuesday afternoon]

Why does he take testosterone?

[BibChr]

Some of the most insane, am-I-in-the-Twilight-Zone conversations I've had has been with KJV-only Christians. It's like talking to a Mormon, in that you just can't see how a rational brain can contain the idea.

Dan

[ridesthemiles]

Speaking of attorneys, bidniss is bidniss...hey, that extra one percent of marital spats coming their way will be quite welcome.

I will repeat my prediction:
This new definition of "spouse" will end up thus:
Small and middle sized and many large sized businesses will drop all health, dental, eyecare benefits for ALL their employees because they won't be able to afford the sky-high premiums associated with AIDS and connected diseases. Thus, 93+% of the working population will lose their hard earned benefits because of a very small % of employees who will bankrupt the health insurance industry.
Won't happen exactly overnight, but will happen. Smart businesses are looking at this right now. Unions will be in a bind in future contract negotiations over this issue. Current strike in So Cal over grocery workers having to may $5 to $15/weekly towards their health insurance which in the past has been TOTALLY FREE has been going on since Sept of Oct. Stores aren't budging, and unions are in trouble.
Will all this lead to National Health Insurance like Hillary wanted? Could. This is just the canary in the mine---Mark my words.