Posted on 02/17/2004 5:48:59 AM PST by 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.
That's because women are big on commitment, so lesbian long-term relationships tend to be very stable (and probably involve a lot of talking about feelings).
IIRC, the first couple to be "married" in San Fran were a pair of women in their 70's-80's. Good PR move- people are less likely to be threatened by a couple of old ladies.
Maybe. At the very least, a homosexual member of the group would not be a drain on resources like, say, an infant child. The bigger point I was trying to make is that, assuming homosexuality is recessive, other non-gay members of the hunter-gatherer group would carry the recessive gene and would pass them on.
The nuclear family, consisting of mom, dad and the kids, is a recent development. For most of human history, the family consisted of a multi-generational group, including "bachelor" aunts and uncles who, for whatever reason, never had offspring.
I have no idea what primitive people thought of homosexuality.
Hey, just because they're lesbians doesn't mean they don't like to shop or talk incessantly.
Could be, but that doesn't explain what causes homosexuality. There are plenty of weird straight people, too.
There are clearly some people who are drawn to the breaking of certain taboos just for the thrill of it. When they cry that often heard lament, "Who would choose to be homosexual knowing that society will reject them?", the correct answer is "Perverts would."
Everyone who lives is a sinner. It's just that some of us don't revel in our sins but repent them instead.
I guess you missed it, but he was describing the historical practice within Moslem nations. Odd that you were try to turn it around as an attack on Christians.
How long have you been a christophobe?
Then I will once again point out that he was describing the current state of affairs in Moslem counties. Odd how you again tried to turn it back on him as if he were the one reading a "different" Bible.
You do know that the Moslem using a different book, yes?
Does whatever Bible you read tell you to encourage people to continue in their sin, knowing where it will lead? That is neither compassion nor empathy!
As to Christians and their Bible discussing sexual morality, check Acts 15.
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.