Posted on 07/14/2004 10:34:59 AM PDT by Willie Green
Advocates of "gay marriage" or homosexual civil unions argue that promiscuity will be reduced. Such an argument overlooks two key points.
First, a embracing homosexual unions is more likely to undermine the institution of marriage and produce other negative effects than it is to make fidelity and longevity the norm for homosexual unions. Second, homosexual unions are not wrong primarily because of their disproportionately high rate of promiscuity and breakups. They are wrong because "gay marriage" is a contradiction in terms. As with consensual adult incest and polyamory, considerations of commitment and fidelity factor only after certain structural prerequisites are met.
The vision of marriage found in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures is one of reuniting male and female into an integrated sexual whole. Marriage is not just about more intimacy and sharing one's life with another. It is about sexual merger -- or, in Scripture's understanding, "remerger" -- of essential maleness and femaleness.
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
Gay marriage is wrong. What about civil unions? Gay 'marriage' in a strictly legal sense is fine with me.
Which is already happening in the teen and early twenties crowd. It's sad.
Same thing my wife and I concluded. They want Civil Unions, okay by me.
Course I phrase it a bit differently.....(grin)
If gays want to experience the joy and wonder of Divorce, who am I to deny them that exquisite pleasure?
Just a thought.....
Marriage is to be between one man and one woman....end of story....anything else puts us in the hands of an angry God....
The author loses the argument when he cites Genesis, seeing that the Bible is now considered "hate" speech.
Religion has been so skillfully driven from our society, Truth doesn't stand a chance....
simple no matter how much they try, two homosexual men, or two homosexual women , will not get pregnent from their recreational sex.
Society rewards the insititution not the individuals.
Homosexuals seek to have the institution reward the individuals orgasm.
civil unions was a vermont backdoor solution to getting out of the courts imposing homosexual marriage. This is why the mass court was very specific is saying civil unions would not do.
Civil unions have been rejected in the courts of at least four states. (FL, GA, TX, CT)
Additionally Civil Unions do not rise to federal recognition and do not gain social security or immigration benefits.
Civil union laws are pointless. 100% of what they do can be achieved by a cohabitation contract. These have been around for decades, they are open to all, and enforcable by the courts.
It allows a leagal agreement/contract between recreational sex partners regarless of sexual mental illness.
Comparing gay civil unions with bestiality is an argument beneath anyone on these boards, unless you first advocate giving Irish Wolfhounds full legal majority status. Come on now.
I have no problem with two human beings joining in a union. Makes no difference to me if they're a man and woman, two men or two women. All would help stabalize society, if the two people enter into it with the intent to make a real committment.
I do not advocate forcing churches to bless the unions, but that's not required right now for a marriage to be valid.
Marriage is about children- not about sex. If it was only about sex then I would have many, many wives....
Besides- what does anal sex have to do with marriage?
Thats why I am in favor of some kind of "civil union" that merely consists of all the above contracts, granted at once. Let them have their weddings, parties, whatever, but I am against them having legal marriages.
I think that wave is already here. A Swedish pastor got jail time for speaking out against homosexuality at his pulpit (posted here).
Since lesbians don't have anal sex then I'm assuming you're comfortable with their marriages. Just not male homosexuals, right?
Supposedly, the 'mos want the same rights as married people have...without the responsibilities, ie, of raising children. Those benefits include tax benefits, health benefits[which will rise because of their risky sexual behavior and must be borne by everyone] and the like. the reasons for those benefits is to promote stable families.
Single people should agitate for the same benefits. Afterall, what is the rational constitutional basis for excluding them from lower tax rates?
So the supposed "benefits" of marriage will be destroyed by approving 'mo marriages.
Okay, what does marriage have to do with oral sex?
Ten years ago a discussion concerning men "marrying" men would have been beneath anyone on this board.
You make my point.
Are you kidding? If two people love each other and want to show that love and commitment, why should they not be able to? How does that hurt anyone else? Gay people do not want to ruin marriage, they want to share in it. Marriage is about LOVE, not SEX.
Adder, thank you for another logical reason why homosexual "marriages" or civil unions should not be legal.
I'm so sorry to hear that you think that. Things will pick up for you. I'm sure.
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.