'Gay marriage' is wrong

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ^ | Wednesday, July 14, 2004 | Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.

[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.

[jimt]

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.

If that's so, why should it be restricted to two ? And why only human beings ?

[Porterville]

So for you, marriage should be defined on derivations of sex? Marriage has always been based upon the procreation of the race first and the raising of the family second; I do not believe I have ever heard that marriage is based primarily on the sexual contact, however amorphic or self gratifying.... No matter what homosexuals try, the truth will ever be elusive and will reign as the crux of their goal, slipping from their grasp as definition and fads cycle through society. The truth can not be denied, no matter how good it feels to climax.

[horatio]

What, that just because the issues we debate here change with time, we should resort to irrelevant, nonsensical arguments?

I don't think so.

[Porterville]

I'm sorry, marriage is about the Ideal of procreation- not love.

[conserv13]

I'm sorry, marriage is about the Ideal of procreation- not love.

Then do you support outlawing marriage for couples who are sterile?

[Porterville]

IDEAL

[Beetleman]

But these couples can have children as well. Yes, not naturally.

But for childless couples then, would you like to let them know that their marriage is not valid because they are not procreating?

No one brought up sex but you. First anal. Then oral.

[longtermmemmory]

Society rewards marriage because of the end result of the insititution, children.

The institution is rewarded not the sex act.

Homosexuality is ONLY about recreational sex. Nothing nothing else.

Love is irrelevant to the law.
Feelings are irrelevant to the law.

The homsexuals are applying classic liberalism (modern liberalism). Political power gained by feeeelings. There is no dispute for feelings.

Cohabitation contracts can do what homosexuals state they need. They do not want a solution, they want court ordered acceptances of the morality of the recreational act.

[Porterville]

Isn't that what gay marriage is about? Otherwise I should be married to all my friends and family because I love them as much as anybody loves anybody else. And wouldn't that be defined as polygamy if the gay issue isn't about sex? Furthermore, it will never last- regardless of what this society decides- the truth will prevail in the end- even after this society is dead and gone-

This lie will be studied like the deformed child of Charlemagne or Richard III.... nothing more than that; this lie will never be a noble truth or a philosophy worshiped for the ages... this lie is a falsehood, that will pass and be mocked in future generations.

[bimboeruption]

What's nonsensical about my argument?
Three women could fall madly in love with an Irish Wolfhound? And who am I to say they shouldn't? It's their Constitutional right to love whomever or whatever they choose, isn't it? And as some of my fellow posters think--marriage is just about love, isn't it?
Once marriage is redefined, anything goes. I hope you're prepared.

[Beetleman]

to have and to hold...from this day forward....for better or for worse...in sickness and in health...until death do us part.

I didn't hear anything about children or sex in there.

[Porterville]

One more note; Gay marriage mocks the 3rd entity of any relationship and that is the relationship itself. It says that the relationships primary identifying characteristic is the sharing of sexual contact, regulating the trust of brothers, sister, and the family to a secondary tier. That is a twisted way to interact with fellow humans and is a reflection on why so many liberals have trouble looking each other in the eye.

[Porterville]

What makes me at peace with this subject is that I know it will never last; even if it last for 100 years. Most religions preach against homosexuality (to begin with) and the state has always lost to religion. So, if history is any indicator... we have already won.

[bimboeruption]

"They do not want a solution, they want court ordered acceptances of the morality of the recreational act."

I agree and in doing so will have succeeded in legitimatizing perversion.

[biblewonk]

Gay marriage is our punishment for turning our backs on God.

[goldstategop]

My local fishwrap, the Los Angeles Times in an editorial today, came out openly in favor of gay marriage. That's how Hard Leftist they are. When you consider 61% of Californians voted to protect marriage, it tells you who is out of step with the mainstream.

[longtermmemmory]

Society rewards the institution not the individual.

Even a nonproducing couple promotes the institution of marriage. (as aunt and uncle, grandmother and grandfather, as step father and step mother) It is the model promoted for producing subsequent generations.

Homosexuality exists only for recreational sex.

As a matter of history, a marriage was annuled when no sex act that would produce a child was performed, consumating the marriage. Homosexuality is likewise a nulity.

A normal couple that adopts fits the model of mother and father and the child need never know they are adopted. Children adopted in states where homosexual adoption is still legal are ALWAYS part of an abnormal sexual lifestyle based only on recreational sex.

So to answer your red hearing, homosexual advocacy argument, a man and woman who marry and never produce children do deserve reward from society because their marriage bolsters the institution of marriage.

[missyme]

Exactamundo!
They are Gay friends who engage in sexual deviancy why do we have to call them GAY anyways? when I was a kid I only heard people refer to them as Queers and Fruits...

[bimboeruption]

"to have and to hold...from this day forward....for better or for worse...in sickness and in health...until death do us part."

What do you think the purpose of this vow is?
IMHO it's to create a loving and stable environment for children.

[MirrorField]

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.

If that's so, why should it be restricted to two ? And why only human beings ?

For first, IMNSHO not if participants are willing. As they say, bigamy is it's own punishment... For second, if you can find a willing, sentient and judicially capable nonhuman, why not ;-) Keywords here are "consenting" and "adult".