Why the Same-Sex Marriage Experiment Will Not Work

[~candice~]

Did you miss Cobalt's post? It's directly below mine.

[Guest shiloh357]

Did you miss Cobalt's post? It's directly below mine.

He didn't miss it. He is ignoring Cobalt for the very reasons he ignores me. UF ignores people when they expose the errors of his arguments in such a way that he cannot wiesel around with an evasive response. He probably won't address anything else Cobalt says. He will not apologize to Cobalt for misrepresenting his statement. That would require a level of character and integirty that UF can't seem to muster up. It is the same when he misrepresented and mischaractarized me in order to skirt around having to face up to facts and information that lead in a direction he doesn't like. The fact that EVERYONE is able to correctly frame Cobalt's statmenet but UF highlights the dishonesty of UF's debate/discussion tactics.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

It doesn't matter what homosexuals said, did, etc. They were fully entitle to the exact same rights to marry as everyone else, under the legal definition of marriage that spanned every civilization since as far back as written history goes.

OES,

Sorry to disagree, but in the US, couples who are not married (and recognized by the state as such) are not entitled to certain rights which include (but are not limited to):

1) Health care insurance coverage from the employer that normally covers the spouse

2) Inheritence rights that favor the spouse

3) Adoption rights

4) Joint income tax filing status availability for those married couples who find themselves in favorable tax brackets.

Homosexual couples who are prohibited from marrying do not have access to the above rights that are available to heterosexual couples.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

But once again, they are entitled to those things if they choose to marry according to the definition of marriage as it was always understood in every culture (regardless of it's position on homosexuality), because they can be as homosexual as they want and still have full access to marriage if they so choose - just not with same-sex partners. Such was not the case when the issue was skin colour.

With the black-rights movement in the states, based on the colour of your skin you weren't permitted to access the same privilages as everyone else. This discussion is about whether a certain group should get additional rights, since the marital contract is set up to facilitate certain offices that simply are not the purpose of same-sex unions, so if someone wants to express their sexuality that way then they're free to do so, but society shouldn't have to bend to accomodate them any more than it should start granting those privilages to singles.

Once again, what if the singles need to have those privilages in order to not feel discriminated against? What about adults who choose to live with their parents until they're 50? Why don't they get those rights?

Anyone is entitle to marriage. If you say you're gay, do gay things, etc. no one will tell you you can't marry according to the definition of marriage, so it's not a rights issue.

Further to that, all those things you listed are vaildating my concern. Why should two able bodies adults be granted those privilages if they're not conforming to the nuclear family unit that's set up to encourage procreation?

That's the point. They have no right to those privilages, just as I wouldn't if I'd stayed single, or stayed with my parents.

Laws are not set up to try to safeguard every little whim of citizens, and the fact is that certain people qualify for certian programs based on circumstances and choices, and others don't. It's not a rights issue.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Nobody equated homosexuality and pedophilia. Cobalt asked if you would use the same line of argument on one as you would the other.

I beg to differ.

Cobalt1959 asked me if I equated the rights of homosexuals to marry with the rights of those who want to commit pedophilia.

He implied that pedophilia was a right. I did not.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

Wow UF, that is weak. Very, very weak.

You've forced me into a dichotomy here, and I'll give you the opportunity to guide the two directions you're forcing.

Would you like me to suppose that you're totally incapable of simple, unbiased interpretation or would you like me to suppose that you're artlessly failing to handle deceitful tactics?

I regret to conclude that you haven't left any room for other interpretations of your line of argumentation.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

I know what I read, and believed I saw clearly what Cobalt was implying...I think you have got the wrong end of the stick, and so does the guy who wrote it in the first place...so how can you argue the point?

I don't think I interpreted Cobalt1959's intention incorrectly. He deliberately implied in his question to me, that pedophilia was a right, as I see homosexual marriage as a right. I see it for how he wrote it.

I have homosexual friends who see homosexual marriage as abhorent...the homosexual life-style is bad enough, but trying to foster it on society and make it look decent and normal by wrapping it

up in a marriage package under some sort of 'equal rights' umbrella is seen as 'daft and hypocritical' by many that are actually caught in the homosexual web.

LOL, your homosexual friends who see homosexual marriage as abhorrent have probably been indoctrinated with an anti- homosexual religion. Can you guess which one I am thinking of right now?

Yes, I am sure historically, that you can also drum up some examples of African slaves in America who saw emancipation as abhorrent as well. Although I think in both cases, these are not representative of the majority.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

UF, have you ever heard of the book "After the Ball"?

It was written as a step by step guide to indoctrinate the general public into equating homosexuality with civil rights, despite the facts.

In it the authours state that “The public should be persuaded that gays are victims of circumstance, that they no more chose their sexual orientation than they did, say, their height, skin color, talents, or limitations. (We argue that, for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been ‘born gay’‐‐even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental)" (Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay’s in the 90s, p.184)

It goes on to state, “The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays…To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally we would have the straight register differences in sexual preference the way they register different tastes for ice cream… The masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself…the imagery of sex should be downplayed… gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector... make use of symbols which reduce the mainstream’s sense of threat, which lower its guard… we intend to make anti‐gays to look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types…” (Ibid p.7-10).

“Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible... The principal behind this advice is simple: almost all behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances.. make use of symbols which reduce the mainstream’s sense of threat, which lower its guard…” (Ibid p.7).

Advancing these perceptions is demonstrably part of a recent, deliberate, systematic, culturally specific, agenda: "we can undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology. Against the mighty pull of institutional Religion one must set the mightier draw of Science & Public Opinion (the shield and sword of that accursed ʺsecular humanismʺ). Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before, on such topics as divorce and abortion. With enough open talk about the prevalence and acceptability of homosexuality, that alliance can work again here" (Ibid.p.9)

We have given reasons why these perceptions are incorrect.

These perceptions were developed and advanced as part of a published agenda.

Many testimonials from homosexuals challenge theses perceptions, both ones that I've heard personally and those in print:

“The political dangers of a choice discourse go beyond the simple (if controversial) notion that some people genuinely choose their homosexuality. Indeed, my conclusions question some of the fundamental basis upon which the gay and lesbian rights movement has been built. If we cannot make political claims based on an essential and shared nature, are we not left once again as individual deviants? Without an essentialist foundation, do we have a viable politics?” (Queer by Choice: Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Politics of Identity, By Dr. Vera Whisman; New York: Routlege, 1996 p.132);

"“I don’t think lesbians are born…I think they are made… The gay rights movement has (for many good, practical reasons) adopted largely an identity politics” (Off Our Backs, Jennie Ruby, Oct. 1996, p.22);

“There’s nothing natural in lesbianism, ‘it’s a positive choice,’ and a political one” (Lambda Book Report, Oct. 1996, p.11, “Commenting on All the Rage: Reasserting Radical Lesbian Feminism”).

I don't believe the reasons for your position are grounded in anything rational. They are political, perscribed and fundamentally propaganda-based.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

OES,

Sorry to disagree, but in the US, couples who are not married (and recognized by the state as such) are not entitled to certain rights which include (but are not limited to):

1) Health care insurance coverage from the employer that normally covers the spouse

2) Inheritence rights that favor the spouse

3) Adoption rights

4) Joint income tax filing status availability for those married couples who find themselves in favorable tax brackets.

But once again, they are entitled to those things if they choose to marry according to the definition of marriage as it was always understood in every culture (regardless of it's position on homosexuality), because they can be as homosexual as they want and still have full access to marriage if they so choose - just not with same-sex partners....

Further to that, all those things you listed are vaildating my concern. Why should two able bodies adults be granted those privilages if they're not conforming to the nuclear family unit that's set up to encourage procreation?

That's the point. They have no right to those privilages, just as I wouldn't if I'd stayed single, or stayed with my parents.

Laws are not set up to try to safeguard every little whim of citizens, and the fact is that certain people qualify for certian programs based on circumstances and choices, and others don't. It's not a rights issue.

If this was a purely religious matter I would agree. Christianity more or less states that marriage is between a man and a women under the guidance of God. Which is why I have no legal quarrel with churches or sects denying gay marriage - the church can deny whoever it chooses. However the secular marriage as recognized by the government is something different.

But lets look at your criteria of why marriage is important; procreation. Does this mean that we shouldn't grant people who are sterile the ability to marry, after all they cannot conform to the nuclear family and procreate? The only way to raise a child would be through things like adoption, which can easily be available to homosexual couples too. What about old people that can't have children, should we allow them to marry? What about people that marry with no intention of having children? Why shouldn't we, or should we(?), put a contract of some sorts into the marriage that states that the couple must have children of their own within a certain amount of time or the marriage is officially ended and no longer recognized? Remember, laws and programs are not there for every whim and want of their citizens, and certain people fulfill the requirements for certain programs and others simply don't.

Of course, what I'm trying to get at is that people marry for all sorts of reasons, not just procreation, and this is true when looking at history too. Things like inheritance, joint taxes, health care, and so on are rights/privileges of married couples that have nothing to do with procreation or raising children directly. To me it is clear that procreation is not the sum total of marriage in either culture, history or law.

To deny homosexuals marriage in the eyes of the government because the two in question don't have the right interlocking parts seems largely arbitrary and random without religious undertones. Which is one reason why I see the movement to deny gays marriage in the government an infringement on the first amendment.

I've already gone over why you make a rule and deal with the exceptions, not make exceptions and deal with the costs, though, at least a couple times in this thread.

[Guest shiloh357]

To deny homosexuals marriage in the eyes of the government because the two in question don't have the right interlocking parts seems largely arbitrary and random without religious undertones. Which is one reason why I see the movement to deny gays marriage in the government an infringement on the first amendment.

How does this become a first ammendmet issue. That is ridiculous. Marriage, in the first place, is not a "right." No one has a "right" to be married. The Constitution nowhere guarantees anyone the right to be married.

Restricting marriage to a man and a woman is not a violation of anyone's civil rights.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

I've already gone over why you make a rule and deal with the exceptions, not make exceptions and deal with the costs, though, at least a couple times in this thread.

My apologies, I simply don't have the patience to go through 40+ pages to search out your answer. Just something to think about, if marriage is about procreation why not explicitly make it so by forcing those who are married to have children, and if they can't or refuse then take away their marriage license and the benefits thereof.

Because it's their option, and the benefits are incentives.

That question doesn't really make sense. We could just say why not force men to impregnat all women they see, but it would be a violation of everyone's freedom.

It is my understanding that if you're married with children you get more from the government than if you're married without children, so the system already in-place makes the distinction between the two marriages and deals with them accordingly. So I don't see the big deal about marriage and procreation in regards with gay marriage; if gay couples aren't raising children they don't get the benefits as if they're raising children, same with any couple - hetero or homo.

The whole institution only works as either a sacred union or a secular incentive program.

It has no reason to exist for same sex couples except to either further the agenda I cited above, or to cash in on benefits.

The first I disagree with for religious reasons, the second for non-religious reasons.

As far as things like inheritance and health care, I don't see why a gay couple should be treated differently than a straight couple.

And I then don't see why we persecute the singles, adults who live with their parents, communities, street kids, etc. who don't qualify for all these benefits.

I've provided reasons that they don't qualify, but society shouldn't have to anti up for people's whims. There has to be a reason.

[~candice~]

I really don't think the sole purpose of marriage is procreation. I know that marriage is the only entity in which procreation is biblically permissible but there is much more to marriage. Even Paul talks about getting married so people don't sin. Marriage is also about joining together spiritually, emotionally and physically. Doesn't matter if that physical union doesn't lead to children, I don't think it matters in the slightest.

One thing I think we must always keep in our minds when discussing biblical marriage is that it is an image of Christ and the church. Hence, to me, perverting the biblical definition of marriage is to do damage to this image of Christ and His bride.

Are we joined to Christ only and soley to grow the body, or are we joined to Christ also because we wish to simply enjoy fellowship with Him?

[Guest shiloh357]

I really don't think the sole purpose of marriage is procreation. I know that marriage is the only entity in which procreation is biblically permissible but there is much more to marriage. Even Paul talks about getting married so people don't sin. Marriage is also about joining together spiritually, emotionally and physically. Doesn't matter if that physical union doesn't lead to children, I don't think it matters in the slightest.

One thing I think we must always keep in our minds when discussing biblical marriage is that it is an image of Christ and the church. Hence, to me, perverting the biblical definition of marriage is to do damage to this image of Christ and His bride.

Are we joined to Christ only and soley to grow the body, or are we joined to Christ also because we wish to simply enjoy fellowship with Him?

Exactly. A healthy marriage bewtween a man and woman is supposed to glorify God. I think that pepole forget that you cannot really secularize marriage. God created marriage. The family is the first insitution God ever created in the Bible. Marriage between a man and woman reflect God's relationship with His own bride, the church.

God designed marriage to work a certain way and man has continued to pervert and as we can seen in this thread, continues to justify his perversion of God's institution.

The desires of gays to be married does not need to fulfilled and we should not bow to any pressure to accept it or even tolerate it in our society.