"Gay 'marriage' doesnt hurt society"

[marymary1975]

Do you seriously think that the Constitution would protect a church’s ban on mixed-race marriages, but not their ban on same-sex marriage?

---

Those aren’t churches. Churches, because of the First Amendment, are allowed to deny marriage to a mixed-race couple, while businesses, on the other hand, are subject to anti-discrimination laws.

Canada doesn’t have the 1st Amendment.

The military has a tendency to violate the rights of its members in general. The military tends to do the same with non-believers (either forcing them to attend a religious ceremony or do extra work, or force them to bow their heads in prayer).the few times these violations have made it to court, the courts have ruled against the military, so I don’t believe this is likely to spread outside the military.

Its a matter of being treated equally under the law, which has practical effects on people’s lives. What practical effects? Consider the following:

Your spouse is sick in a hospital for some time, becomes incapacitated while a medical decisions needs to be made on the spouse’s behalf, and eventually dies. In the process, you receive no more visitation rights than your spouse’s coworkers, you are not permitted to have any sort of (name removed by moderator)ut on the medical decision that needs to be made on your spouse’s behalf while your spouse in incapacitated, and after your spouse dies, you half to pay taxes on your spouse’s house being gifted to you (instead of it automatically being yours), and since you cannot afford to pay those taxes in part because your spouse’s employer will not give you pension benefits that are given to other couples in similar circumstances, you lose your home.

Let us suppose that all of the above happen because you live in a Muslim-majority country in which they don’t give civil marriage licenses to Catholic couples because their religion defines marriage as a union between Muslims. You would be rightly outraged at that. Additionally, you would be personally hurt that your friends would be in favor of you going through all of that if your spouse get sick and dies. However, a same-sex couple could experience the exact same thing in the United States even though most Catholics support giving such benefits to many other marriages that the Catholic Church doesn’t consider valid (for example, neither party is baptized). It is also noteworthy that on this site people have expressed joy that pension benefits be denied to gay couples under the above circumstances. Wouldn’t you be outraged if others were happy that you were denied such benefits that are given to all other couples and ended up losing your home?

So I recommend that you keep in mind that your support of banning civil same-sex marriage (if passed into law) will put someone in the situation described above.

 

[marymary1975]

This argument is circular since teaching students gay rights in school is not a problem unless same-sex marriage hurts society.

Teaching homosexuality to Elementary School-aged children is wrong because it is done behind the backs of the parents and against their wishes. The teacher’s curriculum nowhere shows homosexuality and in several Elementary schools through the country parents started complaining to the school that the children came home saying that they had been taught about homosexual relations and the school never informed them that this was part of the curriculum. When the parents complained that they didn’t want their 6 or 7 year olds being taught that, the school pretty much said in a few words well bad luck we will do it with or without your approval. That is totally wrong. I send my 6 year old to school to learn to read, write and math not to be given a lecture about sexuality and I don’t care if it heterosexuality or homosexuality, there is no reason in the world for an elementary school to be giving sexuality lectures to kids, little less behind the parent’s back.

 

[Faithdancer]

Teaching homosexuality to Elementary School-aged children is wrong because it is done behind the backs of the parents and against their wishes. The teacher’s curriculum nowhere shows homosexuality and in several Elementary schools through the country parents started complaining to the school that the children came home saying that they had been taught about homosexual relations and the school never informed them that this was part of the curriculum. When the parents complained that they didn’t want their 6 or 7 year olds being taught that, the school pretty much said in a few words well bad luck we will do it with or without your approval. That is totally wrong. I send my 6 year old to school to learn to read, write and math not to be given a lecture about sexuality and I don’t care if it heterosexuality or homosexuality, there is no reason in the world for an elementary school to be giving sexuality lectures to kids, little less behind the parent’s back.

This is abhorrent and you are quite right that children in elementary school should not be exposed to material about sexuality, let alone deviant sexuality. Their time to be innocent is short enough as it is.

 

[LisaA]

It seems that you are not aware of your own church’s view on this. If you are physically incapable of the conjugal act, you will not have your marriage sanctified by the church. You do actually need to be able to procreate to be married. How could you not know that?

So we already have two types of marriages. One that is considered valid by the Vatican and one not. Do you see any point at all in two people who are physically unable to have sex getting married? Would you like the state to ban that type of marriage?

You are apparently unaware that I said PROCREATE not engage in the marital embrace. Upon entering the marriage if one is unable to have normal sexual relations, the marriage can be annulled. However that a Catholic marriage does not produce children (that’s what procreate means Bradski) does not mean the marriage is invalid.

You are confusing apples and oranges but nice try.
Lisa

 

[Slavonic]

Except this particular benefit potentially leads to any variation and all of the following disadvantages or harms to American society: shifting of (more of) the gay population from other parts of the world into the country who see the U.S. as the land of opportunity (mail order same sex partners for marriage, anyone?), sham same sex marriages, which could turn out to be a homeland security issue or simple exploitation of vulnerable homosexual nationals, immigration providing another weak point in the federal system to be abused.

As an aside, remember to what was the downing of the Twin Towers attributed? A failure of imagination.

Because straight couples never enter into sham marriages, right? Fraudulent marriages are already a concern for immigration officials. They know how to handle it.

Here is a link to a metaresearch report which does cite original research and statistics: downloads.frc.org/EF/EF11B30.pdf

Yeah, the Family ‘Research’ Council, a lobbying group. Where better to look for high quality sociological research.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Because straight couples never enter into sham marriages, right? Fraudulent marriages are already a concern for immigration officials. They know how to handle it.

So the answer for you is let’s add another avenue of abuse of process with even more seriously bad results …
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Yeah, the Family ‘Research’ Council, a lobbying group. Where better to look for high quality sociological research.

And the gay lobby uses independent unbiased high quality research proposing same sex parents (as if that’s even naturally possible) raise better children?

Indeed the FRC riles the most ardent advocates of SS’M’ and adoption by gay adoptive parents, so much so that we get news like this.
,

 

[NeedImprovement]

Since you’re admitting that you cannot think of reasons to ban polygamous marriages without arbitrarily banning same-sex marriages, . . .

(lol) How generous of you to presume what people are able to think of and not able to think of . . . Silly me – for a minute, I thought that maybe only God had that one figured out.

:doh2:

In my limited opinion ,the rest of the post is civilly worded , coherent and makes very good sense:

. . .
It would be easy for people could enter into marriage conglomerates with others just to lower each others taxes
People could easily make a business out of marrying illegal immigrants to make them legal citizens.
Spousal benefits, such as health insurance, would have to be given to more than just one other person, making it not economical.
It would cause legal complications with regard to child support.
Divorce proceedings would be abnormally complex.

And as you may already be aware, in the real world, apart from any marriage conglomerates actually lowering any taxes , the rest of these things are already happening. I realize it was your question originally, yet also believe you may still be looking at it through the wrong end of the pipe in terms of causality. That excerpt from William J. Bennett’s, * Same Sex Marriage : Not a Good Idea * demonstrates how placing homosexual unions on the same level as marriage via legislation, will end up opening the door wider to those things you’ve mentioned.

To return to the subject of things people can’t think of a moment ( ), I shall note, that to date, you still don’t appear to have been able to have come up with any viable rebuttal for the fact that current legislation where homosexual unions are considered equal to marriage subsequently tramples the sacred rights of parents to instill the values in their children deemed by them to be most wholesome. This, since my reply to your comments in post # 144 .

Although I disagree with much of what you write , I can’t help but admire your chewing ability : You’ve bitten off a giant chunk . If I’d had to reply to the amount of posts you’ve currently been addressing , I think I would’ve ended up hitting the *self-destruct button *some time ago ( or at the very least, smoke would be coming out of my ears ). Maybe , if the spirit moves you, get a little rest and have something to eat from time to time. . . even if I don’t think you’d have any problem beating me in a postathon.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Can you point me to a source that verifies your last statement? Don’t mean to derail, but nothing I’ve read confirms it.

Ed

In the last statement of that post using the phrase “failure of imagination,” I was referring to the part of the 9/11 Commission Report which concluded that pre-attack warnings of varying detail of the planned attacks against the United States by al-Qaeda were ignored due to a lack of communication between various law enforcement and intelligence personnel. The report faulted the Clinton and the Bush administrations with “failure of imagination.”

I read “failure of imagination” as not that different to failure to analyze, failure to reasonably project bad or worse scenarios, in this case or topic as raised by the OP, stemming from the radical social experiment that is SS"M". Already, as several posters have pointed out, we are seeing the signs of harm to society, to the world that generations after us will inherit.

People fled from Europe to America because they wished to break free, refused to buy into the social, political and religious oppression there, later forming this great country, founded on ideals, not the opposite of ideals and common social good. So the Netherlands started with the experiment of SS"M" and other countries in Western Europe seem to have “fallen in love” with the concept, thereby instituting SS"M" in one form or another. Our neighbor to the north sold out to the movement as well to accommodate adult interests of some with little or no concern to the interests of children. Even some states here have legal gay ‘marriage’ now. But does the whole U.S. need to follow suit and fall off the cliff?

We should not buy into SS"M" as though it is completely innocuous, ignoring disturbing indications that children in schools are being taught that sexual expression of homosexuality is normal, even promoted, against the wishes of parents, that living one’s faith in the course of business or in the practice of one’s profession is an invitation to a lawsuit by homosexuals who take offense and are given favor by the courts, as already is happening, and that disagreement with SS"M" is taken as hate speech.

Those eager to push for the radical social experiment of SS"M" fail to imagine unintended consequences, fail to project reasonably that (more) ills will visit society with embrace of SS"M".
,

 

[edwest2]

In the last statement of that post using the phrase “failure of imagination,” I was referring to the part of the 9/11 Commission Report which concluded that pre-attack warnings of varying detail of the planned attacks against the United States by al-Qaeda were ignored due to a lack of communication between various law enforcement and intelligence personnel. The report faulted the Clinton and the Bush administrations with “failure of imagination.”

I read “failure of imagination” as not that different to failure to analyze, failure to reasonably project bad or worse scenarios, in this case or topic as raised by the OP, stemming from the radical social experiment that is SS"M". Already, as several posters have pointed out, we are seeing the signs of harm to society, to the world that generations after us will inherit.

People fled from Europe to America because they wished to break free, refused to buy into the social, political and religious oppression there, later forming this great country, founded on ideals, not the opposite of ideals and common social good. So the Netherlands started with the experiment of SS"M" and other countries in Western Europe seem to have “fallen in love” with the concept, thereby instituting SS"M" in one form or another. Our neighbor to the north sold out to the movement as well to accommodate adult interests of some with little or no concern to the interests of children. Even some states here have legal gay ‘marriage’ now. But does the whole U.S. need to follow suit and fall off the cliff?

We should not buy into SS"M" as though it is completely innocuous, ignoring disturbing indications that children in schools are being taught that sexual expression of homosexuality is normal, even promoted, against the wishes of parents, that living one’s faith in the course of business or in the practice of one’s profession is an invitation to a lawsuit by homosexuals who take offense and are given favor by the courts, as already is happening, and that disagreement with SS"M" is taken as hate speech.

Those eager to push for the radical social experiment of SS"M" fail to imagine unintended consequences, fail to project reasonably that (more) ills will visit society with embrace of SS"M".
,

Without going into detail, the 9/11 Commission Report was a highly flawed document. Just look up comments by the designer of the twin towers. You’ll find that they were designed to survive such an attack. I thank you for your response.

There is no failure of the imagination here. It is following the same pattern as the last 40 years. Lie, deceive, desensitize, deny, repeat.

amazon.com/The-Marketing-Evil-Pseudo-Experts-Corruption/dp/1581824599/ref=pd_sim_b_2

Peace,
Ed

 

[maximus]

Currently, despite SSM having yet received federal recognition how has HS issues affected the lives of people in the post.

I have been fortunate and not affected by this issue in the work place as I work in the high tech sector. Thankfully, there have been no litmus tests on the SSM and other related issues. I have worked with HS co-workers, respected them, and never made jokes about them. I can’t say the same of my liberal co-wokers who relish making gay jokes.

We home-school our child to avoid exposure to HS and PP material that happens often in our local school system. In our public school system children are encouraged to first try out sexual experiences with members of the same sex.

We were trained to become Foster parents with the aim to adopt, but backed out because some because of some of the philosophies of our State’s Department of Youth and Family services.

God Bless

 

[LisaA]

We should not buy into SS"M" as though it is completely innocuous, ignoring disturbing indications that children in schools are being taught that sexual expression of homosexuality is normal, even promoted, against the wishes of parents, that living one’s faith in the course of business or in the practice of one’s profession is an invitation to a lawsuit by homosexuals who take offense and are given favor by the courts, as already is happening, and that disagreement with SS"M" is taken as hate speech.

Those eager to push for the radical social experiment of SS"M" fail to imagine unintended consequences, fail to project reasonably that (more) ills will visit society with embrace of SS"M".
,

This is the main issue in a nutshell so to speak. Those promoting SS"M" ignore history, ignore the unintended consequences that have plagued other such social experiments, ignore basic biology, ignore the impact on children, ignore the impact on social services organizations, businesses and individuals, ignore the changes made to school curricula, ignore the “slippery slope” of redfining marriage, and ignore thousands of years of tradition…because they know more than everyone else.

Yet ironically they don’t provide a single shred of evidence that state recognition of SS"M" will benefit anything but the overly sensitive egos of the radical homosexuals who have somehow found a Constitutional right never to have one’s feelings hurt.

Leftism raised to an art form. Facts don’t matter, it’s all about feelings.

Lisa

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Without going into detail, the 9/11 Commission Report was a highly flawed document. Just look up comments by the designer of the twin towers. You’ll find that they were designed to survive such an attack. I thank you for your response.

There is no failure of the imagination here. It is following the same pattern as the last 40 years. Lie, deceive, desensitize, deny, repeat.

amazon.com/The-Marketing-Evil-Pseudo-Experts-Corruption/dp/1581824599/ref=pd_sim_b_2

Peace,
Ed

Your perspective is appreciated, Ed. The marketers of evil do have great imagination and in that sense they are successful and not failures. Leaders and citizenry who buy into the idea of SS"M" as necessary and good are the ones who fail, as my point is, to imagine what comes after SS"M" enshrined into law in every place in this land.
,

 

[Biblepoe]

Biblepoe;10181872:

I realized that the link I provided below is no longer working for some reasons. Here

is link that should work.

Have you ever wondered as to why these couples had never experienced situations in which one is ill and the other hasn’t had access, etc.? The reason is because to every so called “benefit” that is supposedly denied to unmarried people, there is a perfect legal solution to avoid each and every one of those situations

So you make the assert that it doesn’t happen, but yet place the burden of proof on me to do the work. Well, I’ll indulge you for the moment…

There are not alternative legal solutions for all of them, especially the ones related to taxes (such as having to pay tax to keep your home when your spouse dies). For those that can be achieved by alternative legal means, it often costs money for legal/lawyer fees. If there were, same-sex couples could be marries in every respect except name.

Here are some examples of same-sex couples having their lives practically effected because they don’t have the came legal rights as married opposite-sex couples:
urban.org/uploadedpdf/410939_cost_of_marriage_inequality.pdf (note the subtitle, “Lack of Marriage License May Cost Tens of Thousands of Dollars When Partner Dies, Increases Risk of Losing One’s Home”)
reason.com/24-7/2012/12/17/montana-supreme-court-denies-same-sex-be
articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-11-22/news/bs-md-co-samesex-police-20111122_1_health-benefits-arbitrator-first-union-contract
articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/22/local/la-me-richard-adams-20121223
bankrate.com/finance/taxes/3-tax-traps-same-sex-couples-can-avoid-1.aspx

This make me wonder, are you in favor of the government forming a legal institution for same-sex couples that is functionally identical to civil marriage, but under a different name?

 

[Biblepoe]

Teaching homosexuality to Elementary School-aged children is wrong because it is done behind the backs of the parents and against their wishes.

Teaching children not to throw rocks at each other is also done without the permission of the parents, and would be done even if there were parents who objected. So, when it comes to the right of the parent to tell the school not to teach something to the child, there are some limits, such as when proper conduct around school requires the promotion of certain values, such as, “Don’t bully gay classmates,” or, “Treat your gay classmates like everyone else.”

The problem with what schools can and cannot do, there are always going to be outliers (a few fringe schools that go too far). With regard to homosexuality in particular, telling them that same-sex sexuality is moral is overextending the school’s power, but to tell them (at an appropriate age) that homosexuality is just as healthy as heterosexuality (from a medical/psychological perspective) is not because such may be needed to reduce attitudes that make the school dangerous for gay students, while giving them information they may need.

 

[Biblepoe]

(lol) How generous of you to presume what people are able to think of and not able to think of

It was a pretty reasonable conclusion based off of the fact that you wanted to talk about this ridiculous slippery slope while tip-toeing around actually coming up with an alternative yourself.

And as you may already be aware, in the real world, apart from any marriage conglomerates actually lowering any taxes , the rest of these things are already happening.

But they are greatly limited by the fact that one can only marry one other person. Hence the practical significance of banning polygamous civil marriages.

you still don’t appear to have been able to have come up with any viable rebuttal for the fact that current legislation where homosexual unions are considered equal to marriage subsequently tramples the sacred rights of parents to instill the values in their children deemed by them to be most wholesome.

The state allowing something does not force their parent to stop teaching their children that it is immoral. Internet porn is legal, yet that doesn’t trample on the parents right to teach their children porn is immoral.

If you are talking specifically about schools also teaching children (without the parents permission), I’m sure you’d agree that the school has the right to install values by tell children not to assault other students, even if nutjob parents disagree. Some of those rights extend partly to homosexuality, as I explained in a post to Mary1975:

Teaching children not to throw rocks at each other is also done without the permission of the parents, and would be done even if there were parents who objected. So, when it comes to the right of the parent to tell the school not to teach something to the child, there are some limits, such as when proper conduct around school requires the promotion of certain values, such as, “Don’t bully gay classmates,” or, “Treat your gay classmates like everyone else.”

The problem with what schools can and cannot do, there are always going to be outliers (a few fringe schools that go too far). With regard to homosexuality in particular, telling them that same-sex sexuality is moral is overextending the school’s power, but to tell them (at an appropriate age) that homosexuality is just as healthy as heterosexuality (from a medical/psychological perspective) is not because such may be needed to reduce attitudes that make the school dangerous for gay students, while giving them information they may need.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

I’m not going to lie, guys. Polygamy sounds really fun.

There, I said it.

 

[Farien]

I’m not going to lie, guys. Polygamy sounds really fun.

There, I said it.

Q: You know what is the opposite of polygamy?
A: Monotony.

 

[LisaA]

Teaching children not to throw rocks at each other is also done without the permission of the parents, and would be done even if there were parents who objected. So, when it comes to the right of the parent to tell the school not to teach something to the child, there are some limits, such as when proper conduct around school requires the promotion of certain values, such as, “Don’t bully gay classmates,” or, “Treat your gay classmates like everyone else.”

The problem with what schools can and cannot do, there are always going to be outliers (a few fringe schools that go too far). With regard to homosexuality in particular, telling them that same-sex sexuality is moral is overextending the school’s power, but to tell them (at an appropriate age) that homosexuality is just as healthy as heterosexuality (from a medical/psychological perspective) is not because such may be needed to reduce attitudes that make the school dangerous for gay students, while giving them information they may need.

A ridiculous analogy. There are huge differences between instructing on basic civilized behavior and something like sexuality which has generally been up to parents as to when, what and how these issues are addressed.

One would expect a child in elementary school would be told not to bonk each other over the head or kick or scratch or pull hair. It’s idiotic to think a teacher would have to have written permission to maintain order in the classroom. But parents should not have to guard against agenda based teaching on matters of sexuality. Further one of the major objections is the timing of these curricula. This starts WAY too young. Five year olds do not need to be told “don’t bully your gay playmates” because neither they nor their playmates are gay or overtly heterosexual. When elementary school kids express graphic knowledge of sexual activity, hetero or homo, it indicates they are being subject to inappropriate actions or discussions. It is also a clear sign of sexual abuse.

Nor do children need to read “Heather Has Two Mommies” long before they even understand basic biology.

Clearly the idea is not to guard against some epidemic of bullying of “gay” six year olds but to start’em young and indoctrinate them.

Futher homosexual activity is NOT “as healthy as heterosexual activity” and to claim so is to be either ignorant or on a crusade. Again please refer to basic biology. One’s ailmentary canal is not built for either the intrusion of foreign objects or the biological results of said intrusion. Homosexuality is not a normal behavior. Your slip is showing but good try.

Lisa

 

[90Domer]

This is the main issue in a nutshell so to speak. Those promoting SS"M" ignore history, ignore the unintended consequences that have plagued other such social experiments, ignore basic biology, ignore the impact on children, ignore the impact on social services organizations, businesses and individuals, ignore the changes made to school curricula, ignore the “slippery slope” of redfining marriage, and ignore thousands of years of tradition…because they know more than everyone else.

Yet ironically they don’t provide a single shred of evidence that state recognition of SS"M" will benefit anything but the overly sensitive egos of the radical homosexuals who have somehow found a Constitutional right never to have one’s feelings hurt.

Leftism raised to an art form. Facts don’t matter, it’s all about feelings.

Lisa

THIS!

Also, am I the only one who has noticed that SSA individuals have an impossible time separating criticism of the act from criticism of the individual? It is so much a part of their essence, their ideology if you will.