[quote]Orbitalboner wrote:
Wtf are you talking about? Please point me to the exact place where it was explained how homosexuality is injurous to society.[/quote]
First of all the onus is on the various Gay lobby groups, or anyone for that matter, to prove how homosexual marriage will not harm the institution!
Why would we march head strong into expanding the definition of marriage not knowing for sure that it would not harm society? In fact, all the early evidence, shows that there would be a dramatic negative consequence.
Why would any thinking group of people change such an institution on a whim?
Society depends on stable families as the basic structure of civilization. Marriage provides the basis for the family, which remains the strongest and most important social unit. There is a wealth of data that attest to this fact!
With that stated let’s look at the potential negative effects of same sex unions:
- Financial drain- As columnist Maggie Gallagher writes: "When men and women fail to form stable marriages, the first result is a vast expansion of government attempts to cope with the terrible social needs that result.
There is scarcely a dollar that state and federal government spends on social programs that is not driven in large part by FAMILY FRAGMENTAION: crime, poverty, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, school failure, and mental and physical health problems."
Do you think Gay marriage would reduce these statistics, or add to them?
- We don’t know how one becomes Gay as yet. Granted the powerful Gay lobby wants us to think that people are born that way. However, there is not one shred of evidence to back this up. Hence, why place children in the home of two Gay people? Is it possible that this would influence children to become Gay? Before you judge harshly these comments, think about it; homosexual youths are two to three times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers!
(more on the effects on children later). For now here is some interesting reading:
http://www.narth.com/docs/fathers.html
- Homosexuals comprise only (approximately) 1% to 2% of the total population. To change the institution of marriage for so few would be positively asinine. Once the institution is changed what is to stop other groups from crying discrimination and demanding marriage rights? Polygamists, Incest, bestiality perhaps even pedophilia (If you laugh at the last one go to the NAMBLA website-SICK).
“Things” always lead to other “things.” We do not exist in a vacuum!
- We don’t know the long term effect on children brought up with a Gay couple. The early results are not positive:
“Although the evidence on child outcomes is sketchy, it does suggest that children raised by lesbians or homosexual men are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders.”
Study by: Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, “(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” American Sociological Review
-
Homosexuality is a “behavior” not a “gender” or “race.” Hence, not entitled to any special rights including expanding the definition of marriage. No more than any other behavior (held by under 2% of the population) would be. See above for other potential forms of marriage.
-
rampid promiscuity among homosexual couples:
In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found,
"few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.
Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of “committed” typically means something radically different than in heterosexual marriage.
? In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison report that in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years:
Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years.
Stated another way, ALL COUPLES WITH A RELATIONSHIP LASTING MORE THAN FIVE YEARS INCORPORATED SOME PROVISION FOR OUTSIDE SEXUAL ACTIVITY IN THEIR RELATIONSHIPS!"
Most understood sexual relations outside the relationship to be the norm, and viewed adopting monogamous standards as an act of OPPRESSION."
For additional reading on the topic:
http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf
- Children usually do better when there is a mother and a father present.
If same-sex civil marriage becomes common, most same-sex couples with children would be lesbian couples.
"This would mean that we would have yet more children being raised apart from fathers. Among other things, we know that fathers excel in reducing antisocial behavior and delinquency in boys and sexual activity in girls.
Conversely, the relationships that would also be lacking; Among other things, mothers excel in providing children with emotional security and in reading the physical and emotional cues of infants. Obviously, they also give their daughters unique counsel as they confront the physical, emotional, and social challenges associated with puberty and adolescence."
- Statistically marriages thrive under gender specific roles.
"For instance, women are happier when their husband earns the lion’s share of the household income. Likewise, couples are less likely to divorce when the wife concentrates on childrearing and the husband concentrates on breadwinning.
University of Virginia psychologist Mavis Hetherington.
As in so many other areas of life, any social policy decision results in trade offs and consequences, some of them unforeseeable. The more important the area in which the social policy changes are being considered, the more carefully they must be examined before being adopted.
Now please tell me how allowing same sex unions would enhance the greater good of our society.
To date not one convincing argument has been launched by those in favor of Gay marriage. The usual response is “it won’t hurt me who cares?” And that response is by those who are not thinking of the greater good of society and the long term detriment which they will indeed participate in. Perhaps you will be the first to craft a reasonable reply. I await your response.
