The 'health benefits of heterosexual marriage'. I guess they're saying that heteros are less likely to get AIDS. (That's a fairly androcentric view: Lesbians have practically no risk of AIDS.) But then they say that homosexual marriage would by default spread that to the heterosexual population when last I checked the only way to get AIDS is to have sex with someone who has AIDS. Or to share needles with them. Or to get a blood transfusion from them. Or in utero. Or breast milk. Now, if you're sharing needles, it's your own damn fault. And if you were really straight, you wouldn't be having sex with gay men in the first place. Needless to say, gay men won't be giving birth or lactating any time soon, and they're forbidden from giving blood.
Whereas, if "same sex" unions are a civil right, then legal sanctions and coercion will be imposed against persons and institutions opposed to homosexual behavior or same sex unions. For example, schools in their Family Life and other programs will have to teach that "civil unions" or "homosexual marriage" are equivalent to traditional marriage; churches whose teachings does not accept homosexual behavior as moral will lose their tax exempt status; employers will be ineligible for government contracts unless they will hire and provide benefits to the "married homosexuals" and their "spouses" and "partners;" and homosexual groups helped organize a $100,000 law suit against a private religious school which refused to allow a homosexual 17 year old male student permission to bring his homosexual boyfriend to the school prom as his date; and
Translation: We're the only ones who can have special rights. With a bit of a slippery slope for churches and tax-exempt status; even the Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations has tax-exempt status, so I doubt simply not recognizing gay marriages would change this. As for family life classes, these are probably the same people who want to get rid of evolution in biology classes (which is sort of like teaching physics without matter).
Whereas, same sex advocates seek to curb the free speech rights of their opponents, for instance, in Saskatchewan, Canada, the Human Rights Commission has ordered both the Saskatoon Star Phoenix newspaper and Hugh Owens of Regina to pay $1,500 Canadian to three homosexual activists for publishing an ad in the Saskatoon newspaper quoting Bible versus regarding homosexuality; and same sex advocates are intolerant of their opponents, to wit: former Vermont Governor Howard Dean who signed America's first same sex civil union law said in April of 2003, that "Senator Rick Santorum, the third highest ranking Republican in the Senate, compared homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery...Senator Santorum must step down from his leadership post; and
They forgot rape, pedophilia, and bestiality. Actually, the Bible favors polygamy and rape, says nothing about pedophilia, and has much more lax standards wrt incest (minimum of three degrees, with the exception of uncle/niece) than the law (minimum of three, sometimes four, degrees, except in Southern states which use Biblical standards). I don't know that Canadian story but I'm sure they're blowing it out of proportion and Canadian law has zero to do with the US anyway.
Whereas, because very few homosexuals will "marry" or seek civil unions, the legal effect for homosexual marriage or same sex unions is not primarily about marriage itself, but is directed at weakening the institution of marriage which is foundational to this country's history and tradition; and where heterosexual marriage requires sexual exclusivity, advocates of same sex unions merely prefer sexual exclusivity, but do not demand it. Promoting and defending the common good of society requires that marriage be recognized and defended as a preferential and beneficial complimentary relationship between the sexes for one man, a husband, and one woman, a wife which are necessary conditions for the formation of a family; and
Weakening the institution of marriage? LOL "Oh, we're getting a divorce because Alice and Betty across the street got married." I've never heard of gay-marriage advocates arguing anything less than exclusivity.
Whereas, human marriage is a consummated two in one communion of male and female persons made possible by sexual differences which are reproductive in type, whether or not they are reproductive in effect or motivation. This present relationship recognizes the equality of male and female persons, and antedates recorded history and the writings of revealed religions; consequently, granting legal equivalency status between same sex unions and heterosexual marriage would result in the state's failure to defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good; and
Um, is that a teleological argument I hear? And then they try to exclude sterile heterosexuals from the list. In many societies, there are more than two genders, so it doesn't 'antedate recorded history and the writings of revealed religions'.
Whereas, there is a profound moral and legal difference between private behavior conducted outside the sanction or eyes of the law as it were, and granting such behavior a legal institutional status in society. Such a radical change would require and set in motion as yet unforeseen legal and social consequences which would rely upon the coercive power of the state for their implementation. The structures of civil law constitute a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing and sanctioning patterns of thought and behavior. Such structures are especially influential on younger citizens' views and evaluation of forms of conduct; and
Translation: Thought crime.
Whereas, providing for same sex unions would obscure certain basic moral values and further devalue the institution of marriage and the status of children; children need not just parents, but a mother and a father, and to deprive children of a mother and a father is harmful to their development; and
If you want to save the institution of marriage, sue Fox. I mean, Temptation Island? Who Wants to Marry a Multi-millionaire?
Whereas, defining marriage or civil unions as permissible for same sex individuals as simply an alternate form of "marriage" will radically transform the institution of marriage with serious and harmful consequences to the social order. Same sex civil unions are simply marriages by a different name. Columnist George Will reports (Dec. 7., 2003) that Governor "Dean said that in terms of legal rights there is no practical difference between same-sex civil unions and marriages. Matthews: ``So why are we quibbling over a name?'' Dean: ``Because marriage is very important to a lot of people who are pretty religious.'' Neither status is needed for the exercise or enjoyment of civil rights by citizens with same sex attractions; and
Actually, there are 1138 federal laws which make reference to marriage. If I were married, my wife would be allowed hospital visits. But if I were gay, my gay lover wouldn't. If I were married, my wife would have medical insurance on the company dime. If I were gay, my gay lover would not. This does have its side effect: A man can employ his gay lover, but not his wife. Of course, all the same rules about said gay lover also apply to heterosexual unmarried couples.
Whereas, persons who wish to dispose of their property or assign the power of attorney to another person in case they are sick or disabled are legally authorized to do so at present without regard to any legal impediment or qualification regarding their sexual orientation. The rights of the franchise, property ownership, travel and other such rights are not conditioned the sexual orientation of individuals. Because such private "goods" can now be secured, without legally recognizing same sex unions, it is unnecessary, unjust and socially disruptive to provide for legal recognition of same sex unions to achieve such goals. A prominent same sex marriage advocate speaks of "an openness of the contract" for marriage between homosexuals and claims that such a legal union would be more durable than heterosexual marriage because the contract contains an "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets." No such understanding exists in law for married heterosexuals. No one is legally denied the opportunity to marry because of their preference for one or more of the more than 20 different "sexual orientations;" now, therefore
I have never heard of gay-marriage advocates advocating threesomes. And the rest of that just proves American law is based on property.
