Quote from ElCubano:
Bingo...specially something of no importance to me or my family....How can this possible affect me?? please explain exactly alphonso.....I can understand where you are coming from but please elaborate exactly how this ( gay marriages ) will affect me?? please chime in AAA...maybe there is something im missing..
I think the burden of pursuasion should be on those who demand a change to the status quo. This is doubly true when we are dealing with the institution that is the bedrock of all successful societies. When I look at the arguments for homosexual "marriage", I am not impressed.
What pressing need would homosexual "marriage" solve? How would it improve our society or our family structure? Will it improve childrens' lives? Will it make our neighborhoods and towns better places to live and raise families? Frankly, I can't see how it does any of these things.
So what would it do? It would give the tiny minority of homosexuals, who themselves are a tiny minority of the population, who wish to enter into some form of longterm relationship some legal benefits in the areas of tax, estates, adoption, child custody, insurance, pensions and medical care. In doing so, it would give this tiny slice of the population greater rights than people who live together and look after each other but who would not want to or be able to "marry," such as brothers and sisters, cousins or close friends.
The homosexual lobby claims these legal benefits are so important that they warrant destroying the traditional concept of marriage. It is apparent however that they can be largely handled by contractual agreements, wills or minor policy changes by institutions such as hospitals. So we are left to ponder what the real agenda is.
It is clear that the reasons they are advancing for this radical policy change are insubstantial. It is equally clear that the realreason they want "marriage" is because it grants them offical recognition as "normal" and morally equivalent to heterosexuals.
So why is that such a bad idea? Obviously it trivializes and mocks the concept of marriage, which is already under cultural assault. It undermines tradtional values proponents, such as church groups and the Boy Scouts, which oppose homosexuality on moral grounds. It raises the likelihood that no group could restrict homosexual participation or leadership. We need only review the Catholic Church sex scandals to see where that could lead.
Some will argue that al these changes are for the good. It is not right to "discriminate". This is just like racial segregation. As stated repeatedly however, this is not about restricting anyone's freedom to act. It is about changing the whole meaning of our most important institution. And unlike racial issues, this is about conduct. The conduct that society would be embracing should be examined closely.
The public face of homosexuality presented by the media, whether it is Will and Grace or some slightly nerdy gay couple who want to "marry", is a far cry from the ugly reality of the gay lifestyle. That reality revolves around anonymous sex in such romantic venues as public restrooms, interstate highway rest stops, public parks, bathhouses, glory holes and nightclubs. It features willful disregard for threatening the public health through HIV, high incidnets of drug and alcohol abuse and active recruitment of teenagers.
Why would any rational society want to announce that we equate such behavior with traditional marriage?
