From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,or.politics
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Summary: What homosexuals really want . . .
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:53:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: bug.1081
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

In article <cornell.718497712@vivaldi> nobody writes:
>>>|> In article <1067@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>>>|> > Homosexuals already have equal protection of the law under the 14th
>>>|> > Amendment, so that isn't what they are asking for, nor what they want.>
>I don't have your original posting so I don't know if you continued
>on from this point.  What in your opinion, are they asking for and
>what do they want?

This isn't hard to figure out or understand.  What they want is acceptance,
or even approval.  After a lifetime of being told they're not, they want to
be told they are ok.  And who can blame them?  Certainly not me.  The
problem is, there are certain things that are beyond the power of the law.
The effort to get these things through the law, not only won't work, it is
likely to be counter effective.  If fact, I think it already has been.

Someone on this thread asked if I had been to Oregon and knew about measure
#9.  I *live* in Oregon.  Measure 9 is a reaction to the Gay Rights legal
agenda, not the other way around (in fact, the OCA was formed to oppose Gay
Rights).  The OCA and measure 9 are wrong, and I will vote against it, but
so is the legal agenda of the Gay Rights activists.  This battle hasn't
helped anyone, and has stirred up appalling ugliness all around.

I only want what is best for homosexuals (and everyone else) and I want
them to be free to live their private lives as they see fit.  I believe in
tolerance (see "The Virtues of Toleration", by John Gray, "National
Review", October 5, 1992, pg 28.).  Tolerance is not what the Gay Activists
want, nor are they themselves tolerant.  I don't think this is helpful or
good.

I said that homosexuals have them same rights we all have.  Others said,
what about marriage?  Well, as has been pointed out, homosexuals can marry,
so they are treated in this regard just like everyone else.  However, this
isn't what those who object mean.  They want legal marriage redefinited to
include same sex couples.  But why stop there?  Why not abritrary groups?
Why not a man and his favorite sheep, etc.?  Indeed, why not?  Wouldn't
that be more fair?  In fact some libertarians have proposed just that.  But
the marriage is not about being fair.  Its purpose is not just to make
couples feel good about themselves.

What is the purpose of legal marriage?  That is the question you have to
answer first before you can deal with any of the above.  There is only one
justification for the legal institution of marriage: children.  History and
recent experience shows that on average the best way to raise children, to
socialize them and pass our culture on to them, is in intact families with
the mother and father present.  This is not to run down single parents or
other arrangements, it is just a fact.  Therefore society has a profound
interest in promoting marriage and keeping them together.  In fact, I don't
think we are doing nearly enough.*  Society simply has no like interest in
keeping homosexual couples together.

Homosexuals are free to make whatever vows to each other they like.  They
can enter contracts with each other, and put each other in their wills.  As
for the tax benefits (which aren't that large and don't always exist -- my
wife and I paid a large tax penalty to get married), society simply has no
interest either way in homosexuals' continued union.  In any case, if both
(or all) parties want to stay together, surely they will.  So the question
isn't why shouldn't gay couples be able to (legally) marry each other, but
why should they?

* The legal aspects of marriage exist mainly to protect children, and those
are fine.  Tax and other benefits of marriage are there to encourage
couples to marry and stay together for the benefit of children.  Over the
years, these benefits have decreased and divorce has been made easier, at
the same time that social sanctions against living together have decreased.
That isn't all bad, but it isn't all good either.  Divorce and single
parenthood are way up, and evidence of its ill effects is overwhelming.
Powerful arguments can be made that we should do more to encourage
marriage.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton