| | [[Image:Cycle.gif|thumbnail|200px|right|A recent study by the [[Canada|Canadian]] government states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with [[heterosexual]] couples".<ref>http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/85-570-XIE/2006001/findings/risk.htm Aforementioned Canadian Study.</ref>]] | | [[Image:Cycle.gif|thumbnail|200px|right|A recent study by the [[Canada|Canadian]] government states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with [[heterosexual]] couples".<ref>http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/85-570-XIE/2006001/findings/risk.htm Aforementioned Canadian Study.</ref>]] |
| − | [[James Dobson]] cites Stanley Kurtz to argue that the motivation of those advocating same-sex "marriage" is not to secure the benefits of marriage for gay couples, but to destroy the institution of marriage itself: | + | [[James Dobson]] cites Stanley Kurtz to argue that the motivation of those advocating same-sex "marriage" is not to secure the benefits of marriage for homosexual couples, but to destroy the institution of marriage itself: |
| | :...most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to destroy marriage altogether. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, etc.,) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would "couples" be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed.<ref>Stanley Kurtz, "Beyond Marriage," The Weekly Standard, August 4/August 11, 2003. - cited in [http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000771.cfm Marriage on the Ropes], Dr. James Dobson, retrieved from ''Focus on the Family'', 15 May 2007.</ref> | | :...most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to destroy marriage altogether. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, etc.,) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would "couples" be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed.<ref>Stanley Kurtz, "Beyond Marriage," The Weekly Standard, August 4/August 11, 2003. - cited in [http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000771.cfm Marriage on the Ropes], Dr. James Dobson, retrieved from ''Focus on the Family'', 15 May 2007.</ref> |
| | Peter Jones, ''The God of Sex: How Spirituality Defines Your Sexuality'', page 22</ref> | | Peter Jones, ''The God of Sex: How Spirituality Defines Your Sexuality'', page 22</ref> |
| − | In reality nobody is trying to stop gays from [[Sexual intercourse|doing what they want to do]], or tell them they can't live together, or have a domestic partnership. The only reason many people oppose gay "marriage" is to prevent the definition of "marriage", more of a religious institution than a legal one, from changing, and to avoid being forced to have to recognize a union between two persons of the same gender as if it were equivalent to a marriage between a man and a woman. | + | In reality nobody is trying to stop homosexuals from [[Sexual intercourse|doing what they want to do]], or tell them they can't live together, or have a domestic partnership. The only reason many people oppose same-sex "marriage" is to prevent the definition of "marriage", more of a religious institution than a legal one, from changing, and to avoid being forced to have to recognize a union between two persons of the same gender as if it were equivalent to a marriage between a man and a woman. |