• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How does SSM effect Opposite-Sex Marriage?

joe six-pack

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
1,123
Reaction score
384
Location
Six-Pakistan
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Can someone explain to me--intelligently--how SSM negatively effects opposite-sex couples who are married, want to get married, have been divorced or will get re-married? How do gay people hurt you personally simply by existing? How does someone else marriage effect your marriage? Does it or is that an excuse?

While you are stewing over that question let me offer a pro to your con. Marriage is a set of Laws which make people "next-of-kin," which basically means you share dept, property and many other legal responsibilities, penalties and "benefits." If a spouse has a lot of dept and dies, what do you think happens? The widow of that spouse inherits the dept.

So, really, it's in the States interest to allow people to get married whenever possible. That way, any leftover public or private dept get's repaid.

Thanks,

:peace
 
Last edited:

Your Star

Rage More!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,241
Reaction score
19,930
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
It doesn't. It's just another failed argument from the anti-SSM side.
 

RosieS

Active member
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
272
Reaction score
69
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Can someone explain to me--intelligently--how SSM negatively effects opposite-sex couples who are married, want to get married, have been divorced or will get re-married?

Thanks,

:peace

No can do, Joe. Sorry.

You're welcome.

Regards from Rosie
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,568
Reaction score
8,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Here let me give it a shot.

Same sex marriage will hurt the reputation of marriage, and it will no longer have that special status about it, so less young people will get married.

If that isn't enough then I invoke the Law of Unintended Consequences card and say that we shouldn't be messing with marriage because there could be all sorts of problems that we can't even conceive.
 

Hellflower7

New member
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4
Reaction score
3
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Here let me give it a shot.

Same sex marriage will hurt the reputation of marriage, and it will no longer have that special status about it, so less young people will get married.

If that isn't enough then I invoke the Law of Unintended Consequences card and say that we shouldn't be messing with marriage because there could be all sorts of problems that we can't even conceive.

The reputation of marriage is already hurt via all the divorce, abuse and cheating that goes on in the marriages of *heterosexual* couples. Also, marriage should not be about a reputation but rather about a relationship between two consenting adults who wish to make their commitment legal in the eyes of the law.

There is NO WAY that a loving, heterosexual couple's marriage would be hurt by the marriage of anonymous same sex couples who have no impact on their lives.
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,568
Reaction score
8,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The reputation of marriage is already hurt via all the divorce, abuse and cheating that goes on in the marriages of *heterosexual* couples.

The current state of marriage is no excuse to make it worse. :)

There is NO WAY that a loving, heterosexual couple's marriage would be hurt by the marriage of anonymous same sex couples who have no impact on their lives.

You can't know that for sure.

Anywho, it isn't just about marriage. Precious religous liberties will be attacked. Look at all of these cases where it is already happening...

Christian Doctor sued for refusing to artificially inseminate a lesbian

Catholic Adoption Charities refuse to adopt children since they will lose their tax exemption of they don't adopt to gays and lesbians

Children in public schools are taught about same sex parents regardless of how their parents feel

Young public school children taken to lesbian wedding as a teachable moment

Unversity sued for housing policies toward traditional marriage

Christian photographer sued by lesbian couple for refusing to photograph their commitment ceremony

Christian Camp sued over refusing to allow same sex civil union ceremony

It is becoming more and more difficult for Christians to discriminate against gays and lesbians every day. If same sex marriage is legalized then it will legitimize homosexual relationships and normalize it in society. Anyone who doesn't accept it will be considered a bigot.
 

joe six-pack

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
1,123
Reaction score
384
Location
Six-Pakistan
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Same sex marriage will hurt the reputation of marriage, and it will no longer have that special status about it, so less young people will get married.
People don't get married because it's a "special status," people get married because it's a verbal commitment, that legally creates legal and economic security. Next-of-kin status.

There is a difference between the ceremony of "marriage" and the legal set of laws that are called "lawful marriage." Most people understand the difference.
If that isn't enough then I invoke the Law of Unintended Consequences card and say that we shouldn't be messing with marriage because there could be all sorts of problems that we can't even conceive.
In that case, we should never do anything, because it could have consequences we could never conceive. It's an excuse to be apathetic.

A church cannot be forced to hold a ceremony it doesn't want to. That's called the First Amendment and it will be upheld by the Supreme Court.

Satanism is a real religion, but that doesn't mean I can have a Satanic wedding in your church, or sue your town if you don't let me.

Fear of Law suits is no reason to allow Constitutional protections to be abused for hermaphrodites, transsexuals and homosexuals.
It is becoming more and more difficult for Christians to discriminate against gays and lesbians every day. If same sex marriage is legalized then it will legitimize homosexual relationships and normalize it in society. Anyone who doesn't accept it will be considered a bigot.
Anyone who hates gays, just for being gay, is already considered a bigot by popular opinion.

The Law doesn't need to deal with social issues. The Law doesn't make a group legit or force people to think a certain way.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The more basic question is: how do same sex relationships affect heterosexual relationships?

The answer is that they don't in any way, shape or form. The issue of marriage is simply an extension of that. We've gone from gays being told that they are flawed, immoral and wrong to telling them that wanting to get married to one another is flawed, immoral, and wrong. The argument has slightly changed shape but its basic nature is still the same. :shrug:

But we currently live in a system where the rights of the individual are being ignored in order to satiate the moralities of certain groups. Even though SSM has nothing to do with people who are already married, they'll twist the argument to try and make it seem like there is some relevance, even though there isn't. Given the freedoms and opportunities that exist in our "free" societies, on paper there is nothing stopping you from living the life you want. Gays just want that same ability, which is what the marriage debate is about.

Separate but equal doesn't cut it. We either have all the same institutions you have, or we are not equal and thus our Constitution is not worth the paper it is written on.
 
Last edited:

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,754
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Can someone explain to me--intelligently--how SSM negatively effects opposite-sex couples who are married, want to get married, have been divorced or will get re-married? How do gay people hurt you personally simply by existing? How does someone else marriage effect your marriage? Does it or is that an excuse?

Same-sex marriage will not have a measurable effect on a significant number of opposite-sex marriages, except for the few divorces caused by homosexuals within opposite-sex marriages who are now free to marry according to their own preferences. (I don't have numbers on this but I would assume they are negligible.) No straight couple getting divorced will cite same-sex marriage as the cause of their breakup. However, marriage is a traditional legal institution which fulfills a number of vital functions within society, and there is a natural and praiseworthy reluctance to modify the institution without careful thought and study-- the fact that nearly all same-sex marriage arguments are couched in terms of equal rights rather than of benefit to society implies that the people fighting for this adjustment are not acting with the good of whole society first and foremost in their thoughts.

Your question implies the liberal political philosophy that unless something causes measurable harm to the individual, it should be tolerated. I would remind you, then, that not everyone is a liberal or follows liberal ideologies, and opponents of same-sex marriage are far more likely to follow a conservative, morality- and tradition-based view of the government's role in society.

So, really, it's in the States interest to allow people to get married whenever possible. That way, any leftover public or private dept get's repaid.

The State's interest in promoting marriage goes far beyond simple debt repayment. Marriage is essential to cohesive family units, and the family is the most basic building block of society.

The reputation of marriage is already hurt via all the divorce, abuse and cheating that goes on in the marriages of *heterosexual* couples. Also, marriage should not be about a reputation but rather about a relationship between two consenting adults who wish to make their commitment legal in the eyes of the law.

Marriage is not about love. Marriage is a political, financial, and legal arrangement that, with good fortune and better planning, produces love.
 

Hicup

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Messages
9,081
Reaction score
2,709
Location
Rochester, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Same-sex marriage will not have a measurable effect on a significant number of opposite-sex marriages, except for the few divorces caused by homosexuals within opposite-sex marriages who are now free to marry according to their own preferences. (I don't have numbers on this but I would assume they are negligible.) No straight couple getting divorced will cite same-sex marriage as the cause of their breakup. However, marriage is a traditional legal institution which fulfills a number of vital functions within society, and there is a natural and praiseworthy reluctance to modify the institution without careful thought and study-- the fact that nearly all same-sex marriage arguments are couched in terms of equal rights rather than of benefit to society implies that the people fighting for this adjustment are not acting with the good of whole society first and foremost in their thoughts.

Your question implies the liberal political philosophy that unless something causes measurable harm to the individual, it should be tolerated. I would remind you, then, that not everyone is a liberal or follows liberal ideologies, and opponents of same-sex marriage are far more likely to follow a conservative, morality- and tradition-based view of the government's role in society.


Well said! ^^^


Tim-
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,568
Reaction score
8,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
...opponents of same-sex marriage are far more likely to follow a conservative, morality- and tradition-based view of the government's role in society.

I'm aware of this perception. The problem is the average conservative's view of a "traditional" family is the 1950's nuclear family. In fact it doesn't end there; calling everyone a communist/socialist, attacking the threat of the homosexual menace, deriding multiculturalism, excessive nationalism, scorn for women's reproductive rights, etc. are pretty much all 1950s concepts that conservatives cling to today. When I think tradition, I think deist founding fathers, a limited federal government with a system of checks and balances, a civic responsiblity to create good policy so the nation can prosper as a whole, etc.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,754
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I'm aware of this perception. The problem is the average conservative's view of a "traditional" family is the 1950's nuclear family.

Aside from the inherent bias against homosexuals, this is a good thing. I could pontificate at length about the virtue of the close extended family as opposed to the nuclear family, but the 1950's nuclear family is inherently superior to any of the broken structures that our "modern values" have replaced it with. Mixed and blended households, single parent households, these are all symptoms of profound social and moral failings on our part, and these problems are causing further degradation of our society.

In fact it doesn't end there; calling everyone a communist/socialist, attacking the threat of the homosexual menace, deriding multiculturalism, excessive nationalism, scorn for women's reproductive rights, etc. are pretty much all 1950s concepts that conservatives cling to today.

These aren't all bad things. Multiculturalism is a threat to our people and our values, even the liberal values you champion, and there is no such thing as excessive nationalism.

When I think tradition, I think deist founding fathers, a limited federal government with a system of checks and balances, a civic responsiblity to create good policy so the nation can prosper as a whole, etc.

That's the problem with using these terms in America. They're hopelessly muddled by the influence of other ideologies that have come and gone.
 

RosieS

Active member
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
272
Reaction score
69
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
"there is no such thing as excessive nationalism."

To state why this is horrific would make me have to Godwin this thread. I think I just did by implication.

Regards from Rosie
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
44,221
Reaction score
24,385
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
"there is no such thing as excessive nationalism."

To state why this is horrific would make me have to Godwin this thread. I think I just did by implication.

Regards from Rosie

My problem with the idea of never too much nationalism is that it assumes that my identity is somehow tied into my nation or culture. I am sure it is in some minor level, but not completely. In the end though, I do not believe I would forget who I am if I were to move to another country, even one vastly different than the U.S.
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,568
Reaction score
8,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Aside from the inherent bias against homosexuals, this is a good thing. I could pontificate at length about the virtue of the close extended family as opposed to the nuclear family, but the 1950's nuclear family is inherently superior to any of the broken structures that our "modern values" have replaced it with. Mixed and blended households, single parent households, these are all symptoms of profound social and moral failings on our part, and these problems are causing further degradation of our society.

Well then let us return to a time when shotgun weddings were the norm and a woman had no rights if her husband was beating the **** out of her. Let us go back to that wonderful time when several states had interracial marriage bans and gay people were considered child predators. Let us go back before no fault divorce when divorce was a bloody incident which drove the children through utter hell. Let us return to a time when single mothers were scorned and despised and their children were treated as little bastards for having the indecency of being born outside of marriage. Let us return to that time when women were expected to stay at hom and care for the children instead of pursuing education and dreams of their own and contraceptives were considered taboo.

Yup, the 1950s were great.

These aren't all bad things. Multiculturalism is a threat to our people and our values, even the liberal values you champion, and there is no such thing as excessive nationalism.

I'm not a liberal. And you are a facist, so of course you don't believe in excessive nationalism.
 

JustineCredible

Wading through the Mire
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
91
Location
Eastern Standard Time zone
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
The current state of marriage is no excuse to make it worse. :)



You can't know that for sure.

Anywho, it isn't just about marriage. Precious religious liberties will be attacked. Look at all of these cases where it is already happening...

Christian Doctor sued for refusing to artificially inseminate a lesbian

Key word in that "DOCTOR" regardless of this individual's religious bend, he's a doctor FIRST and FOREMOST, his responsibility is to ensure the health and well being of his patients. Not to dictate his religious beliefs to anyone, especially not his patients.


Again, Adoption services that operate under the guise of a religious organization, but who profit from said services should not be allowed to discriminate against any qualified potential applicants, regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof.


Yes, and in public schools children are taught that slavery is bad, women deserve their right to vote and that all people should be treated equally. REGARDLESS OF HOW THEIR PARENTS FEEL!
If parents are so twisted up in knots over it, they need to pull their children OUT of PUBLIC schools and put them in whatever Private school that will ensure those children are qualified ignoramuses!


Yeah, and...??? I don't know...sounds like a "teachable moment" to me!


Ok, this one is tricky, it's a Jewish University, not a state university. Here, the University has a right to deny or accept whatever living arrangements fall within predetermined bylaws. Again...key word here should be PREDETERMINED.


If the photographer signed a contract, agreeing to supply his/her services to the contract-ants, then he/she should be held responsible to fulfill his/her end of the contract. It's really that simple.

Christian Camp sued over refusing to allow same sex civil union ceremony[?QUOTE]

This is a misleading headline. The supposed christian camp PROFITS from renting out this space for private parties on what was considered to be Public Lands.

It is becoming more and more difficult for Christians to discriminate against gays and lesbians every day. If same sex marriage is legalized then it will legitimize homosexual relationships and normalize it in society. Anyone who doesn't accept it will be considered a bigot.

Yeah...and...?
They ARE
 

JustineCredible

Wading through the Mire
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
91
Location
Eastern Standard Time zone
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I'm not a liberal. And you are a facist, so of course you don't believe in excessive nationalism.


No darlin, he's a PATRIOT...
He not only loves his country, but also sees the Good AND the Bad...
Nationalists, on the other hand, refuse to critisize they Government or his country and denies any and all flaws it may have...you my dear, are a Nationalist.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,754
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
No darlin, he's a PATRIOT...
He not only loves his country, but also sees the Good AND the Bad...
Nationalists, on the other hand, refuse to critisize they Government or his country and denies any and all flaws it may have...you my dear, are a Nationalist.

No, I really am a Fascist, and a Nationalist. He's got me dead to rights.

I'm willing to criticize my government. I just refuse to judge it by any standard except our own; how well does it advance our interests?

I think our government's gradual abandonment of our moral standards has served our people poorly, condoning and encouraging their immorality and degradation. CriticalThought is quick to point out the moral failures of the past, but it does not seem to me like he appreciates the moral failures of the present; the rise in divorce and children born out of wedlock are moral crises and the effects they are having on the welfare of our people are staggering. It is all well and good to point out that we used to tolerate spousal and child abuse and that we have improved in that regard, but that is no excuse for the way that we tolerate irresponsible marriage and parenthood behaviors now.
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,568
Reaction score
8,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
No, I really am a Fascist, and a Nationalist. He's got me dead to rights.

I'm willing to criticize my government. I just refuse to judge it by any standard except our own; how well does it advance our interests?

I think our government's gradual abandonment of our moral standards has served our people poorly, condoning and encouraging their immorality and degradation. CriticalThought is quick to point out the moral failures of the past, but it does not seem to me like he appreciates the moral failures of the present; the rise in divorce and children born out of wedlock are moral crises and the effects they are having on the welfare of our people are staggering. It is all well and good to point out that we used to tolerate spousal and child abuse and that we have improved in that regard, but that is no excuse for the way that we tolerate irresponsible marriage and parenthood behaviors now.

I challenge the conception that divorce is inherently immoral. Furthermore, the divorce rate has been falling since the 80s. Much more interesting is the steady decline of marriage rates, which has been occurring since the 1940s. Children born out of wedlock has steadily been increasing for just as long. These are trends. Marriage is a patriarchal structure and allowing women the right to work has done more to challenge the institution than anything else, including no fault divorce. There is nothing inherently immoral about women choosing to work rather than to rely on a husband. The "moral failings of the present" as you put it were set into motion in WWII when women went off to work in the factories and realized that they did not need to rely on a man.
 

RosieS

Active member
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
272
Reaction score
69
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
No, I really am a Fascist, and a Nationalist. He's got me dead to rights.

I'm willing to criticize my government. I just refuse to judge it by any standard except our own; how well does it advance our interests?

I think our government's gradual abandonment of our moral standards has served our people poorly, condoning and encouraging their immorality and degradation. CriticalThought is quick to point out the moral failures of the past, but it does not seem to me like he appreciates the moral failures of the present; the rise in divorce and children born out of wedlock are moral crises and the effects they are having on the welfare of our people are staggering. It is all well and good to point out that we used to tolerate spousal and child abuse and that we have improved in that regard, but that is no excuse for the way that we tolerate irresponsible marriage and parenthood behaviors now.

Can you show me how that goosestepping thing works? I would think that marching like that would hurt lots really fast.

Regards from Rosie
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,754
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I challenge the conception that divorce is inherently immoral. Furthermore, the divorce rate has been falling since the 80s. Much more interesting is the steady decline of marriage rates, which has been occurring since the 1940s. Children born out of wedlock has steadily been increasing for just as long. These are trends.

Compare the high school graduation rates of children whose parents are married to those whose parents are single or divorced. Or, better yet, compare the rate at which step-parents and live-in partners abuse children to the rate at which original parents do. Or, for that matter, just look at the psychological trauma inflicted on children in most divorces. Ask a family court judge. Ask a divorce lawyer. Ask a child psychologist. Ask anyone that's not trying to justify this selfish, stupid, reckless "do what feels good" society that we live in.

Yes, they're trends. That doesn't mean that they're trending in any kind of good direction.

Marriage is a patriarchal structure...

This is the worst kind of nonsense. The structure is inherently gender neutral. Both spouses have to consent to marry. Either can unilaterally divorce. And if marriage were inherently patriarchal, wouldn't it be fundamentally incompatible with homosexual couples? After all, how would you be able to tell which one was master of the house?

There is nothing inherently immoral about women choosing to work rather than to rely on a husband.

As long as they don't have children, sure. If there are children, someone has to rely on someone else to raise them. If there are children, someone needs to support them and someone needs to take care of them.

The "moral failings of the present" as you put it were set into motion in WWII when women went off to work in the factories and realized that they did not need to rely on a man.

I'm not arguing with that. I'm just pointing out it's not a good thing.
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,568
Reaction score
8,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Compare the high school graduation rates of children whose parents are married to those whose parents are single or divorced. Or, better yet, compare the rate at which step-parents and live-in partners abuse children to the rate at which original parents do. Or, for that matter, just look at the psychological trauma inflicted on children in most divorces. Ask a family court judge. Ask a divorce lawyer. Ask a child psychologist. Ask anyone that's not trying to justify this selfish, stupid, reckless "do what feels good" society that we live in.

Not everyone who gets divorced has children.

Furthermore, you don't know if the traumatic effects of divorce outweigh the traumatic effects of having two parents who hate each other. We don't have any numbers before no fault divorce to compare whether or not those children were better off.

Yes, they're trends. That doesn't mean that they're trending in any kind of good direction.

Good is subjective. What you mean to say is that they aren't heading in the direction you want to see them go.

This is the worst kind of nonsense. The structure is inherently gender neutral. Both spouses have to consent to marry. Either can unilaterally divorce. And if marriage were inherently patriarchal, wouldn't it be fundamentally incompatible with homosexual couples? After all, how would you be able to tell which one was master of the house?

I'm not talking about same sex marriage. I'm talking about traditional marriage. Marriage was historically a man taking ownership of his wife. She became his property. The arrangement was to ensure the paternity of his children and in return he provided for his wife.

As long as they don't have children, sure. If there are children, someone has to rely on someone else to raise them. If there are children, someone needs to support them and someone needs to take care of them.

Hence the importance of day care.

I'm not arguing with that. I'm just pointing out it's not a good thing.

There are trade offs. Calling it "not good" implies that it was bad that women obtained greater liberty. The freedom of one group of people usually comes at the cost of the freedom of another group of people. Women gained a great deal more freedom and as a result, men and children lost some. Similarly, if same sex marriage is legalized then religious folk lose a lot of their freedom to discriminate against gay people and therefore lose some of their religious liberty. Freedom and liberty are nice words, but they ultimately just translate to the power to do what you want and when the distribution of power changes, so does the structure of society.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Many factors go into a life for children after divorce. Reading too much into statistic is as bad or worse than not having any numbers. There's a reason for the quote by Mark Twain: "There are lies, damn lies and statisitics."

However, to add my own two cents. Marriage is a partnership. It requires physical attraction, shared goals, and respect for one another. I see nothing in a same sex union that should mean anything to traditional marriages. because it promotes long term parings and discourages promoscuity, everyone shold favor the inclusion of same sex couple into marriage IMHO.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,754
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Furthermore, you don't know if the traumatic effects of divorce outweigh the traumatic effects of having two parents who hate each other.

Either way, we're talking about the traumatic effects of two parents who can't act like adults.

Good is subjective. What you mean to say is that they aren't heading in the direction you want to see them go.

Yes. That is what I mean when I say "good". In my case, I'm saying that divorce and single parenthood are "bad" because they cause things I don't like, like juvenile delinquency, drug abuse, and teenage pregnancy.

I'm not talking about same sex marriage. I'm talking about traditional marriage.

So are you saying that they're not the same thing? Or are you saying that marriage now isn't the same thing as traditional marriage?

Because if the marriage we have now isn't traditional marriage, I'm okay with that. Marriage isn't broken. People just aren't taking it seriously enough.

Hence the importance of day care.

Strangers are not parents. They do not have the same value, they cannot perform the same function, and they do not have nearly the same attachment.

There are trade offs. Calling it "not good" implies that it was bad that women obtained greater liberty. The freedom of one group of people usually comes at the cost of the freedom of another group of people. Women gained a great deal more freedom and as a result, men and children lost some.

Children are more important than men and women combined because they develop into men and women and what hurts them impairs their development. Adults can suck it up; children get broken.

Similarly, if same sex marriage is legalized then religious folk lose a lot of their freedom to discriminate against gay people and therefore lose some of their religious liberty.

Not really. The homophobic religious folk could still discriminate against homosexuals just as much as they do now. Nobody's going to throw Phelps in jail or just put a bullet in him. Nobody's going to force churches to "serve" homosexuals-- it's not going to affect them at all. The people they're discriminating against are already going to different churches anyway.

Freedom and liberty are nice words, but they ultimately just translate to the power to do what you want and when the distribution of power changes, so does the structure of society.

Yes. And as much as I like to sound the horn for moral equivalence, some structures don't work. They are unstable and they lead to collapse. Disintegrating family values is something that kills civilizations.

Many factors go into a life for children after divorce. Reading too much into statistic is as bad or worse than not having any numbers. There's a reason for the quote by Mark Twain: "There are lies, damn lies and statisitics."

And then there's people who won't admit to objective, verifiable facts because they're uncomfortable.

However, to add my own two cents. Marriage is a partnership. It requires physical attraction, shared goals, and respect for one another. I see nothing in a same sex union that should mean anything to traditional marriages. because it promotes long term parings and discourages promoscuity, everyone shold favor the inclusion of same sex couple into marriage IMHO.

Absolutely agree with you. Marriage is a vital social institution and everyone should be heavily encouraged to participate.
 
Top Bottom