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?
Thanks,
eace
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.
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.
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.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.
In that case, we should never do anything, because it could have consequences we could never conceive. It's an excuse to be apathetic.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.
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.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
Anyone who hates gays, just for being gay, is already considered a bigot by popular opinion.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.
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?
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 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.
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.
...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.
"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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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?
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.
I'm not arguing with that. I'm just pointing out it's not a good thing.
Furthermore, you don't know if the traumatic effects of divorce outweigh the traumatic effects of having two parents who hate each other.
Good is subjective. What you mean to say is that they aren't heading in the direction you want to see them go.
I'm not talking about same sex marriage. I'm talking about traditional marriage.
Hence the importance of day care.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?