Mitch Evans stated on another thread:
“Unfortunate, but true. There are no easy answers to to the question of divorce, either, but that’s another topic for another time…”
So I figured, let’s make this another time. Sure there’s an easy answer for the question of divorce. There’s always an easy answer for everything; that’s why they’re so attractive.
The easy answer for divorce is the same answer for gay marriage: ban it. Make it illegal. You want a divorce? Not in our country, Sunny Jim. Save the children. Save the family. Ban divorce.
So many people claim that being opposed to gay marriage has nothing, no NOTHING to do with the same type of prejudice that once prohibited marriage between blacks and whites or Jew and Catholic. Heavens no. It has to do with concern over saving marriage itself, even though not one shred of evidence has been produced indicating that gay marriage would somehow threaten straight marriage.
There’s the simple answer, then. Ban divorce. Put it on the voting referendums of every single state that banned gay marriage, watch it go down and flames, and expose them for the screaming hypocrites that they are.
Anybody else have simple answers they’d care to float about for difficult problems? War? Poverty? Terrorism?
PAD
• 
Bobb:
>Fred, change is scary. Facing the birth of my first child in October, I sometimes totally freeze up with the changes that are coming…or are already here. But I wouldn’t for the world want someone to outlaw having kids.
Ok, let me clarify further. Change is scary. Change that does not meet your past experiences and is not to your personal taste or belief, yet has no proven track record of destroying society or warping the minds of children or next door neighbors was more to the point of which I was speaking.
Fred
Robbnn: You said: “as if children aren’t already living in same sex-based family situations with no demonstrable negative effects.” That sounds like an opinion, not fact. At least anecdotal evidence would say that is completely wrong, in that the same-gender families I’ve encountered do have negatively impacted children. I’ve seen studies (no links, I’ll see what I can find) that very much do conclude that same sex families, as well as divorce, have harmed children more often than not.
Luigi Novi: In what way? And were these studies scientifically conducted? Peer-reviewed? Objectively conducted? Or were they conducted with the goal of proving a pre-determined conclusion in an a priori manner?
Yes, please do see what you can find to support your assertion. By contrast, I can back up my position that gay parenting does not harm anyone thus: http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html.
Your challenge might be repeated to the liberals who actually DID say they’d leave the country if Bush was elected. Since a handful did say it, should all liberals have to put up and leave the country, or shut up?
Robbnn: Fear and bigotry are handy labels for people who disagree with you.
Luigi Novi: They
PAD,
As I have noted before, your pointless challenge deliberately ignores the stated opposition of those who oppose gay marriage. To say I will divorce my wife if gay marriage becomes a reality is as absurd as saying that I would quit being an American if John Kerry was elected, or that I would kill my children if they make another horrible Star Trek movie.
One (of serveral) reasons I oppose gay marriage is demonstrated from the following exhange earlier on this thread:
I guess it’s time to come out of the walk-in closet – I am involved in a polyamorous relationship. In our case, it’s polyandrous, not polygamous, but that should be just as horrible, right?
It took a lot of guts to come out and say this, and you have my respect for that.
Since multiple marriage isn’t an option, my wife and I will be binding with my cohusband in a handfasting ritual this spring. In our hearts, it will be every bit as solid as a state-approved wedding.
And since nobody else here seems to have the common courtesy to say it, let me be the first to congratulate you. I think that’s fantastic and I wish the three of you the best.
You have my respect — for me, it’s hard enough to make a marriage work with just two parties; I can’t even imagine how complicated it would be adding a third to the mix.
Are any of your regular monogamous relationships breaking apart now, as the result of my revelation? For that matter, is our multiple commitment to each other and our daughter weakened at all by our gay neighbor and his boyfriend?
Nope. Frankly, I don’t see any reason polyamory should be illegal as long as all parties are aware of the situation and happy with it. I don’t see how this affects anyone’s lives any more or less than homosexual marriage, interracial marriage, or plain ol’ everyday vanilla marriage. Whatever works for you is great, and I don’t need the government to say it ain’t. Whatever goes on between two or more consenting adults is the business of those adults alone.
I have a very simple question, if marriage is not a union between a man and a woman, what exactly is it? And why is it limited to only 2 people? And why is it necessary for it to exist in the first place? Once you remove the foundation that it is between a man and a woman, and that it exists as a place to bear children and thus propogate our species, what purpose does it really serve? If it is just to allow two (or more) people to declare their love, that is nice, but there are a whole lot of other cultural traditions that have not existed for the course of human history.
PAD, the fear about gay marriage has nothing to do with how it will effect those currently married. It has to do with the foundation of society 20, 30, 50 years down the road. You say it will not hurt anything. But you don’t know that yet. I say it will. But I cannot prove it either. Both of us have to start with our presuppositions and extrapolate what seems to be the likely result. As the exchange above illustrates, I believe the result will be marriage will be *anything* which means it will mean nothing at all. And for the sake of the next generation, that will be far worse than even the current divorce situation and the impact it has on kids.
So answer this question, PAD: Are you in agreement with polyamorous marriages? What limits should be put on marriage?
One other side note: Let me deal with a common misconception. I would suggest that from a biblical standpoint marriage is a human institution, not a church or religious one. In other words, I don’t find God in the Bible only recognizing those married by an Old Testament Priest or a New Testament church leader (be it priest of pastor) as married. To use today’s terminology, God in the Bible treats anyone as married who is declared such, whether that declaration came from a church or a secular instittuion such as the government.
Why do I point this out? Simply to say that from a theological standpoint, it really doesn’t matter who performs the ceremony. So to make marriage simply a “church” issue and make civil unions a state issue doesn’t solve the problem I stated above. Whatever you want to label it, the union of a man and wife to have kids is the foundation of society. (And to repeat what has been said before, if you don’t have kids, it doesn’t mean you are not married. But the purpose of getting married rather than just having a sex buddy is to provide the stable and secure environment where a child can be born and raised.)
Bottom line, destroying the traditional understanding of marriage being between a man and a woman will have a far greater impact on society than divorce ever has had.
Iowa Jim
Bobb:
“Mitch, you are correct. I mean gun misuse as being associated with societal costs. Some of which I think would go away if we were all armed. Maybe not with guns, but let me carry around a bo staff and be trained in it’s use, and I’m less likely to get mugged. Unless of course the mugger have bows.”
Hi Bobb,
Thanks for the clarification.But c’mon… We both know that when violence is confronted with more violence then the situation gets out of hand. Given the option I’d far prefer to set my phaser to either ‘nauseate’ or ‘discourage’.
On a lighter note (what the Hëll do I mean by that?), if you get to walk around with your bo staff then I should be able to walk around with my sword. It’s funny… I can get a concealed/carry permit for my gun but I can’t wear my sword?
What the Hëll?!?
Bottom line, destroying the traditional understanding of marriage being between a man and a woman will have a far greater impact on society than divorce ever has had.
No — the “bottom line” is that you are continually presenting your opinions as if they’re undisputed facts.
They’re not. They’re opinions, they’re your opinions, and they’re not shared by many people you would presumably think are otherwise moral individuals.
But go ahead. Continue to talk about the imminent death of society. In my more optimistic moments, I’d like to think that progress will continue, and that, if you’ll pardon the term, “we will bury you.”
(In my more pessimistic moments, of course, I’m quoting “first they came for the gays, and…”)
I, for one, will answer PAD’s challenge in this way. If an amendment is passed declaring same-sex unions permanently invalid, I think Lisa and I might consider divorcing — we’d stay together, but renounce the terminology as bigoted and inappropriate to a civilized society.
There, Jim. There’s some actual, CONCRETE damage to the institution of marriage, as opposed to abstractions. Got any responses?
TWL
Once you remove the foundation that it is between a man and a woman, and that it exists as a place to bear children and thus propogate our species, what purpose does it really serve? If it is just to allow two (or more) people to declare their love, that is nice, but there are a whole lot of other cultural traditions that have not existed for the course of human history
It’s not just about “declaring love”, if it were, people would be happy with a personal ritual of some kind. It’s about medical rights, property rights, custody rights, etc. We have tied more than just love to the equation.
However, I think it is also correct to consider the impact of making a homosexual relationship not just legally equivalent, but culturally.
I think that’s why so many people choose the middle ground of civil unions. It allows the legal benefits without the cultural ones. It allows people to tell their kids that there’s a difference between the two. There’s a lot of people in the “pro” camp, and a growing number of people in the “live and let live” civil union camp. That will be where the compromise happens, until our society is ready to culturally recognize there is no difference.
>Bottom line, destroying the traditional understanding of marriage being between a man and a woman will have a far greater impact on society than divorce ever has had.
… and here I thought that the incredible ease it which a marriage can be enacted and/or dissolved has already destroyed the traditional understanding of marriage.
Fred
In regards to civil unions, I used to think that was the best answer. I was a big supporter of unions as a comprimise. I pulled my support for civil unions in favor of the term marriage because it brings us back to the whole seperate but equal debate. If it’s seperate it isn’t euqual. I realized I couldn’t look any of my gay freinds in the face and say that thier relationship is of a lesser status than any one I might have.
I have yet to be able to qualify a real difference between heterosexual realtionships and homosexual relationships (and I mean the relationships, not the genders of people engaged in said relationships) which leads me to believe that the term to define the relationships should be the same.
We’re bonding with our cohusband for the same reason my wife and I got married in the first place – as an obvious, external affirmation of our love and mutual support. Oh sure, it made certain legal matters easier, but if that’s your main goal, legal contracts can be drawn up. Marriage, in modern society, is about love. (In earlier eras, it was about property rights, and establishing lines of inheritance – but I’d like to think we’ve moved beyond Medieval thinking.) We are saying to the world, “We are a unit. No matter what you think, we are bound together by love – and no mere physical force, no distance, no interference by outsiders, can drive us apart.”
Why shouldn’t gay people be given the same right to declare their love publically? (And yes, there are locales where two gay men can be arrested, convicted, and jailed for being physically intimate with one another. Have we forgotten that case in Texas already?)
As for “damaging the children”, it may be worth noting that every gay person of my acquaintance was raised by a straight couple….
Robnn, ordinarily I’d have answered your questions with a resounding “nunya”, but you caught me in the right mood. We don’t share a bed, because our bed is only queen-size, and not quite large enough to sleep three comfortably. (Besides, I think my co-husband, J, has some issues on that score…) Intimacy is determined by our wife – she sleeps with whom she wants, and sometimes she wants us both in succession. ;-> Actual sleeping is also determined by who she feels like lying next to all night, conditioned by the fact that our daughter wants to sleep between Tuatha (our wife) and I when we’re together. If I’m sleeping in the other room, I guess it’s not as much fun. 🙂
Luigi, I readily recognize that my evidence of God is non-empirical; that’s why I don’t insist anyone else has to believe what I do. God’s love is great enough to encompass many ways of being, not just mine.
They’re not. They’re opinions, they’re your opinions, and they’re not shared by many people you would presumably think are otherwise moral individuals.
The problem is, since this “great experiment” has not been tried in this way before, there is no actual example you can point to either way. So yes, it is conjecture. But it is also built on logic and thousands of years of human history in a wide variety of cultures and religions.
Not to pick on Jonathan (the other one), but he has stated what I believe to be the direction we are headed:
Marriage, in modern society, is about love. (In earlier eras, it was about property rights, and establishing lines of inheritance – but I’d like to think we’ve moved beyond Medieval thinking.) We are saying to the world, “We are a unit. No matter what you think, we are bound together by love – and no mere physical force, no distance, no interference by outsiders, can drive us apart.”
My question is very simple: Is this an acceptable “marriage” arrangement to you? Should bigamy and polygamy also be allowed, along with gay marriage? What is the defining element that constitutes a marriage? If it is only love, than Jonathan is exactly right. (Obviously, I am still medieval in my thinking. 😉 )
Iowa Jim
My question is very simple: Is this an acceptable “marriage” arrangement to you?Should bigamy and polygamy also be allowed, along with gay marriage?
Polygamy, I see no reason why not, since all those involved are informed and consenting parties. Bigamy, however, is generally defined as a man married to two (or more) women, all of whom are unaware of each other, and therefore not consenting. In which case, no, it’s not acceptable. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you didn’t consider that when slipping it in there with the other examples.
Oh, this straw man argument again.
PAD:
“You have zero concept of what a strawman argument is, if that’s what you think.”
It really is. Making divorce illegal is just a bogus non-issue constructed as some silly reductio ad absurdum. It’s never been pushed or pursued by any real lawmakers.
The stability of traditional marriages has absolutely zilch to do with denying governmental endorsement of same-sex unions. There are some who say it does, but they’re wrong. And by your basing a lot of histrionics on these dopey statements, you’re wrong, too.
“Protection of Marriage” is really an unfortunate and overblown misnomer in regards to denying same-sex unions. Would you be happier if it were called “No Good Reason To Recognize and Reward Transient and Fruitless Relationships as Something Equivocable to Traditional Marriage”? Because that’s really all it is.
Baerbel Haddrell:
“There is a very simple solution how to get rid of any divorce problem: Don`t get married in the first place.”
Recent studies have shown this is indeed what’s happening. By age 35, 33% of American males have never been married. 24% of the females. This has to do with the de-valuing of marriage in our culture, primarily by divorce.
The “gay marriage” groups aren’t the problem, they’re just opportunistic bottom-feeders coming up (or is it out?) to take advantage of the sorry situation.
Robbnn:
“You’ll even find the argument on this thread that since marriage is so screwed up already, what’s the harm in gay marriages? THAT is what they mean by marriage being harmed.”
Exactly. The “gay marriage” garbage is a result of the general disrespect to matrimony, not the other way around.
Mitch Evans:
“Would you be so kind as to tell me upon what basis you make the statement that marriage is a (or the) foundation of our society?”
You were produced from the union of a man and a woman, were you not? Why should something that ubiquitous and obvious have to be spelled out for you?
It’s precisely this kind of anal attitude that gives Republican neo-cons their ammunition: “You don’t see in the Constituion, eh? Well, we can always PUT IT IN THERE for ya…”
Bobb:
“Gay marriage could lead to…happiness? Stable families?”
Not likely. Look at any studies that delve into how long gay relationships typically last, and the statistics on the prevalence of drugs and violence in those relationships.
Most gay relationships are based on broken, troubled, often illicit and illegal conditions. If these people lived “cleaner” lives, then perhaps their relationships would be worth governmental endorsement. But if they lived cleaner lives, most of these people wouldn’t be in gay relationships in the first place.
TallestFanEver:
“Wanna know why I support gay marriage? Because once this is all over, both sides of the issue will shut the hëll up.”
Wanna know why I don’t? Because many millions of non-gays will take advantage of the situation and get “married” to one another for undeserved financial rewards.
The cost of health and life insurance would skyrocket. All of our military barracks would be empty, because lower enlisteds would get “married” to each other and move out into civilian apartments, paid for by tax dollars, which would in turn promote less unity in our armed forces.
All thanks to a self-marginalized group of very greedy individuals.
Luigi Novi:
“No it
But if they lived cleaner lives, most of these people wouldn’t be in gay relationships in the first place.
I’m sorry, but did you really just say something that stupid?
Powell Pugh wrote:
“The cost of health and life insurance would skyrocket. All of our military barracks would be empty, because lower enlisteds would get “married” to each other and move out into civilian apartments, paid for by tax dollars, which would in turn promote less unity in our armed forces.”
To which I reply:
This is laughable. Homosexuals are not allowed in the military. If enlisteds got married, they would be booted out. To avoid war people would be getting married in same sex unions instead of fleeing to Canada. Hey, maybe that is why it is opposed. They see this loophole better than us!
PP wrote:
Most gay relationships are based on broken, troubled, often illicit and illegal conditions. If these people lived “cleaner” lives, then perhaps their relationships would be worth governmental endorsement. But if they lived cleaner lives, most of these people wouldn’t be in gay relationships in the first place.
To which I reply: Tell that to novelist John Saul, who has lived quietly and cleanly with his So for over 30 years. I lived in SF for nine years and met many a clean living homosexual. Usually the negative behavior comes from growing up under the hostile world view voiced by you.
and the straw man thing:
PP wrote:
PAD:
“You have zero concept of what a strawman argument is, if that’s what you think.”
It really is. Making divorce illegal is just a bogus non-issue constructed as some silly reductio ad absurdum. It’s never been pushed or pursued by any real lawmakers.
The stability of traditional marriages has absolutely zilch to do with denying governmental endorsement of same-sex unions. There are some who say it does, but they’re wrong. And by your basing a lot of histrionics on these dopey statements, you’re wrong, too.
“Protection of Marriage” is really an unfortunate and overblown misnomer in regards to denying same-sex unions. Would you be happier if it were called “No Good Reason To Recognize and Reward Transient and Fruitless Relationships as Something Equivocable to Traditional Marriage”? Because that’s really all it is.
To which I reply:
It seems to me that PAD was making a satirical comment, rather than constructing a straw man to knockdown. Though I do think that making divorce harder will no doubt lead to less marriages and more relationship problems.
Homosexuals are allowed in the military. It’s called the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Maybe you’ve heard of it? If “gay marriages” were made legal, that policy would have to be rendered moot.
As to John Saul, I do not doubt that there are certainly a handful of exceptions that prove my point.
And Craig J. Ries, I direct you to the last bit I quoted from Fred Chamberlain.
Mitch Evans: Would you be so kind as to tell me upon what basis you make the statement that marriage is a (or the) foundation of our society?
Powell Pugh: You were produced from the union of a man and a woman, were you not?
Luigi Novi: What does what produced him have to do with what the foundation of society is? You
Powell wrote:
Not likely. Look at any studies that delve into how long gay relationships typically last, and the statistics on the prevalence of drugs and violence in those relationships.
Me:
And what are the statistics on how long unmarried straight relationships last? Lots of us go through plenty of girl or boyfriends before settling down. But we have that option, and some of us make the most of it.
And there’s plenty of drugs and violence in straight relationships, too. Is COPS still on the air?
Powell Pugh: Homosexuals are allowed in the military. It’s called the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Maybe you’ve heard of it? If “gay marriages” were made legal, that policy would have to be rendered moot.
Luigi Novi: Not necessarily. How do you figure this? Infidelity is legal among civilians, but grounds for criminal proceedings in the military.
Well, Luigi Novi made basically stated my response. I worked with a guy once who didn’t tell and was able to serve his country honorably in Desert Storm. A right (not a privledge) that would have been needlessly denied him had he said, btw I’m gay to anybody other than silently to himself. I’m also aware of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” being a Clinton administration deal, so you don’t have to waste space being sarcastic about my memory of that.
Nice attempt at sarcasm by Powell though, but the faulty use of logic derailed it. Better luck next time. 🙂
Polygamy, I see no reason why not, since all those involved are informed and consenting parties. Bigamy, however, is generally defined as a man married to two (or more) women, all of whom are unaware of each other, and therefore not consenting. In which case, no, it’s not acceptable. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you didn’t consider that when slipping it in there with the other examples.
RE: Bigamy–I was not aware that it ONLY had to mean the criminal act of marrying without the others knowledge. I meant it in the sense of 2 and polygamy in the sense of 3 or more. So it was not intended to refer to the criminal act.
Iowa Jim
And what are the statistics on how long unmarried straight relationships last? Lots of us go through plenty of girl or boyfriends before settling down. But we have that option, and some of us make the most of it.
My undestanding is that in Europe where civil unions and/or gay marriage is allowed, it is a minority of gay couples who chose to enter such a relationship. And in spite of there being far greater societal acceptance of being gay, the relationships fail at a higher rate than heterosexual relationships.
It is too late to look up where I found that stat, so ignore it if you so desire. But I suspect the same will be true here.
Iowa Jim
“It is a strawman argument and I explained why.”
It is NOT a strawman argument and *I* explained why.
“None of your quotes said their marriages would be over. Your “challenge” is a hollow one. Find me a credible quote where someone says “if gay marriage is approved, MY marriage will be destroyed.”
And that is exactly the point. That is 100 percent the point. These numbnuts are going around claiming that gay marriage will erode and destroy the family unit. It will destroy marriages. It will put an end to marriage as we know it. And yet, mysteriously, amazing, not one single person is able to offer anything other than opinion as fact. There ARE no facts to back up bigotry. There are NEVER facts to back up bigotry. I want to see facts. I want actual proof of actual marriages that will go bust or that will never happen. If I’m being told that gay marriage will destroy heterosexual union, THEN GØÐÐÃMN PROVE OR SHUT THE HÊLL UP. And while you’re at it, you dámņ well also better prove that Major League Baseball was destroyed by Jackie Robinson and that the army was destroyed by blacks and whites serving together, because similar claims were made.
“The “victimless crime” argument – and it’s a good one. The same argument is made for drugs, underage smoking, prostitution, gun ownership, pornography, assisted suicide and probably several others I can’t think of.”
Drugs kill people. Smoking kills people. Guns kill people. Assisted suicide kills people. I’ll grant you, prostituion and pornography don’t kill people, and hence the usual maneuver of conservatives: They try to associate gay issues with vice activities. In any event, linking gay marriage with stuff that kills you or gets you arrested is unfair, ridiculous, and inappropriate…which is, of course, why it’s routinely done.
PAD
Mitch Evans asked Robbnn:
“Would you be so kind as to tell me upon what basis you make the statement that marriage is a (or the) foundation of our society?”
Powell Pugh answered:
“You were produced from the union of a man and a woman, were you not? Why should something that ubiquitous and obvious have to be spelled out for you?
It’s precisely this kind of anal attitude that gives Republican neo-cons their ammunition: “You don’t see in the Constituion, eh? Well, we can always PUT IT IN THERE for ya…”
Hi Powell,
I admit that I’m intrigued. In the first sentence of your quote above it is evident that you acknowlege that reproduction requires both male and femeale sexes. Since this can, and does, happen without marriage then marriage is not necessary for the species propogation that allows societies to grow. To quote on of the grea… uh…thinkers of our time: “Why should something that ubiquitous and obvious have to be spelled out for you?”
In your second paragraph, also quoted above, you make the type of statement that is indicative of the kind of zeal that stagnates human progress. It’s really quite unfortunate. Unfortunate because I bet you could add value to almost any discussion, but instead you communicate from a destructive impulse rather that a constructive one.
Man, it
Peter David:
Drugs kill people. Smoking kills people. Guns kill people. Assisted suicide kills people. I’ll grant you, prostituion and pornography don’t kill people, and hence the usual maneuver of conservatives: They try to associate gay issues with vice activities. In any event, linking gay marriage with stuff that kills you or gets you arrested is unfair, ridiculous, and inappropriate…which is, of course, why it’s routinely done.”
Hi Peter,
I just wanted to add that since heterosexuals engage in all of the activities you listed above. I could understand that mentality if someone could demonstrate that participants of gay marriage will spontaneously combust, but heteros won’t because they’re hetero. Somehow I don’t see such demonstrations happening.
Hey, remember when AIDS was dubbed ‘The Gay Plague’ and it was widely believed that one was safe if one was straight? Look at how well that worked out!
And Craig J. Ries, I direct you to the last bit I quoted from Fred Chamberlain.
Oh, I apologize, Your Highness. I didn’t meant to step on any toes by asking for an explanation of what appears to be a rather inflamatory and bigoted statement on your part.
But that’s par for the course with some.
Taking one line out of context and spinning it as “bigotry?” Yeah, that is the par for the course with some.
Kinda like how PAD is still going into hissies over the “gay marriage will destroy heterosexual union” crap. When that’s already been pointed out over and over on this thread that the idea of “gay marriage” was born out of the failing marriage numbers, rather than the other way around.
The sad state of matrimonial relations in this country needs to be addressed. But granting the privilege of legal marriage to gays is a completely separate issue.
I don’t want to burst any bubbles out there, but (without quoting anyone here specifically) an arguement passed around about marriage is that no where does it state that marriage is about having kids.
I can’t speak for christians, but as a jewish practice dictated by the rabbi’s of old, if a married couple were unable to concieve a child after ten years of marriage the man can divorce his wife, no questions asked. he is under no obligation to divorce her, and i’ve never heard a story (talmudically or otherwise) where anyone did, but the option was there, leading the jewish understanding of marriage to be diretly related to procreation.
but that’s just a jewish marriage, not a civil marriage and there is a difference between the two (in regards to what they stand for and why they are performed).
And on a side note, gay couples can still have kids. A lesbian couple can be artifcially inseminated, and a gay couple can use a surragate mother. So technically homosexual couples can fulfill the marital requirment of procreation.
in the immortal words of lisa simpson:
“Put that in your fife and smoke it!”
Powell Pugh: When that’s already been pointed out over and over on this thread that the idea of “gay marriage” was born out of the failing marriage numbers, rather than the other way around.
Luigi Novi: The idea of gay marriage was born out of failing marriage numbers? Where did you get this idea? And where has it been pointed out over and over on this thread?
Powell Pugh:
> Most gay relationships are based on broken, troubled, often illicit and illegal conditions. If these people lived “cleaner” lives, then perhaps their relationships would be worth governmental endorsement. But if they lived cleaner lives, most of these people wouldn’t be in gay relationships in the first place.
Powell, I’m not sure where you are getting your information, but I’ll hazard a guess that you have not known many homosexual people on a truly personal level. While living in NYC, I was able to meet people from every nook and cranny of the Earth and all walks of life. I met many gay people. To this day, the most amazing, good-hearted, giving and clean person that I ever met is Dan. Dan grew up in a strict Mormon family right in the state of Utah. He was an amazing person who would give you the gingerly pressed shirt right off of his back. Dan was filled with insights about his own life, having spent much time reflecting on both his own actions and his experiences as a way to grow. He was both generous with others and always aware of the effect that he had on them with his actions. Dan was unassuming and stood in awe of life. He talk me the joy of stopping and allowing myself to “breathe”. Though there was a group that jumped him in the wee hours of the morning as he walked home from work and there were a few that mocked him, anyone that truly allowed him into their lives was extremely grateful for him. Dan wasone of the “cleanest” people that I’ve ever met.
> When that’s already been pointed out over and over on this thread that the idea of “gay marriage” was born out of the failing marriage numbers, rather than the other way around.
I don’t remember seeing this here or in society as an argument for gay marriage. It is sometimes used as a defense, though the argument for is so compelling that I’m not sure why.
Fred
Okay, I’ve only skimmed over most of these – I see that people are on the side of banning gay marriages because it will ruin the institution of marriage, because it will present a bad situation for children to be raised in, because it will devolve the human race to savagery, and other examples from the sublime to the ridiculous.
I know how I personally feel – if you’re doing something and not hurting anyone else, go ahead and do it. A gay marriage will affect my life about as much as housefire in Krakow.
But for you who oppose it – and I will respect your right to oppose it – WHY? Please tell me why. How does it affect your life? Not in general, not the “thousands of couples across the United States” – let’s start with YOU specifically.
Please tell me how two women in Duluth who love each other, want to make each other happy, and are getting married, will affect your day to day life.
Then, we can discuss how it affects OTHER people who are, no doubt, remarkably similar to you – and who may have as much direct effect from the issue as you will.
And if I’m missing a point, pray elucidate – I could very well be wrong.
Oh, and please – one other thing. I don’t intend any insult toward any religion, but there have been homosexuals for so long now that, if God found them an abomination, I would think He would have stopped it – so please do not make note to me of religious implications. If it’s okay with God, I suspect that no one else should speak for Him.
Thank you for your consideration!
I remain,
Sincerely,
Eric L. Sofer
The Silver Age Fogey
x
Board Administrator for Captain Comics Web Page
http://www.captaincomics.us/
“Powell Pugh: No, I’m pretty sure making babies is the foundation of EVERY society. Of every species.
Luigi Novi: Robbnn didn
“Powell Pugh: When that’s already been pointed out over and over on this thread that the idea of “gay marriage” was born out of the failing marriage numbers, rather than the other way around.
Luigi Novi: The idea of gay marriage was born out of failing marriage numbers? Where did you get this idea? And where has it been pointed out over and over on this thread?”
It hasn’t. This is just more opinion being offered up as fact.
PAD
As for gay marriage: with all due respect to Iowa Jim, I
Guys, it’s patently obvious that “Powell Pugh” is simply trolling. Might I suggest you not feed him?
TWL
Iowa Jim:
>>As for gay marriage: with all due respect to Iowa Jim, I
These numbnuts are going around claiming that gay marriage will erode and destroy the family unit. It will destroy marriages. It will put an end to marriage as we know it. And yet, mysteriously, amazing, not one single person is able to offer anything other than opinion as fact. There ARE no facts to back up bigotry. There are NEVER facts to back up bigotry. I want to see facts. I want actual proof of actual marriages that will go bust or that will never happen.
PAD,
I can’t think of any major opponent who has ever said that gay marriage will cause current marriages to fail (other than the rare case where someone who is gay leaves a hetero marriage to act on their gay desires). This is not like allowing no fault divorce which could break up current marriages.
Most opponents of gay marriage don’t even say that it will lead to a radical end of anyone getting married in the future. Some suggest that there will be a decline in marriages, particularly heterosexual. But it will not cease to exist.
So what do I and others suggest is the danger? I see it causing a further breakdown of the family structure as has already happened with no fault divorce. There will be more divorces, more kids torn from one home to another, more kids confused as to their identity (not sexually–gay or straight–but just in general, who they are and what role they have in this world), and these psychologically scarred kids will have a difficult time being successful in this world.
You ask for proof? The problem is that since gay marriage has never happened before the last 20 years, anything I suggest will be shot down. I can suggest implications and logical reasons why damage will occur, but there won’t be any evidence since it does not yet exist.
But let’s step back 50 years. I don’t think the 1950’s were the perfect “Happy Days” of Leave it to Beaver. But there are many ways things were better then than now when it comes to human relationships. If you had said then that no fault divorce would be a bane on society, you would have had a hard time proving it. Yet here we are today. There is mounting evidence that no fault divorce has created more harm than it has helped. You find more single parents who struggle financially. Kids in single parent homes have a far lower average education level, regardless of the actual family income. There is more crime and violence committed by kids today.
There are a number of factors that have led to this, but I believe no fault divorce is a major factor. I realize not everyone agrees with this analysis. Be that as it may, there is no question that you did not have Columbine and some of the other brutal acts happening as often back then as now.
Let’s step back and also look at this from another angle. Back in the 50’s and 60’s, the civil rights movement was rightly fighting bigotry against blacks. In a remarkable short time, once the courts insisted on school busing and that it was wrong to discriminate, a large portion of society changed. While bigotry and racism against black people still exists, it is a pale shadow of what it was 50 years ago.
Let’s now look at another major social issue: abortion. The courts in the 70’s created the “right to privacy” and made abortion legal. We are now over 30 years since that decision, but society remains as divided now as it did then. There has been no lack of information on the issue. Most of our societies institutions, except for some churches, promote the right to choose an abortion. Yet the “national conscience” has not yet noticeably changed on this issue.
I strongly believe the same will be true for gay marriage, especially if it is created by an act of a court. While you decry the bans against same sex marriage vote on by 10 plus states, those votes show more than an ignorant bigotry. Those votes demonstrate a deep moral conscience that says that gay marriage is wrong. I don’t think that is just a religious consceince. I think that it is a natural belief that will always be there. Even if gay marriage is made legal by a court, I doubt it will ever be fully accepted.
Bottom line, this is not bigotry against a group of people. It is a core belief that a particular action is right or wrong.
Iowa Jim
Iowa Jim: “Bottom line, this is not bigotry against a group of people. It is a core belief that a particular action is right or wrong.”
??? “Bigotry”, according to dictionary.com, is defined as “The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot”. A “bigot” is “One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.”
Can you explain how your statement reconciles with the definition?
Jim, I respect your opinion on what’s driving the anti-gay marraige states. I disagree totally with it. It’s a form of insitutionalized bigotry hidden behind a facade of “I’m trying to protect a haloed institution” sign. It’s not that people don’t want gay marraige, it’s that they don’t want gays. And they know they can’t legally prohibit gays, so they take whatever action they can to discourage gay lifestyles.
I can’t back this up. It’s my opinion. But I bet, if you could sit the majority of people speaking against gay marraige, and get them to answer truthfully, at the heart of their motivations is the core ideal that homosexuality is wrong, an abomination in the eyes of god, and they really don’t care all that strongly whether gays marry each other. It’s more that they just don’t want to share the same space as gays, period, and will do anything they can to get away with distancing themselves from them.
Couching this in terms of a Defense of Marraige Act allows them to parade like KKK members in public, and at the same time draw in others that truly do feel that marraige is strictly a union between a man and a woman for the sake of procreation. And it is bigotry. It’s an attempt to foreclose a set of legal rights from a group of people based upon a distinctive characteristic of that group. It’s the same as denying the vote based on gendor or race, or denying marraige rights based on race.
??? “Bigotry”, according to dictionary.com, is defined as “The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot”. A “bigot” is “One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.”
Can you explain how your statement reconciles with the definition?
Probably not, at least to your satisfaction. 🙂 But I will try.
If I say that cheating is wrong, does that make me a bigot? If I say lieing is wrong, does that make me a bigot? The reason I say I am not a bigot is because I am objecting to a particular action, and not to an inherent quality of a person. In addition, I am not “intollerant” of them. While I disagree with homosexuality and with gay marriage, I do not seek to harm gays, nor do I seek to make their life miserable. In one particular case, marriage, I am arguing that by its nature and definition, same sex partnerships are not marriage. This is a very specific human institution, and is not just a legal “right” open to everyone. There are other legitimate restrictions placed on marriage.
Bottom line, I do not see a gay individual as any less of a person than a heterosexual man or woman. That is why I categorically reject the label of being a bigot.
Iowa Jim
Iowa Jim: “Bottom line, this is not bigotry against a group of people. It is a core belief that a particular action is right or wrong.”
Does this mean that white supremisists are not bigots? After all, they have a ‘core belief that a particular action is right or wrong’, (the action being equal rights). They even formed their own church (World Church Of The Creator).
Now, if they were to condense themselves into 1 or 2 states, gain control of the state government by electing their own people, and enact laws dening equal right to non-whites, would this be acceptible? After all, they’re operating on a ‘core belief’ and not bigotry.
Does this mean that white supremisists are not bigots? After all, they have a ‘core belief that a particular action is right or wrong’, (the action being equal rights). They even formed their own church (World Church Of The Creator).
You ignore my statement that this is about an action. White supremicists (sp?) hate people simply because they are black (or any color/race other than white). I do not hate anyone. I disagree with a particular action. I do not deny their rights. I disagree with changing the fundamental nature of marriage, but that is not denying a right. There is a lot of difference between the two.
Iowa Jim
PAD:
“This is just more opinion being offered up as fact.”
And the supposed link between legalizing same-sex unions and illegalizing divorce is a bedrock truth? No, you can knock off the smoke-and-mirrors act at any time. While there is no “danger” to traditional marriage from endorsing same-sex unions, there is simply no compelling reason to endorse same-sex unions.
If there’s any “danger” presented by same-sex unions, it is the matter of distinguishing “real” gay couples from those those who enact the unions simply for economic rewards. With the rising numbers of people who opt out of traditional marriage, for whatever reasons, this is a real concern.
Tim Lynch:
“Guys, it’s patently obvious that “Powell Pugh” is simply trolling.”
Yeah, because someone obviously couldn’t have a sincere opinion that differs from Tim Lynch’s, right?
Another example of “marriage=children” that I’m surprised no one has brought up: one of the conditions given by the Catholic Church as a valid reason for the anullment of a marriage is one partner refusing to have children.
The argument against the theory that “marriage=children” is a very vocal one, and maybe that theory is too difficult for some to grasp in this modern world where we don’t really have to worry too much about infant mortality (although that number did increase by 0.8% in 2003) and survival of the species. But the theory that “marriage=companionship” makes no sense whatsoever. If there is not even a potential for the union to produce something, then what’s the point in rewarding it? Because, gee, they’re really such nice, quiet folks who never bother anybody? That’s how the neighbors described Jeffrey Dahmer, too.
If you read the World Church site, they deny that they act out of hatred for others, but that they act out of love for the white race.
You say you’re not denying a right, but you’re telling a group they cannot do what you can, namely marrying the person you chose to.
I do not ignore your statement that this is about an action. I challenge your statement that “Bottom line, this is not bigotry against a group of people. It is a core belief that a particular action is right or wrong.”
To help clarify my earler post. You white & you own a business. You hire a non-white. This is an action. You’re white & you date a non-white. This is an action. World Church Of The Creator (WCOTC) opposes this because their core belief is that these actions are wrong. They claim that this is not because they are bigoted, but because they feel a need to protect the white race (There’s that word again – protect).
Since they can use the same claim to ban non-whites equality to whites, how is this any different than denying gays marriage? You’re above statement can be applied to both.
You say – it’s not bigotry
They say – it’s not bigotry
You say – it’s a core belief
They can say – it’s a core belief
You say – it’s about protecting (marriage)
They say – it’s about protecting (the white race)
By the way – if anyone wants to make their head spin, check out their FAQ page (Warning – the site is a pop-up hëll). Don’t do this if you’re at work.
http://www.creator.org/faq.html
Powell Pugh: “If there’s any “danger” presented by same-sex unions, it is the matter of distinguishing “real” gay couples from those those who enact the unions simply for economic rewards.”
Yeah, because straight people never do that.
One of my core beliefs is that all people should have equal treatment under the law and I’m pretty sure that it’s one of the core beliefs of the USA (that whole “all men are created equal” bit).
As it stands Homosexuals and not treated equally. We either have to change the the phrase to “all men are created equal, execpt for the gays.” or give them equal treatment under the law.
I can stand by someone with strong morals and ethics, But I don’t understand how is it moral to turn a normal person, for no other reason than their sexual preference, into a second class citezen.
As an interesting historical side note, I looked into the struggle for women to attain the right to vote. That fight lasted, in America anyway, at least 100 years, and included shrugging off the legal practice of removing a woman’s individual legal status once she married. And it took two Federal votes, 25 years apart, to ratify woman’s suffrage. The last state approving the amendment passed it by 1 vote.
Point being, current viewpoints can include a lot of ideas that future aspects of society find reprehensible. And some ideas that encompass change so frighten the established balance of power that it takes extraordinary actions to bring that change about.
Side point to my side-note: the institution of marraige used to legally render women as property owned by their husbands. I’m sure if one were to do a little digging, one would find many statements from the 1820s defending the practice as one that supports the stability of the home, and that changing it will irrevocably destroy the foundations of our society.
If there’s any “danger” presented by same-sex unions, it is the matter of distinguishing “real” gay couples from those those who enact the unions simply for economic rewards.
I’m gonna have to agree with Michael here: that’s a pretty lame arguement when such marriages can occur already.
In this country it is illegal to marry your sister; brother; father; mother; niece; nephew; 1st cousin.
Why?
Because the offspring of such a union could make unhealthy babies.
Clearly, the government is presuming marriage will/should produce children. Should those marriage laws be thrown out?(They discriminate after all, if I want to marry my sister, I’m not allowed to marry who I want to marry…)
Everyone in the country has the same “right”: you can marry a member of the opposite sex who is not a blood relative, and of the age of majority, provided you are the age of majority and currently unwed. You have that “right” and I have that “right” and nowhere does any legal document say we have the “right” to marry anything or anyone we want. If I’m in love with a 12 year old, I’m as out of luck as a gay man. If you don’t love anyone in the eligible legal pool, then you aren’t able to marry. No one is stopping you from doing anything else.
And, yes, gay marriage is largely opposed because the majority of American’s believe homosexual behavior is morally wrong, just as they believe incest and child molestation is wrong, and because it is morally wrong, it can damage our society. That is the moral belief. Your moral belief that it won’t has no more weight than anyone elses. Sad, but true.
And I’m not sure people are necessarily demanding that their opinions are facts… may we not express an opinion?
Craig J. Ries:
“I’m gonna have to agree with Michael here: that’s a pretty lame arguement when such marriages can occur already.”
I personally know of three marriages that were founded on bogus reasons: two for health insurance reasons and one to acquire US citizenship. The citizenship one ended in a no-contest divorce and the two are still bitter towards one another. One of the insurance ones is currently going through a nasty “separation” period before divorce measures can proceed. The last one became a more traditional, loving marriage.
The common element of all three? One of the participants started taking the “relationship” more seriously and expected the other person to do the same. Only one did, even in a culture that supposedly values matrimony. In a culture that accepts same-sex unions and the rewards of that are given to whoever signs their names (gay or not, but especially not), the numbers will be a lot worse than 1-out-of-3.
Like I said before, one-man-one-woman relationships have the potential to create something. Same-sex unions don’t have any potential; the greatest thing they can achieve is non-failure. This is why one is endorsed, and the other is not.
“Like I said before, one-man-one-woman relationships have the potential to create something. Same-sex unions don’t have any potential; the greatest thing they can achieve is non-failure. This is why one is endorsed, and the other is not.”
That’s bûllšhìŧ.
By that reasoning, marriage between the elderly is not endorsed. The marriage of a woman who’s had her tubes tied is not endorsed. The marriage of a man who had a vasectomy is not endorsed.
By that reasoning, the marriage between a black man and white woman should automatically have been endorsed, instead of being met with hostility and bigotry…the same sort being displayed on this board.
And while we’re being concerned about children, the marriage of a convicted pedophile should not be endorsed. The marriage of a rapist should not be endorsed. The marriage of a child molestor should not be endorsed. The marriage of a murderer should not be endorsed. It can be argued that all these people would present a danger to their spouses and to whatever children might be produced by the union.
Except you would endorse all those marriages…but block the marriage of two law-abiding gay people. Do you get that? Gays rank lower on the social scale of acceptability than pedophiles, murderers and rapists, and right on par with the thinking that made black and white relations a hanging offense a hundred years ago.
So the only question is: Which century is your mind in?
PAD