"Gay 'marriage' doesnt hurt society"

[Regular_Atheist]

-Stuff about divorce-

Is that true? Divorce is sometimes necessary in abusive relationships or relationships in which there is far too much conflict between the two people involved. Either way, it’s going to be bad for the children. I mean, people don’t get divorced for fun.

Having said that, I think arguments against homosexual adoption are much more valid, considering the fact that it’s hard to tell at this point what the affects would be, so it’s risky.

Gay marriage is living in a permanent state of sodomy or buggery. Why do we use weasel words to disguise this extraordinarily bizarre activity? If animals did this we would be amazed and assume something was fundamentally wrong.

Eh, you do realise that some animals do practice homosexuality? Besides, since when do we look towards animals to decide what is normal? Some animals consume their own faeces. It doesn’t matter what animals do. They’re not people. Also, I fail to see how female homosexuals could engage in anal sex (sodomy, buggery, etc).

This activity has been condemned in all societies in all ages - Christian, Jewish, pagan, Muslim,
primitives. Sex was not meant for self-gratification but rather the procreation and continuation of the species. Two men having sex will not make a child…so what is the point of it? All tribes/nations understood this ( as do animals) so it was shunned and prohibited.
Seems we have totally lost the plot… rather sad but other species are not so stupid or wilful.

History major?

Homosexuality has been present in many cultures throughout history, such as Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, Ancient Japan and China right up until the 1800s. Some cultures have arguably been worse than ours in terms of their acceptance of such behaviours, accepting things such as pederasty, though this is possibly the only time in which homosexual unions have been accepted. And, as I’ve already mentioned, animals don’t necessarily shun homosexual behaviour.

 

[edwest2]

Exactly. I certainly lived through the 180* turnabout regarding divorce as well as the Roe v Wade ruling. In both cases we heard from all sorts of “professionals” that there would be great benefits to families, children and society. I particularly remember that baloney on abortion of “every child a wanted child” and claims there would be no more child abuse. Ditto with divorce, on how much better the children would be if they were not in a home where the parents were not compatible. IOW we legislated in irresponsibility and immoral behavior and wondered why it increased. We created chaos in the lives of millions and wonder why our social services organizations and agencies are strained.

Yet despite ample evidence from history, proponents of SSM claim there will be no ramifications although we’ve already seen lawsuits, expensive court procedings, and the loss of well established and effective social services programs when the organization refuses to adopt to homosexuals. We see rewording of essential state documents…no more husband and wife, no more mother and father. We disparage our very humanity and essential nature in order to accommodate a tiny minority that has successfully latched onto the civil rights movement as if sexual practices were as intrinsic as race. But they assure us it will all be fine once Joe and Fred or Suzy and Sally get to walk down the aisle just like a normal couple.

Lisa

Some of us are refusing to accommodate this. They are calling it a civil rights movement when there is no rational reason to believe it’s true.

You walk into a room and see three black people, three white women and three Oriental people. Quick question: Which one is gay? Which one is left-handed?

And for those who think this is just a Christian thing, our Jewish neighbors have reached the same conclusion.

jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby_gay_marriage.php3

Peace,
Ed

 

[maximus]

If I’m honest, I wouldn’t mind if gay marriage was accepted just so I could no longer hear about it on the news. It’s all getting slightly tedious now.

You are right, it is a tedious issue until it affects you one way or another. Most people just what to be left alone, do their work, pay their bills, watch their favorite programs, and have a blast on the weekends. Pretty much they go with whatever is beneficial short term.

However, this is a country of laws and laws have consequences. The laws that would enshrine the SSM ensue would make the LGBTP communities a protected class with the full force of the government behind them and orthodox Christians and others a targeted class. In the end this is a high stakes game; those compelled by belief to not have anything to do with SSM will have their world rocked. Many business and professions will be closed to people of faith this is no laughing matter to those affected. We have a fragile economy as it is, this is the kind of issue that can cause people to take arms.

Maybe I am an alarmist and most people will just end up giving in to SSM so their lives are not bothered with and this ends up being a non-issue in the long run.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

I see you live in the United States. It’s a brand new issue here.

It should never have been on the ballot.

As I and others have pointed out, the whole SSM issue appears to be about benefits. The Marriage label is just a label.

Peace,
Ed

Attacks on marriage arent a new thing though. It started with cohabitation, divorce, contraception. The divorce rate proves all these things are an attack on marriage. It shows people dont see marriage as a lifelong commitment, they see it as disposable instead.

Society has lowered its critera for what it believes marriage is. Gays took note of that and said, “Hey! We fit the description of this lower standard, redefined version of marriage too!”

Once society accepts gay marriage, as it is doing now, society is lowering the standards yet again, paving the way for more perversions. Other groups will take note of this and say “Hey! We too now fit this new re-redefined version of marriage!”

Meanwhile traditonal marriage, generations into the future will be scarce.

 

[Biblepoe]

I’m a bit late to the party, but I wanted to address the points brought up in the OP:

What I explained was that gay marriage hurts society in many ways, being:

-Children being taught “gay rights” in public school (why not teach them religious freedom in general too then?)

This argument is circular since teaching students gay rights in school is not a problem unless same-sex marriage hurts society.

BTW, I believe children are taught religious freedom in school by being taught the First Amendment and by being taught to be tolerant of people of all religious positions.

-Future generations growing up with the idea that marriage can be anything, opening the gates to further future problems

European countries have legalized same-sex marriage without this problem. Why? Because people understand that a marriage is a relationship based off of love and commitment to a relationship that is meant to be permanent.

-The imposing of the gay agenda onto Christians and the forcing of us to conform to their definition.

Anti-gay Christians won’t have to conform to an expanded definition of marriage, just like racists Christian denominations don’t have to accept mixed-race marriages. Churches are still permitted to deny marriage to a couple for purely racial reasons because of the First Amendment.

-Only adds to the the further underpopulation of the world (hes a scientist and he insists that the earth is already overpopulated)

Do you really think that if same-sex marriage were legalized that guy in droves would just start leaving their wives to marry other men (or break it off with their girlfriends)?

-The further desensitization and degradation of societys mentalities, whether gay or straight since its more than just gays who support gay marriage

Again, this is circular because it assumes that same-sex marriage is harmful to society in the first place. Otherwise, allowing same-sex marriage does not desensitize society to anything that is actually harmful.

On the flip side, I don’t want the government to determine who can and cannot marry based off of religious ideas.

 

[Bradski]

Yes someone should inform this gentleman that the battle has already been won oh 2,000 years ago with the resurrectiom of Christ

You do realise that over 50% of Catholics now support SSM. And that that percentage is increasing. And has always been increasing. And that there is no indication that the trend will change.

Do you call that winning? Seems an odd way to describe it.

Do we need any further evidence that the “gay agenda” is part of a larger socialist agenda? It is no wonder that the atheist/Marxists march lockstep with the homosexualists, since their ideal of a totalitarian leftist dystopia is the same.

Wow.

Footnote: The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is dead. The experiment failed. This year, for the first time, most billionaires are located where? Moscow.

Ah, so you noticed. So the socialist agenda failed. The Marxist’s idea of a totalitarian leftist dystopia didn’t make it. You should tell Faith.

The Catholic voting bloc is a sleeping giant in America. Unfortunately many of these voters are at present Catholic in name only.

And I think you’d better hope it stays that way because most of them would vote for what you’re arguing against.

this is the kind of issue that can cause people to take arms.

I’ve seen some risible statements on this subject. I’m not sure if that one makes the top 5, but, gee, it comes close.

 

[Bradski]

SSM has been legal for a long time in the Scandinavian countries and the consequences of the legalization of SSM in the whole Scandinavian countries have been a major decline in heterosexual marriage and high rates of single motherhood to the point that only about 30% of children born there are born to parents in a relationship.

Here are some facts that would seem to disprove what you say:

[T]here is no evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry weakens the institution. If anything, the numbers indicate the opposite. A decade after Denmark, Norway and Sweden passed their respective partnership laws, heterosexual marriage rates had risen 10.7% in Denmark; 12.7% in Norway; and a whopping 28.8% in Sweden. In Denmark over the last few years, marriage rates are the highest they’ve been since the early 1970s. Divorce rates among heterosexual couples, on the other hand, have fallen. A decade after each country passed its partnership law, divorce rates had dropped 13.9% in Denmark; 6% in Norway; and 13.7% in Sweden. On average, divorce rates among heterosexuals remain lower now than in the years before same-sex partnerships were legalized.

In addition, out-of-wedlock birthrates in each of these countries contradict the suggestion by social conservatives that gay marriage will lead to great increases in out-of-wedlock births and therefore less family stability for children. In Denmark, the percentage of out-of-wedlock births was 46% in 1989; now it is 45%. In Norway, out-of-wedlock births jumped from 14% in 1980 to 45% right before partnerships were adopted in 1993; now they stand at 51%, a much lower rate of increase than in the decade before same-sex unions. The Swedish trend mirrors that of Norway, with much lower rates of increase post-partnership than pre-partnership.

Is there a correlation, then, between same-sex marriage and a strengthening of the institution of marriage? It would be difficult, and suspect, to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between these trends in heterosexual marriage and marriage rights for gays and lesbians. But the facts demonstrate that there is no proof that same-sex marriage will harm the institution of marriage, or children. An optimistic reading of the facts might even suggest that the energy and enthusiasm that same-sex couples bring to the institution of marriage may cause unmarried heterosexual couples to take a fresh look at marriage as an option. volokh.com/posts/1162396316.shtml

Perhaps you have some other information?

 

[Faithdancer]

The homosexualists won’t be satisfied with simply teaching children tolerance for homosexuals. They will only be satisfied when homosexuality is celebrated as a desirable lifestyle in the classroom, when all references to gender are eliminated, and when educational materials reflecting the traditional family are gone. This is a fait accompli in the Scandinavian countries, and is underway here. As an educator who works in elementary classrooms, I have first hand knowledge that it is: no more “boys” and “girls,” everyone is now to be just “friend.” Traditional reading materials are going to be methodically replaced with pro-homosexual books. Middle schoolers are to be required to lean about homosexual practices in graphic detail.

The ultra-liberals within the US education system are aiding and abetting the process every step of the way. The strategy is simple- indoctrinate the young, and in a few years there were be a whole new generation of homosexualists.

It is time for orthodox Catholics to organize, join with other right-minded Christians, Jews and Moslems, and fight back.

 

[edwest2]

Here are some facts that would seem to disprove what you say:

[T]here is no evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry weakens the institution. If anything, the numbers indicate the opposite. A decade after Denmark, Norway and Sweden passed their respective partnership laws, heterosexual marriage rates had risen 10.7% in Denmark; 12.7% in Norway; and a whopping 28.8% in Sweden. In Denmark over the last few years, marriage rates are the highest they’ve been since the early 1970s. Divorce rates among heterosexual couples, on the other hand, have fallen. A decade after each country passed its partnership law, divorce rates had dropped 13.9% in Denmark; 6% in Norway; and 13.7% in Sweden. On average, divorce rates among heterosexuals remain lower now than in the years before same-sex partnerships were legalized.

In addition, out-of-wedlock birthrates in each of these countries contradict the suggestion by social conservatives that gay marriage will lead to great increases in out-of-wedlock births and therefore less family stability for children. In Denmark, the percentage of out-of-wedlock births was 46% in 1989; now it is 45%. In Norway, out-of-wedlock births jumped from 14% in 1980 to 45% right before partnerships were adopted in 1993; now they stand at 51%, a much lower rate of increase than in the decade before same-sex unions. The Swedish trend mirrors that of Norway, with much lower rates of increase post-partnership than pre-partnership.

Is there a correlation, then, between same-sex marriage and a strengthening of the institution of marriage? It would be difficult, and suspect, to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between these trends in heterosexual marriage and marriage rights for gays and lesbians. But the facts demonstrate that there is no proof that same-sex marriage will harm the institution of marriage, or children. An optimistic reading of the facts might even suggest that the energy and enthusiasm that same-sex couples bring to the institution of marriage may cause unmarried heterosexual couples to take a fresh look at marriage as an option. volokh.com/posts/1162396316.shtml

Perhaps you have some other information?

Sadly, I can provide and have read all kinds of things supported by so-called professionals that are properly referred to as perversions.

Celebrate Diversity? I refuse to celebrate perversity.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Faithdancer]

Sadly, I can provide and have read all kinds of things supported by so-called professionals that are properly referred to as perversions.

Celebrate Diversity? I refuse to celebrate perversity.

Peace,
Ed

It seems that Bradski is arguing from a theological point of view, i.e. that God brings good forth from evil. In other words, the legalization of same sex “marriage” may prove to be a wake up call for those who still believe in the God-given definition of marriage. Of course, coming as they do from an op-ed, the figures he cites are unsubstantiated. Further, since they reflect longitudinal study of a population, there would be a host of other factors which the researchers would need to account for, and control for, before a direct correlation between the institution of same sex “marriage” and decreased divorce rates among heterosexual couples can be drawn. If in the final analysis of data, using robust statistical tools, there is a direct, statistically significant correlation, then we are back to “God brings forth good from evil.” However, even the fact that God brings forth good from evil doesn’t mean that we should follow evil as the best path toward a good end.

 

[LisaA]

Here are some facts that would seem to disprove what you say:

[T]here is no evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry weakens the institution. If anything, the numbers indicate the opposite. A decade after Denmark, Norway and Sweden passed their respective partnership laws, heterosexual marriage rates had risen 10.7% in Denmark; 12.7% in Norway; and a whopping 28.8% in Sweden. In Denmark over the last few years, marriage rates are the highest they’ve been since the early 1970s. Divorce rates among heterosexual couples, on the other hand, have fallen. A decade after each country passed its partnership law, divorce rates had dropped 13.9% in Denmark; 6% in Norway; and 13.7% in Sweden. On average, divorce rates among heterosexuals remain lower now than in the years before same-sex partnerships were legalized.

In addition, out-of-wedlock birthrates in each of these countries contradict the suggestion by social conservatives that gay marriage will lead to great increases in out-of-wedlock births and therefore less family stability for children. In Denmark, the percentage of out-of-wedlock births was 46% in 1989; now it is 45%. In Norway, out-of-wedlock births jumped from 14% in 1980 to 45% right before partnerships were adopted in 1993; now they stand at 51%, a much lower rate of increase than in the decade before same-sex unions. The Swedish trend mirrors that of Norway, with much lower rates of increase post-partnership than pre-partnership.

Is there a correlation, then, between same-sex marriage and a strengthening of the institution of marriage? It would be difficult, and suspect, to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between these trends in heterosexual marriage and marriage rights for gays and lesbians. But the facts demonstrate that there is no proof that same-sex marriage will harm the institution of marriage, or children. An optimistic reading of the facts might even suggest that the energy and enthusiasm that same-sex couples bring to the institution of marriage may cause unmarried heterosexual couples to take a fresh look at marriage as an option. volokh.com/posts/1162396316.shtml

Perhaps you have some other information?

Now since you are neither an American or a Catholic, I can understand the illusion that one study in a small, homogenous, socialist European country would thereby be extrapolated to the results in America. But in that you would be wrong.

We’re having other discussions on the difference between the attitude toward guns in America vis a vis Europe…or Australia. There are huge cultural differences between these countries and absolutely no reason to believe there would be a similar result.

Further as even a first year statistics student knows, correlation does not equal causation.

Try again…now here is the issue, why should a tiny minority that engages in a non-procreative and unnatural sexual activity get to dictate to the rest of us? IOW what’s in it for the majority to mollify the minority, to redefine marriage? I just don’t see the benefit.

LIsa

 

[Biblepoe]

Now since you are neither an American or a Catholic, I can understand the illusion that [B0]one study in a small, homogenous, socialist European country

would thereby be extrapolated to the results in America.

Bradski was responding to Mary1975’s assertion that “the consequences of the legalization of SSM in the whole Scandinavian countries have been a major decline in heterosexual marriage” (see post 93).

However, multiple countries were involved in the facts that Bradski cited:

Here are some facts that would seem to disprove what you say:

[T]here is no evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry weakens the institution. If anything, the numbers indicate the opposite. A decade after Denmark, Norway and Sweden passed their respective partnership laws, heterosexual marriage rates had risen 10.7% in Denmark; 12.7% in Norway; and a whopping 28.8% in Sweden… . .] volokh.com/posts/1162396316.shtml

Perhaps you have some other information?

I count three separate countries.

I’ll also add that Canada, Argentina, Spain, Portugal, Iceland, and many other countries have legalized same-sex marriages seemingly without any problems for opposite-sex relationships.

 

[maximus]

I’ve seen some risible statements on this subject. I’m not sure if that one makes the top 5, but, gee, it comes close.

We are not Australia. We take our established rights seriously in this country. We fought a war against a tyrant who tried to over tax us some time ago. If our religious rights were seriously threaten by new tyrants there would be a day of reckoning. There is a reason we value our right to bear arms.

 

[Faithdancer]

Bradski was responding to Mary1975’s assertion that “the consequences of the legalization of SSM in the whole Scandinavian countries have been a major decline in heterosexual marriage” (see post 93).

However, multiple countries were involved in the facts that Bradski cited:

I count three separate countries.

I’ll also add that Canada, Argentina, Spain, Portugal, Iceland, and many other countries have legalized same-sex marriages seemingly without any problems for opposite-sex relationships.

Do you have links to the original research reports? If so, would you mind posting them so that we can look at the methods, data, and analysis of the data?

 

[Biblepoe]

We are not Australia. We take our established rights seriously in this country. We fought a war against a tyrant who tried to over tax us some time ago. If our religious rights were seriously threaten by new tyrants there would be a day of reckoning. There is a reason we value our right to bear arms.

IMO, the reason why one may consider your statement risible is largely because preceded your “take arms” statement by, “Many business and professions will be closed to people of faith.”

 

[Biblepoe]

Do you have links to the original research reports?

Do you mean the original reports for what Bradski cited? If so, I believe Bradski provided a link to it.

The fact is that it is claimed that “the consequences of the legalization of SSM in the whole Scandinavian countries have been a major decline in heterosexual marriage”. If that is true with regard to Scandinavian countries or of other countries, we would expect to see lots of evidence of it. That evidence has not been presented, thus it has not been demonstrated that same-sex marriage hurts heterosexual relationships.

 

[mitex]

I don’t have anything positive to say about same-sex marriage. I’m against it period.

I can think of a few consequences that children will grow up without a mother or father. That Catholics and Evangelicals will be discriminated against for their views.

And I might add for me it takes a lot of courage to stand up against SSM given the awkward situation I’m in.

 

[LisaA]

Bradski was responding to Mary1975’s assertion that “the consequences of the legalization of SSM in the whole Scandinavian countries have been a major decline in heterosexual marriage” (see post 93).

However, multiple countries were involved in the facts that Bradski cited:

I count three separate countries.

I’ll also add that Canada, Argentina, Spain, Portugal, Iceland, and many other countries have legalized same-sex marriages seemingly without any problems for opposite-sex relationships.

Again, so what? Small homogenous countries with different cultures than America showed an increase in heterosexual marriage…irrelevant at best, misleading at worst.

As to your conclusion that there were “no problems for opposite sex relationships” a) you have nothing but your opinion to go on. Did you study these relationships? How do you come to this grand conclusion? b) Strawman approaches are routinely shot down here. We’ve seen them before. The issue is NOT whether Bill and Fred’s marriage is going to create problems in my marriage but whether redefining marriage and other social experiments damage society. We have decades of history that indicate “alternative arrangements” and social experiments have many and almost universally detrimental consequences.

Knowing what we know now, would we have been so quick to approve no fault divorce, easy access to abortion, and unwed motherhood? I don’t think so.

Lisa

 

[Faithdancer]

Do you mean the original reports for what Bradski cited? If so, I believe Bradski provided a link to it.

The fact is that it is claimed that “the consequences of the legalization of SSM in the whole Scandinavian countries have been a major decline in heterosexual marriage”. If that is true with regard to Scandinavian countries or of other countries, we would expect to see lots of evidence of it. That evidence has not been presented, thus it has not been demonstrated that same-sex marriage hurts heterosexual relationships.

Bradski provided a link to a summary of an op ed. The original op ed is accessible to subscribers only. The “op” by the way, stands for “opinion,” which is all it is. Without the original research, there is no verifiable “data.”

As far as your paragraph two…nice try. (We need a smilie for a straw man here…)

 

[Biblepoe]

Again, so what?

Well, it means that Mary1975’s assertion that “the consequences of the legalization of SSM in the whole Scandinavian countries have been a major decline in heterosexual marriage” (see post 93) is destroyed. I’m glad we can agree on that point.

As to your conclusion that there were “no problems for opposite sex relationships” a) you have nothing but your opinion to go on.

No. I got that conclusion based of “seemingly without any problems for opposite-sex relationships” off of the fact that evidence of such problems would readily be found if same-sex marriage did cause such problems, but such evidence has not been presented.

Please do not assume why I have come to a conclusion.

We have decades of history that indicate “alternative arrangements” and social experiments have many and almost universally detrimental consequences.

So where is the evidence that specifically same-sex marriage has any detrimental consequence?

Knowing what we know now, would we have been so quick to approve no fault divorce, easy access to abortion, and unwed motherhood? I don’t think so.

Same-sex marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion and unwed motherhood, and one a society may have same-sex marriage without no-fault divorce.