"Gay 'marriage' doesnt hurt society"

[Biblepoe]

Then why doesn’t “gay rights” fall under the acceptance of all people?

It does. But there are special rights issues that primarily effect same-sex couples that don’t face others. For example, same-sex couples are prohibited from marrying the one they love, while mixed-race couples are no longer prohibited from marrying the one they love.

Frankly I don’t know why European countries do the things they do. In Belgium, they’re considering giving children the consent to choose if they’d want to die.

I highly doubt Belgium is seriously considering any of those things, such as pedophilia.

Every country considers some stupid legislation all the time, so even if Belgium is considering legalization of pedophilia, which I have never heard about until now, it doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with homosexuality. Plus, there are many other countries besides Belgium, such as Canada, Argentina, Spain, Portugal, Iceland, and others.

However, the point with European countries is that if same-sex marriage did cause societal problems, we would be seeing it in those countries. The only attempt here to show such evidence is the link that Faithdancer provided to an article from the Family Research Council, a propaganda outlet. I’m waiting for Faithdancer to being specifically whatever he/she finds convincing from the article to this discussion in order to analyze it.

Oh but we will.

No, the Catholic Church will not be forced to marry same-sex couples for the same reason that churches aren’t forced to marry mixed-race couples: The First Amendment.

Heterosexual people are also for gay marriage, even if they’ll never engage in that kind of activity. It further promotes the infectious idea that marriage can be anything that gives you pleasure and marriage doesn’t require commitment or new life.

Allowing committed opposite-sex couples to marry doesn’t promote the idea that marriage doesn’t require commitment. If anything, it promote commitment as the primary characteristic of marriage, not who the person chooses to marry.

As for life as a requirement, if you want raising new life to be a requirement for marriage, then you would have to ban anyone who has had a hysterectomy or vasectomy from marrying. If you do think that life should be a criteria for marriage, then I want to hear you say, “I support banning anyone who has had a hysterectomy or vasectomy from entering a marriage.”

If you aren’t willing to say that for a couple with a hysterectomy or vasectomy, then you shouldn’t be using lack of ability to generate life as grounds to deny same-sex couples from marrying.

It opens the gates to future perversions with the lowering of the criteria. 50 years ago everyone was disgusted by gay marriage, now everyone is enthusiastic about it. In the next 50 years we’ll be having this conversation about incestous polygamous pedophilia and bestiality.

Are you confessing that you cannot think of a reason to ban incestuous, polygamous, and bestiality marriages without also banning gay marriage?

It should based on what benefits society and what makes sense.

The government wouldn’t give a blind man a driver’s license, would it?

It should be based on the actual effects, not based off of people’s religious persuasions. If someone’s religion defined a driver as a blind man, we wouldn’t enshrine that into law. I’m glad we can agree on that.

 

[NeedImprovement]

CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE
LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN
HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

1. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28, 2003, approved the present Considerations, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered their publication.

. . . Proof enough for us that it goes against the good of society.

 

[Biblepoe]

A most interesting choice of words in a single sentence:

“same-sex marriages” and "opposite-sex ‘relationships’ "

I specifically choose to say relationships instead of marriages because some here are suggesting that allowing same-sex marriages would lower that rate of opposite-sex marriages.

The children are the first victims of the gay militant offensive to undermine the family. And as those children become victims, simultaneously, parents’ sacred rights to the education of their children get trampled . . . in the sophistic name of “equality” , the sacred right of a mother and father - whose union is the sustaining core of our human existence, gets obliterated.

Am I misunderstanding you or are you actually making the absurd assertion that children and their parents are being victimized by teachers telling the kids to be tolerant of their gay classmates?!

 

[NeedImprovement]

. . . Are you confessing that you cannot think of a reason to ban incestuous, polygamous, and bestiality marriages without also banning gay marriage?
. . .

Maybe someone is confessing anothers inability to see how the two are linked once the precedent is set. It’s sheer logic. William J. Bennett could see it 16 years ago :

• The function of marriage is not elastic; the institution is already fragile enough. Broadening its definition to include same-sex marriages would stretch it almost beyond recognition — and new attempts to broaden the definition still further would surely follow. On what principled grounds could the advocates of same-sex marriage oppose the marriage of two consenting brothers? How could they explain why we ought to deny a marriage license to a bisexual who wants to marry two people? After all, doing so would be a denial of that person’s sexuality. In our time, there are more (not fewer) reasons than ever to preserve the essence of marriage.

• Excerpt from William J. Bennet’s, Gay Marriage:Not a Very Good Idea

 

[NeedImprovement]

. . .
Am I misunderstanding you or are you actually making the absurd assertion that children and their parents are being victimized by teachers telling the kids to be tolerant of their gay classmates?!

I wonder if you can even tell us precisely what is so absurd about the assertion ?

Are you now claiming as the gay militant faction does that parents don’t have the right to oversee the education of their children any more ? Are you saying parents are not allowed to have a voice anymore ? Do you think it’s trivial to coerce the impressionable mind of someone else’s child at the age of 5 or 6 - against the will of their parents?

And your wording is skewed again. (I hope it isn’t intentional) :

The indoctrination starts at a very young age - far before the stage of puberty - before a “classmate” could ever be conscious that they were homosexual or had ever made that choice.

 

[LisaA]

It does. But there are special rights issues that primarily effect same-sex couples that don’t face others. For example, same-sex couples are prohibited from marrying the one they love, while mixed-race couples are no longer prohibited from marrying the one they love.

No, the Catholic Church will not be forced to marry same-sex couples for the same reason that churches aren’t forced to marry mixed-race couples: The First Amendment.

Allowing committed opposite-sex couples to marry doesn’t promote the idea that marriage doesn’t require commitment. If anything, it promote commitment as the primary characteristic of marriage, not who the person chooses to marry.

As for life as a requirement, if you want raising new life to be a requirement for marriage, then you would have to ban anyone who has had a hysterectomy or vasectomy from marrying. If you do think that life should be a criteria for marriage, then I want to hear you say, “I support banning anyone who has had a hysterectomy or vasectomy from entering a marriage.”

If you aren’t willing to say that for a couple with a hysterectomy or vasectomy, then you shouldn’t be using lack of ability to generate life as grounds to deny same-sex couples from marrying.

Are you confessing that you cannot think of a reason to ban incestuous, polygamous, and bestiality marriages without also banning gay marriage?

It should be based on the actual effects, not based off of people’s religious persuasions. If someone’s religion defined a driver as a blind man, we wouldn’t enshrine that into law. I’m glad we can agree on that.

The whole theory is “let’s pretend.” Let’s pretend that denying two people of the same sex to “marry” is the same as denying two opposite sex people who happen to have differing levels of melanin in their skin to marry. It’s not.

Apparently you are a homosexual and desperate to find some basis for your claims that there is no reason not to extend marriage to “the person you love” but lacking any logic, biological, theological, or sociological evidence, you play the race card and hope we will all capitulate for fear of being called homo-phobes. Sad to say it does work in some quarters but you cannot deny the Truth.

Homosexuality is a behavior. It is not intrinsic, it is not a characteristic of birth as are characteristics like whether one is male or female or whether one exhibits outward physical characteristics that have been used to differentiate and discriminate. To claim that allowing two men to “marry” is equivalent to the Loving case is simply baloney. Homosexuals are not born, they are made/developed/influenced. No one knows the actual cause for this compulsion and it is likely different in different people. OTOH no one is compelled to be male or female, dark skinned or light skinned. We just are.

Your strawmen are not very compelling either. No one has said one must be able to procreate to be married. However there is significant evidence that if one DOES procreate, both the children and society benefit by that child being born and/or raised by a married couple (man and woman).

The complimentary nature of men and women, the way we’re fearfully and wonderfully made indicates that God (or nature if you are a non believer) intended for male/female pair bonds. Two men or two women cannot have a sexual union as intended by God (or nature). Trying to convince anyone that male/male or female/female relationships are identical to male/female relationships is futile to anyone with eyes and a few functioning brain waves. Please don’t mistake us for idiots.

Further you claim that the Church cannot be forced to accept or celebrate SSM. Really? And you think that because? How many lawsuits have already been filed to force businesses, individuals and organizations to accommodate homosexuals? Look to Canada that you think is such a model…reading passages of the Bible that make reference to homosexuality have been deemed 'hate speech." You really think that the same government that is trying to force Catholic organizations to provide free abortion inducing drugs is going to defer to religious freedom on a lesser issue?

We’re already forcing chaplains in the military to participate in same sex unions. You don’t think this will spread to other religious institutions and clergy?

It’s not a matter that homosexuals want to be left to live in peace and harmony. They want to force the majority to play “let’s pretend” with the force of law.

Lisa

 

[edwest2]

I’m not surprised that one of the motivations of homosexuals in forcing SSM on society through legalization is to see themselves or their partners eligible for Social Security survivors benefits upon death of partner. What the report overlooked is this one: opening or extension of immigration benefit to non-U.S. citizens, as same-sex spouses of citizens. This has been an expressed gripe by a non-Catholic CAF member, a UK resident / subject, a homosexual who feels that it is one of the many rights that are unfairly withheld if SSM does not become the law in every state in the U.S., with full federal benefits for ‘married’ homosexual pairs. IOW, nothing short or less than the full monty, otherwise, that would be discriminating towards homosexual pairs that are committed and loving as any wedded heterosexual pairs.

Except this particular benefit potentially leads to any variation and all of the following disadvantages or harms to American society: shifting of (more of) the gay population from other parts of the world into the country who see the U.S. as the land of opportunity (mail order same sex partners for marriage, anyone?), sham same sex marriages, which could turn out to be a homeland security issue or simple exploitation of vulnerable homosexual nationals, immigration providing another weak point in the federal system to be abused.

As an aside, remember to what was the downing of the Twin Towers attributed? A failure of imagination.
,

Can you point me to a source that verifies your last statement? Don’t mean to derail, but nothing I’ve read confirms it.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

The whole theory is “let’s pretend.” Let’s pretend that denying two people of the same sex to “marry” is the same as denying two opposite sex people who happen to have differing levels of melanin in their skin to marry. It’s not.

Apparently you are a homosexual and desperate to find some basis for your claims that there is no reason not to extend marriage to “the person you love” but lacking any logic, biological, theological, or sociological evidence, you play the race card and hope we will all capitulate for fear of being called homo-phobes. Sad to say it does work in some quarters but you cannot deny the Truth.

Homosexuality is a behavior. It is not intrinsic, it is not a characteristic of birth as are characteristics like whether one is male or female or whether one exhibits outward physical characteristics that have been used to differentiate and discriminate. To claim that allowing two men to “marry” is equivalent to the Loving case is simply baloney. Homosexuals are not born, they are made/developed/influenced. No one knows the actual cause for this compulsion and it is likely different in different people. OTOH no one is compelled to be male or female, dark skinned or light skinned. We just are.

Your strawmen are not very compelling either. No one has said one must be able to procreate to be married. However there is significant evidence that if one DOES procreate, both the children and society benefit by that child being born and/or raised by a married couple (man and woman).

The complimentary nature of men and women, the way we’re fearfully and wonderfully made indicates that God (or nature if you are a non believer) intended for male/female pair bonds. Two men or two women cannot have a sexual union as intended by God (or nature). Trying to convince anyone that male/male or female/female relationships are identical to male/female relationships is futile to anyone with eyes and a few functioning brain waves. Please don’t mistake us for idiots.

Further you claim that the Church cannot be forced to accept or celebrate SSM. Really? And you think that because? How many lawsuits have already been filed to force businesses, individuals and organizations to accommodate homosexuals? Look to Canada that you think is such a model…reading passages of the Bible that make reference to homosexuality have been deemed 'hate speech." You really think that the same government that is trying to force Catholic organizations to provide free abortion inducing drugs is going to defer to religious freedom on a lesser issue?

We’re already forcing chaplains in the military to participate in same sex unions. You don’t think this will spread to other religious institutions and clergy?

It’s not a matter that homosexuals want to be left to live in peace and harmony. They want to force the majority to play “let’s pretend” with the force of law.

Lisa

You are correct, Lisa. Legal force based on a fantasy will be the order of business. Not actual human biology or the capacity known as self-control.

Just pray, my friends. And follow what the Church teaches.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Biblepoe]

Biblepoe;10181646:

Are you confessing that you cannot think of a reason to ban incestuous, polygamous, and bestiality marriages without also banning gay marriage?

It’s sheer logic. William J. Bennett could see it 16 years ago :

• The function of marriage is not elastic; the institution is already fragile enough. Broadening its definition to include same-sex marriages would stretch it almost beyond recognition — and new attempts to broaden the definition still further would surely follow. On what principled grounds could the advocates of same-sex marriage oppose the marriage of two consenting brothers? How could they explain why we ought to deny a marriage license to a bisexual who wants to marry two people? After all, doing so would be a denial of that person’s sexuality. In our time, there are more (not fewer) reasons than ever to preserve the essence of marriage.

• Excerpt from William J. Bennet’s, Gay Marriage:Not a Very Good Idea

Since you’re admitting that you cannot think of reasons to ban polygamous marriages without arbitrarily banning same-sex marriages, I’ll help you out by coming up with ways that can be abused:

It would be easy for people could enter into marriage conglomerates with others just to lower each others taxes
People could easily make a business out of marrying illegal immigrants to make them legal citizens.
Spousal benefits, such as health insurance, would have to be given to more than just one other person, making it not economical.
It would cause legal complications with regard to child support.
Divorce proceedings would be abnormally complex.

 

[Faithdancer]

Just because someone disagrees with something morally doesn’t mean that one is harmed by it.

One is harmed, if one cares about the greater good of mankind- which Christians are required to do. Roman Catholic Christians are also required to actively oppose same sex marriage. There is a sticky about that from Matilda Bennett at the top of this forum.

We also live in a country in which it is against the Constitution to enshrine a religious belief as law. Without a law like the First Amendment, a Muslim-majority country could ban Catholics from marrying due to the religious belief that marriage is defined as a union between a Muslim man and a Muslim woman. Would you like to live in a country like that, or would you prefer that the government not adhere to any particular religion’s definition of marriage?

This is a straw man argument- a Muslim state is not the issue here.

The definition of a civil marriage doesn’t change the definition of a Catholic marriage. Thus, heterosexuals who marry in an anti-gay church aren’t having the definition of their marriage changed. After all, those who married into anti-mixed-marriage churches didn’t have the definition of their marriage changed.

Please see my reply to your first paragraph.

So you want same-sex couples to pay more than their fair share to subsidize opposite-sex marriages, while not allowing them to reap the same benefits with those who they love. That’s a very unfair, discriminatory form of socialism.

A small price to pay, for being allowed to continue their perverted activity.

So you think that some of the information there constitutes evidence. Well, let me know specifically what facts their constitute evidence and lets discuss. I’ve been skimming through it, and so far I’ve seen anecdotes, non-sequiturs, and references to studies that are rejected as faulty.

The only reasons to reject primary research results are flaws in either methods or statistical treatment. If these are not flawed and the results are statistically significant- i.e. the null hypothesis cannot be rejected- than the studies are valid.

 

[Bradski]

No one has said one must be able to procreate to be married.

It seems that you are not aware of your own church’s view on this. If you are physically incapable of the conjugal act, you will not have your marriage sanctified by the church. You do actually need to be able to procreate to be married. How could you not know that?

So we already have two types of marriages. One that is considered valid by the Vatican and one not. Do you see any point at all in two people who are physically unable to have sex getting married? Would you like the state to ban that type of marriage?

 

[Bradski]

The only reasons to reject primary research results are flaws in either methods or statistical treatment. If these are not flawed and the results are statistically significant- i.e. the null hypothesis cannot be rejected- than the studies are valid.

But there’s nothing there that appears to be backed by any research or which seems to have been subjected to any sort of statistical treatment. The op ed piece I posted earlier linked to a book by people who had done research on this. Their papers are available. They are referenced in other studies.

What, in your opinion, is the most dependable point in those to which you linked? Let’s pick one and do some in-depth study of the facts as they are available. That’s what this thread is about, after all. Trying to discover if SSM is actually harmful in some way. We can avoid opinion and get to the facts.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
As for life as a requirement, if you want raising new life to be a requirement for marriage, then you would have to ban anyone who has had a hysterectomy or vasectomy from marrying. If you do think that life should be a criteria for marriage, then I want to hear you say, “I support banning anyone who has had a hysterectomy or vasectomy from entering a marriage.”

If you aren’t willing to say that for a couple with a hysterectomy or vasectomy, then you shouldn’t be using lack of ability to generate life as grounds to deny same-sex couples from marrying.
…

Producing new life can only be done, raising of children ideally done, by opposite sexed parents. If a woman has had a hysterectomy or a man a vasectomy, voluntarily or involuntarily before marriage, said pairing is still ideal for adoption of children, should they look to parenthood, a noble undertaking that is much more than providing a roof over their heads and meals on the table. I expect you would not agree with the view that homosexual couples do a disservice to the children they insist in adopting. A child has a right to be raised by a mother and a father, biological or adoptive. In the true interest of children, some Catholic Charities chapters to close down its adoption services rather than place children with homosexual couples.
,

 

[Biblepoe]

Homosexuality is a behavior.

So is heterosexual sex. However, that is irrelevant to any argument I’ve made.

Homosexuals are not born, they are made/developed/influenced. No one knows the actual cause for this compulsion and it is likely different in different people.

IMO, it doesn’t really matter whether homosexuals are born that way or it is something that develops later, but you seem to be contradicting yourself by asserting that homosexuals aren’t born, while admitting that you don’t know how it develops.

No one has said one must be able to procreate to be married.

Unless I’m misunderstanding him, CrimsonThorn does think that (see post 133).

However there is significant evidence that if one DOES procreate, both the children and society benefit by that child being born and/or raised by a married couple (man and woman).

There’s a lot of evidence that children are victimized by their parents irresponsibly conceiving them (think: teen parents and poor people who procreate when high on drugs).

I think you would agree with me that society benefits when infertile heterosexuals enter into fulfilling marriages, but disagree when the spouses are of the wrong sex.

The complimentary nature of men and women, the way we’re fearfully and wonderfully made indicates that God (or nature if you are a non believer) intended for male/female pair bonds.

It wouldn’t make any sense to say, “Nature intends [fill in the blank],” because nature doesn’t have a mind to do any intending.

So what you say boils down to, “God said X, so we should ban X.” This reminds me of a scene from Apollo 13 when the flight director of the mission said to the manufacturer of the one of the spacecraft sections that they needed to use for something it was not designed to do, “I don’t care what it’s designed to do, I care what it can do.”

If a god designed and intended humans to be tasty snacks for aliens from Alpha Centauri as they travel throughout the universe, I wouldn’t then say, “Well, we were designed for this purpose, so we should just let them eat us.” Would you?

Besides, in America, it is against the Constitution to enshrine the beliefs of a particular religion, such as what their god says, into law.

Further you claim that the Church cannot be forced to accept or celebrate SSM. Really? And you think that because?

…because the First Amendment allows churches to ban mixed-race marriages within their church. Do you seriously think that the Constitution would protect a church’s ban on mixed-race marriages, but not their ban on same-sex marriage?

How many lawsuits have already been filed to force businesses, individuals and organizations to accommodate homosexuals?

Those aren’t churches. Churches, because of the First Amendment, are allowed to deny marriage to a mixed-race couple, while businesses, on the other hand, are subject to anti-discrimination laws.

Look to Canada

Canada doesn’t have the 1st Amendment.

We’re already forcing chaplains in the military to participate in same sex unions.

The military has a tendency to violate the rights of its members in general. The military tends to do the same with non-believers (either forcing them to attend a religious ceremony or do extra work, or force them to bow their heads in prayer).the few times these violations have made it to court, the courts have ruled against the military, so I don’t believe this is likely to spread outside the military.

It’s not a matter that homosexuals want to be left to live in peace and harmony.

Its a matter of being treated equally under the law, which has practical effects on people’s lives. What practical effects? Consider the following:

Your spouse is sick in a hospital for some time, becomes incapacitated while a medical decisions needs to be made on the spouse’s behalf, and eventually dies. In the process, you receive no more visitation rights than your spouse’s coworkers, you are not permitted to have any sort of (name removed by moderator)ut on the medical decision that needs to be made on your spouse’s behalf while your spouse in incapacitated, and after your spouse dies, you half to pay taxes on your spouse’s house being gifted to you (instead of it automatically being yours), and since you cannot afford to pay those taxes in part because your spouse’s employer will not give you pension benefits that are given to other couples in similar circumstances, you lose your home.

Let us suppose that all of the above happen because you live in a Muslim-majority country in which they don’t give civil marriage licenses to Catholic couples because their religion defines marriage as a union between Muslims. You would be rightly outraged at that. Additionally, you would be personally hurt that your friends would be in favor of you going through all of that if your spouse get sick and dies. However, a same-sex couple could experience the exact same thing in the United States even though most Catholics support giving such benefits to many other marriages that the Catholic Church doesn’t consider valid (for example, neither party is baptized). It is also noteworthy that on this site people have expressed joy that pension benefits be denied to gay couples under the above circumstances. Wouldn’t you be outraged if others were happy that you were denied such benefits that are given to all other couples and ended up losing your home?

So I recommend that you keep in mind that your support of banning civil same-sex marriage (if passed into law) will put someone in the situation described above.

 

[marymary1975]

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?

Ok so the facts you are using to support your position are the ones in a book written by William Eskridge??? The biased Yale professor who since 1978 has been one of the biggest gay marriage radical activist whose work has been heavily criticized for its poor design, small samples and manipulation of results? From all the people in the world you have chosen the most biased of all and you are asking me to rely on the statistics of someone who openly has an agenda to make believe the entire world that gay marriage is the best thing in the world? I am sorry but if you want to make a credible statistic you need to bring objective statistics not studies that have been made to further the cause that gay marriage is the best thing to ever happen the universe.

Second, according to Eurostat’s marriage rates for 2001 show declines in Sweden and Denmark and you seem to forget that we are talking about marriage statistics in societies with very low rates of marriage, like Sweden which in 1997 had the lowest marriage rate in the world! There is a by Christer Hyggen that shows that a small increase in Norway’s marriage rate over the past decade has more to do with the institution’s decline than with any renaissance as much of the increase in Norway’s marriage rate is driven by older couples “catching up.” These couples belong to the first generation that accepts rearing the first born child out of wedlock. As they bear second children, some finally get married. (And even this tendency to marry at the birth of a second child is weakening.) As for the rest of the increase in the Norwegian marriage rate, it is largely attributable to remarriage among the large number of divorced. In Sweden the rates of divorce logically have fallen down, if marriage is not a trend then obviously divorce is going to be lower, it has little to do with gays marrying but with the fact that people are not marrying. Also, as to Denmark the official statistic for 2010 it was that heterosexual marriage between first time weddings dropped 12% compared to 2008. And with regard to countries like Spain, Argentina, etc. all those are countries that just legalized gay marriage within the past five years, it hasn’t been long enough to see any consequences yet which is not the case in countries like Denmark which has been legal since 1989 or Norway in 1993. You cannot expect to see results in two years that have taken 20 years in other countries.

 

[Biblepoe]

I realized that the link I provided below is no longer working for some reasons. Here is link that should work.

Let us suppose that all of the above happen because you live in a Muslim-majority country in which they don’t give civil marriage licenses to Catholic couples because their religion defines marriage as a union between Muslims. You would be rightly outraged at that. Additionally, you would be personally hurt that your friends would be in favor of you going through all of that if your spouse get sick and dies. However, a same-sex couple could experience the exact same thing in the United States even though most Catholics support giving such benefits to many other marriages that the Catholic Church doesn’t consider valid (for example, neither party is baptized). It is also noteworthy that on this site people have expressed joy that pension benefits be denied to gay couples under the above circumstances. Wouldn’t you be outraged if others were happy that you were denied such benefits that are given to all other couples and ended up losing your home?

So I recommend that when you respond you keep in mind that your support of banning civil same-sex marriage (if passed into law) will put someone in the situation described above.

 

[Bradski]

No children = No society.

Are you saying that calling a gay couple’s relationship a marriage results in less children? Could you explain how that works?

 

[marymary1975]

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

Very well said Lisa! And yes that is one of my “favorite” arguments of the pro-choice movements (especially since I work with Juvenile Courts quite frequently) that every child is a wanted child and thanks to abortion there will be no more child abuse, yeah right and how come abortion now is legal and Juvenile Courts are filled up with thousands of cases of brutal child abuse cases?

If people don’t see the pattern is because they want to be blind. Good luck believing all the “studies” and all the brainwashing that is going on with this subjects, let’s talk again in 30 years and see if we are really living in Utopia thanks to gay marriage.

 

[marymary1975]

I realized that the link I provided below is no longer working for some reasons. Here is link that should work.

I have to say that this is another argument that is not correct which is constantly given by people who want to legalize same-sex marriage. I don’t know if you have realized that ever since the 70’s there has been a quite high number of heterosexual couple cohabiting without getting marriage. Have you ever wondered as to why these couples had never experienced situations in which one is ill and the other hasn’t had access, etc.? The reason is because to every so called “benefit” that is supposedly denied to unmarried people, there is a perfect legal solution to avoid each and every one of those situations, and if you don’t believe me, give me the specific situation and I bet you money that I can give you a different legal way to solve the issue.

 

[Faithdancer]

Ok so the facts you are using to support your position are the ones in a book written by William Eskridge??? The biased Yale professor who since 1978 has been one of the biggest gay marriage radical activist whose work has been heavily criticized for its poor design, small samples and manipulation of results? From all the people in the world you have chosen the most biased of all and you are asking me to rely on the statistics of someone who openly has an agenda to make believe the entire world that gay marriage is the best thing in the world? I am sorry but if you want to make a credible statistic you need to bring objective statistics not studies that have been made to further the cause that gay marriage is the best thing to ever happen the universe.

Second, according to Eurostat’s marriage rates for 2001 show declines in Sweden and Denmark and you seem to forget that we are talking about marriage statistics in societies with very low rates of marriage, like Sweden which in 1997 had the lowest marriage rate in the world! There is a by Christer Hyggen that shows that a small increase in Norway’s marriage rate over the past decade has more to do with the institution’s decline than with any renaissance as much of the increase in Norway’s marriage rate is driven by older couples “catching up.” These couples belong to the first generation that accepts rearing the first born child out of wedlock. As they bear second children, some finally get married. (And even this tendency to marry at the birth of a second child is weakening.) As for the rest of the increase in the Norwegian marriage rate, it is largely attributable to remarriage among the large number of divorced. In Sweden the rates of divorce logically have fallen down, if marriage is not a trend then obviously divorce is going to be lower, it has little to do with gays marrying but with the fact that people are not marrying. Also, as to Denmark the official statistic for 2010 it was that heterosexual marriage between first time weddings dropped 12% compared to 2008. And with regard to countries like Spain, Argentina, etc. all those are countries that just legalized gay marriage within the past five years, it hasn’t been long enough to see any consequences yet which is not the case in countries like Denmark which has been legal since 1989 or Norway in 1993. You cannot expect to see results in two years that have taken 20 years in other countries.

Quite the experiment…an experiment founded on an abomination.