Same-sex marraige: honestly, what is the point?

[JimG]

Provide evidence for the claim that legal gay marriage leads to legal polygamy or legal incest.

Oh I don’t think it will lead to legal incest. I think that adult-adolescent marriage may be next on the radar though. Consider that in some states a minor girl can obtain an abortion without parental consent, or birth control without parental consent. A recent court ruling makes it legal for anyone of any age to buy the “morning after” pill over the counter. There are partisans of sexual freedom for children; that’s why it’s deemed important that they have access to birth control, preferably free, at early ages.

The argument will be that if a girl can buy birth control, morning after pills, and obtain legal abortions at age 13 or 14, she is old enough to consent to marriage. And if a girl is old enough at that age, it will be argued that a boy is also old enough at that age to give consent to an adult / minor marriage. Freedom and equality will be the watchwords.

No one can predict the future, saying this will inevitably lead to that. When 1930 Lambeth Conference approved contraception for married couples in hard cases, they didn’t say we want contraception for everybody of any age, married or unmarred. Yet that is where we ended up.

Marriage equality is marriage equality. If gays get it, why not polygamists, and pederasts?

No, I’m not saying it’s inevitable. But cultural trends have a way of flowing to the least common denominator.

And if and when it happens, it will do no good to object that, “well, that didn’t necessarily follow.” When cultures begin to decline, it’s hard to find a stopping place.

 

[aprilfloyd]

Thanks for the replies, guys, some well-considered responses.

My main point, though, is to try to show that government legalisation of same-sex marriage is senseless or pointless because no practical, social purpose is achieved by it. Sure, same-sex couples might want legitimacy, but what’s that got to do with the government making it a law. I mean, I want my relationship with my girlfriend to be legitimate too, but I don’t ask the town mayor to legitimise it!

Same Sex Couples have been persecuted just like other minorities, through the years, we only have to look at events in Russia recently to understand, why same sex couples seek legitimacy and the protection and freedoms that that brings.

 

[gracepoole]

Thanks for the replies, guys, some well-considered responses.

My main point, though, is to try to show that government legalisation of same-sex marriage is senseless or pointless because no practical, social purpose is achieved by it. Sure, same-sex couples might want legitimacy, but what’s that got to do with the government making it a law. I mean, I want my relationship with my girlfriend to be legitimate too, but I don’t ask the town mayor to legitimise it!

• Decline in physical and mental health problems for gays and lesbians (meaning the state doesn’t have to pay as much to care for them)
• Reported upswing in happiness among children being raised by gays and lesbians
• Economic benefits for communities

There is evidence to support all of this. Same-sex marriage does benefit communities.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Provide evidence for the claim that legal gay marriage leads to legal polygamy or legal incest.

JimG brought up legal polygamy and pederast marriage, not legal incest, as likely in line after gay “marriage.” At any rate, it is not hard to connect the dots leading to polygamy.

The Evidence That Polygamy And Polyamory Will Be Next Claim

Just curious. Elsewhere, you stated you are not (necessarily?) advocating for gay “marriage.” But then your posts and threads heavily drawing from pro-gay and pro gay “marriage” apologia. Not to mention that you self-identify as Catholic. What gives, gay family members or loved ones in your circle?
,

 

[Monkey1976]

• Decline in physical and mental health problems for gays and lesbians (meaning the state doesn’t have to pay as much to care for them)

For gay males, the “standard” mode of sexual interaction among them carries just as many physical risks as it would with a marriage license. Studies done by the Dutch government in the past couple years - where same-sex “marriage” has been legal since AD2000 - have shown no significant reduction in mental problems (specifically suicides) since 2000.

• Reported upswing in happiness among children being raised by gays and lesbians

Self-reported by the “parents”.

• Economic benefits for communities

Highly speculative at best, and polygamous marriages would be an even greater economic benefit. Heck, slavery was an amazing economic benefit in the antebellum South - should we bring that back?

There is evidence to support all of this. Same-sex marriage does benefit communities.

All of the arguments presented here have been called into serious question regarding same-sex “marriages”. In fact, they would be much better arguments for polygamous marriage, for which there is widespread historical and contemporary precedent.

 

[kanrok]

Maybe I missed it, but please…somebody tell me what benefit there is to society by promoting sodomy? Because that is what is at the root of this whole issue.

All this back and forth about rights and benefits, but no one, and I mean no one is addressing the elephant in the room.

 

[gracepoole]

For gay males, the “standard” mode of sexual interaction among them carries just as many physical risks as it would with a marriage license. Studies done by the Dutch government in the past couple years - where same-sex “marriage” has been legal since AD2000 - have shown no significant reduction in mental problems (specifically suicides) since 2000.

npr.org/2013/05/20/184829036/bans-of-same-sex-marriage-can-take-a-psychological-toll

Self-reported by the “parents”.

aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/pages/American-Academy-of-Pediatrics-Supports-Same-Gender-Civil-Marriage.aspx?nfstatus=401&nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR%3a+No+local+token

pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/4/e1374

Highly speculative at best, and polygamous marriages would be an even greater economic benefit. Heck, slavery was an amazing economic benefit in the antebellum South - should we bring that back?

pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2013/03/the-economic-benefits-of-gay-m.html

(And slavery is hardly an apt analogy.)

 

[gracepoole]

Maybe I missed it, but please…somebody tell me what benefit there is to society by promoting sodomy? Because that is what is at the root of this whole issue.

All this back and forth about rights and benefits, but no one, and I mean no one is addressing the elephant in the room.

Of what benefit to society are infertile couples?

 

[gracepoole]

Just curious. Elsewhere, you stated you are not (necessarily?) advocating for gay “marriage.” But then your posts and threads heavily drawing from pro-gay and pro gay “marriage” apologia. Not to mention that you self-identify as Catholic. What gives, gay family members or loved ones in your circle?
,

I believe I’ve said previously that I’m not always arguing in favor of gay marriage – instead, there have been threads in which I asked for quality anti-gay marriage claims and attempted to put them to the test of logic. Sure, I have gay friends. But I don’t think “knowing a few” is the most compelling thing going for legal civil gay marriage.

 

[kanrok]

Of what benefit to society are infertile couples?

That doesn’t answer the question, but I’ll give you the respect of an answer to yours.

Unless the couple advertises their infertility by marching in “infertile couple pride parades” it would be highly unlikely that anybody would know they are “infertile.”

And even if they did advertise, it detracts not one iota from the fact that their sexual congress is biologically, physiologically, anthropologically normal, natural and healthy.

An infertile couple also detracts not one iota from the fact that they exemplify the norm in marital relationships.

I would also be so bold as to posit that the likelihood is pretty high that at least one of the people in an infertile couple is actually fertile, so you never know.

You do know that it is absolutely, positively, unequivocally impossible for homosexuals to conceive via sodomy.

How confusing do you think it is for children when they finally figure out what gay “marriage” actually entails?

Now…care to answer my question?

 

[gracepoole]

That doesn’t answer the question, but I’ll give you the respect of an answer to yours.

Unless the couple advertises their infertility by marching in “infertile couple pride parades” it would be highly unlikely that anybody would know they are “infertile.”

And even if they did advertise, it detracts not one iota from the fact that their sexual congress is biologically, physiologically, anthropologically normal, natural and healthy.

An infertile couple also detracts not one iota from the fact that they exemplify the norm in marital relationships.

Respectfully, you originally asked “what benefit there is to society by promoting sodomy.” My response is that infertile spouses and gay/lesbian spouses benefit society in the same ways.

I would also be so bold as to posit that the likelihood is pretty high that at least one of the people in an infertile couple is actually fertile, so you never know.

You do know that it is absolutely, positively, unequivocally impossible for homosexuals to conceive via sodomy.

How confusing do you think it is for children when they finally figure out what gay “marriage” actually entails?

Now…care to answer my question?

So infertile couples benefit society because there may exist a remote chance that someone’s been misdiagnosed?

 

[kanrok]

Same sex “marriage” is promotion of sodomy.

Marriage between a man and a woman does not promote sodomy even in the relatively rare circumstance of an infertile couple (94% of married women aged 15-44 are fertile)

So, again, what benefit is there to society by promotion of sodomy?

And please, no more red herrings. Or in this case, a whole school of red herrings.

 

[lllj]

The question here really boils down to “what is the government’s interest in marriage?”

The problem is that governments have historically gotten involved in what is a fundamentally religious concept.

In my opinion, the legality of divorce kind of kills the argument that legal marriage should be based on Christian morality, though. The acceptance of divorce is proof that the government’s interest in marriage, whatever it is, does not have a whole lot to do with morality.

Legal same sex marriage, if it’s in the public’s interest, does not really seem a problem to me, any more than legalized divorce is a problem.

At least in America, I feel like a strength of government is that it tends to stay astray of picking and choosing religious viewpoints on which to base law.

 

[kanrok]

Anybody want to take a crack at this question:

“What benefit is there to society by promoting sodomy?”

It’s got nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

Anyone?

Bueller?

 

[gracepoole]

Anybody want to take a crack at this question:

“What benefit is there to society by promoting sodomy?”

It’s got nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

Anyone?

Bueller?

But the question is flawed. First, there are gays and lesbians who don’t engage in sodomy. Second, it doesn’t have to benefit society if marriage in general (between heterosexuals and homosexuals) does. Talk about red herrings.

 

[kanrok]

Anybody else want to actually answer the question?

It’s easy. No tricks. Pretty straightforward.

What benefit is there to society by promoting sodomy?

It needs no qualifications, nor dodges, nor red herrings to answer.

Anyone?

I’d love to hear how promoting sodomy benefits society in any way, shape or form.

I’ll wait!

 

[Monkey1976]

npr.org/2013/05/20/184829036/bans-of-same-sex-marriage-can-take-a-psychological-toll

First, how does this answer the point that there has been shown to be no significant difference in the rates of mental problems - specifically suicide - in studies performed by the Dutch government more than 10 years after the legal recognition of same-sex “marriages”? Second, the study on which this article is based is written from an explicitly pro-gay-“marriage” basis, and respondents self-selected - a well-known method for making sure that the data matched the preconceived conclusion.

aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/pages/American-Academy-of-Pediatrics-Supports-Same-Gender-Civil-Marriage.aspx?nfstatus=401&nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR%3a+No+local+token

pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/4/e1374

As I said: Self-reported. They used an initial sample of only 84, all recruited by telling them specifically that they were joining a study designed to show how well the children of lesbian couples perform. Would you accept data from NARTH as an argument against homosexual “marriage”? Of course not - that’s why I turn to studies that are shown to be objective.

pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2013/03/the-economic-benefits-of-gay-m.html

(And slavery is hardly an apt analogy.)

Not just highly speculative, but vastly misreporting the reality of the situation. FMLA has extensive provisions for domestic partners, and one would have to actively hunt for an employer that did not provide insurance coverage for domestic partners. As far as the analogy, would you prefer that I use prostitution? Or perhaps if we legalized heroin? Imagine the tax revenue that those could generate! Of course not - because they clearly don’t serve the public good. What has been severely and consistently lacking from those arguing for same-sex “marriage” is a logical and rational argument for what good it does society that cannot be achieved by any other means, and why that argument cannot apply for any other form of relationship such as polygamous, incestual, etc.

I would agree that, from a purely legal point of view, the government would have no place in passing a law preventing same-sex couples from performing whatever ceremonies they want in solemnizing their relationship toward each other. What I and others are claiming is that the government cannot force those of us who disagree with them to agree by redefining the basis of all human society into something it had never been before AD2000 through legal fiat.

 

[josh987654321]

Yes, it does refer to gender, because it’s broken into mutually exclusive sets. When you introduce age, species, and familial relationships you make a mess, which you have indeed done.

If someone say’s they are a homosexual, does that change their gender from male/female?

Sexual orientation doesn’t refer to gender.

Yes, humans reproduce sexually and thus have different biological sexes. Heterosexuality is not the physical state of having a particular biological sex. Nor does it describe how humans reproduce. The opposite of sexual reproduction is asexual reproduction, not homosexuality. Heterosexuality is having one’s primary affections and attractions directed at those of the opposite sex.

Do you believe in God, do you believe that God created men and women?

Matthew 19:4-6
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

This passage clearly states that God created a us male and female, that only a male and female are capable of marriage. Two men cannot become like one flesh and two women cannot either.

The very nature of homosexuality means to use the bodies organs in a manner in which they were not designed to be used for.

Sexual orientation describes one primary attractions and affections which are very much tied with physical sexual activity (barring rape and other types of harm). Yes, it of course just a model. All models are wrong, but some of them are useful.

Okay, So you are aware that not everything we desire is right? your aware that every human suffers from immoral desires?

Paedophilia, bestiality, incest and polygamy are not orientations. Nor are they comparable to homosexuality or heterosexuality. Pedophilia and bestiality speak for themselves. Incest and polygamy are an example of confusing and muddled sets i.e. incest between brothers or incest between brother and sister.

Paedophilia and bestiality are most certainly orientations.

What makes these orientations so different to that of homosexuality, is the conduct wouldn’t you agree? if we were basing the morality of homosexuality based on “born that way theory” than the same would have to be applied for Paedophilia and bestiality.

This is why sodomy is not criminalized.

Like I said Same sex marriage doesn’t legalise a homosexual union, it publicly recognises it as equivalent to a heterosexual union, which it obviously isn’t. To think that would mean to ignore the basic human anatomy of men and women and their sexual compatibility and complementarity with one another.

Don’t ever take a fence down until you know the reason why it was put up.
G.K. Chesterton

Don’t advocate the redefinition of marriage, until you know why it has been defined between a man and a woman in the first place.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[InSearchofGrace]

My Post

JimG brought up legal polygamy and pederast marriage, not legal incest, as likely in line after gay “marriage.” At any rate, it is not hard to connect the dots leading to polygamy.

The Evidence That Polygamy And Polyamory Will Be Next Claim

Just curious. Elsewhere, you stated you are not (necessarily?) advocating for gay “marriage.” But then your posts and threads heavily drawing from pro-gay and pro gay “marriage” apologia. Not to mention that you self-identify as Catholic. What gives, gay family members or loved ones in your circle?
,

Your post

I believe I’ve said previously that I’m not always arguing in favor of gay marriage – instead, there have been threads in which I asked for quality anti-gay marriage claims and attempted to put them to the test of logic. Sure, I have gay friends. But I don’t think “knowing a few” is the most compelling thing going for legal civil gay marriage.

It seems your overlooked the first part of my post. You asked for evidence from another poster that gay “marriage” leads to polygamy and he gave you a good reply. In addition, I provided a link listing fifteen examples of evidence. Did you read it?

Thanks.
,

 

[jonathan_hili]

I do indeed understand same-sex marriage under your second and Aristotelian definition of good. I see much good in a person finding some one to pair with, to share a life with, and have mutually supporting relationship with. Such stability is also good for society.

But I think this is where the problem lies. Certainly I agree that there may be good outcomes from same-sex relationships but this is different from answering whether it is inherently good, that is, do such relationships of their nature fulfill the human person. Again, I could use the mafia as an analogy. Someone involved in the mafia may indeed achieve some good outcomes, for example, financial stability, camaraderie, enjoying of certain pleasures, etc. but I would argue that the mafia is inherently bad in fulfilling the human person, that is, it is a lifestyle that does not promote virtues. Likewise, same-sex relationships, while they may promote some virtues, fail to do others, such as sexual complementarity, procreation, etc.

Of course, a Christian in particular (which I suppose you are) could argue much more strongly on same-sex relationships defying God’s ordained order, which Christianity has always held.