Social Consequence of Gay Marriage

[Scott_Lafrance]

I am of a more libertarian stance. The government should have no role in marriage, in my opinion. All laws regarding marriage should be abolished.

If religions want to define marriage in one way, or another, then that is their right to do so. The followers of such religions may get spiritual solace from their faith in this respect.

End of story. The government should have no role in this matter.

That is my position exactly.

 

[ignatius777]

That is my position exactly.

I would like to understand your position more fully. So if 2 people are married in a church since the govt would have no role in the marriage and these 2 people cannot for legitimate reasons remain married, how would things be divided? Who would moderate that process? The church?

 

[St_Francis]

I follow this. If I accept your train of thought, then therefore gay marriage should involve some terrible consequence to children, otherwise why would the government be interested in forbidding it?

The child has a right to a mother *and *a father. How does the desire of a homosexual couple override the right of the *child *involved?

Moreover, there are problems in the homosexual lifestyle which ought to give a person pause before placing a child with a homosexual couple. The stablity of their relationships is much lower than that of heterosexuals, on average, and the rate of monogamy is ridiculously low even when they are in a “commiitted” relationship.

Parents model how married couples are to interact, so that the child can grow up and start a family of his or her own. If the child does not see the intimate relationship of a dual-sex couple, they will not know how that works.

And so that’s what I was asking about in the first post! What are these terrible consequences?

In 1930, when the first official permission on abc occurred, who would have thought that abc would lead to rampant sexual immorality, no-fault divorce, and abortion?

The proponents of abc said it would lead to *fewer *(illegal) abortions and be helpful to women. Now women are seen as nothing more than sex objects; there are people who call people who have children “breeders”; and people with more than 2 children are considered weird.

The proponents of legalized abortion said it would reduce the number of abortions–well, we all know how well that worked out.

The fact is that we do not have sufficient evidence one way or another to “prove” a bad effect on children. However we do know that the likelihood for problems is higher.

And when it comes to children, I think that performing this vast social experiment *until *we have evidence that it is bad for them is disgustingly nauseatingly horrid. For what? So some people can get society to condone their sin?

It seems on the face of it to be irrelevant! After all, the government should be only interested in child-producing sexual unions, and gay unions (sans reproductive technology) don’t produce more children, so why should the government care?

Precisely, The government should be completely uninvolved in a relationship which *cannot *by its very nature produce children.

I agree. The only reason would be if Bob and Bill want the same tax breaks as Allison and Bill, or if Bob wants to visit Bill in the hospital, or if Bob and Bill want to adopt.

Why should Bill and Bob get the tax breaks created for *families? *They can arrange hospital visitation and ought not adopt.

So long as there is not a serious consequence, why not allow it?

Why should the goverment allow it? Hospital visitation, home ownership, wills, etc. can already be accomplished. The couples cannot have children. Therefore there is no need for government involvement whatsoever, and so why then should the government intrude on what is essentially a private matter?

And forget about the ‘marriage’ word! Maybe government should be involved only in civil unions, and allow different religious groups to decide for themselves which ones they will recognise as ‘marriage’.

Yes, the government could recognize potentially child-producing unions and that’s it. Other than that, everyone would be on their own.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Father, father, (or mother,mother) children is a normal family. I see no reason currently to think otherwise.

If there is a good reason to think otherwise, if there is great harm in gay adoption, then this would be a serious consequence to gay marriage.

What do you think this consequence will be? What harm do you think will be caused, and why?

God is the author and perfecter of the family. He defines normal, not us. A normal family is a family that can exist on its own, naturally. This can only be a heterosexual couple. Yes, one could make the case for plural marriage due to its heterosexual nature, but definately not a homosexual one. If you want to call anyone a bigot and old fashion, you’ll have to direct your angst at God, not me.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I would like to understand your position more fully. So if 2 people are married in a church since the govt would have no role in the marriage and these 2 people cannot for legitimate reasons remain married, how would things be divided? Who would moderate that process? The church?

It would be handled as a social contract, and would be handled under existing contract law. That is the only role that the government needs to be in. Whenever you turn the business of social engineering over to the government, it will ALWAYS become a political issue and you may end up with a product that you did not want.

 

[ignatius777]

It would be handled as a social contract, and would be handled under existing contract law. That is the only role that the government needs to be in. Whenever you turn the business of social engineering over to the government, it will ALWAYS become a political issue and you may end up with a product that you did not want.

How could it be a "social’ contract if it is only a religious activity? If any two people enter into any kind of contract there are civil laws overseeing the establishment, execution and fuflillment of the contract. By virtue of that fact alone a civil court could determine the “social contract” which was agreed upon in a religious ceremony was invalid in which case one party could benefit while another suffers and the govt would decide that. Is that what you intended?

I agree the govt doesnt very few things well

 

[CopticChristian]

Father, father, (or mother,mother) children is a normal family. I see no reason currently to think otherwise.

If there is a good reason to think otherwise, if there is great harm in gay adoption, then this would be a serious consequence to gay marriage.

What do you think this consequence will be? What harm do you think will be caused, and why?

Brandon,

Children have one shot at life. You are saying that it is OK to experiment with Children and see what happens…I cannot agree with this. Childhood cannot be repeated.

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

Govts are in the business of protecting EVERYONE. First Gay “marriage” does not protect EVERYONE and second gay “marriage” doesnt benefit EVERYONE. If there is no gain for EVERYONE there i absolutely no reason for the govt to sanction it.

I suppose that then all there is to say is that we differ in our political philosophies.

I see the role of government as being something different than you see it. I assume you will vote based on your philosophy, as will I. It will probably be a wash. The real influence in this upcoming election in the US (I assume you are a US citizen?) will probably not be these issues, but will be economic issues.

In any case, it is not so much a misunderstanding. It’s trying to see whether you had any sort of relevant answer to the question in my OP. You have said three times that you don’t. I believe you, but I wonder why you decided to post on this thread at all?

Oh well.

 

[SwizzleStick]

Father, father, (or mother,mother) children is a normal family. I see no reason currently to think otherwise…

Then, you must adjust your thinking, because it is anything but normal. It is abnormal. Two men cannot have a child together and two women cannot have a child together, so they cannot ever be a normal family. Two people of the same gender could perhaps be prompted to raise a child together due to some calamity and there is no other option, I suppose, but again, that is not normal.

…If there is a good reason to think otherwise, if there is great harm in gay adoption, then this would be a serious consequence to gay marriage…

Do you think a father has no important role in raising a son? Do you think a father has no important role in raising a daughter? Conversely, do you think a mother has no important role in raising a son? Do you think a mother has no important role in raising a daughter? You are someone’s son. Did you not learn important life lessons from both your mother and your father?

By the way, I have to ask because it struck me each time I read your use of the term. Is a negative benefit comparable to deafening silence, jumbo shrimp, irregular pattern, or original copy?

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

The child has a right to a mother *and *a father. How does the desire of a homosexual couple override the right of the *child *involved?

I don’t agree with the premise. I think some children are privaleged with loving parents, but I don’t see parenthood as a right any more than I see marriage as a right.

It’s not like orphans can clamour together “I have no parents! My rights are being violated!” Too much nonsense about rights!

Children should be raised in a loving stable home, and inasmuch as the government can practically ensure this, it probably should.

Are all gay households not loving or stable?

Moreover, there are problems in the homosexual lifestyle which ought to give a person pause before placing a child with a homosexual couple. The stablity of their relationships is much lower than that of heterosexuals, on average, and the rate of monogamy is ridiculously low even when they are in a “commiitted” relationship.

This is true, and this is worrisome. I suspect that the cause of this is social unrest and a flawed culture (gay culture is, I think, often very flawed and even dangerous, but not intrinsic to gay relationships). It is like crime among blacks. Blacks make a disproportionate contribution to crime in the US. Should we not adopt out to black families because of this?

You raise an excellent point here. I just wonder if any more careful work has been done to determine whether it is the gay relationship itself that causes this promiscuity, or whether the situation is not so connected.

 

[wynnejj]

Possibly, although the interpretation of the evidence must be highly speculative, right? After all, lots of things have been happening in all these countries (Islam in Spain and the Netherlands, for example! Economic unrest everywhere!). How do we know what is caused by gay marriage, and what is not?

ROFL. (Nervously sucking on cigarette on an expose interview). It’s not our gay community, it’s those Muslim immigrants! We’re not breaking the social security system by reducing the birthrate below replacement values, it’s those Muslim immigrants adding to the social security membership. How could you ask me such a question? (Looking into the camera, nervously sucking on a cigarette) Is it me or him?

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

No, it is not a normal family. It is abnormal. Two men cannot have a child together, two women cannot have a child together, so they cannot ever be a normal family.

It seems we have a fundamental disagreement here, one that cannot probably be resolved by debate.

It would seem more useful to concentrate on social consequences, because these would definitely sway me (or at least give me serious pause).

Do you think a father has no important role in raising a son?

I think he certainly does! I don’t think that there is anything significant that a father provides that cannot be provided by a woman (except of course, biological components). Everyone is different. The diversity of two people, whether two men, two woman, or a man and a woman, should, I suspect, provide an equally healthy environment in which to raise children (all else being equal). But maybe this is not true. If this is not true, what is the evidence?

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

ROFL. (Nervously sucking on cigarette on an expose interview). It’s not our gay community, it’s those Muslim immigrants! We’re not breaking the social security system by reducing the birthrate below replacement values, it’s those Muslim immigrants adding to the social security membership. How could you ask me such a question? (Looking into the camera, nervously sucking on a cigarette) Is it me or him?

I’m confused.

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

God is the author and perfecter of the family. He defines normal, not us. A normal family is a family that can exist on its own, naturally. This can only be a heterosexual couple. Yes, one could make the case for plural marriage due to its heterosexual nature, but definately not a homosexual one. If you want to call anyone a bigot and old fashion, you’ll have to direct your angst at God, not me.

I haven’t called anyone a bigot or old-fashioned. I don’t think such accusations are very useful!

Also, I don’t think God has a problem with gay marriage. In fact, I think he approves of it and blesses such unions, imbuing them with a distinct sacramental character. After all, he shouldn’t want gay couples living in sin.

 

[ignatius777]

I suppose that then all there is to say is that we differ in our political philosophies.

I see the role of government as being something different than you see it. I assume you will vote based on your philosophy, as will I. It will probably be a wash. The real influence in this upcoming election in the US (I assume you are a US citizen?) will probably not be these issues, but will be economic issues.

In any case, it is not so much a misunderstanding. It’s trying to see whether you had any sort of relevant answer to the question in my OP. You have said three times that you don’t. I believe you, but I wonder why you decided to post on this thread at all?

Oh well.

Yes we do differ.

The role of govt is to keep us safe so we can go about our lives. Period. If you believe the govt has not already overstepped its bounds in regards to the level of interference they have in peoples lives then we have nothing left to discuss.

I have answered your OP question 1000 times not just 3. Gay “marriage” offers nothing to society as a whole like marriage does. Sanctioning gay “marriage” would be saying it is equivelant to marriage which it isnt. To suggest such is a lie. You dont like my answer to your question. Thats not my fault. You dont see any social consequence to gay “marriage” therefore no example of consequences will be recognized by you as such.

Oh well

 

[SwizzleStick]

…I think he certainly does! I don’t think that there is anything significant that a father provides that cannot be provided by a woman (except of course, biological components). Everyone is different. The diversity of two people, whether two men, two woman, or a man and a woman, should, I suspect, provide an equally healthy environment in which to raise children (all else being equal). But maybe this is not true. If this is not true, what is the evidence?

Children Need Both A Mother And A Father
narth.com/docs/needboth.html

Why Children Need a Mother and a Father
billmuehlenberg.com/2010/10/18/why-children-need-a-mother-and-a-father/

Despite USC Study, Children Still Need Both a Mom & Dad
crosswalk.com/family/parenting/despite-usc-study-children-still-need-both-a-mom-and-dad-11625693.html

Why Children Need Father-Love and Mother-Love
jashow.org/Articles/social-issues/SI0804W2G.htm

 

[SwizzleStick]

…Also, I don’t think God has a problem with gay marriage. In fact, I think he approves of it and blesses such unions, imbuing them with a distinct sacramental character. After all, he shouldn’t want gay couples living in sin.

On what are you basing your opinion?

So, you think God would instead prefer two men or two women live in perversion or abomination? That is living in sin, by the way.

 

[ignatius777]

On what are you basing your opinion?

So, you think God would instead prefer two men or two women live in perversion or abomination?

Good question.

I’d also love to hear what he has to say about this “distinct sacramental character” and exactly what it is.

 

[St_Francis]

I don’t agree with the premise. I think some children are privaleged with loving parents, but I don’t see parenthood as a right any more than I see marriage as a right.

If you do not see parenthood or marriage as a right, then what are you saying?

It’s not like orphans can clamour together “I have no parents! My rights are being violated!” Too much nonsense about rights!

It is true that sometimes children are left in less than optimal circumstances through no one’s fault. I heard yesterday about someone whose family was in a car wreck and he lost both his parents and all his siblings…

However, we all understand that this situation is not the best, and we ought, individually and socially, to do all we can to *strengthen *marriage, and to *help *those who have children to raise them in the best circumstances, understanding that at times, the best circumstances will not occur. But we do *understand *the best circumstances, and *that *should be our goal. We should discourage the bearing of children out of wedlock, and we should encourage married couples to stay together and act like grown-ups (rather than our current state of allowing them to act like children and make things so much worse that divorce seems a better solution).

Children should be raised in a loving stable home, and inasmuch as the government can practically ensure this, it probably should.

However, love and stability are not the *only *needs of the child. The child also needs role modeling, among other things, and we should strive to provide this.

Are all gay households not loving or stable?

Homosexual households are *much *less stable–twice as likely to break up within a 12-year period than a heterosexual couple. Moreover, fidelity seems to go out the window, with men in long-term relationships averaging 8 sexual partners per year (without a long-term relationship, they average 22).

This is true, and this is worrisome. I suspect that the cause of this is social unrest and a flawed culture (gay culture is, I think, often very flawed and even dangerous, but not intrinsic to gay relationships).

You raise an excellent point here. I just wonder if any more careful work has been done to determine whether it is the gay relationship itself that causes this promiscuity, or whether the situation is not so connected.

Perhaps the problem does not stem from the culture, but is an intrinsic part of the culture *because *there is no boundary for homosexual behavior except for what a particular person imposes on him- or herself.

It is like crime among blacks. Blacks make a disproportionate contribution to crime in the US. Should we not adopt out to black families because of this?

We already investigate prospective adoptive parents. I am sure that black families are investigated as well. Most black crime occurs in very poor neighborhoods–neighborhoods filled with people who do not have enough financial stability to adopt.

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

The role of govt is to keep us safe so we can go about our lives. Period.

I believe that the preferred role of the government is greater than you believe it to be.

I’m not sure if we have more to discuss or not. Probably not on this topic. Like you point out, you’ve answered the OP. But maybe in a future thread, we can discuss political theory or sexual ethics.

Political philosophy, especially, would be good to discuss. I have devoted relatively little thought to the topic.

I have answered your OP question 1000 times not just 3. Gay “marrige” offers nothing to society as a whole.

So there are no negative consequences to gay marriage, in your view.

I like your answer! It is the same as my own.