P
Publisher
Guest
Couldn’t do any worse than the church has done.
- Status
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
I particularily think the breakdown of society comes with parenting from two fathers or two mothers.and all those surrogate and test tube birth methods They are destroying the very fabric of society, which is the family tree. How do you trace your ancestors? How do you tell the story of your family?
Whether this is being done willfully or in ignorance, I don’t know, but there seems to be evil behind it.
In any case, the more homosexual marriages, the more homosexual divorces. It will be good for the lawyers.
Whether this is being done willfully or in ignorance, I don’t know, but there seems to be evil behind it.
In any case, the more homosexual marriages, the more homosexual divorces. It will be good for the lawyers.
J
JimG
Guest
Pretty much. Once contraception and divorce are accepted, the devolution of marriage was assured. Gay marriage is probably an inevitable consequence. It will make marriage less meaningful than a mortgage, which is more enforceable.
T
triumphguy
Guest
We have it in Canada but I don’t see the same kind of society developing that they have in Holland.
Canada is quite socially conservative really.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Canada is, but I don’t think the United State is.
M
mitex
Guest
Archbishop Mahony spoke of support for limited rights to nontraditional households in a social justice context. I wouldn’t call it an endorsement homosexuality; just pointing out that there were existing structures for same-sex couples to be recognized.
And the a Bishop in England endorsed civil unions from a social justice context as well.
The New Zealand Catholic Bishops have supported civil partnerships from a social justice context as well.
In Ireland the pro-family Catholic think tank Iona Institute endorsed civil partnerships while simultaneously calling for a ban on same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption.
Quite frankly why can’t we just ban same-sex marriage and then have some kind of domestic partnership or civil union for same-sex couples?
Let’s face it. We’re never going to get the gays to go flocking to the likes of Courage, NARTH, and Joseph Nicolsi. I know when I went to NARTH I suffered terribly.
Has anyone ever thought that if we offered civil unions it would stabilize same-sex relationships and make them less promiscuous?
I’m all in favor on civil unions with a simultaneous ban on same-sex marriage and adoption.
And that was in “A Pastoral Message to Homosexual Catholics in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles” which was released after proposition 8.
And the a Bishop in England endorsed civil unions from a social justice context as well.
Why even NOM has endorsed civil unions as a compromise. I don’t know as a gay man I could get behind civil unions.
The New Zealand Catholic Bishops have supported civil partnerships from a social justice context as well.
In Ireland the pro-family Catholic think tank Iona Institute endorsed civil partnerships while simultaneously calling for a ban on same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption.
Quite frankly why can’t we just ban same-sex marriage and then have some kind of domestic partnership or civil union for same-sex couples?
Let’s face it. We’re never going to get the gays to go flocking to the likes of Courage, NARTH, and Joseph Nicolsi. I know when I went to NARTH I suffered terribly.
Has anyone ever thought that if we offered civil unions it would stabilize same-sex relationships and make them less promiscuous?
I’m all in favor on civil unions with a simultaneous ban on same-sex marriage and adoption.
J
JimG
Guest
Civil unions are simply gay marriage without the word.
We have a lot of cohabiting heterosexual couples, even as marriage is offered to them. Should we offer cohabiting couples the concept of civil unions for heterosexuals? I don’t see the point. Cohabitation, divorce, contraception, all have led to the diminishment of marriage. True, gay marriage will diminish it further, but it did not begin the process.
One might read Mary Eberstadt’s book “Adam and Eve After the Pill” to get a feel for the process.
V
vsedriver
Guest
The acceptance of gay marriage as equal to straight marriage would mean that adoption agencies would not be able to put the best interests of a child first. They would be forced to deal with gay couples as equal to straight couples and place children in gay homes even if there is a straight home available. This negates the child’s natural right to the experience of a mother and a father.
This is not about the quality of parenting but about the right of a child to experience both masculinity and femininity as a part of the natural human maturing process. No child should deliberately be deprived of a mother and a father.
W
wynnejj
Guest
Sounds like a very reasonable approach. What you are advocating is more of a financial partnership arrangement with rules about the division of wealth when processing divorce. That would be different than a room-mate situation where the division of labor, such as who plays home-maker and who has the job, is not compensated when the partnership breaks down.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
I’m okay with this too. I’ve always thought it was a shame when long-term gay relationships end, and one is left with nothing. That doen’t seem fair.
J
JimG
Guest
Yes, to deliberately deprive a child of a mother or a father without case is an injustice to the child.
W
wynnejj
Guest
With no-fault divorce and Justice of the Peace marriages, what’s the diff? In Muslim countries, marriage is basically a legally binding civil union. I think the idea of a civil union is about a promise of sexual exclusivity with financial consequences for breaking the agreement. If one is bound to agreement of sexual exclusivity, then one decreases the level of STDs. Correct me if I’m wrong, but one does not tend to get an STD from a monogamous relationship, regardless of homosexual or heterosexual nature. Let’s face it, whether contraceptive marriage or homosexual union, we are talking about mutual masturbation. In both cases, quarantining the mutual masturbation to monogamous unions is beneficial in the health department. And, civil unions provide a construct for financial distribution upon dissolution of the union.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
Social change happens over decades. The sexual revolution, divorce, cohabitation, and lone parenting, with the decline of marriage in the last fifty years, the effects to the child friendly institution of a stable marriage between a mother and a father took generations, not years.
However, to address the OP, the experience of our neighbor to the north where SSM was legalized in 2003 might be helpful. To name just three resulting new rights battles, we can see that it spawned: rights of children, rights of polygamous families involving freedom of religion, the right to publicly advocate traditional marriage which is regarded by SSM proponents as homophobic.
Marriage as an institution is meant to constrain human behavior, not liberate or grant rights. Where individuals have both rights and responsibilities, marriage falls more in the latter category; it is a responsibility, not a right.
According to American family scholar David Blankenhorn, "a social institution creates and maintains rules, including rules for who is, and is not, a part of the institution… [A] social institution creates public meaning… [Such institutions] exist to solve basic problems and meet core needs.” He goes on to say this: “In nearly all human societies marriage is socially approved sexual intercourse between a woman and a man, conceived both as a personal relationship and as an institution, primarily such that any children resulting from the union are—and are understood by the society to be—emotionally, morally, practically, and legally affiliated with both of the parents.”
With this definition in mind, any culture which sanctions same-sex marriage will place children’s rights at odds with adult desires. The January 2007 Ontario court ruling that a child could have three parents was inevitable because with same-sex marriage the concept of biological parenthood is immediately displaced. Same-sex reproduction immediately involves a third party. The idea of a “legal parent” replaced the idea of a “natural parent.”
And from three parents to polygamy: to date, Canadian legislators have ignored the fact that polygamous Muslim families are living in Toronto and claiming multiple Canadian welfare benefits in many cases. The logical and legal grounds to resist polygamy have been removed, making it difficult to prosecute.
Accordingly, Canadians are laid back. But on the subject of polygamy, they get anxious. Will they accept that? Or will they trample religious freedom to prosecute polygamous families? In the U.S., we have areas with concentration of Mormon families that have not really buried their polygamous beliefs. This is why the question [what’s next, polygamy?] is not an insane or unrelated question. Not to mention that the U.S. also has a quietly increasing immigrant and U.S. born Muslim population. Does anybody pay attention to Dearborn, MI?
Back to Canada. In British Columbia, the Catholic Knights of Columbus were fined for declining to host a lesbian couple’s wedding reception. Chris Kempling, a teacher, was disciplined by the teachers’ governing body for a letter to the editor about homosexuality. In Alberta, on May 30, 2008, a pastor, Stephen Boissoin, was fined for the same, and ordered never to speak “discriminatorily” on the topic of homosexuality again. In the U.S., there have been similar or parallel cases that have actually surfaced with the help of LGBT groups.
That’s just a snapshot of the social consequence of gay ‘marriage.’ I have not even touched on intense moral individualism, adult centered reproductive decision making and technologies, areas which give rise to not so simple, more unchartered ethical and legal issues.
To the original poster: I noticed that you recently joined the forum, so let me welcome you. Besides identifying as a post denominational Christian, it was helpful that you disclosed a few things which facilitate exchange in this thread you initiated. You disclosed that you have been attending services in various churches and that you do not find the gay lifestyle to be wrong. If you spend more time navigating yourself in the site, use of the search function on the subject of SSM, including its social consequences, you will find that they have been covered in a big volume of posts and threads. It may take you a significant amount of time in front of the screen which you can crunch if you are a speed reader!
At the core of the question you posed, the social consequence of SSM, is an underlying concern of many members in this forum: how will children of the future fare with SSM, whereby they are deliberately separated from one or both biological parents. Social science data is clear that a child thrives best in a stable marriage between his/her mother and father. In less than ideal situations, children remain as society’s future. Setting aside religion based objections to SSM, why would well intentioned people move so far from the ideal?
,
K
Keith_W_OR_USA
Guest
It will have absolutely no effect on anything. The number of married homosexuals is very small, only about 3,000 in California when they had gay marriage and it isn’t very large in the other states that allow it now. Let’s also be clear that even if a State allows gay marriage no one will be forced to perform a gay marriage. The only conflict may occur when a private entity rents land or buildings to the public they would have to accommodate a homosexual marriage just like they have to allow a mixed race couple marring to rent the facility. Just because you rent something to someone doesn’t mean you endorse the action. Plenty of Southern Baptist landlords rent halls to groups that have drinking and dancing, that doesn’t mean they endorse the activity.
One thing that will never happen is that a Catholic priest will never have to perform a gay marriage unless he chooses to and no Catholic Church will have to perform Gay marriage.
F
fix
Guest
Really? How are consciences formed?
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
If it’s such a small amount of people and there are no consequences, why is it being pushed so much? For example, in my state, Washington, the government passed it, without the people’s vote.
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
This.
If you try arguing about stuff like gay marriage without referencing the Church in someway, you will always lose in this secular world. Not saying people will care if you do reference the Church, but at least then you have a solid argument that can’t be refuted.
W
wynnejj
Guest
Legalizing SSM is just the first step to traditional marriage benefits, such as:
Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner’s Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks
Veteran’s Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
S
skeyes
Guest
I believe that the very next step in this will be to require churches of every denomination to perform these marriages. If there is not obedience, then the church will be stripped of it tax exempt status. That is the only conclusion to this matter in my opinion.
Stan
Stan
C
c0ldb33r
Guest
Another Canadian here, but from the east coast. Weve had gay ‘marriage’ gere for awhile.
Whats the impact been on society? Not much really. It hasnt rained frogs or anything.
Id still be more comfortable if they called civil unions though.
That hasnt happened here. In fact just the opposite. The courts have clearly held that you cannot force a church to do a gay marriage. Unfortunately that’s not the case with civil servants (eg justices of the peace) who cannot refuse. I personally dont think thats fair.
- Status