Social Consequence of Gay Marriage

[triumphguy]

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.

…,

You have lots of half truths about the Canadian situation.

Canada’s polygamy laws have been upheld: The Judge said: “while the law does infringe on religious freedom, it is justified given the harm polygamy causes to children, women and society.” cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/11/23/bc-polygamy-ruling-supreme-court.html

Muslims in EVERY country have multiple relationships, but since they are not legal marriages they cannot be prosecuted.

Knights of Columbus:

The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has awarded damages to two lesbian women who claim they were discriminated against by a Catholic men’s organization when they booked a hall for their wedding reception in the fall of 2003.

However, the tribunal also ruled Tuesday that the Knights of Columbus could have refused to host the party if it was in a manner contrary to its "core religious beliefs."

But the tribunal said in its judgment that the Knights did so in a way that affronted the same-sex couple’s dignity, feelings and self-respect and should pay them $1,000 each, as well as reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses to compensate for their injuries.

**“The Knights could have taken steps such as meeting with the complainants to explain the situation, formally apologizing, immediately offering to reimburse the complainants for any expenses they had incurred and, perhaps, offering assistance in finding another solution,” **the tribunal said in a written decision.

“There may have been other options they could have considered without infringing their core religious beliefs.”

sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051129/tribunal_lesbiancouple_051129

Reverend Stephen Boissoin: His case is more a case of “hate speech” than being silenced for saying th wrong things, however,

Court of Queen’s Bench

Boissoin appealed the ruling to the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta. On 3 December 2009, the Court overturned the decision of the Alberta Human Rights Panel. The Court found that the contents of the letter did not violate the Alberta Human Rights Act, and that the remedies which had been imposed were either unlawful or unconstitutional. The Court also identified “troubling aspects of the process leading to the decision of the Panel,” including the inclusion of the Concerned Christian Coallition as a respondent.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Kempling

Half truths do not help an argument.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

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.

 

[nickybr38]

My biggest concern is that down the road allowing gay marriages civilly is going to allow for the government to try and enforce gay marriages within churches. Even churches that do not believe in gay marriage.

With how many people there are who are only socially Catholic or socially Christian this isn’t that far off. Soon enough a gay couple is going to start lobbying to have their marriage in the Catholic Church and things are going to get messy because gay marriages are legal civilly. I’m really not looking forward to when this comes but you just know it IS coming…

 

[triumphguy]

Very simple really:

We have Human Rights legislation that the courts have to uphold, and when it was written no-one could have foreseen the extent to which minority groups would have pushed their rights.

We have a majority of the population that is rather laid back, but socially conservative.

Like I said simple.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

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

But according the other poster, hardly any homosexuals want to get married! Why is this such a big issue and who is behind it? Obviously some BIG money.

 

[wynnejj]

But according the other poster, hardly any homosexuals want to get married! Why is this such a big issue and who is behind it? Obviously some BIG money.

What I’m trying to say is that legalizing SSM has such push because it lays the groundwork for things to come … benefits. As yet, those things have not materialized, so SSM probably is not the draw now that it might be in the future. Once some of those traditional marriage benefits are gained for SSM, SSM may become much more commonplace. I think you are right about the BIG money, as this first step has great potential for gay activists.

 

[Publisher]

But according the other poster, hardly any homosexuals want to get married! Why is this such a big issue and who is behind it? Obviously some BIG money.

A recognized minortity is seeking equality…why should they be denied it for another minorities religious beliefs?

And while a minority of the minority may not wish to exercise their right to enter into state recongnized marriage, they still wish the right should they decide to do so.

 

[mitex]

Publisher is onto something. There is compromise. We can ban same-sex marriage and adoption while passing civil unions. And civil unions won’t just be for the gays; it’ll be for family members such as a sister with a sickly brother who needs to care for him, two elderly people living together as roommates.

And to prove there’s support for this:

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.

As we have come to learn over these past decades, there are many groupings of
people residing under one roof across California. Some of these groupings are related
family members, while others are companions and friends. There are now seventeen
rights for such companions and friends specifically included in the State of California’s
legal structure.
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.

“We would want to emphasize that civil partnerships actuallyprovide a structure in which people of the same sex who want a lifelong relationship [and] a lifelong partnership can find their place and protection and legal provision,” -Archbishop Vincent Nichols
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.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

A recognized minortity is seeking equality…why should they be denied it for another minorities religious beliefs?

And while a minority of the minority may not wish to exercise their right to enter into state recongnized marriage, they still wish the right should they decide to do so.

Well that minority certainly has lot of money and power.

 

[mitex]

Well that minority certainly has lot of money and power.

Traditional conservatives such as yourselves have more.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Traditional conservatives such as yourselves have more.

How so?

 

[mitex]

How so?

Trust me the Christians have much more money and funding.

 

[wynnejj]

Publisher is onto something. There is compromise. We can ban same-sex marriage and adoption while passing civil unions. And civil unions won’t just be for the gays; it’ll be for family members such as a sister with a sickly brother who needs to care for him, two elderly people living together as roommates.

Marriage laws and benefits are designed to protect the traditional paradigm of vulnerable mother & children should the father be unable to provide due to choice or circumstance. It is extended to the mother in retirement, as most of her life is assumed to be spent at the low-tech household level. Benefits were primarily designed to protect mother & child.

These laws get distorted when applied to DINKs - dual income, no kids. Without kids in the equation, marriage laws don’t make taxable sense.

So what about your new “civil union” paradigm …
Why not give tax incentives to roommates in college? Why not give it to a sister with a sickly brother who can’t hold a job because of substance abuse or simply choice?

Publisher is onto something … why “civil unions” don’t make sense … unless you confine civil unions to the idea of a domestic business partnership of willingly pooling resources based on a contract that should be divided properly should the partnership end by choice or circumstance.

All the other traditional marriage benefits should not apply.

 

[Rence]

What do you think they will be?

Let’s imagine the Constitution is amended to allow for gay marriage. What will be the cultural and political consequences, and why do you think that these things would happen?

The same things would happen here as would happen in any other country that currently allows gay marriage, such as Spain. There are some states in the US that already allow it.

 

[Publisher]

The same things would happen here as would happen in any other country that currently allows gay marriage, such as Spain. There are some states in the US that already allow it.

Which amount to “not much” of anything happens…except same sex couples are now considered married by the state or country.

All the “doom of civilization” hasn’t taken place…no one had their marriages fail because of same sex marriage…divorce still occurs with the same regularity…those that cry “sanctity of marriage” don’t march in the streets against divorce…just same sex marriage…divorce causes more harm to the sanctity of marriage than same sex marriage can…or will.

 

[Rence]

Which amount to “not much” of anything happens…except same sex couples are now considered married by the state or country.

All the “doom of civilization” hasn’t taken place…no one had their marriages fail because of same sex marriage…divorce still occurs with the same regularity…those that cry “sanctity of marriage” don’t march in the streets against divorce…just same sex marriage…divorce causes more harm to the sanctity of marriage than same sex marriage can…or will.

I think I have to agree with you.

 

[Uriah_Betrayed]

In abstract terms it means that Christianity becomes the “loser” in the eyes of History.

In a few decades the “Gay Rights” movement will be lauded as a heroic progress of the nation, held back by those ignorant Christians and their evil schemes at oppressing gays. Gay activists will be cherry picked as the new Martin Luther King’s of the 21st century.

Socially Secularist have the governments ok to close their ears to the idea that “Homosexuality is immoral”. After all according to the government and the new history books Christians are the terrible people that held civil rights from gay people! “We shouldn’t ever listen to what they have to say, the Christian can’t be trusted to think without ignorance!”

The one good thing is maybe cradle Catholics will stop being parasites on the Catholic Church…

 

[stewstew03]

Why not give tax incentives to roommates in college? Why not give it to a sister with a sickly brother who can’t hold a job because of substance abuse or simply choice?

Publisher is onto something … why “civil unions” don’t make sense … unless you confine civil unions to the idea of a domestic business partnership of willingly pooling resources based on a contract that should be divided properly should the partnership end by choice or circumstance.

All the other traditional marriage benefits should not apply.

This gets to the heart of the matter - i.e., what is “marriage?” Merely a contract?

 

[wynnejj]

This gets to the heart of the matter - i.e., what is “marriage?” Merely a contract?

Legally, yes. It is truly just a legal domestic partnership between one man and one woman designed to have certain benefits to promote stable relationships for raising children.

Without kids, there would be no reason for marriage contracts … other than maybe preventing STDs due to promiscuity.

Legally, it cannot be anything but a contract, unless there is a state religion. Muslim countries come to mind, but even there they are explicitly binding legal contracts.

 

[St_Francis]

Which amount to “not much” of anything happens…except same sex couples are now considered married by the state or country.

All the “doom of civilization” hasn’t taken place…no one had their marriages fail because of same sex marriage…divorce still occurs with the same regularity…those that cry “sanctity of marriage” don’t march in the streets against divorce…just same sex marriage…divorce causes more harm to the sanctity of marriage than same sex marriage can…or will.

IMO, it seems that SSM is not the problem, but merely a step on our downward course, the one at which people started taking notice.

The first step taken was acceptance of abc by at the Lambeth Conference in 1930, when the Anglicans decided, against the previous 1900 years’ of Christian teaching, that abc was moral.

The question is not what will SSM do to our society–there just isn’t that much *left *to do.