Social Consequence of Gay Marriage

[Scott_Lafrance]

They go to their local Unitarian or friendly Episcopalian Church, tell the pastor ‘we’d like to get married’. Then they go to the state office, request a marriage license, have a wedding at the church, sign the license. The details may differ depending on the state, but this is probably close to the process in New York and Massachusetts.

As for starting a family, married people are a family. And as for children, there are many options, including adoption.

What about the adopted child’s right to be raised by a “normal” family?

 

[JimG]

What do you think this final collapse will look like?

How does allowing ‘dad, dad, kids’ as an instance of family end the family? What does it do to ‘mom, dad, kids’?

Same sex marriage stands rather more at the end of family dissolution than the beginning, more symptom than cause.

I look at some of my friends who have pretty good families. I try to imagine how they would be if they had two of him and none of her, or two of her and none of him. The kids would be deprived of either a mom or a dad, either way.

I’m old enough that I’ve lived through a great deal of the social collapse already. Kids are already adversely affected by no-fault divorce, serial monogamy, adultery, fornication, and the use of children for sex in a variety of ways from advertising to fashion.

I didn’t even know a kid with divorced parents until I was in my 30’s. Ronald Reagan was nearly locked out of his initial entry into politics because he had been divorced. Now, kids with divorce parents seem to be the new norm. They’re everywhere. It’s not about them anymore; it’s about whatever makes mom and dad happy, even if that means splitting up, moving away, and moving the kids around like chess pieces.

Now, it’s just about everyone’s feelings. And that’s not a reliable guide to a just society.

I don’t know what the final collapse will look like. I hope not to be around to see it.

 

[ignatius777]

Sure. But I don’t see how supporting gay marriage is going to have any significant impact on straight marriage. How would it?

There would have to be greater limitations to this, because of genetic issues (in other words, unless incorporated carefully, this may cause harm). However, there is nothing intrinsically immoral about the idea. It’s even in the Bible!

This is not a matter of what impact gay “marraige” has or doesnt have on marriage. I respectfully submit that is the obstacle for you. The issue is that gay “marriage” adds nothing to SOCIETY in the way that marriage does. They are each neutral in their negative impact on society but marriage has a positive impact on society that gay “marriage” does not. In that one of the 2 types of marriage adds to society as a whole the govt should sanction one over the other and that one is marrige not gay “marriage”. And rightly does so.

Why should there be greater limitations?

 

[Lokabrenna]

Well, I can’t speak for the U.S. but here in Canada, not much has changed, honestly. One of my professors might have married her partner by now, and I have the option should I ever find a girlfriend (but I’m happy as a single woman). I don’t see anyone forcing churches to marry them at gunpoint (nor should they).

 

[wynnejj]

But why should it be? And why should any sexual relationship be accorded any recognition by the government at all?

A child has a right to be raised by their biological father and mother in a stable family situation. Marriage laws are codified to ensure domestic tranquillity by promoting sexual exclusivity between one man and one woman and offering benefits conducive to the family enterprise. However, with promotion of family planning through contraception, no-fault divorce, lack of laws against fornication, adultery and sodomy - well, marriage law serves little purpose at all. It is not whether marriage law should exist for the good of family in society, but rather how promotion of anti-family contraception combined with lack of laws preventing morally illicit sexual relations undermine marriage laws and family in society.

In our current context, without the pre-requisites to promote marriage & family as institutions, you are right - what’s the point of any sexual relationship accorded recognition unless marriage & family as an institution is the complete & only goal of sexual relationships.

 

[stewstew03]

A child has a right to be raised by their biological father and mother in a stable family situation. Marriage laws are codified to ensure domestic tranquillity by promoting sexual exclusivity between one man and one woman and offering benefits conducive to the family enterprise. However, with promotion of family planning through contraception, no-fault divorce, lack of laws against fornication, adultery and sodomy - well, marriage law serves little purpose at all. It is not whether marriage law should exist for the good of family in society, but rather how promotion of anti-family contraception combined with lack of laws preventing morally illicit sexual relations undermine marriage laws and family in society.

In our current context, without the pre-requisites to promote marriage & family as institutions, you are right - what’s the point of any sexual relationship accorded recognition unless marriage & family as an institution is the complete & only goal.

In other words, Justice Scalia was right when he predicted that the majority opinion in Lawrence v Texas (2003) would pave the way to same-sex marriage:

Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct, and… what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution”? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case “does not involve” the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court.

 

[rossum]

One man and one woman has always been the standard despite aberrations by some.

False. One man, many women has been more common throughout history, especially for powerful men.

In the last 200 years in the USA, as one specific example, when has marriage been anything else?

You don’t know much about the early history of the Mormons, do you. Indeed, there are still some fundamentalist Mormons who keep to the old Mormon ways.

In particular when has marriage been between same sex persons?

New York, California (briefly), Massachusetts etc. Various Native American tribes also recognise same sex marriage. Did you really not know that?

rossum

 

[_Abyssinia]

Are you saying that a consequence for a society accepting gay marriage will be acceptance of gay marriage in society?

Why is this a bad thing?

Acceptance of gay ‘marriage’ and civil unions leads to impingement on religious liberty. I have given you real world examples of this already happening.

 

[St_Francis]

Sure. But this can be done by regulating civil unions, right? The government could treat marriage as a contract, and you need to have two or more willing and sufficiently mature parties to enter into a contract.

Shouldn’t any further involvement in marriage risk stepping on religious toes?

I probably was not sufficiently clear. The society’s interest is in regulating the production of children. *that is the point. *

Now, having people having sex all over the place, having children in less-then-ideal circumstances, etc., is *bad for society. Society *therefore *has an interest in sexual relationships, as a sort of adjunct to its interest in marriage, which is the appropriate institution into which to bring children.

The whole issue of civil unions and all that other stuff is irrelvant, because people should not be having sex outside of marriage, because sex brings children, and children need to be born into good situations.

Part of the problem is that many people do not realize that sex is a very powerful action, having effects on the people involved which we fail to take into account. Sex is not like having dinner together. it is not even like going on a trip together, or living (in a platonic housemate way) together. The act *itself *causes hormonal results, and when practiced illicitly, has addictive results (that is the best word I know to describe it, meaning that people want more and more, they want to up the ante, to recapture the first thrill).

So all this stuff about civil unions, etc, what is the point? Why should the government even get involved at all except to forbid illicit sexual unions? Who cares if Bob cohabitates and has sex with Alison or Bill? Why should the government even be involved in this situation at all?*

 

[wynnejj]

Marriage was instituted by God in the Garden of Eden. God said, “Everything is very good.” He set the parameters for marriage; a man and a woman. A union between two people of the same sex is not marriage no matter who says so.

I’ve enjoyed your posts very much. The selection of Biblical texts shows clearly the scriptural foundations for the sexual taboos against all unions not intended with the purpose of marriage & family as an institution. Your mention relating all back to the Garden of Eden instituting marriage reminds me of a letter I wrote to nephews & nieces about significance of the story of Adam & Eve and how it relate to us. Here’s an excerpt that I would like to share…

This letter is a discussion of my understanding of the sex taboos of the Church. When God made Adam & Eve, he placed the forbidden tree with the forbidden fruit right in the middle of the Garden of Eden. It was like putting a Christmas tree right in the middle of the playroom with all its glittering presents - with a sign that says “Don’t open until Christmas”. They failed the test and mankind was exiled and quarantined to Earth from Paradise with the ultimate virus of “original sin” which causes us all to be born with a variety of birth defects - physically, mentally and morally. We are not born into this world the way God originally made us.

Now we have been given the same “Garden of Eden” test again. The sign says, “Do not use your reproductive tools for anything except what they were designed - that is, the procreation of children - and, don’t do so until you have made your marriage vows before God & witnesses. All else, gravely offends God.”. For healthy loving couples contemplating a life together, this puts a taboo on contraception and cohabitation.

Often these sex taboos appear unnatural. That is, one can’t help but say “Lord, you made me this way. You designed me with an animal nature and biological imperatives and drives that I never requested. Why didn’t you design me with a kill switch for my sex drive as well? Then I could be as pure & chaste as you demand and get on with the higher aspirations in life. As it stands, it seems that you programmed me one way, and command me not to behave naturally.”.

Could it be that these sex taboos are simply arbitrary tests from God that require obedience without understanding? God made us with Flesh and Spirit - with an animal and a spiritual nature. We are given free will and reason for the purpose of practicing the acceptance of God’s will over our animal nature. We are offered an invitation to become true children of God and live with Him eternally in heaven. You have the right to choose to be or not to be born again into life eternal. The invitation comes with a price of
admission that requires the practice of self-mastery over our animal natures, the mastery of the Spirit over Flesh.

By subordinating our animal nature, we concretely profess our supreme faith, belief, trust & love of the hidden God before all others, including ourselves & family & friends. This is the 1st commandment - to love God with our whole being above all others. We do this by obeying His Commands (“If you love Me, you will keep my commandments!”), even if their reasons may not be entirely understood, just as a child does not always understand.

We do this in the same spirit as in the Garden of Eden when God placed that one arbitrary taboo right in the middle of Paradise as a symbol of our allegiance and love for God over ourselves & others.

 

[wynnejj]

In other words, Justice Scalia was right when he predicted that the majority opinion in Lawrence v Texas (2003) would pave the way to same-sex marriage:

It sounds as if the decision of the court would pave the way for any declared union if the idea of marriage laws doesn’t understand the purpose is to encourage the procreation of children. Hey Mate, want to declare ourselves a union for some marriage benefits (no sex intended)?

 

[fix]

False. One man, many women has been more common throughout history, especially for powerful men.

Proof? How would you know are there surveys from 3000 years ago?

You don’t know much about the early history of the Mormons, do you. Indeed, there are still some fundamentalist Mormons who keep to the old Mormon ways.

Again, aberrations do not mean the rule is plastic.

New York, California (briefly), Massachusetts etc. Various Native American tribes also recognise same sex marriage. Did you really not know that?

rossum

Before 15 years ago?

 

[MarkInOregon]

I agree. The devolution of marriage began at Lambeth in 1930, and continued with the widespread acceptance of artificial contraception. Once the link between sex, marriage, and procreation was broken, gay marriage becomes inevitable–along with many other things such as no fault divorce, fatherless kids, and sexually active children. Now, big government has become the daddy, men are devalued as well.

Yes and it will continue–where will it end? Who knows but if you want a glimpse at what may be the next step I refer you to a case called *Mysteryboy Incorporated v. Commissioner TC Memo 2010-13. *Unthinkable you say? Well he was thinking it and took the time to try and start a nonprofit to advocate for it. Luckily he did not know what he was doing. If he took the time–how many more are out there thinking the same thing? Turn on your TV and look at the sexualization of children. Look at the halloween costumes marketed to kids. You still think its unthinkable? No, it will be our next fight I fear. It is terribly sad to see what we attempt to justify in our pursuit of “sex” and "happiness’.

 

[ignatius777]

Yes and it will continue–where will it end? Who knows but if you want a glimpse at what may be the next step I refer you to a case called *Mysteryboy Incorporated v. Commissioner TC Memo 2010-13. *Unthinkable you say? Well he was thinking it and took the time to try and start a nonprofit to advocate for it. Luckily he did not know what he was doing. If he took the time–how many more are out there thinking the same thing? Turn on your TV and look at the sexualization of children. Look at the halloween costumes marketed to kids. You still think its unthinkable? No, it will be our next fight I fear. It is terribly sad to see what we attempt to justify in our pursuit of “sex” and "happiness’.

Correct. happiness is now defined as having whatever you want no matter if it s good or bad for you. Its gone beyond, “If it feels good do it” to “If you want it, you are entitled to it”.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

This is a good example of the breakdown of the family:

“Relaxing on a Sunday afternoon. My heart is full of love,” Neil Patrick Harris Tweeted, sharing this photo of partner David Burtka and their 6-month-old twins Harper Grace and Gideon Scott.

“We found an egg donor anonymously through a hilarious process of looking at people’s profiles and then an amazing surrogate who had helped a same-sex couple before,” the How I Met Your Mother star, 37, told PEOPLE of the surrogacy process.

“And then we inserted two eggs, one with my sperm, one with David’s sperm and they both took.”

Adds Burtka: “We don’t know whose is whose.”

Yuk.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

This is a good example of the breakdown of the family:

“Relaxing on a Sunday afternoon. My heart is full of love,” Neil Patrick Harris Tweeted, sharing this photo of partner David Burtka and their 6-month-old twins Harper Grace and Gideon Scott.

“We found an egg donor anonymously through a hilarious process of looking at people’s profiles and then an amazing surrogate who had helped a same-sex couple before,” the How I Met Your Mother star, 37, told PEOPLE of the surrogacy process.

“And then we inserted two eggs, one with my sperm, one with David’s sperm and they both took.”

Adds Burtka: “We don’t know whose is whose.”

Yuk.

Awww what a beautiful and heartwarming story. It will be so touching when the kids can introduce daddy and my other daddy and the woman who donated her eggs and the other woman who let us borrow her uterus. Sounds like a NAtional Geographic story on how nature works.

 

[rossum]

Proof? How would you know are there surveys from 3000 years ago?

No, just looking at the rules from other religions, including the cases I have cited from the Bible.

Again, aberrations do not mean the rule is plastic.

The rule is obviously plastic. Witness the changes round divorce in the 20th century and the changes round the miscegnation laws as well. Laws round marriage have been changing for a long time, or do you thing that the wife is the property of her husband, and everything she owned before the marriage now belongs to him?

Before 15 years ago?

In some Native American tribes, before Columbus.

rossum

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

It is easy to see in even a cursory examination of Scripture that God intended marriage to be one man and one woman. As the Hebrew culture developed, he allowed for polygamy, just as He allowed for divorce, but only because of the hardness of the Jew’s hearts, not because He wanted it that way. When Jesus comes into the picture, He reclarifies God’s intention of marriage. One man becomes one flesh with one woman, and no man may put it asunder. Any variations on this theme are out of sync with what God has intended and what is His will.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

It is easy to see in even a cursory examination of Scripture that God intended marriage to be one man and one woman. As the Hebrew culture developed, he allowed for polygamy, just as He allowed for divorce, but only because of the hardness of the Jew’s hearts, not because He wanted it that way. When Jesus comes into the picture, He reclarifies God’s intention of marriage. One man becomes one flesh with one woman, and no man may put it asunder. Any variations on this theme are out of sync with what God has intended and what is His will.

AMEN!

 

[InSearchofGrace]

False. One man, many women has been more common throughout history, especially for powerful men.

You don’t know much about the early history of the Mormons, do you. ** Indeed, there are still some fundamentalist Mormons who keep to the old Mormon ways.**

…

rossum

All the more reason gay ‘marriage’ should not be instituted in this part of the world and yours. If it becomes law in every democratic place, how can the state deny advocates for acceptance or re-institution of polygamous marriage? Your part of the world has a significant minority of immigrant and UK born Muslims who would feel justified in clamouring for polygamy up to four wives. After all, the basis would only be love between / among consenting adults. Proponents of polygamy even have a more pressing justification as their marriages at least have a claim to natural sexual complementarity and procreative ability.
,