Social Consequence of Gay Marriage

[St_Francis]

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

So what? This does not include SSM or SS relationships at all.

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.

The Mormons were chased out of a few states before they settles in Utah, and in order to be admitted to the Union, they had to forswear polygamy.

New York, California (briefly), Massachusetts etc.

This is part of the modern aberration, is it not? So cannot be used as evidence of anything when what we are discussing *is *the modern aberration.

Various Native American tribes also recognise same sex marriage. Did you really not know that?

Source?

 

[FaithBuild18]

The consequences so far:

-Increasing prominence of the “dictatorship of relativism”
-Massive influx of openly gay people who bash the bible at every turn
-Christianity on the decline - “New Atheism” on the rise: their key moral agenda being “humanism.” Guess what one of their number one prerogatives is (after eradicating religion)? Entitlements for gays!
-Disgustingly high prevalence of LGBT groups on college campuses.
-Demonizing every one who is opposed to gay marriage, especially, ESPECIALLY religious people
-Especial condemnation for those who are not only opposed to same sex marriage, but who are also morally opposed to homosexuality in the first place.
-Increasing emphasis on sexual gratification. Love and sex are now the same. Follow your sexual desires. Following your sexual desires over your faculties of reason is no longer wrong. Anyone who tells you anyways is a bigot. Morality is relative. Have you watched TV lately? This is, after all, what homosexual equality is all about.

-Boys not being raised to be men. Our culture is grooming males to be overly effeminate. Effeminate men will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Being a man is no longer acceptable. Being a man means you are oppressive and responsible for 90% of all problems that have ever happened in this world. Being a white Catholic man means you and you alone are responsible for 100% of every bad thing that has ever happened on planet Earth

-Make that Mother Earth. Gays and neo-pagan environmentalism go hand in hand. Don’t believe me? Go to college and you will see. Liberals love to appeal to emotional sensibilities. It starts with feeling sorry for gays being oppressed for not being able to fornicate one another and get benefits for doing so, and then before you know it you’re holding up Obama signs and feeling sorry for oppressed women who can’t kill their children (her impregnation was a straight man’s fault by the way), and protesting those damn white manly men for polluting this planet for far too long. Why are white men so devilish? Because the Bible told them so. It’s the Bible’s fault, and all religion is evil.

-In sum - gay marriage → growing acceptance of liberalism → eventual atheism. Liberalism leads to a growing independence of people (since I’ve been informed by a history professor that I’m no longer allowed to refer to people as “men,” true story) from God. This leads to atheism. Liberalism will lead to atheism, all of the time.

Why give them ground on any issue?

 

[CopticChristian]

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?

What do you think of “gay marriage”?

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

I want to hear your thoughts on this issue.

 

[stewstew03]

What do you think of “gay marriage”?

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

I want to hear your thoughts on this issue.

(My apologies, Coptic, I know you didn’t ask for my thoughts on this, but…)

The US Constitution currently “allows” gay marriage, which is why some states have been able to pass SSM laws with impunity. This is also why some people favor a Constitutional amendment that would expressly prohibit SSM.

 

[CopticChristian]

(My apologies, Coptic, I know you didn’t ask for my thoughts on this, but…)

The US Constitution currently “allows” gay marriage, which is why some states have been able to pass SSM laws with impunity. This is also why some people favor a Constitutional amendment that would expressly prohibit SSM.

Stew,

My man…your thoughts are always welcome…these words are just a reframing of the OP and if you go back to the OP you will see that it is an attempt to get the OP to answer this question.

tis OK…thus sayeth the OP as follows…

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?

my reframe…asking the OP to expound on their views…

What do you think of “gay marriage”?

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

I want to hear your thoughts on this issue.

 

[stewstew03]

Stew,

My man…your thoughts are always welcome…these words are just a reframing of the OP and if you go back to the OP you will see that it is an attempt to get the OP to answer this question.

tis OK…thus sayeth the OP as follows…

Ah, okay… carry on Doc

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

(My apologies, Coptic, I know you didn’t ask for my thoughts on this, but…)

The US Constitution currently “allows” gay marriage, which is why some states have been able to pass SSM laws with impunity. This is also why some people favor a Constitutional amendment that would expressly prohibit SSM.

THe Constitution says absolutely zero about marriage whatsoever, which brings up the grander point, why is the federal government in the business of endorsing any form of sexual relationship?

 

[LoboLobo]

THe Constitution says absolutely zero about marriage whatsoever, which brings up the grander point, why is the federal government in the business of endorsing any form of sexual relationship?

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.

 

[LoboLobo]

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?

It may be that the constitution would be so amended in order to make explicit the rights of men to marry men, and of women to marry women. But, if you wish, maybe it’s just a ruling from the Supreme Court, that declares that all states must allow gay marriage because it is constitutional.

ROFL… I doubt that any rise in Islam in Spain is the result of gay marriage. Do you know the position that Islam has on gay relations, much less marriage?

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

ROFL… I doubt that any rise in Islam in Spain is the result of gay marriage. Do you know the position that Islam has on gay relations, much less marriage?

That’s exactly my point. You ROFL agree with my point!

How do we know that problems in societies are caused by gay marriage? Maybe they are caused by Islamic immigration, or economic turmoil, or the high divorce rates, or child trafficking, etc?

This is my point exactly! I am glad you agree!

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

What do you think of “gay marriage”?

I think that, if a religion wants to marry gays, that religion should be allowed to do so. I’m planning on starting another thread on this very topic: gay marriage and ethics. After reading the comments, reviewing some older philosophy and ethics writings, I think I now see why gay marriage should be defended, whereas incest cannot be. But more on that in the next thread (and not here)!

I think that gay marriage should be allowed (and encouraged!), unless there is a clear and serious social consequence for doing so (and maybe even if there is this consequence).

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

I do not know. I suspect not much. I don’t think much will change for the better for for worse, regarding society at large. Gays comprise a very small segment of society, so I think that this will have little impact.

But I am very ignorant about this, so that’s why I asked the question. I’m interested in seeing what other people say, challenging them, and finding out what they can justify and how they justify it.

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

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

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_Rimmer_1]

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.

Assuming that there is no positive benefit to allowing gay marriage, if there is no negative benefit why not allow it? Why must we only do something if it has a positive benefit?

If it’s neutral, why not allow it?

Why should there be greater limitations?

What limitations? I’m talking about less limitations. It’s why libertarians tend to favour gay marriage, I suspect.

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

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).

This is what I will suspect long-term. No real consequences.

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

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

Is this a consequence of gay marriage, or simply of the State’s over-involvement in marriage in general?

My personal view is that the State should recognise any contractually valid marriage (two consenting adults), and anyone who wants to work for the State has to go along with this. But religious groups can decide their own rules about what marriage is, and the State shouldn’t force them to change their views.

I agree that this separation is being threatened currently, and I’m against it… but is the threat really from allowing gay marriage?

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

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.

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?

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

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?

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?

 

[ignatius777]

Assuming that there is no positive benefit to allowing gay marriage, if there is no negative benefit why not allow it? Why must we only do something if it has a positive benefit?

If it’s neutral, why not allow it?

What limitations? I’m talking about less limitations. It’s why libertarians tend to favour gay marriage, I suspect.

I have answered this AT LEAST 3 times. Whats the problem? Did you not see th answer? Did you see it but ignore it? Or is it that you saw but just dont like the answer? But in the spirit of fellowship I will answer AGAIN since I will assume I have not made myself clear enough.

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.

 

[Benay]

There will be a number of social/cultural and legal changes as a result of Gay marriage.

1. A Gay partner will be able to visit a spouse in the intensive care ward and not be turned away because they are not “family”
2. The immediate family of a deceased person will not be able to take all the property jointly purchased by both Gay partners away from the surviving partner. Even common law relationships protect the surviving partner against greedy blood relatives. This would protect a long term Gay partner as well.
3. When Gay partners split up they will be able to get a legal divorce and have the courts adjudicate who gets what. Now there are no rules of ownership.
4. Gays will be able to adopt and/foster care children. All research points to the fact that Gay parents have no more effect on children’s subsequent sexual preference than straight parents have.
5. Acknowledgement that “God don’t make junk” as Alcoholics Anonymous affirms.
6. An acknowledgement that Gays have equal rights under the law and are just as loved and cared for by God as anyone else.
7. An acknowledgement that only God has the right to judge what is in the human heart, not other people.

 

[ignatius777]

There will be a number of social/cultural and legal changes as a result of Gay marriage.

1. A Gay partner will be able to visit a spouse in the intensive care ward and not be turned away because they are not “family”
2. The immediate family of a deceased person will not be able to take all the property jointly purchased by both Gay partners away from the surviving partner. Even common law relationships protect the surviving partner against greedy blood relatives. This would protect a long term Gay partner as well.
3. When Gay partners split up they will be able to get a legal divorce and have the courts adjudicate who gets what. Now there are no rules of ownership.
4. Gays will be able to adopt and/foster care children. All research points to the fact that Gay parents have no more effect on children’s subsequent sexual preference than straight parents have.
5. Acknowledgement that “God don’t make junk” as Alcoholics Anonymous affirms.
6. An acknowledgement that Gays have equal rights under the law and are just as loved and cared for by God as anyone else.
7. An acknowledgement that only God has the right to judge what is in the human heart, not other people.

5, 6 and 7 play solely to emotion dont they?

 

[St_Francis]

There will be a number of social/cultural and legal changes as a result of Gay marriage.

1. A Gay partner will be able to visit a spouse in the intensive care ward and not be turned away because they are not “family”

Hospitals actually don’t verify if someone is a member of the family or not. They are known to regulate the *number *of visitors, but they really don’t care.

Any problems of this type can be arranged by a private contract–the state does not need to be involved.

1. The immediate family of a deceased person will not be able to take all the property jointly purchased by both Gay partners away from the surviving partner. Even common law relationships protect the surviving partner against greedy blood relatives. This would protect a long term Gay partner as well.

This also can be regulated by contract; in fact, I am surprised that it ever happened, considering that usually lawyers are involved in the purchase of a house and they set up the contract. It is easy enough; there’s a special name for it.

1. When Gay partners split up they will be able to get a legal divorce and have the courts adjudicate who gets what. Now there are no rules of ownership.

Society would be much better off if at least some splitting couples would arrange their affairs ahead of time. Why clog the divorce courts with this stuff?

1. Gays will be able to adopt and/foster care children. All research points to the fact that Gay parents have no more effect on children’s subsequent sexual preference than straight parents have.

All the research–oh, the piles and piles of research that exist!!! And all done by completely objective observers, over the lifetime of the children involved. Oh, yes, *that *research.

1. Acknowledgement that “God don’t make junk” as Alcoholics Anonymous affirms.

Since the Fall, we acknowledge that creation is flawed. Just as some people are born blind–would you call them “junk”? But would you call them normal? No.

1. An acknowledgement that Gays have equal rights under the law and are just as loved and cared for by God as anyone else.

Homosexuals *already have equal rights under the law, and God does love and care for them as He does everyone else.

However, their *activity *is sinful, so God is sadddened by that, and their desires are inimical to a healthy society, so their *activity *should not be sanctioned by law.

1. An acknowledgement that only God has the right to judge what is in the human heart, not other people.

Right, we should not judge the state of anyone’s *soul, *however, we judge and we should judge *actions. *for example, If I hear that a young man goes around raping women, I do not think that I should not judge, God doesn’t make junk, and all that–no, I think, here is a young man committing a heinous crime.

I do not think that homosexual activity necessarily constitiutes a heinous crime, but I do see that the Church teaches that it is objjectively a mortal sin. I agree with the Church. I see no reason why the government should *sanction these relationships.