I’m saying that I think the government should allow gays to marry. Then I’m asking whether there’d be some terrible consequence to allowing this.
Homosexuals have the right to marry–a person of the opposite sex.
You say that you think that the government should allow homosexuals to marry each other. Why do you think that?
If it really was a right, then I’d say we need to support the rights of gays regardless of the consequences, because rights are fundamental. Since I don’t think marriage is a right, if there is good reason for gays not to be married (some terrible consequence!), then I’d be against it.
The point is not that one would be against it if there was some bad consequence for society if it were allowed, but what would be the good consequence for society if it were allowed?
As things stand now, if homosexuals were allowed to “marry” each other, all it would mean is that they would get certain benefits which were put in place *to help families. *Homosexual unions cannot by their very nature generate children, so there is no need for them to get these benefits.
The personal benefits they would receive would relate either to matters which can already be easily resolved legally, or matters which we already think bad for society, or emotional matters which a counselor might be better equipped to deal with.
So, Brandon, why *should *the government allow homosexual unions to receive benefits set up for those who benefit the future of the society?
So I combined these two statements you made, because I think one answers the other. If we do thorough investigation of prospective parents, gay or straight, black or white, and act on what we find, then there should be no problems. If there just happen to be less suitable gay couples or black couples (or whatever), then that’s the way it is.
The point is that the color of one’s skin does not cause a difference in parenting, whereas one’s sex does.
Fathers and mothers are essentially *different. *In another post of yours, you said that you thought a mother could offer to a child anything a father could–I beg to thoroughly disagree. I also thoroughly disagree that a father could offer anything a mother could.
The radical feminists of the 60s opposed the idea that biology is destiny and did their level best to turn women and men into androgynous compromises. They have failed, but many of the studies done at that time wrt child-rearing were very biased and flawed, driven as they were by the desire of many to justify increased divorce. This is why now studies, studies which cover more time, for example, are beginning to show that there is a difference between mothering and fathering, and that there is an effect on children who are raised by only one or the other.
I think basic morality always provides boundaries.
Basic morality includes the idea that extra-marital sexual activity is wrong, and that homosexual activity is wrong.
Moral boundaries are reinforced by *actual *consequences, that is why stepping outside moral behavior often leads to people abandoning more and more morals.
It may be that, since many gays buy into the traditionalist line that they already are living in sin, they think ‘what’s the point?’ and ignore all possible boundaries; pure speculation.
And you think that a civil recognition of their relationship would end this? By what logic do you come to this point, considering that morals are not determined by the government?
And if one takes this logic along the same path, what about those homosexuals who do not think that civil recognition of their union is sufficient to eradicate the notion that they are living in sin and who then would like, say, a *Catholic *recognition of their state? Will the government then force that upon us?
It may be that, when gay marriage is incorporated liturgically into some Christian communities, gays in those communities will become far more healthy and chaste.
Do you honestly think that we should formulate government policy on this type of thinking?
