Ten myths about gay ‘marriage’

[Crescentinus]

So then less than 3.4% of the population has convinced a much higher percentage of heterosexuals that redefining marriage to suit less than 3.4% of the population is the right thing to do??? If that’s not manipulation, I don’t know what is.

There is manipulation, yes. I also believe that there’s enabling, for various reasons.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Well, they are wrong about one thing marriage has not always been one man one woman. In many cultures over time it has been one man with multiple women and in very few cultures one woman and multiple men. Polygamy has been practiced in many cultures. I know that has little to do with the debate, but I thought I would point that out.

The reasons for doing so were still economic-based. The mortality rate for young men was very high in certain situations, and it was a means for extended family to protect the women and children more than for men to have a bunch of sexual pleasure.

Given with what I’ve observed with Mormon and Muslim polygamy in the last couple hundred years, I’d say it was much more civilized (as polygamy can go) in the BC era. These days, the correlation between incest, child sex abuse and forced marriages to polygamy are stark.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Interesting report, thanks for the link. I was surprised to learn that there is a higher incidence of homosexuality reported among non-white than among white respondents. Overall the percentage seems about right. It doesn’t seem right to me, however, that 3.4% of the population should be able to dictate their redefinition of marriage to the other 96.6%.

The ironic thing about that is most of the activists are straight progressives in their never-ending quest to be loved by all the different peoples of the world.

If it were just GLBTQ, they wouldn’t be going anywhere.

There’s a lot of GLBTQ folks who reject so-called “gay marriage”.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Some heterosexual parents, siblings, friends and relatives of LGBT people do not need to be manipulated into thinking that their son’s, daughter’s, friend’s, niece’s, nephew’s, or cousin’s relationship with a member of the same gender is worthy of the title of marriage.

It’s not a question of whether or not they’re “worthy.” It’s a question of whether it’s an appropriate descriptor of the reality of their relationship. It’s no slight of a woman’s worth to say to her she cannot be a father; in the same way, it’s no slight on a same-sex couple’s worth to say to them that what they have is not a marriage, but something else. I think that would be simply an assertion of the truth.

Slavonic:

They do not have to be manipulated to see that marriage, as currently defined in many places, denies that person and his or her partner from a large number of legal benefits and protections and fails to recognize the dignity and value of that person’s relationship.

Society can place benefits and protections on the institution of marriage because it fosters the perpetuation of that society to encourage male and female couples to commit to the creation and rearing of their natural offspring. If society concludes that same-sex couplings offer similar societal benefits, then it could also grant such benefits and protections. However, the institutionalization of such couplings hinders the optimum environment for raising children by promoting households bereft of male and female natural parents. It’s sad to see that selfishness and self-gratification blind those from recognizing that marriage is not about the man and woman, so much as it is about the recognition of the natural family unit: the best environment for raising children, all other things being equal.

Peace,
Robert

 

[TrixieMcGee]

Do you know if polgamous marriage occured before mongamous marriage? If it did, that does not mean it was good for society and I do not think polgamous marriage has been homsexual

This study says of polygamous marriage

Decades of studies have found the benefits to society that marriage between 1 woman and 1 man brings. Polygamous marriage does not bring those benefits

I am sorry, but when did I say polygamy was good for society or good at all for that matter? I just said that the writer was not correct that marriage has always been one man one woman. Don’t read too much into things.

 

[TrixieMcGee]

The reasons for doing so were still economic-based. The mortality rate for young men was very high in certain situations, and it was a means for extended family to protect the women and children more than for men to have a bunch of sexual pleasure.

Given with what I’ve observed with Mormon and Muslim polygamy in the last couple hundred years, I’d say it was much more civilized (as polygamy can go) in the BC era. These days, the correlation between incest, child sex abuse and forced marriages to polygamy are stark.

I am fully aware about the history of polygamy. I was just saying that the writer was not correct in his assumption that marriage has always and only been one man one woman. That is all.

 

[manualman]

So then less than 3.4% of the population has convinced a much higher percentage of heterosexuals that redefining marriage to suit less than 3.4% of the population is the right thing to do??? If that’s not manipulation, I don’t know what is.

I’m against “gay marriage” but that’s a downright terrible argument against it. You have to at least listen to your opponent in an argument if you want to convince him.

Gay marriage proponents typically base their argument on fairness and equality. When you make this argument, they here you saying something like this: “Less than 5% of the people in this country are Jews. How have the other 95% allowed themselves to be manipulated by the Jewish activists into abolishing all those great Jewish jokes we learned as kids?”

See the absurdity? Just because there are only a few of a certain kind of person doesn’t mean the rest of us aren’t obligated to treat that minority fairly.

The REAL argument against gay marriage is that the entire reason government is involved in marriage in the first place is because the people who enter into it are entering into an institution that is the BEST source of healthy, happy, educated and well adjusted citizens in the NEXT generation. Thus we subsidize and protect that which protects our society and culture. Gay relationships are NOT inherently ordered to this end, so why should they receive the same favored treatment? It makes no sense on the fundamental level.

 

[Slavonic]

It’s not a question of whether or not they’re “worthy.” It’s a question of whether it’s an appropriate descriptor of the reality of their relationship. It’s no slight of a woman’s worth to say to her she cannot be a father; in the same way, it’s no slight on a same-sex couple’s worth to say to them that what they have is not a marriage, but something else. I think that would be simply an assertion of the truth.

And it’s no slight on a straight person that they cannot have an intimate relationship with a member of the same sex. If there are some differences, why must the differences be used to place higher and lower value? As you say yourself, it is no slight on a woman that she cannot be a father, but you would not say that it make her less than a man. So, based on your own example, there is no slight on a same-sex couple if they cannot produce children and that does not make their relationship less valuable.

Society can place benefits and protections on the institution of marriage because it fosters the perpetuation of that society to encourage male and female couples to commit to the creation and rearing of their natural offspring. If society concludes that same-sex couplings offer similar societal benefits, then it could also grant such benefits and protections. However, the institutionalization of such couplings hinders the optimum environment for raising children by promoting households bereft of male and female natural parents. It’s sad to see that selfishness and self-gratification blind those from recognizing that marriage is not about the man and woman, so much as it is about the recognition of the natural family unit: the best environment for raising children, all other things being equal.

Peace,
Robert

It’s demeaning to imply that same-sex relationships are of lesser value to society. Also, the state grants the joint-filer status to all couples, with or without children. It gives the dependent care tax credit to all those raising children, married or not. It gives spousal rights to spouses and parental rights to parents. They occasionally overlap, but are quite separate as well.

 

[Kevin_B]

I wonder how many people actually agreed with this article without actually reading it.

#3 says “it’s not all about equality” because, in the uk, same-sex couples can have all the legal rights of married couples through domestic partnerships. However, in most states in the u.s., domestic partnerships between same sex couples are illegal, implying that in those states, it IS a matter of equal rights.

I wonder how many people who supported this article realized they were agreeing that, in the u.s., same-sex couples are really fighting for equal rights with married couples.

And yes, I DO agree people should be able to enter into a civil union with anyone they want. Marriage is a millennia old tradition that needs to be protected. Civil unions are not even as old as this county, have no religious adulation, and therefore do not need to be confined to mixed-gender couples.

 

[Crescentinus]

The ironic thing about that is most of the activists are straight progressives in their never-ending quest to be loved by all the different peoples of the world.

If it were just GLBTQ, they wouldn’t be going anywhere.

There’s a lot of GLBTQ folks who reject so-called “gay marriage”.

Hence me using the term “homosexualist” rather than “gay activist” due to the fact that there are those who support “same-sex marriage” who happen to be straight and they are plentiful in the West. If anyone disputes that, then they should be free to come at me!

 

[markeverett49]

And yes, I DO agree people should be able to enter into a civil union with anyone they want. Marriage is a millennia old tradition that needs to be protected. Civil unions are not even as old as this county, have no religious adulation, and therefore do not need to be confined to mixed-gender couples.

I found that curious, the claim that opposite-sex couples can NOT enter into civil unions (-in the UK). If that is true, there may be a movement for “union equality…”

 

[He_Man]

That’s a good line but I think the point it makes is mistaken. First, few gay men will actually marry. Second, in the places where same-sex marriage has been legalized nationally (Spain, the Netherlands) have seen a decline in marriage rates. A declining marriage rate should make for fewer divorce cases.

That’s a great way to spin lower marriage rates - less divorce! And just think - with less marriage, we’ll see less spousal abuse and incest too!

I’m not sure that is in any way positive.

 

[markeverett49]

That’s a great way to spin lower marriage rates - less divorce! And just think - with less marriage, we’ll see less spousal abuse and incest too!

I’m not sure that is in any way positive.

Ha! I agree with you. I’m not in favor of a lower marriage rate. My point was that divorce lawyers may benefit less than some expect (-from same-sex marriage becoming legal) if the overall marriage rate declines. But again, to be clear, I oppose same-sex marriage and want the marriage rate to increase.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

And it’s no slight on a straight person that they cannot have an intimate relationship with a member of the same sex. If there are some differences, why must the differences be used to place higher and lower value? As you say yourself, it is no slight on a woman that she cannot be a father, but you would not say that it make her less than a man. So, based on your own example, there is no slight on a same-sex couple if they cannot produce children and that does not make their relationship less valuable.

I don’t perceive the issue to be one of individual “value.” All human beings have infinite value. The issue is whether or not “marriage” can be applied to a same-sex union. The simple answer to that question is “no” because a same-sex union is not open to the possibility of creating life. That possibility is uniquely open to a heterosexual union. I’m not the one placing the value on people based upon their relationship. It is the “gay” community that is arguing for a change in marriage based upon the presumption that such a change will promote acceptance of homosexuals living gay lifestyles.

Slavonic:

It’s demeaning to imply that same-sex relationships are of lesser value to society.

I’m not trying to demean anyone. It’s simply a fact that same-sex relationships are different because they cannot result in the creation of offspring, whereas male/female relationships do. Society has an interest in protecting the latter for purposes of creating and fostering stable homes. It is not demeaning to state the obvious, i.e. that the same rationale does not apply to same-sex couples. That says nothing about the two people. It’s a point of fact about the nature of their physical union.

Slavonic:

Also, the state grants the joint-filer status to all couples, with or without children. It gives the dependent care tax credit to all those raising children, married or not. It gives spousal rights to spouses and parental rights to parents. They occasionally overlap, but are quite separate as well.

OK. The fact that benefits are given to parents of children in other contexts does not make an argument for same-sex marriage?

Peace,
Robert

 

[SuperLuigi]

I am fully aware about the history of polygamy. I was just saying that the writer was not correct in his assumption that marriage has always and only been one man one woman. That is all.

In terms of what, exactly?

 

[SuperLuigi]

I think he is being rhetorical, since obviously the homosexualists are already trying to convert everyone else to their twisted point of view.

Speaking of which, have they changed anyone’s mind on here?

I’d like a show of hands, please!

 

[TrixieMcGee]

In terms of what, exactly?

I am not sure what you are confused about. If there is such thing as polygamy (and in the past it was pretty common and still exists in many cultures) then marriage hasn’t always been just one man, one woman. Plenty of marriages are one man, multiple women or in one area in Nepal (and select other areas) one woman, multiple men. The writer said marriage was always one man, one woman, which isn’t true. It has always been between opposite genders ( I have heard of some rare cases like a Roman Emperor who was married to a young boy), not always between just two people. I even said in my original post, that the fact there was polygamy and that marriage wasn’t always between one man, one woman, has little to do with the gay marriage issue.

 

[SuperLuigi]

that the fact there was polygamy and that marriage wasn’t always between one man, one woman, has little to do with the gay marriage issue.

It seems like though the progressives are making the argument that marriage changes, and that was one example, but marriage has always changed for economic or political benefit, not the perceived benefit of the partners.

 

[TrixieMcGee]

It seems like though the progressives are making the argument that marriage changes, and that was one example, but marriage has always changed for economic or political benefit, not the perceived benefit of the partners.

I wasn’t using that to excuse gay marriage. I am not, I am just saying that the guy who wrote the article is wrong. I never said gay marriage was okay. I was just pointing out that he missed a fact check in there. When arguing issues, we need to get our facts straight.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I wasn’t using that to excuse gay marriage. I am not, I am just saying that the guy who wrote the article is wrong. I never said gay marriage was okay. I was just pointing out that he missed a fact check in there. When arguing issues, we need to get our facts straight.

I see.

Thank you for the clarification.