What have been the societal consequences of Same-Sex Marriage where it is legalised?

[josh987654321]

Another common response has been that whatever is happening at the extremes, life tends to go on as normal for most people.

Life was going on as normal during the early stages of Nazi Germany, or during the early stages of the French Revolution, or the Russian Revolution.

The LGBTQIA agenda is another revolution, a revolution on marriage and the family, the basic foundation for any society. Life will go on as normal during the early stages. We are made out to be hateful and evil oppressors simply because of a view we hold on marriage. They do not want a meaningless piece of paper saying ‘married’ from the government. The definition of marriage will set the course for public policy and that is why there is such debate over a ‘definition’.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[SolicitorPirate]

Yo, if your ‘freedom’ requires the denial of rights of other people, something is really f’ed up about your idea of freedom

 

[faithsmind]

Yo, if your ‘freedom’ requires the denial of rights of other people, something is really f’ed up about your idea of freedom

I wouldn’t necessarily define marriage as a “freedom” or a “right” so much as a public agreement which arranges and secures the safety of the members who will be entering into that agreement, which most importantly includes the new members that could possibly be created from the public relationship. A newborn baby and a nursing female who has just given birth, and has other young, dependent children are in an extremely vulnerable situation when abandoned or left alone. Marriage at least secures the financial responsibility and safety of dependants in this situation.

 

[Otar_Mendes]

They may get on with their lives but children in such SSM situations no matter how the means are deprived of either a mother or father. It’s always the children that suffer.

Do you really think banning same-sex marriage would force gay people to stop having and raising children? It won’t. They would be just less socially protected. So, in order to “fix” this situation you would need to forbid gay people to have children by law. Then you’ll have to come up with a punishment. And then you’ll have to find a way to deal with these children if they have nobody but these couples.

A newborn baby and a nursing female who has just given birth, and has other young, dependent children are in an extremely vulnerable situation when abandoned or left alone. Marriage at least secures the financial responsibility and safety of dependants in this situation.

Indeed. Good argument for same-sex marriage. Add to that other social security a child gets.

 

[josh987654321]

Yo, if your ‘freedom’ requires the denial of rights of other people, something is really f’ed up about your idea of freedom

I see, more name calling, I’m tempted to respond likewise but I wont.

What are these ‘rights’ your talking about?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Do you really think banning same-sex marriage would force gay people to stop having and raising children?

Do you really think a gay couple can actually have children together? If so id recommend a course in biology.

Once we establish this biological reality, we see that for starters it’s not ‘equal’ so the term ‘marriage equality’ is debunked, but that doesn’t seem to stop people using it when this is pointed out to them unfortunately.

Next point is how does a gay couple start a ‘family’? to start a family means to have children, they can only do this by either adoption, or by using IVF and surrogacy.

In regards to adoption, a loving heterosexual couple of mother and father should always have priority, because a child should have as far as possible close to what they unfortunately missed out on due to their biological parents.

In regards to IVF and surrogacy (which is where most of it goes, which really debunks the whole ‘adoption’ argument) This is done to intentionally bring a child into the world with the absolute intention of depriving that child of their mother or father form the get go, which is totally unjust.

I know that same sex marriage will not legalize or criminalize this, but it will set the course for public policy which will only advance such practices.

It won’t. They would be just less socially protected. So, in order to “fix” this situation you would need to forbid gay people to have children by law.

Reality stops them having children, basic biological facts. So how do they get children?

And then you’ll have to find a way to deal with these children if they have nobody but these couples.

Easy, stop immoral surrogacy practices and give priority to loving heterosexual couples in regards to adoption.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

.

There’s no point talking about ‘rights’ without also saying what exactly those ‘rights’ are that one is talking about, otherwise it’s just left up to the reader to assume whatever they want, which is yet another tactic people use to demonize and divide others in such debates.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[abinjoy]

1. Trump is NOT a white supremacist and never has been, neither is anyone in his administration, nor were they on the campaign. This is a totally unjust and unfounded accusation.

Have you ever heard of what he said about Mexicans?
Have you ever heard of what his insult was on the father of a US soldier of a Pakistan origin?

1. What Missiles that killed civilians are you talking about? This was all done under Obama’s administration and even then the propaganda was active in ignoring such things, yet condemning Russia and Assad whenever they could. Not only that, but Obama’s administration armed and paid these people who became ISIS, and even when they were ISIS, they did little to combat them and condemned Russia who were doing so, because ISIS was a group they didn’t have to pay or take any responsibility for trying to overthrow Assad which is what Obama’s administration wanted from the get go.

Making Trump look better by comparing with Obama is a bad strategy.Best scenario is Trump is the better of the two evils, but still evil remains evil
Google “US airstrike kills civilians” and you will understand which missiles I am talking about

1. Give me an example(s) of *‘divisive and hatred filled politics’ * what are these ‘divisive policies’ that you speak of? because that is a totally unjust accusation and that accusation should be put at the feet of Obama, Clinton and her supporters where it really belongs.

Again Obama/Clinton comparison. Have you forgotten his hateful comments against Mexicans and Muslims?

If someone is threatening to wipe me and my loved ones off the face of the earth with an Atomic Bomb, I certainly want a President who says that if they do, they will be met with Fire and Fury in retaliation like the world has never seen.

Applying the above logic the families of those civilians killed by US missiles should give Trump fire and fury response by bombing WhiteHouse and his children.

You should ask your Christian friends where they stand on issues such as abortion, euthanasia and same sex marriage, then we will see how Christian they are and who are really the hypocrites here.

Whether they are hypocrites or not the fear Trump and his worshippers caused will still remain

Last but not the least instead of taking some 20-30 mins or more to write a lengthy post to glorify Trump say a few extra rosaries so that Australia may not go the US way with the plebiscite soon happening.

 

[Edmundus1581]

I only have time to respond to the posts which directly address the topic of what have been the observable consequences in countries which have adopted SSM, because as we approach this vote in Australia we have these experiences to refer to.

Apologies if I’ve missed someone’s direct contribution on this (and please tell me if you think I need a reminder!)

I remember being curious about this same issue when the US amended marriage laws. I did discover that when Canada effected the 2005 homosexual marriage amendment, Marriages statistics plummeted, and shacking up soared immediately following. Who ends up hurt by this (because shacking up usually doesn’t last in the long term)? Unfortunately, innocent children from broken homes are the by-products. I just need to track these statistics down once more.

Oh. Sadly, here are the statistics. Heartbreaking, really:

www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98-312-x/98-312-x2011001-eng.cfm

Thanks, faithsmind. This is an aspect I hadn’t foreseen - the consequences of SSM for heterosexual marriage. This is more often mentioned by the Yes to SSM advocates, in the context of (something like) “Are you afraid that allowing other loving people to marry will undermine your marriage?”. If the No campaign have ever mentioned it, then they’ve been very quiet about it. I think they suspect it so, but it’s just too hard to argue against a strident and dismissive opposition.

Still, with some experience behind us we can see a dramatic increase in co-habitation rates in Canada since the introduction of SSM in 2005.

Between 2006 and 2011, the number of common-law couples rose 13.9%, more than four times the 3.1% increase for married couples. Lone-parent families increased 8.0% over the same period. Growth was higher for male lone-parent families (+16.2%) than for female lone-parent families (+6.0%).

Marriage is certainly better for children than is co-habitation. Even the SSM marriage advocates argue this, saying that children of same sex couples will be better off if their parents are “married”.

Thankyou for the responses! I have already, on day 1 of the campaign, been able to mention to a Yes family member that freedom of religion is under threat, and I was able to say that confidently, with the backing of information I’ve received here.

Last but not the least …say a few extra rosaries so that Australia may not go the US way with the plebiscite soon happening.

Yes! Whatever our public activities are, remember that it is primarily a spiritual battle! And, it’s not only the US which has gone before us, but all (I think) of the major English speaking nations, most of Europe and most of Latin and South America. Interestingly, all that combined is only approximately 1.2B, or 1/6 of the worlds population! There’s still eastern Europe, Africa, and Asia. Australia is almost standing as the last line of defence for the west. (sorry, numbers here may not be exact - but are true to the best of my knowledge atm).

 

[faithsmind]

Thanks for addressing the topic, Edmundus. My concern is always the children, a reality of the reproductive powers of the female-male marriage relationship, and the option of adoption and invitro fertilization for homosexual “married” couples.

No one gets to choose their parents, and but where do we draw the boundaries as the definition of marriage expands? The possibility of twelve 80-yr-old men who are all “married” to each other could technically win the right to be fathers of an adopted newborn because of equal rights issues. But if we restrict parent rights, restrictions could overflow into the reproductive rights of couples who say, have certain cancers, handicaps, or drug addiction and may not be deemed as suitable parents by the state, who could then be forced into sterilization or have their newborns taken away.

Looks like the trend is going in both directions as people continue to demand rights, and the strongest win. These rights may infringe on the weakest, the voiceless, the poorest, and the most vulnerable are suffering as a result.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Thanks for addressing the topic, Edmundus. My concern is always the children, a reality of the reproductive powers of the female-male marriage relationship, and the option of adoption and invitro fertilization for homosexual “married” couples.

No one gets to choose their parents, and but where do we draw the boundaries as the definition of marriage expands? The possibility of twelve 80-yr-old men who are all “married” to each other could technically win the right to be fathers of an adopted newborn because of equal rights issues. But if we restrict parent rights, restrictions could overflow into the reproductive rights of couples who say, have certain cancers, handicaps, or drug addiction and may not be deemed as suitable parents by the state, who could then be forced into sterilization or have their newborns taken away.

Looks like the trend is going in both directions as people continue to demand rights, and the strongest win. These rights may infringe on the weakest, the voiceless, the poorest, and the most vulnerable are suffering as a result.

:sad_yes:

Sadly, a parent’s “rights”, based on identity (male, female, LGBT, etc…), are considered much more important than a child’s right to a mother, father and natural family. We treat innocent children as entitlements to be handed out in identity politics.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

… the false statement from The Sydney Morning Herald, which is one of our major “intellectual” newspapers.

Of course, in the years since gay marriage was legalised in America, the only impact to society has been that some gays got married, and many who once feared the outcome have now changed their views.

You seem to favour “facts” that support your preset view.
The Ohio observations hardly have anything to do with anything intrinsically to do with homosexual acts but rather an aggressive lobby group - which could happen with any controversial issue .

The PM of New Zealand, a Catholic, after many years opposing SS Marriage has recently come out not opposing anymore as he admits his review of the results in other countries is that its pretty much business as usual.

 

[Edmundus1581]

You seem to favour “facts” that support your preset view.
The Ohio observations hardly have anything to do with anything intrinsically to do with homosexual acts but rather an aggressive lobby group - which could happen with any controversial issue .

The PM of New Zealand, a Catholic, after many years opposing SS Marriage has recently come out not opposing anymore as he admits his review of the results in other countries is that its pretty much business as usual.

I’m trying to be objective here. I thank the responders who have given their personal observation that not much has changed, however that has not been backed up with independent references.

I found this on Bill English, the PM of New Zealand, and it is as you say.

nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11765250

New Prime Minister Bill English has revealed he would vote in favour of same-sex marriage if another vote was held, saying he has witnessed the positive impact it has had on gay couples in New Zealand.

I still think an adopted child should go into a heterosexual home, however.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I still think an adopted child should go into a heterosexual home, however.

I tend to agree with you on that prudential judgement … but this doesnt appear to be within the narrower scope of your requested topic.

 

[Erich]

so the term ‘marriage equality’ is debunked

Marriage ‘equality’ was never about equality or equal rights, it was always about special rights.

Gays and lesbians have always had the same right to marry an opposite-gender spouse as heterosexuals, subject to the same restrictions (legal age, not already married, etc.) The ability to “marry” someone of the same gender is a special right – one that no one previously had, and no one (except gays and lesbians) even wanted.

 

[SuperLuigi]

The biggest problem other than this being a grave sin is that people have false expectations.

They think by letting so-called gay “marriage” go, that people will just shut-up about it and move on.

In the US shortly after the court shoved this on the American people in a blatantly unconstitutional act, activists were calling up bakers to see which ones would serve gay weddings.

A couple that refused were fined by the government and/or sued.

This isn’t about live and let live or about equality. It’s all part of the post-modern left trying to destroy the nuclear family out of hate, fear and spite. It may not even be a majority who agree with this, but these are often the loudest voices or the people in power.

Also, since this has been legal in the West for 10 years or so, the following marriages have occurred:

1. To a pillow
2. To themselves
3. To a laptop
4. To a ferris wheel
5. To a videogame character

The other problem is that so-called gay “marriage”, in the words of Dennis Prager, makes gender meaningless. So people are running around with all of these made-up genders with made-up pronouns, and Canada recently added these protections to their human rights code. So if you don’t call someone “ze” or by the proper pronoun, you could face jail time at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Guys can we abstract from the emotion and observe the OPs actual question .

Viz, objective assessment of real negatives observed consequent to legalisation.

Its fairly clear to me at the sky has not actually fallen down …yet.
Being married to a laptop hasnt caused any great damage as fas as I know.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Nothing…more people are married.

I think that in countries with SSM, people get on with their lives as before, maybe having more respect for other people.

These reflect my experience as well. Life goes on. Catholics still have sacramental marriage between a man and a woman. Their marriages are unaffected by the legal marriage of a gay couple. If they are having problems within their own marriages, the problems would certainly have to run deeper than a gay couple who they might not even know being legally married under civil law. There are other Christian faith communities that have evolved over time to understand homosexuality and gay couples in monogamous relationships differently and have chosen to celebrate such marriages. And so be it. Gay couples are providing loving homes for children. Children are no more being deprieved parents of 2 opposite genders any more than a child being raised by a loving widowed parent. The only people for whom it personally remains a problem it seems to me are the ones who make a problem out of something that simply and truly is not there.

 

[ATraveller]

Nothing…more people are married.

Until the novelty wears off…
Plus, marriage is down and gay ‘marriage’ isn’t offsetting the declines. Aside from the fact LGBT are a minority, not many LGT people actually chose to obtain a marriage licence.

Yo, if your ‘freedom’ requires the denial of rights of other people, something is really f’ed up about your idea of freedom

Marriage is not a right. Otherwise, everyone who is single should be suing the state for not being married.

Guys can we abstract from the emotion and observe the OPs actual question .

Viz, objective assessment of real negatives observed consequent to legalisation.

Its fairly clear to me at the sky has not actually fallen down …yet.
Being married to a laptop hasnt caused any great damage as fas as I know.

The negative effects are in the legal sphere.
There isn’t much in terms of social effects. There’s a hypothesis that because sexually active gay men are promiscuous and very prone to open relationships if they’re in a relationship (Dan Savage and other gay activists have stated most gay relationships are, using Savage’s term ‘monogamish’, there are some statistics that back this claim), by being ‘married’, the idea of marriage being exclusive to all others could be damaged and this will spread to heterosexual couples. We have yet to see any evidence to confirm this hypothesis. It may happen or it may not. This can only be observed over decades not years.
The Ohio case isn’t related to homosexual acts, rather it’s a legal issue, where the redefinition of marriage opens the litigation floodgates. Some places have protections others don’t and refuse to implement any.​

The key thing here is heterosexuals have blighted marriage. Many heterosexuals don’t subscribe to chastity and thus such think porn consumption and strip club patronising aren’t cheating and think polyamory is okay. Of course, that’s because most heterosexuals aren’t religious not even in the 1920s. There’s a difference between claiming to be ‘Christian’ and following Christ.
This is not to say all non-religious people are like this but there’s little to dissuade them from such beliefs except the fading afterglow of Christian influence at the top of society. There’s a good chance most non-religious couples think it’s okay for couples to view porn because nothing physical has occurred (except maybe to the porn viewer). This could be an interesting topic for research.

 

[edwest2]

The biggest problem other than this being a grave sin is that people have false expectations.

They think by letting so-called gay “marriage” go, that people will just shut-up about it and move on.

In the US shortly after the court shoved this on the American people in a blatantly unconstitutional act, activists were calling up bakers to see which ones would serve gay weddings.

A couple that refused were fined by the government and/or sued.

This isn’t about live and let live or about equality. It’s all part of the post-modern left trying to destroy the nuclear family out of hate, fear and spite. It may not even be a majority who agree with this, but these are often the loudest voices or the people in power.

Also, since this has been legal in the West for 10 years or so, the following marriages have occurred:

1. To a pillow
2. To themselves
3. To a laptop
4. To a ferris wheel
5. To a videogame character

The other problem is that so-called gay “marriage”, in the words of Dennis Prager, makes gender meaningless. So people are running around with all of these made-up genders with made-up pronouns, and Canada recently added these protections to their human rights code. So if you don’t call someone “ze” or by the proper pronoun, you could face jail time at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer.

Thank you for this.

Ed