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

[ATraveller]

So you contributed an unsubstantiated random hypothesis just for the fun of it?

It’s not a random hypothesis, it was mentioned a few years back by some sociologists. I wouldn’t know if it’s unsubstantiated but I suspect they would have to ground that on some previous relevant research. I don’t spout things for the ‘fun of it’ on serious topics. My point in the initial reply was if any negative effects can be found, in legal matters, yes, we’re starting to see a number of them because some legislators don’t want to protect religious people not comfortable with contributing to gay weddings. But if we’re looking for negative social effects, there’s practically nothing found except an untested hypothesis.

A person who is a victim of homophobia and ostracism may or may not then act promiscuously. But homophobia and ostracism are wrong regardless.

Of course they’re wrong.
I asked because it’s hard to see how those two factors are the main direct causes of promiscuity. It could be possible but I like to know the processes behind things. Rather than A causes B, I like to know how A causes B.

 

[Peter_J]

“Know” can be a funny word sometimes. Yes you “know” by your faith. If for instance you were of another faith by which you walk though whose understanding has evolved on homosexuality or on what constitutes monogamous marriage, you wouldn’t necessarily know.

The thing is, if a government declares same-sex marriage to be valid marriage, they aren’t being neutral. They are saying that one belief is correct and the other incorrect.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

The thing is, if a government declares same-sex marriage to be valid marriage, they aren’t being neutral. They are saying that one belief is correct and the other incorrect.

Or that civil marriage isn’t the same as religious marriage.
There’s already a number of things about civil marriage that aren’t compatible with the Catholic understanding of it.

 

[Peter_J]

Or that civil marriage isn’t the same as religious marriage.

That may be a plausible solution in theory, but in practice that distinction barely even exists.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

That may be a plausible solution in theory, but in practice that distinction barely even exists.

Depends. Are you viewing it as the state “creating” a marriage or as the state simply recording the marriage?

No state defines my marriage, it simply recorded its existence.

 

[Peter_J]

Depends. Are you viewing it as the state “creating” a marriage or as the state simply recording the marriage?

No state defines my marriage, it simply recorded its existence.

I view it as the state recording a marriage. (In the case of SSM, the state declares that a marriage is valid which actually isn’t.)

 

[SuperLuigi]

Depends. Are you viewing it as the state “creating” a marriage or as the state simply recording the marriage?

No state defines my marriage, it simply recorded its existence.

Oh really?

Cause I never of the gay “rights” campaigners saying they were looking to just have their arrangement recorded…

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Oh really?

Cause I never of the gay “rights” campaigners saying they were looking to just have their arrangement recorded…

Those “rights” center around around how the state interacts with those it records as “married”.

So does the state defines your marriage? Or do you?