Why (passing pro) Gay Marriage (laws) is a Bad Idea

  • Thread starter Thread starter foolishmortal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In my view, the anti-gay marriage push is being pushed by a tiny minority of the ultra-rich who are using this issue to elect right-wingers who will remove all taxation and regulation from big corporations and big banks. In other words, economics libertarians are, ironically, pushing and funding the anti-gay marriage laws.

But I am still against gay marriage.

If “conservatives” really cared about marriage (which most of the leading “conservatives” do not, in my view), they would promote and pass laws that **OUTLAW ALL SEX EXCEPT **that between a man and woman who have been legally married, and they’d OUTLAW the “no fault” divorce laws and return to the old system in which it was VERY difficult or almost impossible to get a marriage.

This means they’d also outlaw SHACKING UP, and ONE NIGHT STANDS and PORNOGRAPHY.

Those things are serious crimes in** Iran and Saudi Arabia.** Yes, we should be more like those countries.

Ironically, the** laws of Iran and Saudi Arabia are more Catholic** than the laws of the USA, Italy, Germany, France, Ireland, etc.

But all we hear about his the campaign against gay marriage. Gays haven’t destroyed a single heterosexual marriage in the USA in the last 40 years (okay, maybe one, or two). Rather, the OBVIOUS destroyers of heterosexual marriage in the USA are:
–Easy divorce
–Pre-marital sex.
–Shacking up.
–Pornography.

Outlawing gay marriage won’t “save marriage” at all. But the campaign against gay marriage will get radical laissez faire economic right wingers elected to high offices.

I think we need to wake up. We are being duped by very, very smart people in the pundit media.
 
Bartolome_Casas said:
In my view, the anti-gay marriage push is being pushed by a tiny minority of the ultra-rich who are using this issue to elect right-wingers who will remove all taxation and regulation from big corporations and big banks. In other words, economics libertarians are, ironically, pushing and funding the anti-gay marriage laws.

But I am still against gay marriage.

If “conservatives” really cared about marriage (which most of the leading “conservatives” do not, in my view), they would promote and pass laws that **OUTLAW ALL SEX EXCEPT **that between a man and woman who have been legally married, and they’d OUTLAW the “no fault” divorce laws and return to the old system in which it was VERY difficult or almost impossible to get a marriage.

This means they’d also outlaw SHACKING UP, and ONE NIGHT STANDS and PORNOGRAPHY.

Those things are serious crimes in** Iran and Saudi Arabia.** Yes, we should be more like those countries.

Ironically, the** laws of Iran and Saudi Arabia are more Catholic** than the laws of the USA, Italy, Germany, France, Ireland, etc.

But all we hear about his the campaign against gay marriage. Gays haven’t destroyed a single heterosexual marriage in the USA in the last 40 years (okay, maybe one, or two). Rather, the OBVIOUS destroyers of heterosexual marriage in the USA are:
–Easy divorce
–Pre-marital sex.
–Shacking up.
–Pornography.

Outlawing gay marriage won’t “save marriage” at all. But the campaign against gay marriage will get radical laissez faire economic right wingers elected to high offices.

I think we need to wake up. We are being duped by very, very smart people in the pundit media.
Click to expand...
While I don’t agree with all your premises, I do compliment the logic in your post, and only wish this were the stance taken by more “conservatives.”
 
There are several flaws in this article, such as the unsupported assertion that gays didn’t really want to get married anyway and the borderline conspiracy theory to explain the gay rights movement, but I thought the most glaring were these two:
Politicians say they must do ‘the right thing’ on gay marriage, just as earlier politicians eventually did the right thing on giving women the vote, neglecting to mention that there has been absolutely no sustained public agitation, no leaping in front of the Queen’s horse, for the right of gays to get hitched. Self-selected gay spokespeople present this effort as the logical conclusion to their 60-odd years of campaigning for equality, overlooking the fact that a great many gay activists once saw marriage and the family as problems, and demanded recognition of their right to live outside of those institutions.
Click to expand...
Essentially the author is saying that the activists have not sacrificed enough to deserve their rights. A right is not earned.

Moreover, suggesting that giving gays the right to marry would undermine the gay activists that allegedly demanded to be left out of that institution is silly. Gays would still have the right to not get married even if gay marriage were legal. Legalization would simply give them the ability to chose.
Now, perhaps you think the institution of marriage should be devalued, that it is stuffy and conservative and in need of an overhaul. Fine. Then argue for that, openly and honestly. But no one benefits from the charade of gay marriage. The fact is that marriage is not simply about co-habitation or partnership; it is not even simply about having an intense relationship. It has historically been about much more - about creating a unit, with its own rules, that is recognised by the state and society as a distinctive union often entered into for the purpose of raising a new generation.
Click to expand...
That is incredibly condescending. The meaning of a marriage is not and has never been determined by tradition, it is decided by the people who got married. We forget this because the US has had fairly widespread homogeneity on the issue of marriage for most of its history. To say that non-traditional (i.e. non-Judeo-Christian) marriage is inherently less valuable is beyond presumptuous. Moreover, it requires more than just an assertion to prove that any marriage other than a traditional one is incapable of “creating a unit, with its own rules, that is recognised by the state and society as a distinctive union often entered into for the purpose of raising a new generation.”
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
There are several flaws in this article, such as the unsupported assertion that gays didn’t really want to get married anyway and the borderline conspiracy theory to explain the gay rights movement, but I thought the most glaring were these two:
Essentially the author is saying that the activists have not sacrificed enough to deserve their rights. A right is not earned.

Moreover, suggesting that giving gays the right to marry would undermine the gay activists that allegedly demanded to be left out of that institution is silly. Gays would still have the right to not get married even if gay marriage were legal. Legalization would simply give them the ability to chose.
That is incredibly condescending. The meaning of a marriage is not and has never been determined by tradition, it is decided by the people who got married. We forget this because the US has had fairly widespread homogeneity on the issue of marriage for most of its history. To say that non-traditional (i.e. non-Judeo-Christian) marriage is inherently less valuable is beyond presumptuous. Moreover, it requires more than just an assertion to prove that any marriage other than a traditional one is incapable of “creating a unit, with its own rules, that is recognised by the state and society as a distinctive union often entered into for the purpose of raising a new generation.”
Click to expand...
Well disected, well stated. Thanks.
 
Bartolome_Casas said:
But I am still against gay marriage.

If “conservatives” really cared about marriage (which most of the leading “conservatives” do not, in my view), they would promote and pass laws that **OUTLAW ALL SEX EXCEPT **that between a man and woman who have been legally married, and they’d OUTLAW the “no fault” divorce laws and return to the old system in which it was VERY difficult or almost impossible to get a marriage.

This means they’d also outlaw SHACKING UP, and ONE NIGHT STANDS and PORNOGRAPHY.

Those things are serious crimes in** Iran and Saudi Arabia.** Yes, we should be more like those countries.

Ironically, the** laws of Iran and Saudi Arabia are more Catholic** than the laws of the USA, Italy, Germany, France, Ireland, etc.
Click to expand...
Does anyone else just take this to be a reductio ad absurdum?
 
Bartolome_Casas said:
the OBVIOUS destroyers of heterosexual marriage in the USA are:
–Easy divorce
–Pre-marital sex.
–Shacking up.
–Pornography.
Click to expand...
What all these have in common is lack of personal maturity, mostly.

**Outlawing gay marriage won’t “save marriage” at all.**Of course not. The whole question begs to standardize an infinite variety of kinds of experiences. And again, lack of personal maturity has ruined countless hetero marriages with violence, both emotional and physical, or pettiness, or whatever. But each hetero marriage, like any relationship between any tow or even more folks, stands or falls due to what its parties bring to it. Recognizing a married state between same sex folks will not effect that in any way.
But the campaign against gay marriage will get radical laissez faire economic right wingers elected to high offices.
Click to expand...
This idea borders, imho, on the absurd, and has nothing to do with what’s happening, even if it pleases someone who wants to think this way insists on making things difficult for themselves.
I think we need to wake up. We are being duped by very, very smart people in the pundit media.
Click to expand...
Well, both of those are very true, But we need to have some critical perception of what we need to wake up from, eg ego, and most people take for granted that we are being duped. If you have had the experience of listening to US “news” and world news, say if you live at the US Canad border on the other side, you might be astonished at what we as citize…I’m sorry, consumers, don’t hear.
 
–Easy divorce
–Pre-marital sex.
–Shacking up.
–Pornography.

These help the problem, but why the dichotomy between cleaning our house and cleaning another, especially when not taking care of the other will make the innocents suffer even more? The above problems, plus post-“diovorce” remarriage, have laid the ground for the gay agenda to succeed so much, but, if we think we can clean house first, then we’ll never save society from this new scourge. We’ve already lost orphanages to those who would not let gays adopt from them. Allowing gay marriage tells the youth that two of the same sex can be married and that their “love” is normal. This is already the case in some arrangements. It’s not that the kid will become gay, too, but that this nation,m supposedly under God, is putting God to the test even more than we already have! We need to attack on both fronts: our own house and those of others that are attacking our house. I hope this makes sense. There’s a lot of noise, where I’m writing.

I never said this article will be doctrinally sound, but it’s mostly, I think, saying that the Left is being disingenuous. Gays don’t care about marriage that much. They’re just being agitated by civilization crashers with demonic rage. Have homosexuals ever before the last decade or two? George Michael, a practicing homosexual said, at least of gay men, that they just want to find a place to have sex. It may be true, though, they want to be considered “normal”–to have their lustings vindicated by those who do not have the authority to vindicate it, but who are authorized, by Christ, to correct the sinner charitably, but definitely not to, by omission, be an accessory to their sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance!.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top