- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 5,967
- Reaction score
- 1,530
- Location
- Somewhere in Dixie
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Wow, so your position is that a religious ceremony binding a same-sex couple is perfectly fine with you, but it should not have the same LEGAL effect as a heterosexual marriage! That’s the first time I’ve seen that argument.
Well, there’s that ol’ First Amendment thing. They have a right to get married and there’s absolutely no reason for the state to recognize it.
Not quite true. Marriage, as an “institution” has only existed in relatively recent times as part of the outgrowth of organized religion. For the greatest part of human existence there was no such thing. The dominant male could do whatever he wanted, including have sex with every female member of the tribal group, or “dominate” any younger or weaker male if he felt like it. Even in historical times there are oodles of examples of same sex bonding recognized by law or culture. What is true in your statement is that one important social aspect of organized religion was the power to sanctify a bond between a man and a woman so as to lend stability to a family unit.
Wow! You’ve made some very, uh, interesting claims here. I would be especially interested in seeing your evidence regarding “oodles of examples of same sex bonding recognized by law or culture”. And please, were, talking about same-sex sexual unions. Not “coming of age male rituals”, etc.
So having two fathers or two mothers might double antisocial behavior in teens or serve to increase alcoholism in children? Hardly a factual presumption.
Not a presumption. See here and here and here.
I think you misrepresent the problems with having a single parent household as being uncorrectable in a two-parent household of same-sex parents. Having few examples of same-sex situations to prove your point, you again project your personal bias and assume facts not in evidence.
See links above. Sorry, when I originally wrote this it was for another thread but that helped to make my point here and I copied-and-pasted it but the links didn’t copy over.
It is your assumption this will “hurt the institution of marriage,” but this presumes facts not in evidence.
Factually untrue! The last change to marriage was the idea of no-fault divorce. Because of this change to marriage is no-longer viewed as a lifetime commitment. People now take a “wait-and-see” view with marriage and today ½ of all marriages end in divorce.
Simply because YOU don’t like the idea is no basis for that presumption either. In fact, YOUR heterosexual marriage is not affected at all unless YOU allow it to be.
Yea, yea, yea--I already heard it. What’s the standard, quaint response again? Oh, yea! “If you don’t like gay marriage then don’t have one.” It’s cute and simplistic and completely misses the point.
Opining about divorce, aside from being a red herring issue here, only affects those who choose to get a divorce not those who remain “happily married.”
And you’re missing the obvious. No-fault divorce was a change to the marriage covenant that harmed the institution. The numbers don’t lie. Whether you like the idea or not marriage is divinely designed. You change the design you harm the institution.
Again with the “divorce” issue? We are talking about same-sex marriage and thus you are again presuming facts not in evidence.
I’m am not “presuming facts not in evidence”. I can only use facts that are IN evidence. Marriage is not easily changed and it’s only changed once before with the advent of no-fault divorce. That changed harmed the institution. Whether you like the idea or not the burden is on those that would change marriage to include SSM to show that it will not harm the institution--not on those of us who defend the traditional meaning of marriage.
Why should you care about same-sex couples getting a divorce affecting children?
Because they’re talking about children?
Whether or not a same-sex couple makes some arrangement about having a child (adoption, artificial insemination, w/e) at worst it would be little different from heterosexual couples who contemplate children and divorce. All of your “divorce points” apply to marriage in general, thus none of them have special merit in relation to same sex marriage.
See above.
You final point is a blatant appeal to emotion based upon false premises, red herrings, presumptions of facts not in evidence, and simple personal bias. Try again, this "don't make it legal" argument simply won’t fly.
See here.