Re: When will social conservatives reorient to focus on integrating gays into familie
1. Considerably more people, 294 million or more, are to be risked, subjected to having the solid base of society, the continuing building blocks of our civilization [ the one man one woman family structure that has gotten us here] subverted and/or destroyed based upon some social experiment that benefits, perhaps, only the few.
The one man one woman family structure is not destroyed through legalization of homosexual marriage.
The old saying you should go home with the one that brought you to the dance comes to mind... and you consider yourself a conservative... how so?
2. Destruction of the building blocks mentioned above and
I don't do drugs, smoke, drink, have promiscuous sex, or otherwise engage in inappropriate behavior on the basis of principle, but I also do not expect these things to be illegal.
Of course, this is also a single issue and there are several others for which a line up with the right on, such as abortion.
3. The push towards the idea that men and women are indistinguishable and so families are not hurt/hindered in any way if brought up by same sex couples is false.The family unit to be balanced and for instruction of individuals and citizens to optimally occur in what would be considered the natural and normal relations between what is biologically,historically, societally and religiously determined as the most prudent fashion, man and woman being completely different constructs, both complementary and supplementary with each having their own important roles, that should be assured for the continuing health [mental, physical and spiritual ] of our general population and for the continuing health, the survival of the individuals and the nation.
I really don't care if the families are hindered or not. We don't ban people from marrying because they would be bad parents. Regardless of the validity of that idea, there are significantly more alcoholics/drug addicts than there are homosexuals who can freely get married and have children. We don't have the means as a society to check the utility of every family in the first place, and even if we did, it's not appropriate to do so. I'm not going to take away a single parent's child either, though the kid would definitely benefit from a two-family home.
The idea of same sex couples where the opposite gender is promoted to be able to stand in, to take on the role of the other gender, a role they cannot humanly replace or properly substitute for, yet there has been an attempt to meld the two in our culture making it appear as if they can be mixed and matched, that they are, in essence the same so what is the big deal. The big deal is that man and woman are not the same and we need that correct mix to continue to strive for the optimum.
If we want to optimum, then do what is plan marriages at a young age. Then we can make sure that the parents compliment each other well and we can get the riff-raff out of marriage, and through forced sterilization at birth until the forced pairing, we can ensure the less desirables don't have kids.
If your point is that children raised by homosexual families face unique challenges because of the circumstances then I'll likely agree with you, but this does not justify legal action. Are homosexual parents worse then alcoholic parents? Drug addicts? Single parents? Foster homes? Are all the kids waiting to be adopted better off without families at all?
While I agree with the premise of the objective to become better people, I do not follow your logic beyond that as you provided none and only say, cryptically, "Better outcomes can be obtained in horrible ways."
Forced sterilization with breeding only reserved for those demonstrated to be good parents. Mass killings of the poor and/or lower performing elements of society. Constant surveillance of every home to minimize crime. These are a view examples.
I think same sex marriage is one of these attempts, misguided, at better outcomes attainment in horrible ways, however.
Same-sex marriage is not a matter of better outcomes, its about being fair as people, thus becoming better people.
Hardly against all change, I am glad to be riding my car instead of a horse... or walking.
Good.
You stated in your first post to me, "I imagine if you (and to the OP's point, many hardline social conservatives) did a rigorous study on the history of the policies you advocate you may discover both that you do not like their origins and that they are not quite as old and time-tested as you believe.... so please point out an instance or two.
You know, you can go back to previous conversations just as well as can I to figure out what you were saying but only alluding to and that I am questioning you about. In fact, when you answer my query, what it references should still be up there.
What is the history of marriage laws in United States? What purpose did they serve?
- Marriage laws in the United States, which were made conceived of sporadically across the states in the 19th century, served as a means for the government to hinder miscegenation. Prior to these laws, marriage was an issue handled by local churches. Marriage as a protected legal institution is a recent phenomenon. Even in Europe, for a very long time, marriage was primarily a private matter.
How was homosexuality considered and treated for a vast majority of human civilization?
- In most civilizations, homosexuality was not uncommon. The early civilizations on the fertile crescent had open homosexuality, along with Greece and Egypt. Rome was more reserved, with homosexuality tending to be less spoken about though still not uncommon.
Why was homosexuality less of an issue in earlier times?
- Primarily homosexuality in the United States was not an issue because sodomy, defined as any sexual act not for procreation, faced the death penalty. Until sodomy laws were removed, even a mention of something like homosexuality would be dangerous. These are certainly not precedents we would like to follow as a society.