Social Consequence of Gay Marriage

[Publisher]

Originally Posted by CHRISTINE77

But according the other poster, hardly any homosexuals want to get married! Why is this such a big issue and who is behind it? Obviously some BIG money.

A recognized minortity is seeking equality.....why should they be denied it for another minorities religious beliefs?

And while a minority of the minority may not wish to exercise their right to enter into state recongnized marriage, they still wish the right should they decide to do so.

[mitex]

Publisher is onto something. There is compromise. We can ban same-sex marriage and adoption while passing civil unions. And civil unions won't just be for the gays; it'll be for family members such as a sister with a sickly brother who needs to care for him, two elderly people living together as roommates.

And to prove there's support for this:

Archbishop Mahony spoke of support for limited rights to nontraditional households in a social justice context. I wouldn't call it an endorsement homosexuality; just pointing out that there were existing structures for same-sex couples to be recognized.


As we have come to learn over these past decades, there are many groupings of
people residing under one roof across California. Some of these groupings are related
family members, while others are companions and friends. There are now seventeen
rights for such companions and friends specifically included in the State of California’s
legal structure.
And that was in "A Pastoral Message to Homosexual Catholics in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles" which was released after proposition 8.

And the a Bishop in England endorsed civil unions from a social justice context as well.


“We would want to emphasize that civil partnerships actuallyprovide a structure in which people of the same sex who want a lifelong relationship [and] a lifelong partnership can find their place and protection and legal provision,” -Archbishop Vincent Nichols
Why even NOM has endorsed civil unions as a compromise. I don't know as a gay man I could get behind civil unions.

The New Zealand Catholic Bishops have supported civil partnerships from a social justice context as well.

In Ireland the pro-family Catholic think tank Iona Institute endorsed civil partnerships while simultaneously calling for a ban on same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption.

Quite frankly why can't we just ban same-sex marriage and then have some kind of domestic partnership or civil union for same-sex couples?

Let's face it. We're never going to get the gays to go flocking to the likes of Courage, NARTH, and Joseph Nicolsi. I know when I went to NARTH I suffered terribly.

Has anyone ever thought that if we offered civil unions it would stabilize same-sex relationships and make them less promiscuous?

I'm all in favor on civil unions with a simultaneous ban on same-sex marriage and adoption.

[CHRISTINE77]

Originally Posted by Publisher

A recognized minortity is seeking equality.....why should they be denied it for another minorities religious beliefs?

And while a minority of the minority may not wish to exercise their right to enter into state recongnized marriage, they still wish the right should they decide to do so.

Well that minority certainly has lot of money and power.

[mitex]

Originally Posted by CHRISTINE77

Well that minority certainly has lot of money and power.

Traditional conservatives such as yourselves have more.

[CHRISTINE77]

Originally Posted by mitex

Traditional conservatives such as yourselves have more.

How so?

[mitex]

Originally Posted by CHRISTINE77

How so?

Trust me the Christians have much more money and funding.

[wynnejj]

Originally Posted by mitex

Publisher is onto something. There is compromise. We can ban same-sex marriage and adoption while passing civil unions. And civil unions won't just be for the gays; it'll be for family members such as a sister with a sickly brother who needs to care for him, two elderly people living together as roommates.

Marriage laws and benefits are designed to protect the traditional paradigm of vulnerable mother & children should the father be unable to provide due to choice or circumstance. It is extended to the mother in retirement, as most of her life is assumed to be spent at the low-tech household level. Benefits were primarily designed to protect mother & child.

These laws get distorted when applied to DINKs - dual income, no kids. Without kids in the equation, marriage laws don't make taxable sense.

So what about your new "civil union" paradigm ...
Why not give tax incentives to roommates in college? Why not give it to a sister with a sickly brother who can't hold a job because of substance abuse or simply choice?

Publisher is onto something ... why "civil unions" don't make sense ... unless you confine civil unions to the idea of a domestic business partnership of willingly pooling resources based on a contract that should be divided properly should the partnership end by choice or circumstance.

All the other traditional marriage benefits should not apply.

[Rence]

Originally Posted by Brandon Rimmer

What do you think they will be?

Let's imagine the Constitution is amended to allow for gay marriage. What will be the cultural and political consequences, and why do you think that these things would happen?

The same things would happen here as would happen in any other country that currently allows gay marriage, such as Spain. There are some states in the US that already allow it.

[Publisher]

Originally Posted by Rence

The same things would happen here as would happen in any other country that currently allows gay marriage, such as Spain. There are some states in the US that already allow it.

Which amount to "not much" of anything happens...except same sex couples are now considered married by the state or country.

All the "doom of civilization" hasn't taken place.....no one had their marriages fail because of same sex marriage....divorce still occurs with the same regularity....those that cry "sanctity of marriage" don't march in the streets against divorce...just same sex marriage....divorce causes more harm to the sanctity of marriage than same sex marriage can...or will.

[Rence]

Originally Posted by Publisher

Which amount to "not much" of anything happens...except same sex couples are now considered married by the state or country.

All the "doom of civilization" hasn't taken place.....no one had their marriages fail because of same sex marriage....divorce still occurs with the same regularity....those that cry "sanctity of marriage" don't march in the streets against divorce...just same sex marriage....divorce causes more harm to the sanctity of marriage than same sex marriage can...or will.

I think I have to agree with you.

[Uriah_Betrayed]

In abstract terms it means that Christianity becomes the "loser" in the eyes of History.

In a few decades the "Gay Rights" movement will be lauded as a heroic progress of the nation, held back by those ignorant Christians and their evil schemes at oppressing gays. Gay activists will be cherry picked as the new Martin Luther King's of the 21st century.

Socially Secularist have the governments ok to close their ears to the idea that "Homosexuality is immoral". After all according to the government and the new history books Christians are the terrible people that held civil rights from gay people! "We shouldn't ever listen to what they have to say, the Christian can't be trusted to think without ignorance!"

The one good thing is maybe cradle Catholics will stop being parasites on the Catholic Church...

[stewstew03]

Originally Posted by wynnejj

Why not give tax incentives to roommates in college? Why not give it to a sister with a sickly brother who can't hold a job because of substance abuse or simply choice?

Publisher is onto something ... why "civil unions" don't make sense ... unless you confine civil unions to the idea of a domestic business partnership of willingly pooling resources based on a contract that should be divided properly should the partnership end by choice or circumstance.

All the other traditional marriage benefits should not apply.

This gets to the heart of the matter - i.e., what is "marriage?" Merely a contract?

[wynnejj]

Originally Posted by stewstew03

This gets to the heart of the matter - i.e., what is "marriage?" Merely a contract?

Legally, yes. It is truly just a legal domestic partnership between one man and one woman designed to have certain benefits to promote stable relationships for raising children.

Without kids, there would be no reason for marriage contracts ... other than maybe preventing STDs due to promiscuity.

Legally, it cannot be anything but a contract, unless there is a state religion. Muslim countries come to mind, but even there they are explicitly binding legal contracts.

[St Francis]

Originally Posted by Publisher

Which amount to "not much" of anything happens...except same sex couples are now considered married by the state or country.

All the "doom of civilization" hasn't taken place.....no one had their marriages fail because of same sex marriage....divorce still occurs with the same regularity....those that cry "sanctity of marriage" don't march in the streets against divorce...just same sex marriage....divorce causes more harm to the sanctity of marriage than same sex marriage can...or will.

IMO, it seems that SSM is not the problem, but merely a step on our downward course, the one at which people started taking notice.

The first step taken was acceptance of abc by at the Lambeth Conference in 1930, when the Anglicans decided, against the previous 1900 years' of Christian teaching, that abc was moral.

The question is not what will SSM do to our society--there just isn't that much left to do.

[JimG]

Originally Posted by St Francis

IMO, it seems that SSM is not the problem, but merely a step on our downward course, the one at which people started taking notice.

The first step taken was acceptance of abc by at the Lambeth Conference in 1930, when the Anglicans decided, against the previous 1900 years' of Christian teaching, that abc was moral.

The question is not what will SSM do to our society--there just isn't that much left to do.

I agree. The devolution of marriage began at Lambeth in 1930, and continued with the widespread acceptance of artificial contraception. Once the link between sex, marriage, and procreation was broken, gay marriage becomes inevitable--along with many other things such as no fault divorce, fatherless kids, and sexually active children. Now, big government has become the daddy, men are devalued as well.