The future if "gay marriage" becomes widely accepted - just imagine

[Aelred Minor]

I don't think people will ever become 100% "politically correct" in their approach to homosexuality. First, because it is objectively disordered, and the perception of that truth will continue to influence everyone's attitudes in some complicated way. Second, because homosexual attraction will presumably always remain something only a minority of people experience in a significant way. And third, because I expect people are likely to actually get less touchy about gender neutrality and such as these new cultural values become more widely accepted.

[EasterJoy]

Originally Posted by Julia Mae

Maybe we could all get an old copy of Miss Manners Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior and learn not to ask questions that are none of our business.

Exactly.

The things that bother the OP are here, and unless gays themselves decide there is value in recognizing the obvious difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, I don't see this going away. They are going to insist on using the same language for all relationships until homosexuals themselves want a distinction made, no matter who does or does not like it. Get used to that, regardless of whether another law ever changes or not.

There have been societies over the course of human history that have recognized gay relationships and been very loose in their sexual taboos in other respects, as well. Those eras were relatively short-lived as human history goes. Still, call me a coward but I'm not in in hurry to go through the kind of societal upheaval that tend to bring all the taboos back. When the pendulumm swings back, it will sweep a great deal with it. But again, that will happen when it will happen, and regardless of who does or doesn't like it.

Catholics have managed to get used to it when other denominations allowed divorce and re-marriage, other denominations ordained women, other denominations opened their marriage ceremonies to homosexual unions. That's not the same as accepting it as right, but so far no one's head has blown up over the degree to which the morality of the rest of the world is far out of step with the tradition of Christianity.

Actually, I worry just as much about the injustices that were accepted back when the penduluum had swung far in the other direction, when not only were homosexual actions found unacceptable, but anyone who was oriented that way was open game to violence both emotional and physical. Those are not days to wish for, either.

[Apologista]

Originally Posted by Kouyate42

European countries with open, relaxed sexual attitudes and education, along with liberal policies in law, often have better standards of living and much more equality than even the US.

Although, as Jesus would say, what does it profit if we gain the whole world and lose our souls?

I actually agree with mab23 that this is kind of a silly thread in a way. But sometimes you never know, even the goofy ideas can get people thinking.

[EasterJoy]

Originally Posted by Apologista

Although, as Jesus would say, what does it profit if we gain the whole world and lose our souls?

I actually agree with mab23 that this is kind of a silly thread in a way. But sometimes you never know, even the goofy ideas can get people thinking.

For better and for worse, we live in times when goofy ideas tend not to be suppressed. There will never be a time when every idea is accepted, let alone when every truth is accepted. Rather, I think each age has truths that they have difficulty with, truths that the devil especially concentrates on twisting or obscuring. Our task is to play the cards we were dealt in our own times, I suppose.

[cmscms]

What baffles me, is why is marriage so important to homosexuals, when heterosexual totally are devaluing it?

CM

[Lokabrenna]

Here in Canada, same sex marriage is widely accepted, and....life goes on.

[meltzerboy]

Originally Posted by cmscms

What baffles me, is why is marriage so important to homosexuals, when heterosexual totally are devaluing it?

CM

Apart from the legal benefits of marriage, I suppose it is important for the same reason it is so to heterosexuals who do NOT devalue it.

[EasterJoy]

Originally Posted by cmscms

What baffles me, is why is marriage so important to homosexuals, when heterosexual totally are devaluing it?

CM

From a secular perspective, there is a lot about marriage that is attractive. In the secular sphere, marriage is about legal benefits and protections for the couple, and it is about social recognition and social status. Meanwhile, there isn't a lot that the couple is duty-bound to do in exchange for the benefits and status, and not much in the way of social repercussions if the marriage fails, no matter why it fails. There was a time when a person who cheated on their spouse and left them faced social consequences, but there is not much of that any more.

When marriage is divorced from having children with each other via natural means as God provides them and even from a societal expectation of life-long mutual fidelity that carries repercussions when fidelity is violated, when even heterosexual couples are using "options" such as in vitro fertilization and surrogate mothers, it seems very much more like what a homosexual couple is capable of doing. Also, no one forces heterosexual couples who can marry to actually do so before they live together. It's not a necessity, but a choice that makes certain benefits available. When there is going to be no social boundary forcing any homosexual couple to marry, why would homosexuals not want to have that choice available?

[Crescentinus]

The worst-case scenario would be outlawing heterosexuality. Sadly, there are people that propose this.
Should I show those two pictures from the 2006 March For Life counterprotest where it was proposed?

[Mayita30]

Originally Posted by Kouyate42

European countries with open, relaxed sexual attitudes and education, along with liberal policies in law, often have better standards of living and much more equality than even the US.

broken homes? Is that a better standard of living?

[Crescentinus]

Originally Posted by Lokabrenna

Here in Canada, same sex marriage is widely accepted, and....life goes on.

Meanwhile, Michael Coren disagrees with your position. Problem?

[igor1980]

In Argentina we have gay marriage since last year. And this is a mostly Catholic country.

The truth is that nothing changed for we heterosexuals. I don't think the number of gay people would increase only because a law.

[Litcrit]

Originally Posted by EasterJoy

Catholics have managed to get used to it when other denominations allowed divorce and re-marriage, other denominations ordained women, other denominations opened their marriage ceremonies to homosexual unions. That's not the same as accepting it as right, but so far no one's head has blown up over the degree to which the morality of the rest of the world is far out of step with the tradition of Christianity.

Actually, I worry just as much about the injustices that were accepted back when the pendulum had swung far in the other direction, when not only were homosexual actions found unacceptable, but anyone who was oriented that way was open game to violence both emotional and physical. Those are not days to wish for, either.

Originally Posted by EasterJoy

I think each age has truths that they have difficulty with, truths that the devil especially concentrates on twisting or obscuring. Our task is to play the cards we were dealt in our own times, I suppose.

I really like the way your mind works. I have very often felt the same way, but could never express it to myself so clearly.

[Lokabrenna]

Originally Posted by Crescentinus

Meanwhile, Michael Coren disagrees with your position. Problem?

Who in blazes is Michael Coren?
*looks him up on Wikipedia* Oh, I see, no wonder I pay no attention to him, radio personalities don't get to make public policy.

Here's a better example: Allan Hunsberger, Wildrose Party candidate in Alberta (one of our most conservative provinces) before his homophobic comments, the party was actually set to beat the Conservatives.

One homophobic comment, one racist comment (from another candidate) and one anti-climate change comment later (from the party leader) support dropped like a stone.

[Crescentinus]

Originally Posted by Lokabrenna

Who in blazes is Michael Coren?
*looks him up on Wikipedia* Oh, I see, no wonder I pay no attention to him, radio personalities don't get to make public policy.

Here's a better example: Allan Hunsberger, Wildrose Party candidate in Alberta (one of our most conservative provinces) before his homophobic comments, the party was actually set to beat the Conservatives.

One homophobic comment, one racist comment (from another candidate) and one anti-climate change comment later (from the party leader) support dropped like a stone.

"Homophobia"? Is that even a word?

True, he's some dude on the radio and the telly. Yes, he can't make public policy. Your point?