15 Consequences of Redefining Marriage

In an historic opening brief filed yesterday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, the state of Utah identified at least 15 consequences of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. You can read the full text, which justifies more fully why each of these reasons are valid. The 15 effects:

  1. “First, as many commentators have observed, because procreation is an inherently gendered affair, redefining marriage in genderless terms would break the critical conceptual link between marriage and procreation. . . . Given the manifest ills of fatherless parenting, the State has a compelling interest in sending a powerful message to women that, whenever possible, marriage to the fathers of their children is very important to the welfare of those children and to society itself.”

nationalreview.com/corner/370366/15-consequences-redefining-marriage-michael-t-worley

Seemingly redunent in at points but still, a great list. Perhaps the most complete answer to “same sex marriage” I’ve seen to date.

That a new child might ‘cramp the style’ of an adult would come to be seen as sufficient reason not to have the child at all.

Unfortunately, this has been true for a long time. Redefining marriage would just further codify it.

Also, you should look up Robert P. George, Sherif Gergis, and Ryan T. Anderson. I think they’re really spear-heading the arguments on this. The Public Discourse has a lot of their articles.

Who are these heterosexuals that are being affected by two homosexuals marrying? Is it you? Are gay people causing your marriage to fall apart? Is it your friends?

The people I know who get married or put off having kids till later in life, do so for financial or career based reasons. I’ve never heard someone say that the reason they don’t have kids is because two gay people can get married.

If someone is worried that a having a child might “cramp their style”, then I’d say that’s an excellent reason not to have one. An attitude like that shows you are not ready for parenthood.

But again I don’t understand the gay marriage connection. Are you starting to feel this way because gays can get married?

Our culture has been doing a great disservice to people in my age-group. I think if someone isn’t ready to be a parent, then they shouldn’t be having sex. What do you think?

I think SSM is the logical trajectory of a culture that has separated sex from procreation. In other words, this has been coming, for those who had eyes to see. I agree with SSM proponents on this aspect. Marriage has been troubled for quite some time.

I would disagree with the idea that someone who doesn’t want to be a parent should refrain from sex. I would say that those who are sexually active should take steps to avoid pregnancy.

I don’t know what you mean when you say our culture has done a disservice to your generation. What generation is that? What is the disservice?

Most people that I know (in their 30s), both married and not are very happy with their lives. Do you feel that way about yourself or those around you?

Thanks for sharing. I was born in the late 80s. The disservice I am speaking of is being sold this idea of “consequence-free” sex.

We all have our joys and our sorrows, of course. I believe I am incredibly blessed. The unhappy people I see tend to be those who have bought into the message, and suffer the consequences of abortions, STDs, broken relationships, poor self-esteem, and infertility. There’s a lot of unhappiness that goes unmentioned, too. Of course, this doesn’t mean people have to be “damned for life,” either. The problem is when we rationalize. We can’t reach true happiness without squaring with reality; and of course, as a Catholic, I believe Christ is that reality.

I’m can’t speak to the type of community you grew up in but we were never sold the idea that sex is free of consequences. I remember taking several sex ed courses in high school that outlined the consequences, both good and bad, of sex. We were informed of the risks of sex and ways to mitigate those risks.

Relationships will break up, and it’s painful. It’s a consequence of being close with another person. But refraining from sex will not fix that.

People get STI’s, even if you don’t have sex you could still get one. And even if you do, it’s not the end of the world. The problem is when we attach a stigma to it. Why should an STI be different from any other infection? Because we think that someone with one is promiscuous and dirty?

The mentality around sexuality is what leads to depression and poor self esteem. I’m not saying that everyone should be having sex. I’m saying we need to rethink how we talk about it.

I agree with the first part of this statement.

It’s not the stigma, its that STIs/STDs (when I was learning about them, they were STDs) aren’t healthy. See, I think it’s one of nature’s ways of saying, “Hey, maybe this isn’t a good idea?” We make the connection between tobacco smoke and cancer. Why not in this area? Plus, repeated infections (especially Chlamydia) can lead to infertility. In the past few decades, the numbers of STDs haven’t decreased, they’ve increased.

I agree we need to rethink how we talk about sex. For example, why is sex risky?

By definition, no disease is healthy. But I think we, as a society, need to take a cooler headed approach to STI/D’s. Sex can lead to the transmission of disease, as can kissing, handshakes, breathing the same air, etc. And yes some STI/D’s can be damaging as can many other diseases. For example strep throat, left untreated, can cause heart and liver problems. But most are not that serious.

If you met someone that you fell in love with, would you reject them as a potential marriage partner because they had and STD?

Link? Stats?

Sex has risks for the reasons we’ve already discussed.

Why do people consider lower birthrates a correlation to same-sex marriage? Lower birth rates are a good thing, it means that economy is working right and gender is evolving.

I think sex is much more important (and much more fun) than a hand-shake, don’t you? Thing is, I don’t think we exonerate the behavior that spreads other diseases around. We caution against it, for the sake of all involved. Monogamy is a built-in way to help avoid the spread of disease.

I’m not hung up on the stigma of it. If they had AIDS though, I have to admit I would take a second-think. Then I have to think about children, too. If they thought adultery was ok, I wouldn’t marry them.

Here’s a link to some very cursory information about the increase of STDs. And, don’t dismiss it because it’s from a chastity site, k? :wink: However, I think this information is a bit dated. I also learned about the increase of STDs in sex-ed. (Do you really think there hasn’t been an increase?) I’m all for cures, though.

How many STDs are there?

And lastly, I wasn’t meaning to ask a trick question, though it might have come across that way. I was trying to get more at the very semantics of the issue. I think it’s a shame we’ve had to couple the word “risk” with “sex” at all. Sex isn’t only good, in the correct context its holy. We’re the ones who make it risky.

Anyway, thanks for the good conversation! I’m afraid we might be veering a bit off topic. I’m the champion at that. Certainly respond, but I’m going to refrain; not because you don’t have good questions, but for the sake of the post.

The children. Future generations that will grow with this “version” of “marriage.” The damage isnt immediate, but that does not mean it isnt imminent.

More people = better economy.

Fewer people = bad econony.

Population Control logic. Thinking as the Culture of Death. Cultural suicde in action.

Major recessions cause a decrease in birth rates.

This doesn’t make much sense. How can you reason that lower birth rates are good? In what context? And I’m not sure how lower birthrates means ‘the economy is working right’ and ‘gender is evolving.’

I only read a few of your posts on CAF and you definitely come across as someone who is immensely confused about the world … like your life is one paradox after another. Your posts just don’t make much sense.

A moderately low birth rate means that the population isn’t exploding at a rate like India or Bangladesh. I’m also implying that in today’s world, people aren’t necessarily having children and getting married at the rates they used to, and that’s just fine.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.