Marriage Debate

...I'm sick of the condescension inherent in the responses from people like Huntster, and I tired of seeing the same basic arguments made ad nauseum.

And vice-versa. Politics is a two-way street, in case you weren't aware. Every action causes a reaction. You know; science.

Just so I've made myself clear on this: There is NO justifiable reason as to why gays and lesbians cannot marry those they choose. None. Tradition be damned.

Damn your own traditions, not other people's.

I will repeat what I keep saying: How can people like Richard Roberts (Oral's son), who dumped his wife for "the newer model," continue to say that SSM is wrong?

Divorce doesn't make SSM moral. Divorce is immoral, too.

...Seems to me there are more gays who are actually married as opposed to a lot of those who are speaking out against SSM.

Yeah, "seems to you".

Everything is dark to the blind man.

I'm sick of this continued bleat that there's something wrong with this, when those who have this right given without question abuse it.

I've been married only once, and we celebrate our 30th wedding anniversary next month. All four of our parents were married only once, and lived together in marriage 'till death did they part. Ditto all eight of our grandparents.

I could go on like that with my side of the family................

...Enough is enough. I'm done with this fight.

Goodbye.
 
It's not.

It's what we want collectively as a democratic republic.

I'm in the majority. You are not.
To all:

That Huntster still doesn't get what's wrong with this thinking should clue us in as to why we are wasting our time with him.
 
Originally Posted by Huntster :
Yes; mine and yours, everybody on this forum, as well as everybody else in the United States (not just gays, in case you haven't figured that out yet......)

Not the poor word, the poor and battered culture that has already been violated so thoroughly by liberal demands.
Violated by what? Equal rights for women, and equal rights for minorities?

Nope.

Violated by the sexual revolution, a lack of will to fight crime, a lack of will to enforce national immigration law, unreasonably broad interpretation of the U.S. Constitution (allowing federal usurpation of states and individual rights), support for such insane policies as abortion, distain for the military and military preparedness/power, surrender of national sovereignty for the illusion of global brotherhood,.........................

Do I really need to go on?
 
The same thing as with all other folks making demands of society:

Self-interest.
Absolutely! If society is denying you the right to marry who you want, denying you equal treatment under the law, and otherwise treating you like garbage, you should just sit there and take it! Anything else is pure selfishness! Selfish @#$%s! Pretty soon they will want to vote and own property!
 
Huntster,
The same thing as with all other folks making demands of society:

Self-interest.

All demands of society are for self-interest?

I know if you showed them that half the negative consequences predicted by those against it would come of giving gays these rights, you’d have many gays fighting on your side.

Also, when you are talking about marriage, you are talking about a thing that is inherently unselfish and this is reflected in the legal “rights”; they are rights that focus on one person taking care of and being responsible for others.

It destroys the culture and values of others, who also happen to be the majority.

Odd to me again, as I see our shared culture and values fuelling both sides of this debate. If it didn’t, gays would have no ground.

Still, it’s destructive because it destroys doesn’t answer any question.

I’m curious about your opinion on this; let’s have it.
 
Originally Posted by Huntster :
It's not.

It's what we want collectively as a democratic republic.

I'm in the majority. You are not.
To all:

That Huntster still doesn't get what's wrong with this thinking should clue us in as to why we are wasting our time with him.

Dear Snide:

Vice-versa back at 'ya.

Sincerely,

The Huntster
 
Nope.

Violated by the sexual revolution, a lack of will to fight crime, a lack of will to enforce national immigration law, unreasonably broad interpretation of the U.S. Constitution (allowing federal usurpation of states and individual rights), support for such insane policies as abortion, distain for the military and military preparedness/power, surrender of national sovereignty for the illusion of global brotherhood,.........................

Yes but huntster, you yourself have said that since we live in a democratic republic, majority rules. Or are you asserting that some things should not be decided by the majority?
 
Nope.

Violated by the sexual revolution, a lack of will to fight crime, a lack of will to enforce national immigration law, unreasonably broad interpretation of the U.S. Constitution (allowing federal usurpation of states and individual rights), support for such insane policies as abortion, distain for the military and military preparedness/power, surrender of national sovereignty for the illusion of global brotherhood,.........................

Do I really need to go on?
hunster, you need to open a history book. Violent crimes rates are *down* since the 50's, abortion fatalities for women are *down*, we're more productive, and wehave more rights, for more people. What exactly is worse?
 
It destroys the culture and values of others, who also happen to be the majority.

No, it does not. Those "others" can preserve their cultures and values by NOT participating in same-sex marriage. To put it in simple terms: If you don't like gay marriage, don't have one.
 
Surely someone somewhere has written about the effects of gay marriage in those societies where it has been legalized. Of course, with sociological data it's hard to separate out cause, effect, and correlation, but really, it's not like we're the first nation to consider such a bill.
 
Surely someone somewhere has written about the effects of gay marriage in those societies where it has been legalized. Of course, with sociological data it's hard to separate out cause, effect, and correlation, but really, it's not like we're the first nation to consider such a bill.
Meadmaker, we covered this territory about ten or twelve pages ago. Are the inspiration for the movie Memmento?
 
Meadmaker, we covered this territory about ten or twelve pages ago.

Indeed we did, but it appears some have forgotten what the data show.


(Quick refresh: Declining marriage rates overall, and increase in out of wedlock births, although no decline in the probability that a child will be raised by his natural parents.)
 
Why’d you ask if you already know?

Anyway, Dave, it’d be disingenuous to claim the “the effects of gay marriage in those societies where it has been legalized” have been “declining marriage rates overall, and increase in out of wedlock births, although no decline in the probability that a child will be raised by his natural parents”. These trends, where they exist, were there before SSM was ever implemented, and if you’re going on pre-SSM trends, for some reason, Massachusetts has one of the lowest divorce rates in the US.

Furthermore that study you refer too about where children are raised showed that those countries with SSM have a far greater probability that a child would be raised in an intact home than we have in the US. IIRC it was around 60% of their youth in an intact home for the US, to around 80% for those other countries, and, in fact, it was in the 90 percentile for Spain, a country that just voted gay marriage into law. Also, Spain has a divorce rate around 15%, compared to the US’s 46%, and most those other countries have a lower divorce rate than the US. I could just as well claim gay marriage causes more stable homes for kids and less divorce as you could that it causes a decline in marriage rates overall. But I couldn’t reasonably do that.
 
Why’d you ask if you already know?

Because lots of people seem to insist that gay marriage will only affect the gay people who want to marry, with no impact on society. That's silly.

As ID noted, we've been over this before, and there are effects that go beyond those people immediately targeted.

Explaining exactly what is cause, what is effect, and what is correlation is very difficult, but Huntster is making a statement that is so obvious that it should be beyond dispute. Gay marriage changes the culture. I think you understand that, and think it's a good change. Am I wrong?
 
Because lots of people seem to insist that gay marriage will only affect the gay people who want to marry, with no impact on society. That's silly.

As ID noted, we've been over this before, and there are effects that go beyond those people immediately targeted.

Explaining exactly what is cause, what is effect, and what is correlation is very difficult, but Huntster is making a statement that is so obvious that it should be beyond dispute.

These large-scale effects are not pinned down. Again, I could just as easily show gay marriage causes more stable families and less divorce as you could show it causes less people to marry, but neither positions are near strong. I’d rather have more stable families than more people in legal marriage anyway, if I had to pick.

Personally, I don’t find it counterintuitive that the countries that have implemented gay marriage seem to have a stronger emphasis on keeping stable families than we do in the US. If anything, I think that is one of the possible causes of SSM becoming a part of law, not the other way around.

Gay marriage changes the culture. I think you understand that, and think it's a good change.

Of course, I wouldn’t want it to happen otherwise, and it’s troubling you’d question that. You know as well as I do that, the moment you become a parent, your culture, the entire world, stops being something that’s yours and becomes something you rent. If I thought this would harm the next generation I’d be by Huntster’s side.

But I can point to clear positive effects on the culture at large, many of which are indisputable, as plain as day, and with a well understood mechanism: more citizens being more responsible for their obligations, punishable by law if they cheat, strengthening of their families, stability for their kids, less people on welfare, more of their kids having stay-at-home parents, more tax revenues, and so on. All that affects you and the larger culture positively.

On a slightly smaller scale, do you realize how many straight people depend on the gay marriages in their lives? I had well over 100 at mine, and that was over a decade ago. All those aunts, cousins, grandparents and so on, they all count on us staying together, having a stable relationship with my partner and in-laws and our kids, just as I count on them keeping their families together.

On the other hand, these claims about gay marriage causing straight people to treat marriage more negatively are far from definite. They have no clear mechanism, those they do have are based on odd conjecture at best, and the trends they try to use as data can be easily countered by contrary data and their existence prior to SSM, not to mention that many countries aren’t really out of the noise of normal fluctuations in such rates.
 
For me it is simple i ahve no right to tell a couple who lov each other they cannot legally sanction their relationship through marraige, whatever private reservations i may have about it, it is their life and not mine and they are not forcing me to be a part of it.
 
I wish it were that simple for everyone, Dcdrac. But 32 pages, over a thousand posts, says it ain’t :).

What’s been our longest marriage thread? This one feels particularly long…
 

Back
Top Bottom