I’m still looking for a compelling reason that gay marriage would threaten straight marriage in any way.
How are people supposed to take the opposition seriously when the gay marriage critics can’t come up with a single explanatory reason for their stance?
I’m seriously baffled by this. The idea that marrying my partner would affect the marriages of my straight friends in any way is bizarre.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’m still looking for a compelling reason that gay marriage would threaten straight marriage in any way.
How are people supposed to take the opposition seriously when the gay marriage critics can’t come up with a single explanatory reason for their stance?
I’m seriously baffled by this. The idea that marrying my partner would affect the marriages of my straight friends in any way is bizarre.[/quote]
All you have to do is read some of Thunderbolt’s responses in this thread and your question is answered.
You’re welcome.
Instead of pointing me to Thunderbolt’s responses, how about a single sentence that actually addresses my question?
In your own words, what is a compelling valid reason that getting married to my partner would have a significant effect on the marriages of my straight friends?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Instead of pointing me to Thunderbolt’s responses, how about a single sentence that actually addresses my question?
In your own words, what is a compelling valid reason that getting married to my partner would have a significant effect on the marriages of my straight friends?[/quote]
I don’t want to explain to my kids why one of their friends has two daddies or two mommies. How do you tell a 7 year old that little Johnny’s parents are homosexual perverts?
Its also undignified. Man is meant to be a noble being, to climb high mountains of the spirit, not wallowing around in the filthy muck, taking it up the ass from perverts.
You need to read some Nietzsche. He’ll help you.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Instead of pointing me to Thunderbolt’s responses, how about a single sentence that actually addresses my question?
In your own words, what is a compelling valid reason that getting married to my partner would have a significant effect on the marriages of my straight friends?[/quote]
Okay … challenge accepted.
Heterosexual relationships produce offspring. Civilization has a vested interest in the production of offspring. Therefore societies have for millennia conferred special rights and privileges on couples to encourage heterosexual relationships like traditional marriage. Conferring these same rights to homosexual relationships that don’t produce offspring dilutes this.
What do homosexual marriages offer society that compares to another new generation of citizens?
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’m still looking for a compelling reason that gay marriage would threaten straight marriage in any way.
How are people supposed to take the opposition seriously when the gay marriage critics [/quote][u]can’t come up with a single explanatory reason for their stance?[/u]
Not a “single explanatory reason”, aye?
Why not tell us pages ago that you were fundamentally unserious and intellectually dishonest about the topic? You could have saved us all the time and effort.
I wrote some pages ago after your “bigotry” remark that I had made the mistake of taking you seriously. After re-engaging in good faith, assuming you both wanted and were capable of a good faith exchange, looks like I was fooled again.
Ignorant, blinkered hacks are a dime a dozen 'round these parts - and with the addition of Forlife, I guess we can up that to a baker’s dozen.
Headhunter and Flyboy, thanks for responding to my question. I’ll get to your examples tomorrow.
Thunderbolt, I didn’t read every one of the hundreds of messages in this thread that preceded my joining it. If you have a compelling explanatory reason, please share it. You haven’t provided one during our discussion.
Also, I would be interested in seeing your response to my last post on the mining analogy.
[quote]forlife wrote:
You haven’t provided one during our discussion.[/quote]
Of course.
“Tis only a flesh wound!!!”
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
You have given him ample examples of why it could be dangerous to experiment with the institution of marriage. [/quote]
As I said, I haven’t read every one of the hundreds of posts in this thread before I joined but I have followed and responded to all the posts since then.
Pick out what you consider to be the single most compelling reason why gay marriage is in any way a threat to straight marriage. I’m genuinely curious what you think that reason would be.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I don’t want to explain to my kids why one of their friends has two daddies or two mommies.[/quote]
How is this a threat to straight marriage?
Please explain how this in any way threats the marriages of my straight friends.
I’m not asking why you don’t like gay marriage. I’m asking you to provide a compelling reason that it would threaten straight marriage.
[quote]flyboy51v wrote:
Heterosexual relationships produce offspring. Civilization has a vested interest in the production of offspring. Therefore societies have for millennia conferred special rights and privileges on couples to encourage heterosexual relationships like traditional marriage. Conferring these same rights to homosexual relationships that don’t produce offspring dilutes this.[/quote]
Can you please explain how gay marriage “dilutes” the ability of couples in straight marriages to have children?
[quote]What do homosexual marriages offer society that compares to another new generation of citizens?
[/quote]
They provide stability to gay relationships, resulting in a decrease of promiscuity, sexual disease, and other negative social outcomes just as with straight marriage.
Furthermore, children benefit from gay marriage. It provides a loving and secure home environment for children that would otherwise spend their lives as a number in a public facility. It also provides stability for children in situations like my own. My two children are better off with me being married to my partner than with us just living together.
[quote]forlife wrote:
They provide stability to gay relationships, resulting in a decrease of promiscuity, sexual disease, and other negative social outcomes just as with straight marriage.
[/quote]
…or you could just be in a stable relationship and not cheap on one another
How are your children better off? Please explain that
[quote]tg2hbk4488 wrote:
…or you could just be in a stable relationship and not cheap on one another[/quote]
That is true for straight couples as well. Being married just provides a stronger commitment and consequences for breaking that commitment.
[quote]How are your children better off? Please explain that
[/quote]
I think married couples are more likely to stay together through the tough times. There are significant benefits for being married, as well as legal and financial consequences for divorce. As a result, it provides greater stability in the relationship.
That stability is good for children. In my case, my children are developing a relationship with my partner. They are learning to trust and love him, and let him into their lives. It would hurt them for us to break up, and for me to cycle through a large number of partners, rather than staying with the same partner for the rest of my life.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
No amount of facts, reason, tradition, values, polls, or any other proof, or information that will shake you from your incredible desire.[/quote]
The same is probably true of you as well.
The difference between us is that I am willing to admit my own bias. You are less honest in that regard.
[quote]The way the world is headed I think you’ll get your wish eventually.
Good luck.
[/quote]
Thanks 
I’m still waiting for a single compelling reason that gay marriage would threaten straight marriage.
So far, two people have offered sham arguments and failed to respond when I called them on it.
Thunderbolt claims to have covered all of it earlier in this thread, but can’t take 30 seconds to provide what he considers to be a truly compelling explanation.
Is there nobody else out there?
I’m genuinely trying to understand the perspective of the “other side” on this. Is there nobody that can articulate a compelling reason for gay marriage being a threat to straight marriage?
How does my partner and I getting married make it any less likely that straight couples would stay together and have children?
I seriously don’t get it.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’m still waiting for a single compelling reason that gay marriage would threaten straight marriage.
So far, two people have offered sham arguments and failed to respond when I called them on it.
Thunderbolt claims to have covered all of it earlier in this thread, but can’t take 30 seconds to provide what he considers to be a truly compelling explanation.
Is there nobody else out there?
I’m genuinely trying to understand the perspective of the “other side” on this. Is there nobody that can articulate a compelling reason for gay marriage being a threat to straight marriage?
How does my partner and I getting married make it any less likely that straight couples would stay together and have children?
I seriously don’t get it.[/quote]
It’s in the thread - particularly, in the links you aren’t reading.
However, here’s one theory: it’s a feedback loop, and the main issue is decoupling marriage from kids, making marriage about personal fulfillment and holding that marriage isn’t a necessary (or even desirable) precondition for procreation - which is part and parcel to the “marriage is an individual right” mindset.
As such, there are multiple, mutually reinforcing causal forces that may arise in any particular order, but once one shows up the others are likely to follow and intensify the effect of changing the view of why marriage exists. Those include: legalized gay marriage and substantial equivalents; parental cohabitation (i.e., living together, having kids but not getting married); and a social/legal equalization of the states of cohabitation and marriage. These are even more problematic in background of easy divorce and welfare policies that incentivize single parenthood.
As any of these is introduced, and starts to gain acceptance, it weakens the marginal case for holding the line on the others - and each one serves to separate marriage from the essential purpose of procreation and raising kids, and also for people (read that mostly as men) to view marriage as a necessary precondition for procreation. Or to stay married and work through tough times for the sake of the kids.
Additionally, there is the particular worry that promiscuity among gay male couples who are married would serve to undermine the social prohibitions on adultery in marriage - again, also part of the feeback loop on the whole “marriage is an individual right about maximizing adult happiness” theme.
Go back and read the links if you want more particulars.
If being gay is biological, then could there be some sort of brain condition that prevents Forlife from actually understanding all the arguments presented thus far?
I think this is an hypothesis which has remained unexplored, simply because the premise suggests that somehow gays are not of the same species as breeders. Afterall, chimps have 99% (or similar) brain structure as do we and yet no one lumps them together with us.
There may be a gene or simply a part of the brain that prevents understanding the arguments — like in ‘1984’ where the language would eventually prevent thoughtcrime.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
the main issue is decoupling marriage from kids…[/quote]
Thanks for presenting a debatable hypothesis. I don’t think it is a good one, but it is at least something we can discuss.
This hypothesis fails on two counts:
Straight couples aren’t required to have children in order to marry. Does it devalue or in any way threaten marriage to allow infertile straight couples to marry? I think most would agree the answer to this is no. It doesn’t devalue marriage for people to choose not to have children as part of their marriage commitment.
Allowing gays to marry doesn’t decouple marriage from kids. Gay couples can and do have children. Some (like myself) have children from a prior relationship with someone of the opposite sex. Others (like several of my friends) have children through adoption.
These children are better off with the stability provided by a marriage, since the legal and moral commitments associated with marriage make it less likely the couple will split up.
This is a logical fallacy.
If A → B, this in no way implies that B → A.
Allowing marriage without procreation in no way implies that procreation should be allowed without marriage.
The entire hypothesis falls apart when you realize that.
[quote]Additionally, there is the particular worry that promiscuity among gay male couples who are married would serve to undermine the social prohibitions on adultery in marriage.
[/quote]
This is like saying:
“A certain percentage of people in straight marriages commit adultery. Therefore, marriage is useless as an institution designed to prevent adultery, and should not be granted to straight couples.”
Marriage discourages promiscuity, but it doesn’t guarantee against it. Marriage makes it less likely that people would be promiscuous, due to the legal commitments it entails, and the potential repercussions to someone that chooses to cheat on their relationship.