Same-sex marriage will have no negative impact on American society as a whole

[cwthree]

@magellan01

Examples? EXAMPLES? It was pointed out over and over that said negative consequences would be two generations or so down the road, so any call for “examples” is ridiculous.

I have not called for examples in this thread. I have asked posters to enumerate ways in which they believe society would be negatively affected by this change.

@magellan01

It is the one that our use of the term is based on. No one claimed that it was the oldest or that “oldest is best”. And while it is by no means the only definition, ALL definitions have required at least one man and one woman.

I stated explicitly in the OP that I am uninterested in debating the meaning(s) or history of the word “marriage.” Nothing to see here, move along.

@magellan01

I am a person who believes both that SSM will cause long-term negative effects…

I know. That’s why (well, not you personally, but you know what I mean) I started this thread. What do you think those negative effects would be? How do you think people’s behavior would change for the worse? How do you think institutional “behavior” change for the worse?

@magellan01

[P]oint to ANY society in ANY time where SSM was even granted equal status, not to mention with no ill effects.

That’s not my job here. My specific purpose in starting this thread was, as stated above, to solicit specific anticipated effects of such a change in the future, not to discuss history.

Once again, for those just entering the discussion, here’s my original request from post #1:

“I invite you to describe the specific anticipated negative effects of legalized same-sex marriage and/or the use of the work “marriage” to describe the legal union of same-sex couples, as you foresee them. I am explicitly not interested in philosophical discussions of the meaning or definition of the word “marriage;” I am interested how you believe people’s behavior would change if the law were changed expand the legal definition of “marriage” to include same-sex couples.”

To put it in simpler terms, I am asking Dopers whose opinions tend towards magellan01’s to look forward, imagine a United States in which same-sex marriage is legal and called “marriage,” and to describe the kinds of negative social results they’d expect to see. This is a thought exercise, not a request for reliable predictions of the future.

[black_rabbit]

I want to eat a sandwich.

Though, now that I think about it, eating my sandwich could have horrible unintended consequences several generations hence.

Oh, man, contemplating the holocaust that could be visited upon my hypothetical offspring if I eat a sandwich right now is actually making me break out in to a cold sweat.

I think I’m just going to sit here and whimper instead. No sandwich for me. No sir.

[cwthree]

@magellan01

You haven’t been paying attention, have you? Your question indicates that you have not read the other thread, nor my initial post in this one. I urge you to read that initial post, as it answers your question in full.

If you are going to play in this thread, kindly post answers, in full, in this thread.

[magellan01]

@Captain_Carrot

No, it doesn’t, at all. You claimed plenty of things, but didn’t provide evidence for any.

First, I’ll point out that you asked for “proof”, which is not the same evidence.

@Captain_Carrot

So is yours.

I never claimed it was anything other than that. I’ve simply been arguing for a point of view I believe in. I think there is a good argument for pursuing my idea instead of SSM, but if you or anyone is unconvinced, that’s fine with me. But I have not convinced, at all, that the counter position is better. In fact, I think it assumes us taking a risk that we needn’t take and still take the moral high ground in ensuring that the legal rights and privileges are extended to SS couples.

[ElvisL1ves]

@magellan01

I think it assumes us taking a risk that we needn’t take

WHAT risk? :dubious: Are you ever going to come up with something? Ever?

Note, ftr, that increased difficulty of exercising bigotry is not a “negative consequence”.

and still take the moral high ground in ensuring that the legal rights and privileges are extended to SS couples.

By now, you have no excuse for not knowing that the opposite is true. No excuse whatsoever.

[cwthree]

@magellan01

That’s an excellent question. There may be negative ramifications to any policy, so you make a good point. But as I’ve stated, expanding the meaning of the word “marriage”, by definition, dilutes the term. I think it holds a special place in our society and needs to be protected (and repaired) and held on to…

Imagine that tomorrow morning the Supreme Court rules that as of 31 December 2009, all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, major and minor outlying islands, Super Wal-Marts, etc., must begin issuing marriage licenses to all otherwise qualified adult couples, including same-sex couples; further, the Court rules that states, etc., may not make any distinction in the nomenclature pertaining to male-female, male-male, and female-female couples.

Fast-forward (in your imagination, again) 50 years to 31 December 2059. You’ve told us that the word “marriage” has a special place (which has now been, in your words, “diluted”) in our society, so presumably society will have undergone some negative changes. Some of those changes will be due, directly or indirectly, to the changes that took effect 50 years earlier. What do you think some of those negative changes would be?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@magellan01

But what if there is a way to achieve the positive aspects of what you want, without accepting the possible negative long-term ramifications?

Well, it would help if we first established that the possible negative long-term ramifications actually existed, even hypothetically.

To proceed otherwise would be premature, wouldn’t it?
Anyway, I have to side with those who say you claimed a great deal in other thread (well, more accurately, you claimed the same thing over and over) but proved nothing.

[Lobohan]

Devil’s Advocate Post. I don’t believe any of these things, but this is what I’m seeing as proposed benefits to outlawing SSM to some people:

Gay’s are evil: Some people believe that gays are wretched and purposefully sinful. Allowing gays to marry means we embrace evil and on some level become evil ourselves.
**
Gay’s are gay by choice:** Some people believe that gays choose to be gay, presumably to avoid pregnancy and have sexual relationships devoid of meaning. If you’re one of the people who believe this allowing gay marriage would legitimize homosexuality and make more and more people turn towards it. Presumably they think that the disdain homosexuals are shown today is the only reason there aren’t more homosexuals.
**
Gays are pedophiles:** Some people believe that all homosexual men want to have sex with children. Granting the rights of marriage to them will allow them to adopt and gain easy access to children to predate upon.

If someone truly believed rubbish like the above, they would presumably be strongly against SSM and would see those results as negative consequences of allowing it. All those beliefs are stupid of course, and based on nothing but prejudice and ignorance. But I think a lot of America subscribes to them.

[Captain_Carrot]

@magellan01

First, I’ll point out that you asked for “proof”, which is not the same as evidence.

And you have neither. Just vague allegations of “harm”.

By the way, does marriage need to be defended from divorce? After all, divorce has ended far more marriages than two dudes getting shacked up has.

[magellan01]

@cwthree

I have not called for examples in this thread. I have asked posters to enumerate ways in which they believe society would be negatively affected by this change.

Nice try. You said that examples were asked for and not supplied, as if that was some failing on my part. I was simply pointing out the absurdity of the request. The fact that you mention it in this new thread carries over that absurdity. That was your doing, not mine.

@cwthree

I stated explicitly in the OP that I am uninterested in debating the meaning(s) or history of the word “marriage.” Nothing to see here, move along.

Are you going to state that every time I show that you’ve claimed something that is not true? If so, you may want to copy it to the pasteboard, as I have a feeling it’ll save you a lot of typing.

@cwthree

I know. That’s why (well, not you personally, but you know what I mean) I started this thread. What do you think those negative effects would be? How do you think people’s behavior would change for the worse? How do you think institutional “behavior” change for the worse?

Since I’ve explained this before, and since you’ve made such strong assertions as the basis of this thread that you started, I’m more interested in you proving those assertions.

@cwthree

That’s not my job here. My specific purpose in starting this thread was, as stated above, to solicit specific anticipated effects of such a change in the future, not to discuss history.

And people are free to provide the answers you want. Me, now, I’m more interested in you proving your assertions. If you don’t want them questioned, if you don’t want to defend those assertions or the claims you make about what has transpired, don’t make them.

@cwthree

Once again, for those just entering the discussion, here’s my original request from post #1:

As I said, I’m more interested right now on the assertions that you laid out in your OP. Please offer support for them, as requested. I’m pretty sure you know how a debate works. If you make assertions and are asked to prove, or supply evidence for those assertion, you do so.

[magellan01]

@cwthree

If you are going to play in this thread, kindly post answers, in full, in this thread.

I’m free to answer you or not. I’m also free to request that you back up the assertions you flatly made in your OP. Still waiting.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

I think what some people desire is that we as a society have no change whatsoever, starting right about…

Now.

Things should remain frozen in time, with no change. Change is scary. Change is uncomfortable. There is enough change happening around us al the time, already, and it makes people anxious. Also, any change whatsoever could possibly be bad, especially if we expand the time frame to 40 years hence. So we should keep things exactly as they are now. This is comfortable. This is safe. No change.

Ahhhhhhh, that feels better.

[Locrian]

Since this is just a thought exercise…

First, I’m straight, am non-religious, no military background, and no kids. I am all for SSM and I voted “NO” on Proposition 8 here in CA. Simply put, not allowing SSM is just another exercise in discrimination. 52 million voters thought it wasn’t.

Let’s pretend I have kids, am in or involved with the military, and am a devout believer. The detrimental possibilities are staggering. My wife or neighbors or PTA would want my signatures on forms banning same sex couples sending their kids the the same public schools as mine. Working with military, I’m sure I’d also see similar petitions asking for no SSM people to enlist, or asking that all enlistment forms require marital info.

Religion would of course be the most vigilant. A school that my parish sponsors/owns would ask the same of no kids of SSM. School time would be spent explaining how gays are evil sinners to my kids. The parish would most likely have something like, “For all righteous people who are against SSM, we pray to the lord. Lord, hear our prayer,” during prayer. Petitions outside after services would be aplenty, banning sacraments such as baptism be given to kids of SSM couples. Voicing my opinion saying something like, “Aren’t we all god’s children”, would keep me out of the church parties, I assure you.

My point is, to answer the OP, will it have no negative impact on American society as a whole, no, it will not. At least not for me. Remember, I’m straight, non-religious, no military and no kids. But if I was part of a larger group with old-fashioned and conservative views-- or even just being a parent-- my life WOULD see a significant negative impact on American society, a believing, following orders, being married and being a parent kind of American society.

Maybe it just comes down to who ya hang with.

[magellan01]

@Bryan_Ekers

Anyway, I have to side with those who say you claimed a great deal in other thread (well, more accurately, you claimed the same thing over and over) but proved nothing.

I side with them, as well. I also never claimed I proved anything. Or would prove anything. Or could prove anything. I realize that. I don’t think you and some others do. You’re coming at this as a math or science problem. It ain’t.

[Captain_Carrot]

@magellan01

I side with them, as well. I also never claimed I proved anything. Or would prove anything. Or could prove anything.

But everyone else has to prove whatever they say. I see.

magellan, for the love of fuck, would you just answer the damn OP and stop with your hijacks? Please?

[Euphonious_Polemic]

magellan01, Could you please give one example of a negative consequence that would occur (either in the long or short term), if SSM was made legal throughout the USA.

Thank you in advance.

[Locrian]

@cwthree

Imagine that tomorrow morning the Supreme Court rules that as of 31 December 2009, all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, major and minor outlying islands, Super Wal-Marts, etc., must begin issuing marriage licenses to all otherwise qualified adult couples, including same-sex couples; further, the Court rules that states, etc., may not make any distinction in the nomenclature pertaining to male-female, male-male, and female-female couples.

Fast-forward (in your imagination, again) 50 years to 31 December 2059. You’ve told us that the word “marriage” has a special place (which has now been, in your words, “diluted”) in our society, so presumably society will have undergone some negative changes. Some of those changes will be due, directly or indirectly, to the changes that took effect 50 years earlier. What do you think some of those negative changes would be?

See, if THIS happens, we’d have enough riots to call a war. It’s impossible to imagine the Supreme Court even delving into a conversation about doing that.

If I fast forward 50 years, I’m sure we’d have an annual moment of silence for all those who perished in the infamous Supreme Gay riots back in '09.

Here’s my solution: Call it life-partner, call it civil union, call it a quasi-marriage for all I care, just let same sexes legally bond like men and women. If we all let THAT happen first, we can slowly start calling it marriage without getting all the loonies on our doorstep. We can sloooooooowly change the terminology over time-- a long time.

Last I checked, I still don’t see all whites respecting all blacks, or even all same-race married accepting mixed-race marriage. It takes way too much time for humanity to get used to something. If it isn’t gradual, it isn’t possible.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@magellan01

You’re coming at this as a math or science problem. It ain’t.

Of course it ain’t. It’s a sociology issue.

That said, what sociological problems do you anticipate? What would be the earliest symptoms? What negative effects could we see in 50 years?

If you don’t know what negative effects could occur, how can you know if negative effects could occur?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Locrian

Here’s my solution: Call it life-partner, call it civil union, call it a quasi-marriage for all I care, just let same sexes legally bond like men and women. If we all let THAT happen first, we can slowly start calling it marriage without getting all the loonies on our doorstep.

Perhaps I’m unclear on the need to pander to loonies.

[Nava]

Another Devil’s Advocate argument, again starting with the notion that being gay is a choice:

If gay people can get married, their children and any friends their children make will see being gay as an acceptable, normal option. This will make it easier for those children to decide to be gay. Since being gay is an evil thing, it must be avoided, therefore anything that leads to gayness being perceived as normal and/or acceptable must be banned.