Oh, and if you feel that I am wrongfully accusing you of being selfish, I’m sure I’m wrong about you in particular. People don’t have to be religious to be unselfish. And many religious people are selfish. It’s just that what I see in people convinces me that most people are selfish, and many people that think they aren’t selfish don’t really see the depth of what unselfish behaviour really can be, so they are still self serving.
No, it’s not. And neither is anything else you posted.
That’s what challenging those beliefs entails, digging deeper into them.
To the contrary. The way to get somewhere is to help the opposition understand where and how they’re wrong, that the objections they raise are groundless, that real people are suffering real damage from the existing situation for no reason that stands up to scrutiny. The alternative is to abandon hope of making progress at all. You know of a different way, much less a better one, that doesn’t involve person-to-person discussion and exploration?
Then it’s up to the rest of us to *help * them understand. This board is just one means to do so.
It’s your world? Funny, I don’t see your name on it.
Good luck fighting progress, prisoner. It’s almost always a losing proposition.
I understand the position but I strongly believe it is wrongheaded. What you are saying is that it’s ok to impose your religious values on others who do not follow your religion because to do otherwise would violate your sense of social order, which is rooted in your religion. You hold this belief despite the fact that your position also denies people equal rights in violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the US Constitution, which is the bedrock of the US, not the Bible.
Also, the idea that marriage is solely about children is false since not all marriages produce children, as has been said repeatedly in this thread.
Additionally, a “traditional family” is best? It is not best for people who do not share your view. Who are you to say what is best for everyone else? If another religion suddenly became the majority and the adherents said the values of that religion was best for everybody, and laws began to change to get everyone to conform to that view, you would probably rebel and say, “well, it’s not best for me, so keep your religion to yourself!” To which, the new majority would probably respond, “The people have spoken, so just be nice and quiet and get used to it.” I would like to believe you would fight for your rights under those circumstances.
Hee hee… Man what is it with you dopers? Why do you guy hijack so much?
Remember, this message board is supposed to be about two things. Questions and answers. Anything else is prohibitive to the discussion. The OP asked a question. I answered it. You are now arguing with me about my opinion. Your statements only prohibit this discussion because it is judgmental of my opinion. And that’s not what this discussion is about.
To reiterate:
Q: Why are some people against same sex marriage?
A: Because some of those people think that same sex marriage further threatens their way of life.
In GQ, that is indeed the case, even though expounding on the details of the answer to the question is allowed.
In GD, where we are right now, that is most definitely NOT the case. Debate is expected. You can’t drop that turd into this punchbowl and expect it to stand without argument.
Does it REALLY threaten their way of life? Or does it only threaten their desire to make other people behave as if their religion were relevant to the other person? If SSM does threaten their way of life, how does it do that?
Just walking in and saying “Is so!” isn’t the way we do things in here.
Ok, I won’t try to argue with you on that, but I will point out that it’s an incomplete answer. How does same sex marriage threaten anyone’s way of life? How does the fact that two men are allowed to be married affect your marriage? You spoke earlier that a family composed of one father and one mother is the best for rasing children. I won’t argue with that either, but I fail to see how two men being married affects that. I mean, we all agree (I think) that a marriage of two men won’t produce children. So you can’t then say that two men being married is bad for their children, because they don’t have any.
And, once again, if a man and a woman are married and have children and are therefore satisfying the requirement for the “right” kind of family in which to raise those children, how is that changed by the mere fact that down the street there is a house in which live two men married to each other? How does that threaten the way of life of the happy, stable, man-and-woman-and-children?
They want to be treated – gasp – like everyone else. “All men are created equal,” remember?
Putting aside the grossly intolerant attitude of this statement, what do you feel about heterosexual couples who get married but opt not to have kids? Should we pass laws preveting them from getting married, too? Or have “Fertility Police” to make sure all couples have a state-mandated minimum 2.5 children?
Looks like post-menopausal women have no right to be married in that guy’s world, or even cmkeller’s. Once the kids are out of the house, the parents have no more right to claim to be married.
First off, thanks for being willing to have a reasonable discussion. I hope I can provide it.
Now, I thought I explained this before. It’s not about MY FAMILY. It’s about the world around us. Forget religion. I believe what I believe. Many people who don’t believe in God believe the same things. Too many things that I have a problem with are expected of people today. Premarital sex is one I already explained. A lot of these things that I have a problem with were caused by two movements, the sexual revolution and women’s liberation movement. (I am for equal rights, but I think that a lot of us have been hoodwinked by Women’s Lib. It was a selfish… aww forget it. It’s not pertanent to this discussion.) Lets just say that the condition of the world is worsening. And I blame two things (among others): the sexual revolution, and women leaving the home. Children need to be raised by two parents, not nannies, not the TV, not baby-sitters, not teachers, not child-care centers. Someone needs to raise them. It’s a responsibility to have children. If the child is really #2 (behind the father and in front of the mother) then the mother will be selfless enough to stay in the home and raise them. Dagnabit, I didn’t want to talk about that here. Anyway, the world is collapsing. Same-sex unions further threaten what I think is a healthy family unit. I think biologically each of us needs a male father and a female mother to raise us right. Children are too young to be tolerant, and to ask certain questions about life. And often they create their own opinions without consulting an adult. (Grown-ups are the enemy, remember?) So unconventional family units are more likely to create more people that don’t support what I think is healthy. Premarital sex, for example. So the world further slips into a hedonistic, selfish, materialistic society. It’s about society, not me.
Marriage is supposed to be a commitment to each other. And like it or not, this commitment is supposed to be willing to say, “if we get pregnant, with one child or 10, we will be willing to do our best to turn those children into great human beings.” I’m not saying that a gay couple has to say this so the marriage isn’t a marriage without it. But a straight couple does. 1-20 couples out of 1000 (depending on the study) that have been sterilized accidentally get pregnant. So marriage for a straight couple has GOT to take children into consideration, even if they don’t want children. There is still a decent chance that they will have them, unless they kill them before they are born. (Oh, that’s another thing that is expected of people today. People are expected to be pro-choice. Obvioiusly I am pro-life.) So that point is that traditional marriages have GOT to legally be considered potential families with children, because the chance is almost always there. There is a distinction between them and same-sex marriages. The potential is there for children to be created.
I have a hypothetical question for those opposed to same sex marriage:
Let’s suppose that you’re happily married (to a person of the opposite sex), you have two children, and you live in a house on a nice, quiet suburban street.
Your neighbors on the right side are the Joneses. They’ve lived nextdoor to you for five years. They, too, are a married couple (one man and one woman), and they, too, have two children. They give every appearance of being a happy family. But, unbeknownst to you (and most everyone else), Mr. Jones has a serious problem. He beats his wife. He beats his children, too. Regularly.
Question1: Does the fact that this dysfunctional family (that outwardly seems normal) lives next door to you have any effect in any way on your marriage? If so, how? Does it lessen the value of your marriage, or weaken marriage in general?
Now let’s suppose that it becomes known to you, in some way that you can’t ignore, that Mr. Jones has this problem.
Question2: Does the fact that this dysfunctional family (that you now know is dysfunctional) lives next door to you have any effect in any way on your marriage? If so, how? Does it lessen the value of your marriage, or weaken marriage in general?
After a year or so, Mrs. Jones finally gets what it takes to leave her husband. There follows a very messy divorce and a bitter custody battle over the children in which Mr. Jones accuses Mrs. Jones of being the one who has beaten the children. But, eventually she prevails, gets custody of the children, and Mr. Jones moves away.
Question 3: Does the fact that the previously supposedly happily married man and woman next door have now gotten divorced, and the single mother with two children are now living next door to you have any effect in any way on your marriage? If so, how? Does it lessen the value of your marriage, or weaken marriage in general?
Now, all during the past six years your neighbors on the left have been two gay men, living together. The men mostly keep to themselves. They are polite to you when they see you, but otherwise you have little contact with them. They never do anything that directly bothers you, such as making a physical display of affection where anyone can see. Still, you and everyone else in the neighborhood knows that there are two gay men in that house.
Question 4: Does the fact that this gay – but not married – couple lives next door to you have any effect in any way on your marriage? If so, how? Does it lessen the value of your marriage, or weaken marriage in general?
Now, the law gets changed to allow gay marriage (remember, this is a hypothetical case). Your neighbors on the left immediately get married. So now, you have a gay married couple living next door to you. They continue to live their lives as they had been doing, saying “hi” to you when they see you, and never being physical in public.
Question 5: Does the fact that this gay – and now married – couple lives next door to you have any effect in any way on your marriage? If so, how? Does it lessen the value of your marriage, or weaken marriage in general? What is the difference, to you, of living next door to an unmarried gay couple, and living next door to a married gay couple?
Oh, I humbly apologize for the intolerant remark. It was a bit extreme I admit. Actually, I was supposed to be saying what other people think, especially the first one, where I claim gay couples are taking money away from me. (That’s why I followed up with the statement that I’m not one of them.)
Just because a couple doesn’t want children doesn’t mean they won’t. 1-20 out of 1000 couples that have been sterilized accidentally get pregnant.
Cite
Cite
Cite
Hardly. That’s one reason why the wife is “supposed” to be the #1 person in the husbands life, and not the children. Children leave, but not the wife. The husband chose his wife. He didn’t choose his children. An empty house with just your wife and husband after raising children is a reward for providing a healthy human being. And let’s not forget about the importance of being grandparents. Sometimes grandparents are vindication of your parents. You see the grandparents are soo loving and caring for you and for each other. They are so wize and they have so many good stories. They are proof to a child that traditional marriages work. “These two have been together for so very long and they raised my parents.”
Sorry again if this is condescending. I know marriage isn’t only about children. I’d like to hear more discussion about how marriages in general help society. I haven’t heard anything at all explaining how same-sex marriages help the world. I’m not saying they can’t. I just don’t know of any myself. Anyone care to share?
Most of us figure out that we can’t have the world just the way we want it by the age of five.
I’m sorry Roadfood, I’m not going to specifically answer each of your questions because you are being too specific. Gay neighbors don’t bother me and my family where I’m at. Again, it’s not the specific circumstances. It’s not about ME. It’s about THE WORLD. But having a non-traditional neighbor family can weaken the traditional family. What happens when there are 20 gay couples living on my block and I have the only traditional family? What will that do to my children? I live about half a mile away from a street whose residents are predominantly gay. It wasn’t always that way. What happened to the children growing up while the gays were taking over the street? I mean the very young children. Clearly, they didn’t grow up like normal children. Think there are many children playing around on that street? Um, nope. Whose swimming in the pools in that apartment complex? Kids? Um, nope. All gay guys. And they are out there strutting their stuff all over the place. But in the apartments I lived in you would rarely find an adult swimming. I remember my street when I grew up. Maybe 50 houses on that street. There were probably 50 kids living on that street. I had lots of friends. This gay street is lined with apartments. It’s packed. There are hundreds of apartments, maybe thousands. The potential for MORE kids living is higher. But the kids just aren’t there. There are some, but I feel sorry for them. They have fewer friends living nearby. And what do they think when they go to the pool?
The fact is that the disfunctional family is (still) in the minority. And thank you so much for validating my argument with your abusive husband scenario. The world is collapsing. Families are becoming more disfunctional. Why is Malcom in the Middle so popular? Because so many people can relate. That abusive father you spoke of… why is he abusive? Well gee, I wonder if his childhood was happy. Think he had a strong loving father and a loving doting mother? Doubtful. The only way to create families that are not disfunctional is to encourage functional families. More negativity in families leads to more people that are going to have disfunctional families. You want things to get worse? Then continue to discourage traditional family values.
Oh, I’m afraid that’s a great heaping pile of bullshit. While it may be true that some people wish for a return to some kind of traditional family values, they conveniently leave out all the negative aspects of history, i.e. Jim Crow laws, and concentrate on some Norman Rockwell/Walt Disney view of life.
Besides, how was it “their” world, apparantly to the exclusion of everyone else, or how would “their” world be affected by gay marriage/civil unions? Is “their” world so delicate?
I’m inclined to challenge any argument that contains the phrase “making people believe”, as though everyone but the person making the argument was a sheep. In any case, it’s not relevant if a heterosexual coupling is “the best” at raising a family (however you wish to define “best”). The question at hand is: is it to be the only way to raise a family, and why? And if a gay couple says “We want the legal benefits of marriage, but don’t intend to have children”, why treat them differently from any heterosexual couple with the same intention?
Regarding childbirth, what key? What danger? What are you talking about? So gay couples can’t have children? So what? Is marriage exclusively about the production of children? Since when?
Heh, well actually it wasn’t. Deuteronomy spells out the various rules for divorce. It was the relatively tight-assed Matthew who frowned on the practice, some 1300 years later. As for “outlawing” it, you’ll need a stronger argument than the bible, or repeal the first amendment.
What if they don’t follow? What if a heterosexual couple deliberately makes them not follow, though sterilization and (in the 1-4 in a thousand accidental cases) abortion? Is that marriage invalid, or something? Should it be forcibly dissolved by the state becuase the participants weren’t “mature” enough? Should sterilization and abortion be outlawed, too? Are the only choices to be virginity of parenthood? Sorry, I’m not interested in having choices once available to me taken away (or having the possibility of future options cut off) in order to satisfy your lust for biblical power over me.
I speak metaphorically, of course, not being an American and thus not subject to American law. I’d question a Canadian making your statements in an identical manner.
Yeah, and you guys conveniently leave out that the people that do the truly evil things aren’t truly Christians.
Obviously it is. The world is crumbling. Not too many Leave it to Beaver type shows on TV anymore now are there?
Man! What is it with you dopers? You have to take things so literally! Why do you always argue on semantics? All I had to do was word it a bit different and you woudn’t be able to respond like you did. Look at the meaning behind the words. Actually read the sentence and the sentences around it.
Are you kidding me about childbirth? There are far fewer more stressful times than childbirth for a couple. The mother is worried about the pain. And the father is worried about the health of the baby and his wife and if there will be complications that he can’t do anything about. Men (generalizing again) are protectors. Not being able to control something is seriously stressful to a man. He has to put his trust in another man or woman to take care of his wife in what is probably the most stressful period of her life. He wants, no NEEDS, to protect his wife, but he has to let someone else do it. But once it’s all worked out in the end and the baby and wife are healthy, the emotional “WHEW” is absolutely the most excrutiating joy you can feel. You have a new life out of all of that stress. The key to an over the top truly loving family is going through childbirth, because there is nothing in the world like it. It intensifies the love between husband and wife like nothing else and the perfection that comes out of it really creates this powerful love between parent and child. And the period of bonding between parent and child at birth, imprinting they call it, is extremely important. Yes, a gay couple can DEVELOP loving feelings for an adopted child. But a natural parent is INSTANTLY in love with the newborn. It goes deep inside of them. The child is a part of them.
And I would PLEASE like to hear some examples about how a gay marriage helps society. AFAICT gays want all the rights that come with marriage without giving any responsibility to society. Like women’s lib, it appears selfish to me.
Chapter and verse please. It wasn’t just Matthew. Mark 10:11 also says that any man that marries someone after his first wife commits adultury. Luke 16:18 says the same thing. Still, I get your point. People make mistakes. As far as the world is concerned marriage could be one of them. Obviously divorce won’t ever be outlawed. I just would like it if it were and it was more difficult to get married.
No, I meant that children will (be more likely to) follow their parents example if the two parents show their deep love and affection for one another. Again, I believe that abortion is wrong, so that affects my opinions about family values as well as what I feel about this particular aspect of the gay-marriage issue.
And I can assure you that I don’t lust for biblical power over you. I believe that you are misguided. I believe that the specifics you mentioned are among the best ways to lead to a healthy world. Just my personal belief. Not an attack. But that is the reason why I am against gay-marriage.
Why do you raise these points only to subsequently judge them irrelevant?
Let’s not, because I don’t agree it is. In industrialized nations, people live longer, more comfortably and more freely, and technological progress continues which it pretty darned good evidence that the world (in these nations, at least) is not worsening. Compared this to more “traditional” nations in Africa and the Middle East (or, for that matter, pre-Industrial Europe) where life, frankly, sucks.
You’re rocking the cradle before the horse (heh). Having children creates the responsibility; but there’s no responsibility to create children.
Then why did you bring it up? Yeesh.
No, it isn’t. Got a cite to the contrary? You can produce statistics on teen pregnancy/crime/drug use if you like, but those are hardly making the world collapse.
What “healthy family unit” is threatened by the same-sex union down the block, and how?
Actually, it is about you, and people with opinions like yours, who’ve made illogical conclusions and want to write them into law. Premarital sex was alive and well long before the notion of gay marriage came to national prominence. How does the existence of gay marriage (or “unconventional family units”, if you prefer) encourage pre-marital sex? Is it more than, say, the Fox Network?
More importantly, is what you think is healthy a good basis for the laws of the nation? Can you define hedonism, selfishness and materialism for us, and why an attempt by homosexuals to get legal recognition will cause these attitudes to worsen among heterosexuals, who are apparently unwitting victims of their society, rather than members of it?
I can think of a few ways in this might be relevant to a gay marriage:[ol][li]Male couple: one of the partners is bisexual (or really drunk) and impregnates a woman outside the marriage[/li][li]Male couple: hires a surrogate to be impregnated by one of them[/li][li]Female couple: one of the partners is bisexual (or really drunk) and gets impregnated by a man outside the marriage[/li][li]Female couple: hires a sperm bank to impregnate one of them[/li][li]Female couple: one is raped by a man and impregnated[/ol][/li]Each of these situations (and I’m not claiming the list is exhaustive) could and has come up in heterosexual couplings. #1 and #3 involve pregnancy through adultery (hardly uncommon), and #2 and #4 have been practiced by heterosexual couples who for one reason or another can’t produce children on their own. #5 is tragic but also not uncommon, as heterosexual married women can also be victims of rape. In fact, the only difference that I can see between a homosexual couple’s response and a heterosexual couple’s response is that in #3 and #5, there isn’t any way for the pregnant woman to mask the presence of the outside agency. I’m sure there are a fair number of men in this world who are unwittingly raising children who were actually fathered by an illicit lover or an unreported rapist. If this became discovered, a great many heterosexual marriages would break apart, though there is no way to predict which ones. How well a lesbian marriage holds up is surely due to the strength of commitment of the spouses, and that’s also not something that can be predicted.
Your whole “think of the children” argument is flawed, because it assumes that a homosexual couple can’t handle pregnancy and child-rearing. The truth is that the vast majority of the time, the issue is completely irrelevant, and the rare times when it is relevant, there isn’t any way to predict how a given couple will react. There are numerous heterosexuals who are lousy parents, but since that wasn’t a requirement for their marriage license, why should it be a requirement for a gay couple?
I don’t understand the logic. Because Situation A involves a risk of Consequence X, Situation B that doesn’t involve the risk of Consequence X (well, except for situation #5, listed above - which could happen to any woman, gay or straight) should be outlawed?
I feel I should point out that I’m not a “true” Christian, by any definition. What are you talking about?
That’s hysterical. You think Leave it to Beaver was an accurate barometer of life in America, 1957-1963? If you were watching that show, there was a chance you could flip the channel and find a news program showing southern cops siccing police dogs on blacks trying to register to vote.
Even in context, your statement isn’t supported. At heart, it carries the message that gay marriage will somehow warp people. Nothing you’ve said supports such a claim. And cries of “don’t take things so literally!” are really just code for “it’s your fault if you find a flaw in my logic, because I was just being metaphorical!”
So, if modern medicine makes the process of childbirth safe, painless, calm and routine… we’ve lost part of our soul? Just kidding (and being metaphorical, though if you decide to challenge that statement literally, I’ll defend it).
Well, then why do heterosexual couples that have children ever divorce or suffer problems of any kind, if their love is so perfectly cemented by the birth?
Then why is child abuse and neglect quite common among parents toward their biological children? You’re holding up a heterosexual marriage as your gold standard, attributing to it a perfection that doesn’t exist.
What responsibility to society does a heterosexual marriage have, anyway? To produce children for the state?
There aren’t any solid examples of how gay marriage can help society simply becuase gay marriage hasn’t been around long enough to affect society. I’d like to suggest that if gay marriage became common, couples who could legally pool their resources and financial risks will be more likely to buy and build houses, improving real estate values. That’s just a possible benefit, though. I can’t think of any “responsibility to society” an individual (or marriage) has, beyond obeying the laws, adhering to relevant ethical standards, and in extreme emergencies picking up a rifle and fighting off foreign invaders.
If I may suggest, being “selfish” is demanding that others not act in a manner that makes you feel uncomfortable, even if this would cause them unhappiness far greater than the inconvenience to you.
Well, Deuteronomy 24:1-4, for starters. Also, divorce has been permitted (albeit frowned upon) in Judaism for quite some time, and certainly before that upstart Christianity thing got rolling. I find your New Testament argument uncompelling and actually ignorant of the existence of a far older culture than your own which has the same general basis yet has also managed to casually survive that which you find so hateful.
So, what new hoops to jump through would you like to see imposed for heterosexual couples, and would you design these hoops to be impassable to gay couples, like a literacy test at a 1950s southern polling station ?
And homosexuals are somehow… incapable of this? Or is it just that such displays make you uncomfortable?
I’m having trouble seeing the relevance of the two issues, myself.
Well, the bible is fortunately not the basis for laws in the United States, or at least it shouldn’t be. I feel you are misguided because your using your faith as a weapon and the “healthy world” you describe is really only healthy for you and those with similar beliefs, and not for anyone else.