It takes them out of the potential marriage pool, of course.
Only once very .33% of the time and that is pretty damn statistically insignificant as far as reducing the DSM pool.
And, although I am speaking only for my understanding, a man who wants to marry a man is most likely not going to marry a woman instead just because SSM is denied to him. So, the DSM pool is not going to be widened by preventing SSM. A SSM adds to the marriage rate as much as a DSM.
SSM=2 people getting married and resultant bump to the marriage rate no less than a man and a woman being married adds one marriage to the marriage rate.
Now that has been cleared up, what are you really trying to say about SSM?
Um, that was a joke.
My general understanding of the opposition to SSM by conservative Christians is this:
- They believe that marriage is a gift from God, specifically as a union between a man and a woman
- They believe that any sexual activity outside of a marriage is sinful
- They believe that God intends that all marriages should include an openness of the spouses to any children which would result from their union (which cannot “naturally” occur in a same-sex union)
I don’t know that I’ve often (if ever) seen conservative Christians argue that SSM is wrong because it removes potential spouses from the “marriage pool.” Rather, it seems that their argument is that acceptance of SSM is one symptom of society’s general, increasing rejection of what they see as God’s gift of traditional marriage, as defined in the Bible.
(Never mind the fact that marriage was, and is, a feature of most, if not all, cultures which aren’t based on the Abrahamic religions. It’s not like the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God uniquely created the concept.)
Sorry, needscoffee, I completely missed that. The 2 topics are heart-thumpers for me and I was reading that far too literally (and when in a clearer head I know that about you). Again, I apoplogize.
But other than that, what did you think of my talking points? 
It doesn’t, of course. But people often want to ban things that they dislike, even if they have little or no direct effect on they themselves.
Personally, I disagree with the legal theories underlying the legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States. On the actual issue of whether marriage between two people of the same-sex is linguistically or morally proper, my personal opinion is “it is by now” and “sure, why not”, respectively. But I recognize that some people have strong feelings on those questions.
I consider myself conservative but I wouldn’t consider myself “obsessed” over the issue. I wouldn’t bring up the topic in conversation without a clear prompt (like a news story), although I might chime in on one already started.
~Max
This part is only part of Catholicism, as far as I know. They’re the only ones I know who are against birth control.
Honestly, the arguments about it harming marriage never made a whole lot of sense from a biblical perspective. Even if marriage is God’s gift, it doesn’t become less so because there are other people taking marriage for themselves who weren’t given it by God. By that logic, the computer my mom gave me for Christmas a while back would no longer be a gift from her because other people also buy computers.
The only Biblical logic that makes any sense to me is just that they think that SSM is the government explicitly condoning homosexual sex, and that such is sinful based on the “clobber passages.”
And those are the ones I undermine by showing they clearly don’t mean how they are interpreted. They’re about sex cults and pederasty, not modern homosexuality.
Are we still trying to keep topics within a narrow scope? I could give you some other rationales that I’ve heard.
~Max
It’s particularly strong among Catholics (hence that denomination’s opposition to artificial birth control), but the importance of children as a product of marriage is there among conservative Protestants, as well.
From the website for “Focus on the Family”, a fundamentalist Protestant Christian group:
Thing is it is nothing BUT a legal issue.
No religion is being forced to marry anyone. It is left up to them.
That leaves the legal side of things.
When you get married there is (often but not always) a religious component and there is a legal component. You can get married by your religion in secret and be married in the “eyes of God” but unless you get a marriage license and do the bit for the government you are not legally married. The two are separate.
There is no reason for the government to care what two people get married (do they even do a blood test anymore?..I do not recall having to do that when I got married). The government interest is in stable homes and people hooking up to make families. Gay people can (and do) do that. The government does not require it though. Straight people getting married doesn’t mean they have to have kids. Many choose not to.
Marriage automagically confers a whole slew of rights to the couple. Financial benefits, death benefits, ability to make health decisions if your partner cannot (e.g. coma) and so on. The list is long.
The government granting those benefits to one group and not another is entirely arbitrary in this case and that runs afoul of equal protection of the laws.
The legal side is the easy part here.
Specifically, I don’t agree with the theory of reverse incorporation and I don’t think a state’s denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples necessarily violates the equal protection clause if the legal benefits are made available in some other fashion, eg: a civil union. I made a thread about the underlying issue of due process a couple days ago but nobody took me up.
~Max
So, we are back to the “separate but equal” thing, are we?
Didn’t work last time, shouldn’t now.
Marriage is fundamentally a legal construct, it is a contract. That is why it takes legal proceedings to initiate and to dissolve it. If one wants to celebrate or bless that contract within religion, fine. Just don’t hijack marriage into only a religious definition.
If you dislike “reverse incorporation” then you are also tossing out rulings that said things like “separate but equal” are bogus.
If you leave marriages up to the states you get some really bad results. Imagine travelling the US with your spouse (if you are not married let’s pretend you are for the sake of argument).
In your US there could be states where you were married and states where you were not married as you crossed the country. Think about that for a minute then tell me how you think that makes any kind of rational sense and is workable. Get in a car accident in the wrong state and all of a sudden you have no say in your spouse’s health care if they cannot choose for themself?
Let’s do a reductio ad absurdum:
You are married, you decide you are not happy so you drive to the next town where you are not married. Screw divorce and having to pay alimony or child support or have to split your assets. Just move two miles and you are not married. POOF Done.
The way I see it, legally, it should be up to the states to define the term “marriage” as they see fit. I don’t think it’s necessarily a seperate-but-equal style issue, although it could be one. BippityBoppityBoo, Whack-a-Mole, I’m happy to debate the details in a separate thread, but I don’t want to throw this one off-track.
~Max
Pro- LGBQ rights Republican here. And Pro-choice
The Religious Right is one facet of the “Conservative” side of the political spectrum. Not all Republicans are Bible Thumpers…
If Liberals understood how the economy works I’d vote for them more often.
No I didn’t vote for Trump.
Gay marriage became legal in Canada in 2005. The Conservative leader, Stephen Harper, tried to overturn the minority government in a strenuous effort to stop the bill. The vote was decided by one member of Parliament, a Conservative. This Conservative was a law-and-order Conservative. I was surprised at Harper, as he wasn’t a religious conservative, or even particularly emotional.
Harper later became the prime minister and had a majority government. He made no attempt whatsoever to overturn gay marriage, and made no attempt to ban abortion, either.
IMO many conservative politicians shout about same sex marriage as a political tactic. Same with abortion. If Harper banned abortion, some of those single-issue voters might have reasons to vote for another party afterward. (Of course, banning same sex marriages after the fact would be nearly impossible.)
I didn’t follow the link, but you made me laugh out loud at the screen.
Check your recent history.
The economy has done better under democratic presidents since Reagan left office. And while Reagan made the economy “better” he did so by introducing massive deficit spending.
Clinton balanced the budget. Obama reduced our deficit. That’s better than any republican you can name in the past 40 years (maybe more, I am too lazy to lookup further back).
Just saying…maybe you should reassess who is worth voting for.
Free Market Capitalism Balanced the Budget and reduced the deficit.
I’d also add, since this a gay marriage thread not an economic one, Liberals have hardly been Pro gay marriage for all of history. Don’t ask Don’t tell is hardly I firmly believe homosexuality is perfectly acceptable normal behavior.
Although Hilary eventual came around, prior to that she was non committal, its a state issue. Purely for political purposes. In 1990, America wasn’t for gay marriage, so liberal politicians weren’t either, once the winds changed so did liberal politicians.
Because you (and a LOT of other folks) have been conditioned to conflate the terms “conservative” and “reactionary.”
Personally, I reject that conflation.
I’m also not a fan of the “word” amongst, although I will concede that it has its proper niche.