What might be said of Bush's spirituality

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You must have reasons for believing that gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage.

The idea of gay "marriage" is, by definition, a threat to the idea of marriage as a union of a man and a woman ordered to the procreation and raising of children (i.e. "traditional" marriage).

Not sure if that's what you're looking for.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The idea of gay "marriage" is, by definition, a threat to the idea of marriage as a union of a man and a woman ordered to the procreation and raising of children (i.e. "traditional" marriage).

Not sure if that's what you're looking for.

Surely the question was concerned with the actual effects allowing gay marriage would have on straight marriages, and not with the trivial claim that redefining 'marriage' changes the previous definition of 'marriage'.

Originally posted by bbarr
Surely the question was concerned with the actual effects allowing gay marriage would have on straight marriages, and not with the trivial claim that redefining 'marriage' changes the previous definition of 'marriage'.

That is what I was getting at. The nature of the threat.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The idea of gay "marriage" is, by definition, a threat to the idea of marriage as a union of a man and a woman ordered to the procreation and raising of children (i.e. "traditional" marriage).

Dictionaries already distinguish between traditional marriage and same-sex marriage, so rest easy, there's no threat.

Originally posted by bbarr
Surely the question was concerned with the actual effects allowing gay marriage would have on straight marriages, and not with the trivial claim that redefining 'marriage' changes the previous definition of 'marriage'.

Not as trivial as you suggest. By shifting the meaning of marriage away from an institution with a dual purpose (union of two people, rearing of children) to an arrangement with a single purpose (union - or maybe just legal privileges), you change the terms of reference for all marriages - same-sex and different-sex (I prefer those terms to 'gay' and 'straight' in this context - the argument is based on sex, not sexuality). A society that makes this change makes it easier for married couples who have "fallen out of love" to break up - regardless of the impact it will have on children (a traditional consideration in divorce).

Therefore, allowing same-sex "marriage" indirectly contributes to the breakdown of "traditional" marriages.

There is also a more general devaluing of marriage as an institution if any two people who want to (e.g. college room-mates) can claim the privileges of marriage - a rational consequence of legally permitting same-sex "marriage".

As I said before, I don't think same-sex "marriage" is necessarily the biggest threat to "traditional" marriage - but it is a threat.

I'm still lost as to why it is a threat, but I'm going to move on and be proactive in naming what I consider to be some threats and some solutions.

Ultimately people who get married are responsibile for their marriage. Clergy have been way too lacks on who they allow to marry. Rarely are couples required to get pre-marital counseling. Even more rarely are clergy properly trained to identify problems and be properly trained to do counseling. I came across a woman this week that was married at the age of 12! First baby before she was 14! All under the "blessing" of preacher. Don't laugh as it happens more than you think.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Then I would oppose it - most particularly on any legal privileges associated directly or indirectly with the rearing and providing for of children.

Is this because you feel a homosexual couple could not raise a child as well as a heterosexual couple?

TheSkipper

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Is this because you feel a homosexual couple could not raise a child as well as a heterosexual couple?

TheSkipper

A same-sex couple (regardless of whether it's homosexual, heterosexual or mixed) cannot, by definition, provide the child with a parent of either sex. This leaves the child disadvantaged right at the outset, either in terms of a parental role model of the same sex or in terms of a role model for interacting with the opposite sex.

In practice, children are quite resilient and resourceful and couples vary quite a bit - so it would be possible to pick a particular child, raised by a same-sex couple, who seems to be doing as well as children raised by different-sex couples. On average, however, I would expect a clear difference to show.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
A same-sex couple (regardless of whether it's homosexual, heterosexual or mixed) cannot, by definition, provide the child with a parent of either sex. This leaves the child disadvantaged right at the outset, either in terms of a parental role model of the same sex or in terms of a role model for interacting with the opposite sex.

In practice, child ...[text shortened]... aised by different-sex couples. On average, however, I would expect a clear difference to show.

Hmm...sure would be nice if you had some statistics or some other form of evidence for this.

Ahh...what the hell, your premise sounds reasonable let's just run with it, actually finding out the facts would take too long.

TheSkipper

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Not as trivial as you suggest. By shifting the meaning of marriage away from an institution with a dual purpose (union of two people, rearing of children) to an arrangement with a single purpose (union - or maybe just legal privileges), you change the terms of reference for all marriages - same-sex and different-sex (I prefer those terms to 'ga ...[text shortened]... arily the biggest threat to "traditional" marriage - but it is a threat.

You were talking about ideas, not institutions. So, your claim was trivial. Now you are talking about something different: the effects on the institution of marriage if homosexuals are allowed to marry. While I'm not quite clear on just what an institution is (e.g., a set of practices, a set of norms, a set of attitudes, some combination), the only way your argument gets of the ground is if you can provide evidence that some actual harm to actual persons will result from allowing homsexuals to marry.

Your argument seems to be as follows:

1) The purpose of marriage is unification and procreation.
2) If homosexuals are allowed to marry, then the purpose of marriage will change to merely unification.
3) If the purpose of marriage is merely unification, then heterosexual couples will be more easily able to divorce.
4) If couples can more easily divorce, then children will be harmed.

Now, I have no idea why we should accept premise (1). While you may think that marriage has some divine telos, your justification for this claim is only as strong as your justification for the metaphysical implications of this claim. Of course, there is simply no reason for secular folk to grant that some gaseous vertebrate in the sky imbued marriage with some dual purpose. But, you could claim that the purpose of marriage is set by the state, or by the beliefs of the majority. But why should we believe this? The reason a state sanctions certain relationships may be to encourage procreation, and some people may get married because they want to have children, but this is perfectly consistent with the marriages of other people having different purposes. Your marriage may have a dual purpose while mine only has one. The fact that my marriage has one purpose doesn't magically remove one of the purposes of your marriage, nor does the fact that your marriage has two purposes magically imbue mine with an extra purpose.

Further, for precisely this reason, there is no reason to accept premise (2). If homosexuals are allowed to marry, it is perfectly consistent with their marriages having one purpose that heterosexual marriages have an additional purpose. Further, it is simply wrong to claim that homosexual marriages can only have one purpose. Homosexual couples may have children, either through adoption or through technologically aided means.

Further, there is no reason to accept premise (3). It is perfectly consistent with allowing homosexuals to marry that all marriages are also rendered more difficult to dissolve. There are any number of legislative means whereby this could be accomplished. Also, pace the comments above, there is no reason to think that if homosexuals are allowed to marry (and if their marriages are somehow by their very nature of a single purpose) that this will "bleed over" into heterosexual marriages. You certainly have provided no evidence for this claim, and the evidence does not in any way suggest that in those locations where heterosexuals can marry there has been an increase in heterosexual divorce attributable to homosexual marriage.

Your "devaluing" claim is bull. As it stands I could legally get married to my former roommate. So what? The same reasons that people don't in general go around marrying roommates and friends apply just as well to homosexual marriage. By your logic, we should prohibit heterosexual marriage because Tom and Jane could get married for a tax break.

Homosexual marriage poses absolutely no threat to heterosexual marriage. This is simply magical thinking on the part of those with an inadequate appreciation of the nature and power of the bond that homosexual couples can form with each other.

Originally posted by kirksey957
I'm still lost as to why it is a threat, but I'm going to move on and be proactive in naming what I consider to be some threats and some solutions.

Ultimately people who get married are responsibile for their marriage. Clergy have been way too lacks on who they allow to marry. Rarely are couples required to get pre-marital counseling. Even more rar ...[text shortened]... 14! All under the "blessing" of preacher. Don't laugh as it happens more than you think.

In retrospect, I believe this woman would have faired no worse (but probably better) had she been put up for adoption at birth and raised by a gay couple who were married by a lesbian minister. Is there anyone who would dispute this?

Just another stone in the bush (bad pun intended):

Pedophiles in Holland have recently formed a political party, where if elected to power, they will to do away with the age of consent for minors.* This seems quite consistent with the liberal "desacredising" of sex to the level of intramural entertainment (with some added reproductive benefits and uses). Consensual sex between two adults has about as much moral implications as a consenting handshake.

Why should this be restricted to adults only? Why (from a liberal perspective) should pederasty with consenting adolescents remain illegal?

* http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/dutch-pedophiles-launch-political-party/2006/05/31/1148956379255.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053101884.html

Originally posted by Halitose
Just another stone in the bush (bad pun intended):

Pedophiles in Holland have recently formed a political party, where if elected to power, they will to do away with the age of consent for minors.* This seems quite consistent with the liberal "desacredising" of sex to the level of intramural entertainment (with some added reproductive benefits and uses). ...[text shortened]... 255.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053101884.html

Time to crawl up the slippery slope for a change.

Let's do away with childless marriages. Newlyweds, ya get two years to prove your fertility. If not, mandatory divorce. God isn't interested in hearing your excuses; he told you to be fruitful and multiply, dammit!

And let's stop old people getting married. Disgusting! Who wants to see old fogeys making out, anyway?? If all your kids are out of the house, you don't need to be married anymore. Your kid-rearin' days are over. You don't need the tax breaks anymore; you don't have any more kids to feed. Ya don't get to stop contributing to society just because you kicked your kids out of the house.

With these two important changes, I'm confident that we can keep marriage to its proper use and purpose.

Originally posted by Halitose
Just another stone in the bush (bad pun intended):

Pedophiles in Holland have recently formed a political party, where if elected to power, they will to do away with the age of consent for minors.* This seems quite consistent with the liberal "desacredising" of sex to the level of intramural entertainment (with some added reproductive benefits and uses). ...[text shortened]... 255.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053101884.html

The state has a compelling interest in the health and safety of children, and there are good reasons to think that many children aren't informed enough or emotionally mature enough to actually consent. There are also good reasons to be concerned that adults have resources they can bring to bear in a coercive way on children. Uninformed agreement does not constitute consent. Agreement on the part of one without a sound mind does not constitute consent. Coerced agreement does not constitute consent. So, there are good reasons to think that sexual relationships between adults and children will often not be consensual. This, I take it, is the liberalistic line.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
A same-sex couple (regardless of whether it's homosexual, heterosexual or mixed) cannot, by definition, provide the child with a parent of either sex. This leaves the child disadvantaged right at the outset, either in terms of a parental role model of the same sex or in terms of a role model for interacting with the opposite sex.

In practice, child ...[text shortened]... aised by different-sex couples. On average, however, I would expect a clear difference to show.

Hurry up and starve yourself to death, you bigotted moron.