The costs of gay marriage
- Thread starter The Thriller
- Start date
yeah, what about defining conception to make fathers optional?
one of the contradictions that I just can't reconcile is that there is not the same outcry about the "welfare of the children" surrounding issues of in-vitro fertilization, sperm donation etc etc etc. - it's fine to play god and create life in some situations but not in others. The type of attitude expressed in that quote diminishes all children in any single parent household or household without a biological father present in the home.
I think there are plenty of years of evidence that the dangers are just in the imaginations of those who wish to demonize the concept of same-sex relationships.
And does "shacking-up" even count?
one of the contradictions that I just can't reconcile is that there is not the same outcry about the "welfare of the children" surrounding issues of in-vitro fertilization, sperm donation etc etc etc. - it's fine to play god and create life in some situations but not in others. The type of attitude expressed in that quote diminishes all children in any single parent household or household without a biological father present in the home.
I think there are plenty of years of evidence that the dangers are just in the imaginations of those who wish to demonize the concept of same-sex relationships.
And does "shacking-up" even count?
countonbuckets
Member
My Opinion On The Matter Isn't The Most Popular In The Community I Live In But On Here I'm Safe From Being Judged Or Blackballed From The Community For It. Anyone Who Opposes Same Sex Marriage Is Incredibly Misguided And Off Base. Religion Is An Important Fabric Of Our Great Nation But Our Nation Was Founded On Religious Freedom And The Freedom To Practice It In Private. So The Christians And Moslem's Who Are So Against Gay Marriage Really Need To Put A Sock In It Because We Don't Want Our Laws Being Made By The Church.
Lest We Forget They Don't Pay Taxes As Organizations Either And For Them To Interject On Public Policy Seems Hypocritical To Me. Of Course I Can't Say These Things In Public Because My Girlfriend Is An Active Member Of Her Church And Very Much Opposed To The Gay Lifestyle.
Lest We Forget They Don't Pay Taxes As Organizations Either And For Them To Interject On Public Policy Seems Hypocritical To Me. Of Course I Can't Say These Things In Public Because My Girlfriend Is An Active Member Of Her Church And Very Much Opposed To The Gay Lifestyle.
I think gay marriage does raise certain concerns and problems. The importance and incentive for fathers is not one of them. I am not a husband and father because gay marriage is not allowed. Stupid arguement. The conception out of wedlock is a problem with or without gay marraige.
The problems I see are how does an institution have to recognize them. I see lawsuits against any privat entity that does not play ball with a gay marriage once legal. That I have a problem with.
For example, some private health foundation places families of critically injured people into temp homes while their loved ones are being treated. A gay man is injured and his husband applies with that foundation and they deny him becuase they do not agree with gay marriage. The man sues them and wins and the foundation is forced to do business with him. That is something I do not agree with. They are a private organizationa nd should be able to deny anyone they want.
Keep in mind I am for gay marriage.
The problems I see are how does an institution have to recognize them. I see lawsuits against any privat entity that does not play ball with a gay marriage once legal. That I have a problem with.
For example, some private health foundation places families of critically injured people into temp homes while their loved ones are being treated. A gay man is injured and his husband applies with that foundation and they deny him becuase they do not agree with gay marriage. The man sues them and wins and the foundation is forced to do business with him. That is something I do not agree with. They are a private organizationa nd should be able to deny anyone they want.
Keep in mind I am for gay marriage.
I disagree to a point. It is an issue that does affect families and children, but there are so many issues that it is just one of many. There are so many scenarios that negatively affect families and children that we can't just focus on one issue and blame that like it's the only one. Declining moral values and selfishness have hurt families more than any specific topic like this. A good father in the home is just as important as a good mother in the home. A father or mother that is abusive in a home or family does more harm than a parent that is gone, but a parent that is gone does more harm than a parent that is there and trying to help/teach/support their children. There is a whole ecology of issues at play here and to focus on one issue and try to single it out is unfair and almost impossible to do when all of the issues are tied together in a huge web. I really don't think issues and results are just in the imaginations of people wanting to demonize the concept of same-sex relationships, sure there are some people that it could be and they grab at any straw that will support their argument, but there are also plenty who disagree with the concept of same-sex relationships that can see it is a piece of the puzzle and don't like how the picture on the puzzle is turning out.
/2cents
I think you make a great point overall. On the bolded portion, however, I disagree.
I don't think our moral values have declined at all. I think they have shifted, they are shifting, like they always have. Our priorities are changing. Our perspective is changing. With that our moral outlook always changes too. Gay marriage, for instance, is a moral issue for me. Discriminating against homosexuals and denying them the same civil liberties is immoral. So to advocate for gay marriage is an appeal to be more moral as a society, not less.
Selfishness is a tricky term. For one, a simple fact is that humans are built to protect themselves. Sometimes that self preservation is referred to as selfishness and villainized. The thing that always concerns me when the words selfishness and greed start getting thrown around is that I often see those terms used by someone attempting to gain and needing other people to be convinced that they must seek not to gain but to willing give up that which they have already gained or are in the process of gaining. Now, I'm not accusing you of that in this case at all. I'm just saying that selfishness is a word I'm very sensitive to because I think it is often applied in situations where the "selfishness" is poorly defined and often when one person or group is being accused of selfishness it's because they will not give in to the selfish demands of someone else or some other group.
Not trying to attack you or take you to task. I think you made an excellent point. I don't think the two words I zoomed in on are critical to the point you made and again I'm just extra sensitive to the way those words are used. Probably because I'm not religious and I'm a Libertarian.
in the first place, I wouldn't call it a "pell-mell rush" at all, it's been going on for decades - - and it seems disingenuous to say we don't know what the consequences of "that change" would be when it's an issue that has certainly been studied plenty - - and there is as much evidence of healthy, productive families raising children in same-sex households as there is any evidence to the contrary.
Whether or not there has been a disintegration of the "family" in our society, it is more reflective of changes taking place in the economy, employment and general community structures rather than any increasing acceptance of an alternative family structure
Hartsock
Banned
The only problem I can see arising if same sex marriage is allowed would be the government forcing religions to accept or even participate in them. That would not be cool.
I am for gay marriage, my neighbors are lesbians raising 4 kids, they are great well adjusted, smart kids. I can't wrap my mind around the idea that there are people out there that think its ok to deny them the rights of hetero couples. It seriously makes my brain hurt.
I am for gay marriage, my neighbors are lesbians raising 4 kids, they are great well adjusted, smart kids. I can't wrap my mind around the idea that there are people out there that think its ok to deny them the rights of hetero couples. It seriously makes my brain hurt.
You also make good points. What I see as declining moral values from my perspective, you may see as lateral changes because we value things differently and probably have a different set of moral values that make up our definition of good morals. We can and will disagree on which perspective is better, or "right".
I see your point about selfishness, let me explain what I was thinking. Not only selfishness in general, but specifically selfishness as a parent (affects/effects?) children. If the needs and attention of a child are neglected so a parent can consistently do only what they want to do that are not needs. When what a parent wants is always more important than what is good for a child. The parent does need to take care of their own wants and needs and have balance, but I'm talking about those that consistently neglect the true needs of a child for their own want.
(about selfishness in general)
IMO this country/world has changed quite a bit towards being much more selfish, and I sincerely believe selfishness is at the heart of all/most of our worlds people related problems. I have not looked into all world problems/issues to see if selfishness is at the heart of it but I wonder if it is at the heart of all of them.
This is where I completely disagree. When I hear cries of selfishness ruining the world I hear this:
"Stop being so selfish and give me what I want"
7StraightIsGreat
Well-Known Member
Those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it.
When I look at the people who are against gay marrige and the arguments they present, it's not too much of a stretch to make a comparison to an earlier time in this country when the issue of slavery was paramount.
When President Lincoln sought an end to slavery, the nay-sayers brought arguments to the table such as, "are negros ready for freedom", "this will adversely affect the make-up of our country", "this is evidence of a declining moral value in our society", "blacks cannot be given equal rights when they are not equal to whites", and so on and so on......
On the flip side, those who agreed that slavery should end held on to the simple notion that human rights are for ALL humans regardless of race, color, religion, etc. (pretty crazy notion, right?)
If you're worried about the institution of marrige, continue to do your best to take care of your marrige and raise your family under the moral code that you find appropriate as opposed to seeking to deny other humans a basic right simply because you see them as morally unworthy.
When looking back over the course of time, any group of people who try to deny others their basic civil rights always end up on the wrong side of history. It's happened with religion, it's happened with slavery, it's happened with segregation, it's happened with the woman's suffarage movement, etc. It's a losing battle, but sadly it's still a battle that too many who deem themselves morally advanced seem intent on fighting generation after generation.
When I look at the people who are against gay marrige and the arguments they present, it's not too much of a stretch to make a comparison to an earlier time in this country when the issue of slavery was paramount.
When President Lincoln sought an end to slavery, the nay-sayers brought arguments to the table such as, "are negros ready for freedom", "this will adversely affect the make-up of our country", "this is evidence of a declining moral value in our society", "blacks cannot be given equal rights when they are not equal to whites", and so on and so on......
On the flip side, those who agreed that slavery should end held on to the simple notion that human rights are for ALL humans regardless of race, color, religion, etc. (pretty crazy notion, right?)
If you're worried about the institution of marrige, continue to do your best to take care of your marrige and raise your family under the moral code that you find appropriate as opposed to seeking to deny other humans a basic right simply because you see them as morally unworthy.
When looking back over the course of time, any group of people who try to deny others their basic civil rights always end up on the wrong side of history. It's happened with religion, it's happened with slavery, it's happened with segregation, it's happened with the woman's suffarage movement, etc. It's a losing battle, but sadly it's still a battle that too many who deem themselves morally advanced seem intent on fighting generation after generation.
You are hearing the wrong message. I'm not asking for something, just noting that if there was less selfishness there would be less problems. This is not really a quit being selfish so I can get what I want selfishness circle that does happen out there.
Don't get me wrong, there are also quite a few unselfish people out there, they just generally don't publish how awesome they are.
I'm not accusing you of anything. It's the word and the way it is commonly used I have a problem with.
Maybe it's my cynicism, but I think people who are convinced to stop acting in their own interests (stop being selfish) encourage others to take advantage of the situation. I think the world is best when everyone expects others to protect their own interests and we understand it is our individual duty to protect our own interests. Anytime someone is told to stop protecting their own interests it is a recipe for someone else to take advantage of them.
I don't see people protecting their own interests as ever being a problem...unless by people protecting their own interests they are preventing others from accomplishing their goals because those goals require people who can be fleeced.
I think that there is a common misconception that protecting one's self interests (selfishness) means there is no cooperation, no generosity, no compassion. I disagree. If a person thinks that lack of cooperation, generosity and compassion is in their best interests they are sadly mistaken. For each of us as individuals to reach our greatest success we need to work with other people. In those relationships we need to give and take.
I think there is such a thing as selfishness, but I think it is typically so self-destructive to the individual that it has no power to destroy society.
So would you fight for something you thought was valuable to you or watch it slip through your hands, even if you thought it was a losing battle?
So people that want to push for morality should stop because more people don't want that?
I don't care if I'm the last one saying we should have higher morals, and that we as individuals need to change for the better, I'll say it.
Basically you are saying it's okay to back and push the gay marriage issue, but it's not okay to fight it because you are on the other side of the argument? I should live my life the way I want in silence just like the gay pride supporters? I'm pretty sure both sides should be able to voice their opinion.
If you lived in a neighborhood full of BYU fans that had their flags out and constantly talked about BYU.... you would of course keep your mouth shut and start to support BYU because you are fighting a losing battle? Is this the code to live your life by, give in to the larger group and keep your mouth shut?
While I agree with much of what you said and think we are pretty close in how we think about things for the most part, I also think that selfishness is self-destructive as you said.
What is society, but a group of individuals. If each individual is harmed from selfishness, it does affect society greatly. Extreme selfishness from even one member of a family also does bleed into the other members of that family. Selfish families bleed into families around them that they interact with. Not one person is in a bubble, everybody has a circle of influence on somebody around them in one way or another to a small or great degree.
Separation between church and state isn't going anywhere. Don't worry.
Here is what torques my hide about the gay marriage debate.
The pro gay marriage side says it is immoral to oppose total equality.
The pro traditional marriage side says homosexual relationship are immoral.
Those that espouse the first side are lauded and public praised. I understand this wasn't always the case but history is history.
Those that publicly support the second and demonized and boycotted. See proposition 8 in California for many, many examples.
Okay I feel a little better getting that off my chest.
The pro gay marriage side says it is immoral to oppose total equality.
The pro traditional marriage side says homosexual relationship are immoral.
Those that espouse the first side are lauded and public praised. I understand this wasn't always the case but history is history.
Those that publicly support the second and demonized and boycotted. See proposition 8 in California for many, many examples.
Okay I feel a little better getting that off my chest.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Marriage (a religious sacrament) is already a union of the two when the state gives clergy authority to to make a contract, so it is a valid concern.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Marriage has been in existence long before religion tried to claim it as their own.
If religion wasn't so selfish about keeping the term that wasn't theirs to begin with, than maybe the morals of this country wouldn't be degrading as many are claiming.
Or maybe they SHOULD be selfish about it and sell it, since that's the tenet of capitalism, selfishness, while NOT being selfish is the red devil of socialism.
7StraightIsGreat
Well-Known Member
Spazz Wrote:
It really depends on what the battle is. You act as if you have something to lose in this battle. You don't. Everything that has to do with yourself, your marriage, and your family would still be in tact. Sure, maybe society wouldn't be confirming to what you believe to be appropriate moral standards, but you and your family would still dictate your lives.
Sure, your morality may be in line with your family members, fellow church go'ers, friends, etc. but that does not mean that you or anybody else are the complete and total authority on morals. Some people may have a different set of morals than you, but can still be every bit of a good person.
You have every right to voice your opinion on any issue. The slave owners were certainly heard when it came to abolishing slavery, the KKK was allowed to voice their opposition of desegregation, men who didn't want women to vote were allowed their voice as well. Just because you are voicing your opinion doesn't mean it's always going to be valid opinion void of intolerance.
Wow Spazz, that's a super valid analogy because being a Ute fan in a neighborhood full of BYU fans is a very accurate comparison to the plight of people over the course of history who have fought for human rights.
It really depends on what the battle is. You act as if you have something to lose in this battle. You don't. Everything that has to do with yourself, your marriage, and your family would still be in tact. Sure, maybe society wouldn't be confirming to what you believe to be appropriate moral standards, but you and your family would still dictate your lives.
Sure, your morality may be in line with your family members, fellow church go'ers, friends, etc. but that does not mean that you or anybody else are the complete and total authority on morals. Some people may have a different set of morals than you, but can still be every bit of a good person.
You have every right to voice your opinion on any issue. The slave owners were certainly heard when it came to abolishing slavery, the KKK was allowed to voice their opposition of desegregation, men who didn't want women to vote were allowed their voice as well. Just because you are voicing your opinion doesn't mean it's always going to be valid opinion void of intolerance.
Wow Spazz, that's a super valid analogy because being a Ute fan in a neighborhood full of BYU fans is a very accurate comparison to the plight of people over the course of history who have fought for human rights.