Marriage has been reformed for everyone EXCEPT gay people

[aidanjm]

Historically recent changes in marriage (past 200 years alone):

--property reform (allowing women to independently own property - 1800s)
--divorce reform (making divorce easier to obtain for women)
--abolition of polygamy
--fading of dowries
--the abolition of childhood betrothals (child's rights)
--the elimination of parents? right to choose mates for their children or to veto their children?s choices (children's rights)
--the legalization of interracial marriage
--the legalization of contraception
--the criminalization of marital rape (an offense that wasn?t even recognized until recently)
--the concept of civil marriage.

(list taken from article: http://www.reason.com/0406/fe.jr.objections.shtml )


Surely it is unfair to say that marriage may be reformed for the sake of anyone and everyone except homosexuals -- who must respect the dictates of tradition. (quote from article)


Why IS tradition so important? And why is it acceptable to make all these modifications to marriage to benefit women, children, but never alter marriage to benefit gays?

 

[KMurphy]

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: KMurphy

I'm new(ish) here. Is a cookie good or bad?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: KMurphy

I'm new(ish) here. Is a cookie good or bad?

Bad. He had no answer and didn't approve of your question, so he threw out a cookie.

 

[da loser]

see if gay rights activists were just patient, they would see it will be reformed in time.

first you go for civil unions, equal rights. then after people seem ok with that, you go for marriage.

by going for marriage, you're doing an all for nothing vs people that resist change.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: da loser
see if gay rights activists were just patient, they would see it will be reformed in time.

first you go for civil unions, equal rights. then after people seem ok with that, you go for marriage.

by going for marriage, you're doing an all for nothing vs people that resist change.

these people who resist change, what good are they?

 

[Kilgor]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: da loser
see if gay rights activists were just patient, they would see it will be reformed in time.

first you go for civil unions, equal rights. then after people seem ok with that, you go for marriage.

by going for marriage, you're doing an all for nothing vs people that resist change.

these people who resist change, what good are they?

What good are you?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Kilgor
What good are you?

You think that *social conservatism* is about more than just fear, hatred, prejudice, etc??

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: da loser
see if gay rights activists were just patient, they would see it will be reformed in time.

first you go for civil unions, equal rights. then after people seem ok with that, you go for marriage.

by going for marriage, you're doing an all for nothing vs people that resist change.

these people who resist change, what good are they?

How is minimizing those people going to change votes? I'm all for gay marriage or civil unions, but we have to sneak it in. Otherwise they will unite against us and forever remember. So, what good are they? They have votes!

 

[Kilgor]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Kilgor
What good are you?

You think that *social conservatism* is about more than just fear, hatred, prejudice, etc??

I'm not really a Social Conservative I just dont see the need for Homosexuals to be Married. To me the reason Men and Women get married is to have kids and raise familys. Which Homosexuals naturally can't do I'd rather see them have some sort of social contract.

 

[dmcowen674]

Topic Summary: Religious Radical Right starts it's march across U.S.

That will be permanent.

Topic Title: Texas changes School Books wording defining Marriage for Man & Woman Only 11-6-2004

 

[Kilgor]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Topic Summary: Religious Radical Right starts it's march across U.S.

That will be permanent.

Topic Title: Texas changes School Books wording defining Marriage for Man & Woman Only 11-6-2004

Why do you have to bring religion into it I'm agnostic and I don't think they should be married.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Historically recent changes in marriage (past 200 years alone):

--abolition of polygamy

Why IS tradition so important? And why is it acceptable to make all these modifications to marriage to benefit women, children, but never alter marriage to benefit gays?

Why is it fair to abolish polygamy if it is done between consenting adults?

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: Kilgor

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Kilgor
What good are you?

You think that *social conservatism* is about more than just fear, hatred, prejudice, etc??

I'm not really a Social Conservative I just dont see the need for Homosexuals to be Married. To me the reason Men and Women get married is to have kids and raise familys. Which Homosexuals naturally can't do I'd rather see them have some sort of social contract.

Because it's the next step to legitimization of their lifestyle, and removes the negative stigma. That way, future generations won't have a moral struggle with homosexuality, and one day, maybe as much as 50% of the population will decide to be gay. Oh, that will be a great day! By that time, whites will be a minority in the US, and the liberals can run this country the way they want. Too bad I'll be dead!

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Historically recent changes in marriage (past 200 years alone):

--abolition of polygamy

Why IS tradition so important? And why is it acceptable to make all these modifications to marriage to benefit women, children, but never alter marriage to benefit gays?

Why is it fair to abolish polygamy if it is done between consenting adults?

OK, I'll bite, why?

 

[justly]

Marriage is just a word, it would have no effect on how I feel about my wife if the words "civil union" where used to describe our relationship instead of marriage. So I ask you if tradition isn't important and everything else was the same between a "civil union" and "marriage" then why is the use of a traditional word like marriage so important to gays?

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Historically recent changes in marriage (past 200 years alone):

--abolition of polygamy

Why IS tradition so important? And why is it acceptable to make all these modifications to marriage to benefit women, children, but never alter marriage to benefit gays?

Why is it fair to abolish polygamy if it is done between consenting adults?

OK, I'll bite, why?

I don't know...that's why I'd argue it's unfair...

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: da loser
see if gay rights activists were just patient, they would see it will be reformed in time.

first you go for civil unions, equal rights. then after people seem ok with that, you go for marriage.

by going for marriage, you're doing an all for nothing vs people that resist change.

About 2/3 of the US support civil-unions for same-sex couples.
About 1/3 of US citizens support same-sex marriage.

About 1/3 of US citizens oppose any rights at all to gay couples. Some very powerful organisations, such as the Catholic Church, also oppose any rights -- at all -- for same-sex couples. What do you say to this group of people?

 

[AFB]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: da loser
see if gay rights activists were just patient, they would see it will be reformed in time.

first you go for civil unions, equal rights. then after people seem ok with that, you go for marriage.

by going for marriage, you're doing an all for nothing vs people that resist change.

About 2/3 of the US support civil-unions for same-sex couples.
About 1/3 of US citizens support same-sex marriage.

About 1/3 of US citizens oppose any rights at all to gay couples. Some very powerful organisations, such as the Catholic Church, also oppose any rights -- at all -- for same-sex couples. What do you say to this group of people?

<- you say that

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Kilgor

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Kilgor
What good are you?

You think that *social conservatism* is about more than just fear, hatred, prejudice, etc??

I'm not really a Social Conservative I just dont see the need for Homosexuals to be Married. To me the reason Men and Women get married is to have kids and raise familys. Which Homosexuals naturally can't do I'd rather see them have some sort of social contract.

Is that your 'real' reason for opposition? I mean, 1 out of three lesbian couples, and 1 out of 5 gay couples, are raising children. (Source: From an analysis of the 2000 Census by the Urban Institute and HRC Foundation available online at http://www.hrc.org.) So gay people are actually perents too. (And from a genetic perspective, they are no different than a heterosexual couple where one partner is infertile, and has to use donor sperm or eggs, or a surrogate mother, etc.) Do those children (of gay parents) not deserve the protections that would come if their parents were married? (Things like access to health insurance, access to certain social security benefits if one of the parents dies, etc.) I thought the "children were our future"...? (Yes, I am playing the child card here -- but what I'm saying is true, these children of gay couples are 'suffering' because of society's judgemental attitudes). Also, not all heterosexual couples have children. Is the primary purpose of marriage -- today, 2004 -- procreation? I think most people today understand the definitive aspect of marriage to be the affiliative (love) bond between the couple.

I get the sense that many people (perhaps this is the case with you) have this incredibly strong feeling that marriage should be preserved as it currently is (i.e., it shouldn't be tampered with to encompass gay people) but that you don't have any particularly rational reasons for this position; it's more just a really strong 'instinct'... and maybe a vague fear that there would be terrible consequences if things WERE changed... would you say that is accurate? (I'm not necessarily criticising this; I'm just trying to understand why someone who isn't religious would still have a very strong desire to keep the marriage institution unchanged.)

I also wonder how you balance out the moral considerations (say, the considerations of "equality" and "fairness" -- which would argue for gay marriage) against the considerations of the importance of tradition (which would argue for marriage to be unchanged).

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: justly
Marriage is just a word, it would have no effect on how I feel about my wife if the words "civil union" where used to describe our relationship instead of marriage. So I ask you if tradition isn't important and everything else was the same between a "civil union" and "marriage" then why is the use of a traditional word like marriage so important to gays?

there's a certain faction in the gay community that aspires to normalacy. to be treated by society and by the law the same way that straight people are. for them, the civil union thing seems like yet another way of further isolating them from normalacy.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: da loser
see if gay rights activists were just patient, they would see it will be reformed in time.

first you go for civil unions, equal rights. then after people seem ok with that, you go for marriage.

by going for marriage, you're doing an all for nothing vs people that resist change.

these people who resist change, what good are they?

How is minimizing those people going to change votes? I'm all for gay marriage or civil unions, but we have to sneak it in. Otherwise they will unite against us and forever remember. So, what good are they? They have votes!

I was hoping to provoke someone into a passionate defence of conservatism and the value of holding onto tradtional cultural practices... but the conservatives on this board seem a bit half-hearted... all I got was a cookie.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Historically recent changes in marriage (past 200 years alone):

--abolition of polygamy

Why IS tradition so important? And why is it acceptable to make all these modifications to marriage to benefit women, children, but never alter marriage to benefit gays?

Why is it fair to abolish polygamy if it is done between consenting adults?

Maybe it was justified because women were disadvantaged under polygamous relationships at the time. I don't know if this would still be true.

There are about 40,000 renegade Mormons in polygamous relationships in Utah. There are numerous stories of child brides, sexual abuse of teenage girls, disempowered women, a cult-like atmosphere, etc. But that is possibly the effect of fundamentalist xian Mormon dogma. Maybe polygamy could be viable today. At any rate, the arguments pro/ against legalisation of polygamy are, in my opinion, different to the arguments pro/ against legalising marriage for same-sex couples. The only thing polygamy and same-sex marriage have in common is that they are both considered somewhat of a social taboo. However gay marriage and polygamy almost certainly have quite different effects on the participants, and society at large.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Kilgor

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Topic Summary: Religious Radical Right starts it's march across U.S.

That will be permanent.

Topic Title: Texas changes School Books wording defining Marriage for Man &amp; Woman Only 11-6-2004

Why do you have to bring religion into it I'm agnostic and I don't think they should be married.

OK, take religion out, Your'e proudly open in discrimination, hatred and bigotry, good for you.

At least you're not hiding behind the Religious curtain.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Rob9874
Because it's the next step to legitimization of their lifestyle, and removes the negative stigma. That way, future generations won't have a moral struggle with homosexuality, and one day, maybe as much as 50% of the population will decide to be gay. Oh, that will be a great day! By that time, whites will be a minority in the US, and the liberals can run this country the way they want. Too bad I'll be dead!

Do you have fears that if homosexuality becomes more accepted, more people will "try it out" and find they like it, and soon the entire community will be turning gay and the birth rate will plummet? I.e., do you think that homosexuality is sort of culturally contagious, and therefore the culture needs strong prohibitions on homosexuality, in order to send a clear message to the vulnerable and easily influenced that queer or gay is NOT the way to go in life...? I've heard more than a few social conservatives put forward this idea. Just wondering how widespread it is -- not criticising, just curious as to what people believe.