Gay Marriage- a general discussion.

[Nation]

I don't know, I think the erosion of marriage began before same-sex weddings were even an issue -- and a continual erosion of marriage will certainly not be sue to same-sex weddings being an issue.

Everyone would shut up if we just took away all governmental benefits from marriage period, then the gays wouldn't be able to complain, and marriage, a traditon that IS held sacred by the churches (and always will be), would not be seen as something as trivial as receiving social security benefits for whoever is involved.

[Nation]

I don't know, I think the erosion of marriage began before same-sex weddings were even an issue -- and a continual erosion of marriage will certainly not be sue to same-sex weddings being an issue.

Everyone would shut up if we just took away all governmental benefits from marriage period, then the gays wouldn't be able to complain, and marriage, a traditon that IS held sacred by the churches (and always will be), would not be seen as something as trivial as receiving social security benefits for whoever is involved.

Nicely put. I think no-fault divorce laws had something to do with the erosion of marriage as well...

Oh yeah.

[Nation]

Nation is wrong about this issue, and here's why.

The increase in divorce rates didn't appear out of nowhere- it was the result of social and legal changes.  Things like unilateral divorce laws, no fault divorce laws, and a feminist ethic that derided marriage as a prison for women were the main causes.  It was not inevitable, and future erosions are not inevitable, either.

If the government got out of marraige entirely, things would no doubt get worse and fast.  For example, it is only by state law that polygamy is outlawed.  Not to pick on Mormons, but I'm quite sure that polygamy, a fairly oppressive social institution, would be brought back if we just left it all to these churches.  Gay marriage supporters would no doubt be thrilled at the clock being turned forward on that one issue, but they do not take into account all the ways that this proposal would turn the clock back.

I'm listening John D, but what else have you got for me besides polygamy? And it seems to be that gay marriage supporters would drop the argument if government wasn't involved.

[Nation]

Nation is wrong about this issue, and here's why.

The increase in divorce rates didn't appear out of nowhere- it was the result of social and legal changes.  Things like unilateral divorce laws, no fault divorce laws, and a feminist ethic that derided marriage as a prison for women were the main causes.  It was not inevitable, and future erosions are not inevitable, either.

If the government got out of marraige entirely, things would no doubt get worse and fast.  For example, it is only by state law that polygamy is outlawed.  Not to pick on Mormons, but I'm quite sure that polygamy, a fairly oppressive social institution, would be brought back if we just left it all to these churches.  Gay marriage supporters would no doubt be thrilled at the clock being turned forward on that one issue, but they do not take into account all the ways that this proposal would turn the clock back.

I'm listening John D, but what else have you got for me besides polygamy? And it seems to be that gay marriage supporters would drop the argument if government wasn't involved.

There could be near total anarchy in the marriage arena.  Anyone could become "married" to almost anyone (or even anything) since the government couldn't tell them, "No stupid, you don't get to marry your cat!"  More common will be incestuous and polyamorous marriages, but interspecies marriage could actually happen.

I see your point, but I like to give the churches more credit than that. Do you actually believe a real church would marry a man and an animal?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good point, but I believe a definition could be made. Maybe it's just wishful thinking, though.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Very good points made there. Alright, I'll re-think my argument, heh.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good argument. I would still hold true to my other argument that it was not, and will not be same-sex marriage that causes further deterioration of regular marriage. Would you agree to that?

[Nation]

I would still hold true to my other argument that it was not, and will not be same-sex marriage that causes further deterioration of regular marriage. Would you agree to that?

I don't really agree, I think changes in the legal definition of marriage will inevitably change people's behavior within and towards the institution of marriage.

I'll write out my whole argument tomorrow cause' right now I'm waay too tired. It is 2 AM here, heh. But be prepared!

[Nation]

John D, I don't think people will actually make this logical connection in their head that since now gays can marry, then they can start having children all the time outside of marriage, since it'll be the norm.

People are already doing that, and have been doing it. Why would legalizing gay marriage (or at least civil unions) make this any worse?

[Nation]

Coming from the Old Testament, that crudeness is expected. Christians are supposed to be better than that :-)

I firmly believe God has a healthy sense of humor...just look at some of the posters on this forum!  

Ouch, that's a zinger