I know this topic can be a lightning rod, but i believe that a civilized people or even a civilized society must be able to have a public discourse on vital issues without vitriol or caricature. I may not always agree with someone or even the entirety of an idea or a sentence for that matter, but i respect the idea/individual: needless to say, the idea may have been the most ridiculous of them all- you get the point!
It will have massive affects to the very fabric of society as it already has. To furter stray from those ideals that founded this country is to also reap the consequences of said actions. I have no problem with equal rights and non-discrimination of those in same-sex relationships. However, marriage is ordained of the Most High and is reserved to be instituted between man and woman. It is a very intricate and vital part of His plan. I have no problem with it being called a "civil union" or whatever, but it should never be called or held up to the level of a marriage. It is already legal in many places which is a shame. It demeans the family unit and thus the basic unit of a civilized society.
I agree that gay relationships cannot be elevated to the staus of marriage. I have great sympathy for those who find themselves caught in this lifestyle, and we should always display compassion for others. But compassion and love for others does not include blessing their choices.
Here is the problem with marriage as it relates to being "ordained of the Most High and is reserved to e instituted between a man and a woman":
Marriage is no longer a non-secular institution - it's a legal institution as well. Special tax and inheritance and other laws have made it a matter of law and government oversight. Thus, as a legal institution, shouldn't it avail itself to all citizens? Does the gay population pay the same taxes that heteros pay? Are they then not entitled to the same government classifications and legal resources that we all pay for?
Who am I, as a heterosexual (predisposed genetically to be so according to scientists), to deny access to another tax paying citizen to the same laws and classifications that are government funded and regulated by our collective tax dollars?
That would be hypocrisy and as it is an inescapable fact, opposing the universal access to the laws and legal institutions to one group and not another is a transparent hypocrisy.
If marriage were not a legal institution and remained purely non-secular, then this hypocrisy does not exist. BUT, it does and those who want to limit equal access to the law and the legal institutions of some citizens and not others are the modern version of those who opposed the emancipation of slaves in 1863.
The fact is inescapable.
I cannot counter anything you have said - I agree! It is truly a pickle we, as a nation, have gotten ourselves into as far as equal taxes and rights. My only statement is that the unit of the family is central to all progress and is laid out by not only our founding fathers but more importantly, powers which exceed that of government.
there are of course consequences, like some may marry other people in other country and will curb immigration laws allowing then to go here, thus increasing immigration, they can bring their spouse here in the US.....or the changing concept of family, (gay couple plus their adopted children) their adopted children will have equal rights...
and also some economic consequences of shared assets...
it is a process, social process, have consequences both advantages and disadvantages...
It will have negative consequences.
It's just a matter of time.
The perception for which it is being sold to the pubic, is surely to have negative consequences which are presently unseen.
Consequences: Well God Hates Sin, and Sin separates one from Him, here on earth and into eterntity. So yes i guess one might argue, that its not wise ever, to be considered, or even for that matter implemented! Per Him !
The Bible supported slavery and keeping women subservient.
This issue is no different. Nothing will happen when this is legalized, people.
Blacks and women have contributed to society once they got their rights. Just 40 years ago, Blacks barely had rights in this country.
Let's think logically and start thinking about the bigger problems in the world.
The most common response is all about wrecking the moral fabric and destroying the family and blah blah but I think a more specific and immediate effect will be that heterosexual cohabitating couples will begin to protest over the benefits and legal part of it. I think that, taken to it's extreme, gay marriage will eventually force the government out of legitimizing the institution of marriage with tax breaks, perks, legal rights, etc.
I don't see that as bad. IMO marriage should be a religious commitment, not a state institution.
You're right. Seems everyone forgot that is supposed to be a separation of Church and State. But not in marriage? Weird.
Better hope a Mormon doesn't become President or Mormon's take control of Congress. What would happen? haha
I do think it is weird, and it has negative effects, right now. Everyone talks about marriage as if it is good for society. No one ever talks about the BAD effects of marriage on children and on the social order. More marriages end in divorce than not, and divorce is expensive and bad for children and families. Women still tend to do much worse after divorce financially even though they still tend to end up with the kids, which means that more and more single moms with kids are now homeless. Mothers with children are the fastest growing segment of the homeless population in the U.S.
If women weren't shoved towards marriage from birth they might well think twice about signing such a contract. The entire institution is based on a time in which women were chattel--property not much different than a sheep, a goat, a wagon.
It's time to leave that institution in the churches that started it, and leave the rest of us alone about it. The government has NO BUSINESS promoting marriage.
I think the real question may be whether OUTLAWING gay marriages has unintended consequences. Texas's anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment was so sloppily written it may have accidentally banned all marriages from being recognized by the state.
Well, it is quite interesting you put it that way. However, since gay marriage is not legal in most states it is almost irrelevantto focus on that aspect, Also, we can already see some of the consequences on gay couples. As for the Texas constitution, I cannot speak on the recent amendment by the because i have not had a chance to review the material thoroughly.
My question was intended to look beyond the initial reactions of marriage being between a man and a woman. As a matter of fact, as a christian i do agree with the idea. Recently, however, i have been mulling over this question because a lot of outrage is not given to divorce or any attempt to keep families together. Furthermore, my interest was heightened in the subject matter when i read about the South African athlete, Caster Semenya, being an hermaphrodite- i started having second thoughts. For instance, based on reports externally she is a female but internally that may not have been the case. It became an imperative that i look more at the issue of gays because i am not certain if they were born that way or if any social, medical or environmental factors may have played a role...
Yeah, one thing that really affected my own view of gay marriage strongly is the fact that I have a lesbian aunt who has been with her partner for nearly thirty years and was only allowed to marry her about 2 years ago (she lives in CT). During the same period, her two step brothers both married, divorced, and married again, and her own father was widowed for the second and third times and remarried his fourth wife about a year before CT finally allowed gays to marry. I, who was born a few years AFTER she got together with her partner, also managed to grow up and get married before she ever had the chance.
It's crazy to me that my uncles' short and unhappy marriages should be valued higher than my aunt's long and happy relationship simply because they happened to be between members of the opposite sex, and the fact that my step-grandfather was allowed to marry his third and fourth wives in his (and their) 60's and 80's respectively really makes the "marriage is for procreation" argument ridiculous.
In modern society, the purpose of marriage is to provide comfort and stability to the people who enter into it. It's no longer a property transaction in which the wife and all her property become the possessions of the husband, as was true for most of human history, nor, in an era when people are living long enough to enter into second or third marriages late in life and many young couples choose not to have children at all, can it be said to be an institution exclusively devoted to producing and providing for the next generation.
If the purpose of marriage is comfort and stability, there's no earthly reason whatsoever why a loving, committed couple like my aunt and her partner shouldn't have the same rights as any other pair of consenting adults.
Gender and sexuality are not the same things. Caster is apparently intersex (the preferred modern term for hermaprodite), but her sexuality is, as far as I know, completely unknown. Being intersex does not necessarily mean she's homosexual at all.
However, if you talk to homosexuals, you will find that the vast majority of them will tell you that they were born that way.
Thanks for your respond. I want to apologise for any misunderstanding in referring to the South African athlete, Caster Semenya. I am aware of her being categorized as a "hermaphrodite" however, i wanted to look at the broader point at the possibility that gays may have born that way. For instance, Caster Semenya externally has a female anatomy, again based on reports, but internally her situation is not so clear. I do not know of her sexual preference or if she dates but i cannot help but wonder how could she chose if internally all is not well.
It's interesting to see the death of reasoning against gay marriage.
First, we had predictions that countries that allowed gay marriage would implode. People would stop marrying and everyone would "go gay." A dozen countries have legalized gay marriage and none of that has happened.
Then, it was the children--kids would suddenly "choose" to be gay and turn away from procreation. Again, most people realized that's ridiculous.
Then, it became a threat against the churches--churches would be shuttered if they didn't marry gay couples. Then it became clear this was another ridiculous ruse with no basis in reality.
Now, it seems we just have to be afraid of the unknown--we won't talk about what we perceive as real threats, because they're idiotic or obviously rooted in bigotry. So let's just try to instill fear of the unknown--allowing gays to marry will cause us harm in ways that we can't begin to conceive right now.
I think we're at a tipping point here, folks.
I'm not against gay marriage. I'm against marriage as a state sanctioned institution that confers special 'perks' on the married.
If gays want to marry they should marry. If the government is going to make marriage a legal contract between a man and a woman and then tie it to the tax code and god knows what else, then they have to allow gays to marry under the principle of equal rights.
I don't think the world will end because homosexuals start getting legally married. What I do think is that longtime cohabiting heterosexuals will start to push for more rights. And I don't see why they shouldn't.
When I worked for a multinational insurance company we had this INSANE policy about partnerships, marriage, discounts--OMG what a mess. I said why can't we just give people who share a household the discounts, period? Why the third degree.
I live with a man in a committed relationship. We are not married for reasons of our own. He went through three hospitalizations in five weeks and is gravely ill still, though at home. I went through the 30 questions so many times in the early weeks, it was so humiliating, he finally starting introducing me as his wife and I am in the process of getting POA so I can make decisions and not answer 30 questions while he's ill. So I get it, I do. I was just trying to go deeper in answering this question.
Do away with marriage then everyone is on the same level playing field.
Yes you said it better, and in only one sentence. Thanks.
There are some libs who sincerely want just that.
What? And put all those ministers out of a job?
Oh, there are some libs who really, really, really want to do that!
But, without religion that will limit the comedic material to just Politics; boring.
Well, the Catholic angle has been pretty much mined-out.
Some folks over on the religion forum never seem to tire of it (and leak over here when they can't get enough attention there)
BTW at the insurance company what we had to do was 1) not offer the discount to same sex partners unless the specifically requested it, 2) if they did request it, request papers showing they had a legal domestic partnership, 3) if they were offended by that, give them the discount and forget the papers, 4) never discuss our 'policy' on discounts for couples and decline to send it out as a confidential part of our underwriting procedures, and 5) never give it to cohabiting heterosexuals even if they DID have legal domestic partnership papers.
What crap. If two people share a household, treat them the way you would any two people who share a household. Some people say, well no then you'd have to give roommates discounts and people would move in together just so they could get discounts, and my answer to that is, so what?
Human sacrifice, dogs and cats, LIVING TOGETHER... MASS HYSTERIA!
I wont argue with anyone about this. first if any law is passed based on religious beliefs its unconstitutional and should be tossed out.
Secondly Marriage as recognized by the states and federal government is not a sacred institution but a legal one and as such to deny any one a marriage license, due to Race, religion, sex or any other factors is wrong.
what people do and allow in their churchs are one thing. but there is no legal basis to deny a Legally binding marriage contract to anyone regardless of the sexs involved.
and the so called unintended consequences are pure bunk. its a fear mongering tactic nothing more or less.
There is no upside to gay marraige. It's all leads to the destruction of the moral fabric of a sociaty.
Great reasoning, Stan K.
I think a lot of the conflation of civil marriage with religious marriage is done deliberately by those who want to have a pretext for denying equality under the law to a minority.
I always love a quote I saw many years ago: nobody complained about Kate and Allie ;-)
by Frannie Dee 7 years ago
Is their a simple solution that would resolve the United States Real Estate Crisis?Often the most complex problems have simple solutions. How would you stop foreclosures? What would you do to save home values. Many Senior Americans who have struggled to pay off their homes...
by silverstararrow 4 years ago
Hello everyone! I've been on HP only for a short while, three weeks to be exact. In that time, I've come across one prominent topic on both the forums and the questions section. The Gay Issue. Why people are gay, how being gay affects religion, how homosexuality undermines the institution of...
by ptosis 3 years ago
Outlawing legal actions to target a selective few - unintended consequences would be .. ?A new Pima County ordinance would put an end to panhandling at 14 county intersections by making the act “trespassing”. It is currently not illegal to trespass on medians. If approved by the board, it would...
by lady_love158 8 years ago
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 39560.htmlYou just can't make this stuff up! In order to help pay for Obamacare restrictions were place on health savings accounts to not cover over the counter products the thinking being this would raise revenue for the plan... so now people are...
by Tom Cornett 9 years ago
Because.....If liberal progressives are for abortion and gay marriage, then it makes sense that mostly progressive liberals will most often enact those rights...far more than conservatives.Which means...there will be far less progressive liberals in the future. Wouldn't it make sense to give...
by SparklingJewel 6 years ago
this is not what our courts are for...we are so far afield from Constitutional alignment on this its serious.quotes from the article I agree with:...the American people should make these decisions, not unelected judges......People can love whom they want and live the way they choose, but no one is...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|