Same sex marriage; A look at CP's gradual acceptance

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

A coworker of mine recently came out. At the end of the day she said she was taking off for the weekend, and had a bag packed. I asked where she was going, because, she had a bag packed.

Her reply was that she packed the bag in case her dad threw her out of the house for being gay.

I laughed, then realized she was serious, and then apologized.

Despite being one of the oldest people in my workplace, I just couldn't fathom a parent kicking a child out of the house because they were LGBTQ. I mean it's not 1950, it's 2015. Do these people still exist?

For the record her dad didn't freak out, and she was more than welcome back to her house.

While I'm not a father, some day when, hopefully, I am, and I get the question "what if your son/daughter is gay" I fully intend on responding, "in all honesty, I really don't care if my son/daughter is straight or gay, as long as they're happy, love who they're with, and don't bring home a (insert random race here)."

Sadly, yes...and in pretty significant quantities.

[RedMileDJ]

nm

[Thor]

Awesome RedMile!

[Coach]

Great story RedMile.

I had something similar happen. I've always supported gay marriage, but this just affirmed it for me. My ex had friends that were lesbians who had just been engaged (actually they got engaged in front of all their friends at an improv show, it was pretty cool). Anyways, I was chatting with them about their wedding plans and they were doing a destination thing, but were having a tough time nailing down a place.

"We'd love to go here, here, here or here, but none of them allow gay marriage."

That's when it hit. This is so f***ing stupid. These two people love each other and want to share it, and can't do it where they want purely because of these dumb prejudices. It really ticked me off.

[getbak]

Destination weddings bother me much more than gay weddings ever have.

[peter12]

I still do not support gay marriage as it is defined by the courts, or by society. The reasons for it are complex, and it certainly has nothing to do with my love, and desire for our homosexual (and trans) brothers and sisters to express themselves without fear of oppression, harassment, or fear.

I just think that from the standpoint of many pro-SSM activists, what is being defined as marriage is actually not marriage, but something else. As Judge Kennedy described it in his recent majority, it is the right to not die alone. I do think that this is a very powerful sentiment, and one that I can somewhat agree with.

However, my objections, briefly:

1) Marriage defined purely as love between two humans. Marriage is so much more than this, mainly a commitment for the raising of children.
2) The increasing conformity of homosexual life - that is, you can be gay, but we prefer you act straight. This is actually a benefit brought forward by the most conservative of SSM activists, like Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Raush.
3) The increasing view that gay marriage will change heterosexual marriage. That is, make it more about two autonomous individuals living in a contractual relationship that can have certain clauses that allow for one to opt out. For example, the push by Dan Savage, among others, for monogamish lifestyles.

These are all reasonable objections, and could form the basis for a reasonable debate about the nature of marriage, the individual, love, and any other topics, but has been short-circuited by the courts (acting like poor philosophers), and by increasing social stigma towards anyone questioning SSM.

[polak]

Originally Posted by getbak

Destination weddings bother me much more than gay weddings ever have.

They're so f***in selfish.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by peter12

Marriage defined purely as love between two humans. Marriage is so much more than this, mainly a commitment for the raising of children.

I've never understood this one. Has this ever been true? The majority of the married couples I know do not have and do not intend to have kids (and they are all 'straight' couples).

There is much more to marriage that "love between two humans" to be sure, but I have serious doubts that the raising of children is the driving force behind marriage.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

I've never understood this one. Has this ever been true? The majority of the married couples I know do not have and do not intend to have kids (and they are all 'straight' couples).

There is much more to marriage that "love between two humans" to be sure, but I have serious doubts that the raising of children is the driving force behind marriage.

No, this one is historically true. At least since Christianity, but it has certainly become not true in the last generation or two. Let's say the formation of a household.

That said, the creation and raising of children as replacement has to be one of the fundamentals of a serious sexual relationship, because Darwin and all that. You can do it other ways, but this one seems the best to me as it ensures chastity and fidelity among the male and the female, and thus, preserves a type of equality that is relational and dignified.

EDIT: I should also be clear that I am not saying that gay marriages can't be relational and dignified. They probably can be, and in fact, one of my closest and favoured relatives is in one. However, in the mainstream, both activists and judges are not super interested in those kinds of relationships, but in highly autonomous, transhumanist ones that seek to redefine what human relationships are actually for.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by peter12

No, this one is historically true. At least since Christianity, but it has certainly become not true in the last generation or two. Let's say the formation of a household.

That said, the creation and raising of children as replacement has to be one of the fundamentals of a serious sexual relationship, because Darwin and all that. You can do it other ways, but this one seems the best to me as it ensures chastity and fidelity among the male and the female, and thus, preserves a type of equality that is relational and dignified.

In related news, 37 million people are a little nervous tonight because Ashley Madison got hacked.

I don't know that anything is "ensured" among the male and the female.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

In related news, 37 million people are a little nervous tonight because Ashley Madison got hacked.

I don't know that anything is "ensured" among the male and the female.

Not sure what your point is, only that it confirms my above point, which is that having two autonomous individuals in a relationship that is primarily viewed as contractual will lead to twisted things like Ashley Madison.

[calf]

1) Marriage defined purely as love between two humans. Marriage is so much more than this, mainly a commitment for the raising of children.

What if the same sex couple intends on raising a child that was given up for adoption? Or have one that's 1/2 half biologically theirs via surrogacy?

[polak]

Wait so if I don't want to have Children, then I shouldn't get married?

I thought marriage was strictly a display of commitment and loyalty to someone you love?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by calf

What if the same sex couple intends on raising a child that was given up for adoption? Or have one that's 1/2 half biologically theirs via surrogacy?

There are two issues that you are conflating. The first issue is possible. At the end of the day, children can be raised in many different ways. Same sex couples or homosexual individuals can raise adopted children. In principle, I think this is perfectly acceptable. Providing loving homes for children as opposed to the state taking care of them is obviously preferable.

The second issue has to do with technological advances made in recent years, and their impact on human nature. As I alluded to, the problem that transhumanism poses to the family, and the individual are significantly different. The fact that transhumanism has become so central to the SSM movement makes me think that it is not really about this gay conservative movement to be allowed into the marriage institution, but about radically changing the marriage institution in ways never seen before.

As a side note, I don't believe that marriage should never be changed. Christianity challenged the patriarchy of the Greco-Roman pagan family, and argued for marriage equality about 2000 years ago.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by polak

Wait so if I don't want to have Children, then I shouldn't get married?

I thought marriage was strictly a display of commitment and loyalty to someone you love?

This is why so few people are actually getting married nowadays, and are instead forming common-law cohabitation partnerships.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by peter12

This is why so few people are actually getting married nowadays, and are instead forming common-law cohabitation partnerships.

according to wiki via Stats Can divorce rate are dropping



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Canada

[peter12]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

according to wiki via Stats Can divorce rate are dropping



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Canada

Yes, among the upper-middle classes, which are basically returning to traditional modes of marriage. Everyone else though, at least in the US, and it is a pretty ugly mess in terms of broken families.

However, I do believe we are still seeing a drop in marriages.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by peter12

Yes, among the upper-middle classes, which are basically returning to traditional modes of marriage. Everyone else though, at least in the US, and it is a pretty ugly mess in terms of broken families.

Sorry do you have a source that points to only the upper middle classes returning to traditional marriage?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by peter12

Not sure what your point is, only that it confirms my above point, which is that having two autonomous individuals in a relationship that is primarily viewed as contractual will lead to twisted things like Ashley Madison.

Huh.

I have to wonder how many autonomous individuals view their marriage as primarily contractual to begin with.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by peter12

No, this one is historically true. At least since Christianity, but it has certainly become not true in the last generation or two. Let's say the formation of a household.

Ah, a traditionalist! And how much did you pay in dowry for your wife? I hope it was a good match for your family and will increase your influence and standing in court.