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

[peter12]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

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

A good look from the economist.

http://www.economist.com/news/britai...els-associated

And another from the Brookings Institute.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/ar...-class-sawhill

It is an established fact in the social sciences that marriage is now, or maybe always has been, a class issue.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by peter12

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.

Do you get paid each time you mention the Greeks?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

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.

Christianity, at least theologically, does not endorse dowries. Have you read the traditional Marriage Service of the Anglican Church that forms the basis of marriage vows for all Protestant Churches?

[Coach]

I'm curious, at this point in history, meaning the right here and now, what does marriage have to do with Christianity, and why should people getting married fall into that category or line of thinking? I wasn't aware it was a prerequisite.

Is there some marriage trademark I'm not aware of?

[albertGQ]

Originally Posted by getbak

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

I disagree. Destination weddings are awesome. It's hard enough to plan a trip with a couple families or a small group of friends. But to have someone else plan a huge party/vacation for you? Sign me up!

Just went to a destination Wedding In January for over 100 people in Mexico . Most of my good buddies were there and we partied every night. Always had people at the beach to hang with or someone to play tennis, rent bikes, etc.

Best vacation I ever had.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Ah, a Christian traditionalist! "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee"... very nice. Must be rather an easy marriage what with her not being allowed to leave the home without your permission. But if you did suspect her of unfaithfulness, where would you get sweepings from the floor of a tabernacle so you could concoct the magical potion? And what priest would you use to recite the incantation that would imbue it with its cheating-detecting properties? (see book of Numbers beginning 5:11).

The point is that the "history" argument is a bunch of hooey. The institution of marriage must adapt to changes in society or it will be a tool of backwardsness and oppression.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Ah, a Christian traditionalist! "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee"... very nice. Must be rather an easy marriage what with her not being allowed to leave the home without your permission. But if you did suspect her of unfaithfulness, where would you get sweepings from the floor of a tabernacle so you could concoct the magical potion? And what priest would you use to recite the incantation that would imbue it with its cheating-detecting properties? (see book of Numbers beginning 5:11).

The point is that the "history" argument is a bunch of hooey. The institution of marriage must adapt to changes in society or it will be a tool of backwardsness and oppression.

Anyone can pick anything out of the Bible. Did you have that waiting in your back pocket or did you have to Google it? Anyway, the Bible, and I am standing on strong theological ground, is a collection of Man's experienced with the Divine. It is not literal, but must be interpreted, and reflected upon.

Also, that quote is from the Hebrew Bible, and doesn't reflect directly upon Christianity.

Anyway, a view of anything should reflect truth, and not just be whatever sociological view happens to be popular.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Marriage is a social institution with obvious social utility and should therefore reflect the society it is a part of, not the arbitrary morality of an archaic tome written in an agrarian era when women were regarded as property just as much as livestock. Look at the new testament, if you want; plenty of "women shall be subservient to men" stuff on offer from Paul. Considering the historical role of marriage in the oppression of women, looking to history as a guide of what marriage is supposed to be rings fairly hollow.

[Yeah_Baby]

My wife and I don't have kids. Thank god we're not married because of that. I can finally get rid of my ring tan!

[peter12]

I'm just going to bow out gracefully at this point. I said what I wanted to say, none of my points were really addressed, but I did want to make it clear that not everyone has gradually accepted SSM on CP.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by peter12

I'm just going to bow out gracefully at this point. I said what I wanted to say, none of my points were really addressed, but I did want to make it clear that not everyone has gradually accepted SSM on CP.

And hopefully history will look poorly on those ignorant asshats.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by peter12

... but I did want to make it clear that not everyone has gradually accepted SSM on CP.

Congratulations?

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by peter12

I'm just going to bow out gracefully at this point. I said what I wanted to say, none of my points were really addressed, but I did want to make it clear that not everyone has gradually accepted SSM on CP.

I'm guessing you still wear square toed dress shoes.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by peter12

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

Already been addressed. The reality is: many (gay & straight) married couples raise children together. Many (gay and straight) married couples choose not to raise children together. Many (gay and straight) unmarried couples or singles raise children. Your proposition seems to fail either because marriage is no longer regarded as a commitment for the raising of children and/or because the sexuality of a particular couple has little or nothing to do with whether or not they choose to raise children.

Originally Posted by peter12

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..

I don't understand this point. Nothing in the Civil Marriage Act compels anyone, straight or gay, to marry.

Originally Posted by peter12

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.

Where is this view increasing? Indeed, it seems self-evident to me that this view is in fact in rapid retreat in Canada (where a decade after the legalization of same sex marriage, we have somehow avoided any marital apocalypse.

Further, "monogamish lifestyles" are obviously not a post-same-sex-marriage phenomenon. And you have provided zero actual evidence (aside from a couple of anecdotes) that "monogamish lifestyles" are becoming more frequent in Canada in the last ten years (let alone evidence to suggest that there is some causal link between the Civil Marriage Act and any such increase).

Originally Posted by peter12

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.

No, they are not reasonable objections and do not form the basis for a reasonable debate.

[peter12]

Already been addressed. The reality is: many (gay & straight) married couples raise children together. Many (gay and straight) married couples choose not to raise children together. Many (gay and straight) unmarried couples or singles raise children. Your proposition seems to fail either because marriage is no longer regarded as a commitment for the raising of children and/or because the sexuality of a particular couple has little or nothing to do with whether or not they choose to raise children.

This is not a point. The problem is that families are for the raising, and nurturing of replacements. You need to produce children, and you are right, the whole idea of a family has basically become a lifestyle choice. Adoption is one thing (and I quite addressed that), but the new biotechnological advances are entirely something else.

I don't understand this point. Nothing in the Civil Marriage Act compels anyone, straight or gay, to marry.

Some important reading material for you herehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tr...h_Normal_(book). Legislation does compel everyone to accept a new norm. While I don't entirely agree with Michael Warner, he does make a compelling argument that the SSM debate has actually increased conformity among homosexuals, setting a new standard. Or as I argued previously, an attempt to change marriage from within.

Where is this view increasing? Indeed, it seems self-evident to me that this view is in fact in rapid retreat in Canada (where a decade after the legalization of same sex marriage, we have somehow avoided any marital apocalypse.

Further, "monogamish lifestyles" are obviously not a post-same-sex-marriage phenomenon. And you have provided zero actual evidence (aside from a couple of anecdotes) that "monogamish lifestyles" are becoming more frequent in Canada in the last ten years (let alone evidence to suggest that there is some causal link between the Civil Marriage Act and any such increase).

We are in the midst of a marriage apocalypse where common-law habitation is through the roof, marriage is declining everywhere (except among the upper classes - see my previous post), and families are shrinking below the level required for generational replacement.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/census...mily-1.1137083

As I said, painstakingly, and you ignored, crudely, this really doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality, or my acceptance of them as human beings with relational dignity, but more-so with my concern about a sociological shift away from families with relational responsibilities towards individuals who only understand themselves as autonomous. All of the posts in this thread have confirmed my view

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Your first point states, "no, this is what marriage is FOR, because I say so", and to borrow your phrase, this is not a point.

Your second point is actually a point, though an odd one. If you make gay marriage legal, it seems to suggest, then homosexual behaviour will be heterosexualized - i.e., stressing the necessity of gay marriage in some measure implies that gay people need it to be "normal", in turn implying that they are currently abnormal. I'm pretty sure I disagree for precisely the reason stated above: this provides a choice. As you note in your third point (or diatribe, more accurately I think), many different forms of interpersonal relationship are becoming more and more accepted, so it's not like gay couples will suddenly be forced into traditional suburban nuclear family units.

The third argument is the real gem, though, about "generational replacement"... do you seriously want to tell us with a straight face that you're concerned about population decline because of gay marriage?

EDIT: Or for any reason at all?

[Fighting Banana Slug]

It seems that the cbc story you linked to, indicated a gradual decline in marriage over many decades. You think same sex marriage is the cause? That same story indicate that same sex marriage amounted to 0.8% of all marriages, even after a large recent increase.
I always have trouble understanding how same sex marriage affects if, when or why a straight person marries.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by peter12

This is not a point. The problem is that families are for the raising, and nurturing of replacements. You need to produce children, and you are right, the whole idea of a family has basically become a lifestyle choice. Adoption is one thing (and I quite addressed that), but the new biotechnological advances are entirely something else.

What does this have to do with homosexual marriage? Plenty of hetero couples have kids in and out of wedlock, or are married and don't have kids. Further, the biotech advances are not only used by homosexuals, and i would venture to guess that they are used, in the vast majority, by hetero couples with reproductive problems.

Some important reading material for you herehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tr...h_Normal_(book). Legislation does compel everyone to accept a new norm. While I don't entirely agree with Michael Warner, he does make a compelling argument that the SSM debate has actually increased conformity among homosexuals, setting a new standard. Or as I argued previously, an attempt to change marriage from within.

So this is a systematic attempt by the entire LGBT community to change your personal idea of what marriage is supposed to be? Yeah, no... They just want to get married. If that changes things for you, for some unfathomable reason, that's your own issue.


We are in the midst of a marriage apocalypse where common-law habitation is through the roof, marriage is declining everywhere (except among the upper classes - see my previous post), and families are shrinking below the level required for generational replacement.

Again, what does this have to do with SSM?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/census...mily-1.1137083

As I said, painstakingly, and you ignored, crudely, this really doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality, or my acceptance of them as human beings with relational dignity, but more-so with my concern about a sociological shift away from families with relational responsibilities towards individuals who only understand themselves as autonomous. All of the posts in this thread have confirmed my view

Ok, this still has nothing to do with same-sex marriage

So your last sentence pretty much renders your thoughts completely useless in this thread. If you have a problem with society's changing attitudes about marriage, fine, start a thread on it. But it literally has nothing to do with SSM, and I really don't see how your making a conclusion that one has anything to do with the other.

As a kid of divorce, I would say that my apprehension from getting married has much more to do with what I saw between them (and at least half of my friends' families) that anything to do with SSM. In fact, I could say that it's never even been a consideration for me. Why would it? Why is it a consideration for you?

You think the reason to get married is to have kids and raise them in a family environment. Fine, do that. Let other people do what they feel is a appropriate for them. And, again, if what other people do within their marriage is going to affect you personally somehow, that's your own issue. Because it can't and doesn't.

[Makarov]

First, I appreciate that you came back to defend your position.

Originally Posted by peter12

This is not a point. The problem is that families are for the raising, and nurturing of replacements. You need to produce children, and you are right, the whole idea of a family has basically become a lifestyle choice. Adoption is one thing (and I quite addressed that), but the new biotechnological advances are entirely something else.

I still don't understand your point. If you accept that gay people can and do raise children (I can't tell if you do or not), then do you accept that gay people should have access to a child-rearing institution like marriage (just accepting for the sake of argument that marriage is a child-rearing institution.)

Originally Posted by peter12

Some important reading material for you herehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tr...h_Normal_(book). Legislation does compel everyone to accept a new norm. While I don't entirely agree with Michael Warner, he does make a compelling argument that the SSM debate has actually increased conformity among homosexuals, setting a new standard. Or as I argued previously, an attempt to change marriage from within.

I think that you misunderstand Warner's point. He argues that same sex marriage should not be the sole goal for gay rights activists (and that the ultimate goal should be equal legal benefits for gay people who choose other types of relationships.) That may well be a valid point. But it does not support your bizarre argument against same sex marriage.

Would you argue against protection from gender or disability-based discrimination in the workplace because it increases pressure to conform for women or disabled persons?

I just do not understand at all what argument you are trying to make here.

Originally Posted by peter12

We are in the midst of a marriage apocalypse where common-law habitation is through the roof, marriage is declining everywhere (except among the upper classes - see my previous post), and families are shrinking below the level required for generational replacement.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/census...mily-1.1137083

As I said, painstakingly, and you ignored, crudely, this really doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality, or my acceptance of them as human beings with relational dignity, but more-so with my concern about a sociological shift away from families with relational responsibilities towards individuals who only understand themselves as autonomous. All of the posts in this thread have confirmed my view

You haven't pointed out how any of that has anything to do with gay people getting married though.

[Thor]

Well this Marriage apocalypse in Iceland has been going on for well over 2-3 decades.

Its quite common for couples to live together for 5-10 years before even getting married, that is IF they do. Just a few weeks ago my sister in law's brother got married after being with his girlfriend for 26 years, they have 3 kids and as far as families go, great family!

Yet Iceland remains one of the top "family" nations on the planet, where so much is about the kids and family time. We have loads of holidays, kids are brought to adults parties as a norm, we have long paid maternity leave for women and the men have time off as well.

I just think that in our particular case, which is pretty common in the Nordic nations is that people don't see Marriage as something that is necessary, often seen as reflective of old values and old beliefs as people are leaving the church in droves and care less and less about what many still see as a patriarchal ceremony celebrating outdated values and beliefs.