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

[Makarov]

^ As I understand it, most of that is Bjork's fault.

[rubecube]

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

And you think this somehow has something to do with gay marriage or a massive cultural shift, instead of more obvious culprits such as the stagnation of the middle class and the prohibitive costs of marriage and child-rearing?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

And you think this somehow has something to do with gay marriage or a massive cultural shift, instead of more obvious culprits such as the stagnation of the middle class and the prohibitive costs of marriage and child-rearing?

Well, the stagnation of the middle class has certainly contributed, but it is mainly a massive cultural shift. SSM is only a symptom, not a cause.

I am actually very encouraged that my few comments shifted the conversation from a bland self-congratulatory celebration to a more serious consideration of the issues.

[peter12]

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.)

I think you are suffering a bit from the ideological stance that most people take on this issue. If we are speaking functionally, I am sure gay people can raise children (whatever that means). Certainly, from a socio-biological perspective, homosexuals have probably always had an active role in the social aspect of child-rearing. More specifically, I think there is a huge problem with increasingly bio-technological means of creating families. That is a connected issue.

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.

It is funny that I have never actually said that I am "against" SSM per se. I have frequently said that I support the relational dignity of gay people. Really what that means is that I certainly love that gay people no longer have to fear loneliness anymore.

As for Warner, his problem is with conformity, or a certain bourgeois attitude towards marriage that is being adopted with the gay rights mainstream. This opposes his more bohemian perspective of homosexuality.

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?

Obviously, for most generally good-natured, and compassionate liberals, the gay marriage issue is about protection from discrimination. I would disagree. As I have stated many times in various forms, but I will restate again more explicitly, the gay marriage debate is only tangentially related to SSM, but is a general symptom of an overall shift in what a family is called, and what is its purpose. I don't agree with that shift. My tolerance of homosexuality has very, very little to do with that perspective.

[polak]

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

Why is this a bad thing?

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by peter12

Obviously, for most generally good-natured, and compassionate liberals, the gay marriage issue is about protection from discrimination. I would disagree. As I have stated many times in various forms, but I will restate again more explicitly, the gay marriage debate is only tangentially related to SSM, but is a general symptom of an overall shift in what a family is called, and what is its purpose. I don't agree with that shift. My tolerance of homosexuality has very, very little to do with that perspective.

So how do you define a family? How does the gay marriage debate denigrate that definition?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by peter12

Obviously, for most generally good-natured, and compassionate liberals, the gay marriage issue is about protection from discrimination. I would disagree. As I have stated many times in various forms, but I will restate again more explicitly, the gay marriage debate is only tangentially related to SSM, but is a general symptom of an overall shift in what a family is called, and what is its purpose. I don't agree with that shift. My tolerance of homosexuality has very, very little to do with that perspective.

I see, so this isn't one of those ingnorant "Gay marriage makes my marriage somehow less valid" arguments, this is a well informed and rational "Gay marriage makesy my family less valid" argument.

Got it!

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I see, so this isn't one of those ingnorant "Gay marriage makes my marriage somehow less valid" arguments, this is a well informed and rational "Gay marriage makesy my family less valid" argument.

Got it!

It is frustrating to make any kind of point when it is repeatedly mis-read, mis-characterized, and mocked.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by peter12

I think you are suffering a bit from the ideological stance that most people take on this issue. If we are speaking functionally, I am sure gay people can raise children (whatever that means). Certainly, from a socio-biological perspective, homosexuals have probably always had an active role in the social aspect of child-rearing. More specifically, I think there is a huge problem with increasingly bio-technological means of creating families. That is a connected issue.

It is really difficult to discuss this with you when you won't explain what exactly your huge problem with "increasingly bio-technological means of creating families" is or how same sex marriage is connected to it. You seem concerned that birth rates in western states are below replacement levels. If that is your huge problem, I have absolutely no idea what same sex marriage has to do with it. Please explain the connection.

Originally Posted by peter12

It is funny that I have never actually said that I am "against" SSM per se.

Originally Posted by peter12

I still do not support gay marriage as it is defined by the courts, or by society.

Again, it is difficult to discuss this issue with you when seem to refuse to take an actual position.

Originally Posted by peter12

I have frequently said that I support the relational dignity of gay people. Really what that means is that I certainly love that gay people no longer have to fear loneliness anymore.

That's great but doesn't assist in explaining your position on why you oppose same sex marriage as it has been defined by the courts or Parliament (i.e., no legal distinction between a heterosexual and homosexual marriage).

Originally Posted by peter12

As for Warner, his problem is with conformity, or a certain bourgeois attitude towards marriage that is being adopted with the gay rights mainstream. This opposes his more bohemian perspective of homosexuality.

With respect to Warner's position, it may be an interesting contrarian position, but it is certainly not a convincing reason to discriminate nor to deny a basic Canadian institution to a significant number of citizens who want it. In any event, I disagree with him. I think that the opportunities for the LGBT community to criticize and challenge mainstream institutions like marriage are only strengthened by legal access to those institutions.

Originally Posted by peter12

Obviously, for most generally good-natured, and compassionate liberals, the gay marriage issue is about protection from discrimination. I would disagree. As I have stated many times in various forms, but I will restate again more explicitly, the gay marriage debate is only tangentially related to SSM, but is a general symptom of an overall shift in what a family is called, and what is its purpose. I don't agree with that shift. My tolerance of homosexuality has very, very little to do with that perspective.

I have no idea what you mean by "the gay marriage debate is only tangentially related to same sex marriage". That is nonsensical.

Again, if your concern is with an overall shift in the meaning of "family" from "primarily for the purpose of sexual reproduction" to something else, then I think that is a deeply troubling position (in some ways more troubling than the "I think homosexuality is a sin and therefore oppose gay marriage" position.)

First, I don't think marriage in western society has ever been primarily for the purpose of sexual reproduction. As a simple example, I see no such mention in the Wikipedia article regarding the institution of marriage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage).

Second, even if it had, it certainly hasn't been for a very long time (at least a hundred years).

Lastly, I see no societal benefit whatsoever in a return or a change to marriage for the purposes of sexual reproduction. I see no reason why changing marriage to an institution related primarily to sexual reproduction would in any way encourage higher birth rates. Indeed, I think that reducing marriage to nothing but an institution regulating sexual reproduction is likely to cause great harm to our society. In particular, it would suddenly disregard the importance of interpersonal and sexual relationships (previously recognized by the institution of marriage) in our society.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

As for Warner, his problem is with conformity, or a certain bourgeois attitude towards marriage that is being adopted with the gay rights mainstream. This opposes his more bohemian perspective of homosexuality.

Yeah, it's definitely not something that is being universally celebrated by LGBTQ community, and what you've stated above is an example of some of their concerns. Certainly among my more "anarcho-queer" acquaintances there has been much more vitriol spewed towards SSM legalization than jubilation. There has also been criticism that the SSM movement has actually done more to further marginalize struggles of the trans community, as well as queer and trans people of colour.

That said, I still think denying people the choice to get married based on their sexual orientation is blatant discrimination that has no place in a civilized society.

[woob]

I'm really starting to understand peter12's avatar picture now.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by peter12

It is frustrating to make any kind of point when it is repeatedly mis-read, mis-characterized, and mocked.

You're against the degradation of marriage as a whole, and see SSM as a symptom of that degradation. So along that vein, you are against it (and yes, you did says so "per se" in your very first post) as a product of the entire institution of marriage being broken down.

That's fine that you don't like the traditionalist view of marriage changing. But it literally has nothing to do with SSM. The landscape of the degradation of marriage was changing LONNNNG before SSM even became an issue to discuss. It began with women becoming people, not property (a good change), and continued with legalizing divorce (generally, I would say a good thing as a means to escape terrible marriages for either gender), then with interracial marriage (viewed pretty much the same as gay marriage as far as this marriage breakdown issue) even further with the introduction of common-law relationships being pretty much equal (legally) with marriage, and now we're into SSM. There's a whole shwack of issues that pre-dates SSM as a means to destroy the modern family.

Much of what you posted seems to suggest that this (degradation of marriage) is an actual goal of SSM advocates, when it's really just a symptom of gay people wanting to be married, and YOU (and others like you) view it as further degradation of what marriage means. That doesn't make it a fact. And, really, most on the other side of the argument would say that this only helps to expand on what marriage means and help everyone who wants to be included in such a tradition to do so.

So the main question back to someone such as yourself is; how, for the love of all that is holy and pure, does SSM affect anything that you do, how your marriage is structured, or how it's viewed by anyone that matters (ie you, your spouse and your family)?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by peter12

It is frustrating to make any kind of point when it is repeatedly mis-read, mis-characterized, and mocked.

How am I doing any of those things?

You've stated that you are against SSM, and that the main reason is that you see it as a symptom of the changing definition of family, and that you don't like/agree with that change.

Despite the fact that the legalization of SSM is pretty irrelevant to that precieved change on your part, you are oposed to something simply because you don't like the fact that it doesn't conform to YOUR definition of a family, and what the purpose of that family is.

How is that any different than people who say SSM is ruining the definition of marriage? You've simply replaced one noun with another (and somewhat synonomous ones at that).

In my mind the purpose/definiton of a family is forming emotional bonds and connections with the people you love, and making a commitment to love, support, and share your live with those people. Marriage allows people to make that commitment publically, and to get all of the legal privaleges and responsibilities that go along with that. That right has been avaialbe to everyone in Canada for 10 years, and is now available to everyone in the US as well.

What part of that definiton do you disagree with, or do you think is missing, and how exactly do some combinations of the gender of the people involved invalidate it, or not conform to it?

I know you've said that you think having children is a requirement, but that' has been show to be silly on many counts (straight people who don't/can't have children, and gay people who can raise a family).

You've also stated opposition to using reporductive technologies to have those children you think are so necessary. While at the same time expressing concern that we won't be able to repopulate if no one is having children. So which is the worse evil, not having children, or using alternative methods to have them? Seems somewhat contradictory on your part.

In any case, I guess I'll have to tell my aunt and uncle that their marriage isn't valid according to you because they can no longer have children, and even more scandously, both of their existing children were invitro babies, one of whom was borne by a surrogate.
Bummer, they seemd like such a nice couple.

[Looch City]

Ashley Madison (and the like) has more impact on your traditional marriage than same-sex marriage ever will.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by 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.

And this is really the point. We're at a point where a marital contract is no longer necessary for any reason other than economic purposes, and if you're religious, to fulfill some deity's rules.

Originally Posted by peter12

I think you are suffering a bit from the ideological stance that most people take on this issue. If we are speaking functionally, I am sure gay people can raise children (whatever that means). Certainly, from a socio-biological perspective, homosexuals have probably always had an active role in the social aspect of child-rearing. More specifically, I think there is a huge problem with increasingly bio-technological means of creating families. That is a connected issue.

The biggest issue with "bio-technological means of creating families" is that there are thousands of kids in the foster care system who desperately want loving, caring families and can't get them. But instead we get the Duggars and their ilk with their "traditional families" that are overpopulating the US with low-IQ, poorly educated types who try to force their outdated religious beliefs on others.

Obviously, for most generally good-natured, and compassionate liberals, the gay marriage issue is about protection from discrimination. I would disagree. As I have stated many times in various forms, but I will restate again more explicitly, the gay marriage debate is only tangentially related to SSM, but is a general symptom of an overall shift in what a family is called, and what is its purpose. I don't agree with that shift. My tolerance of homosexuality has very, very little to do with that perspective.

Marriage and family are social constructs that are constantly evolving and are different in every single culture and at every single time in history.

Biblical marriage is a farce--it started with Adam and Eve, whose children then married and had babies with each other, in an incestuous set of circumstances that nowadays would be horrifying. And then the cycle started over again with Noah and his family, given that only 8 people survived the flood--well, how about some more incest to go around? And then you had Ancient Israel, where a man could have more than one wife, and also he was allowed concubines. And then they started divorcing their wives and taking younger wives. Then in the New Testament it became more of a one-man/one-woman system, but with the strict rule that the woman was inferior to and subjected to the man.

So even "religious" marriage changed several times through the course of the Bible.

Then in actual history--there have been arranged marriages, marriages for dowries, child marriage, women who married solely because that was their only option in life. Children were raised by parents/grandparents/older siblings/the whole community.

What exactly is your "Family" definition? Father and a mother and 2.5 kids?

That's a very modern, very Western take on "family" and it didn't really become the norm until the 17th century or so, through Europe and then the Americas. And even that family--50 years ago marriage was practically a necessity for women, or it was almost impossible to get by on their own. Women stayed with abusive men, men who cheated on them, men who were alcoholics because that was the only way to get her children raised. Is that a better option than the current state of things where women can get away from awful men who mistreat them?

Really, for centuries and millenia, many cultures raised children as a community--parents and grandparents and aunts and uncles and friends and neighbors all took care of each other. Likely that's a better system of rearing children than the 2 parent family tradition, especially as it is now, where having one parent at home is unsustainable.

Also, with regards to ensuring the next generation: is population of the planet declining? Not even close. If anything, shrinking the number of children people are having is a good thing. We're already stretching the limits of Earth's resources, and excessive population isn't going to make that better.

[Darkwater]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

Ashley Madison (and the like) has more impact on your traditional marriage than same-sex marriage ever will.

They refuse to even acknowledge that.

[Flash Walken]

If your grandfather was born prior to 1945, there is a high probability his first sexual experience was with a prostitute.

There is also a high probability he visited prostitutes outside the bounds of marriage.

I understand the argument Peter12 is making, but I don't think it's applicable at all. This 'collapse' of the nuclear family, in and of itself a creation of the last 75 years, has always been influenced by what some believe to be 'unsavory' or 'anti-family' sexual conduct.

I think his argument is a classic example of losing the forest for the trees.

The single most impactful event on western society's view of the nuclear family is the precipitous drop in income for working aged males. It's the reason for the inclusion of women in the work force, the lack of family structure outside of traditional working hours and the ancillary benefits of familiar recreation and 'free time'.