What would happen if same-sex marriage were legalised?

[Nathan Poe]

Hee hee hee! "Get her!" That was your whole plan, huh, "get her." Very scientific.

Maren(to quote again: "I don't have to take this abuse from you, I've got hundreds of people dying to abuse me.")

Do you believe in UFOs, astral projections, mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, full trance mediums, the Loch Ness monster and the theory of Atlantis?

Ah, if there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say.

(Favorite lines in the whole movie!)

 

[religious&reasonable]

I've always wanted to do this.... AND THE FLOWERS, ARE STILL, STANDING!

Nice shootin' Tex!

 

[jayem]

I'm not a lawyer, but I see the marriage issue differently. And not as discrimination against homosexuals. If a state denies a marriage license to 2 women, when it would otherwise issue a license to a similarly situated man and woman, then it's really just an issue of sex discrimination. Because the only difference in the two couples is the sex of the parties. And sex discrimination, at least in employment and public accommodations, is already prohibited (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.) I know Title VII applies to businesses. Can it also apply to governments?

 

[chris4243]

I think it would promote tolerance (though some people might consider that a bad thing), and also promote monogamy and reduce promiscuity, at least by a little. To the extent that marriage reduces promiscuity it will also reduce the incidence of STDs. To the extent that it promotes tolerance and intolerance causes psychological issues, it will reduce psychological issues.

 

[chris4243]

Another effect would be a reduction in the genes that predispose toward homosexuality.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

your premise in how to answer sort of limits it to the answer you want to hear.

How so? I want to know the economic, sociological, etc, ramifications of the legalisation of same-sex marriage. If essence, tell me everything that would happen.

In a world were reproduction is a need for survival i think its a bad idea. thats a worldly evolution theory answer. Its against nature in large degree. And there is a thing such as civil union. So its answered isnt it.

I'm not sure I understand why that follows. How does the fact of reproduction mean that same-sex marriage a bad idea?

outside of that without absolute morals all thats left is anarchy. the strongest rule and they set the moral standard. which usually isnt very good.

Morality still exists. Murder is wrong, rape is wrong, altruism is good, etc. Why would the legalisation of same-sex marriage change that?

 

[hollyda]

I've always wanted to do this.... AND THE FLOWERS, ARE STILL, STANDING!

Nice shootin' Tex!

I tried to think of the most harmless thing. Something I loved from my childhood. Something that could never, ever possibly destroy us. Mr. Stay Puft.

 

[DaisyDay]

The good news is that this is so very hypothetical. The Human Genome Project has looked at stuff like this and found there is more biological oomph behind schizophrenia than same-sex attraction. According to Dr. Francis Collins, head of the project, if any given homosexual male had an identical twin, the odds that the twin would not be homosexual are about 80%.

Well, that depends on whether the twins were fraternal or identical.

"Bailey and Pillard (1991) studied the genetics of homosexuality by recruiting homosexual male probands with monozygotic cotwins, dizygotic cotwins, or adoptive brothers. They found that of the relatives, 52% (29/56) of monozygotic cotwins, 22% (12/54) of dizygotic cotwins, and 11% (6/57) of adoptive brothers were homosexual. Heritability of homosexuality was considered to be substantial under a wide range of assumptions about the population base rate of homosexuality and ascertainment bias. However, the rate of homosexuality among nontwin biologic sibs, as reported by probands, 9.2% (13/142), was significantly lower than would be predicted by a simple genetic hypothesis and by other published reports. From the rates of homosexuality observed in monozygotic and dizygotic twins, ordinary sibs, and adoptive (adopted in) brothers and sisters of homosexual men (Pillard and Weinrich, 1986; Bailey and Pillard, 1991) and women (Bailey and Benishay, 1993; Bailey et al., 1993), overall heritabilities of 31 to 74% for males and 27 to 76% for females were estimated. The observation that male homosexuals usually have more gay brothers than gay sisters, whereas lesbians have more gay sisters than gay brothers, suggested that the factors responsible for familial aggregation are at least partially distinct in men compared to women."

That is from the first paper linked to from the Human Genome Information Project page on behavioral genetics.

 

[BondiHarry]

I'm not a lawyer, but I see the marriage issue differently. And not as discrimination against homosexuals. If a state denies a marriage license to 2 women, when it would otherwise issue a license to a similarly situated man and woman, then it's really just an issue of sex discrimination. Because the only difference in the two couples is the sex of the parties. And sex discrimination, at least in employment and public accommodations, is already prohibited (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.) I know Title VII applies to businesses. Can it also apply to governments?

Sex discrimination? By their very choice of a 'partner' of the same sex gays eschew marriage which is the union of a man and a woman. They don't like that definition? There have been numerous votes on marriage and the vast majority of people in the United States recognize marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and of course that is exactly how God identifies it.

There are several issues at work. One is what is marriage? Another is do men have 'rights' independent of what rights God grants us? Can those rights violate rights given to us by God?

And frankly, some of you who are citing flawed court decisions on the nature of 'rights' are ignoring that the Supreme Court and all Federal courts are as bound by the Constitution as the Legislative and Executive branches are and that many of their rulings have no Constitutional authority. There is no right to privacy that supercedes the right to life of babies, there is no right to not be discriminated against that supercedes the right of a property owner to use their property as they see fit (note, racism is irrational and immoral but the courts solution to it has raised other problems).

The whole issue of gay 'marriage' is just another sign of men deciding God is of no consequence in their lives and professing themselves to be wise (not that we should be surprised since we largely ignore God in marriage, the rearing of children, the handling of money, how we govern ourselves, how we spend our leisure time etc.).

 

[Jase]

I'm not a lawyer, but I see the marriage issue differently. And not as discrimination against homosexuals. If a state denies a marriage license to 2 women, when it would otherwise issue a license to a similarly situated man and woman, then it's really just an issue of sex discrimination. Because the only difference in the two couples is the sex of the parties. And sex discrimination, at least in employment and public accommodations, is already prohibited (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.) I know Title VII applies to businesses. Can it also apply to governments?

Ultimately, the same-sex marriage issue will probably be decided on sex discrimination, not orientation. The law already declares marriage a civil right, and the States are prohibited from denying people the right to choose who they want to marry. The fact that a man can marry a woman, but a woman cannot marry a woman (and vice versa) solely because of her gender is discrimination and a violation of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Jase]

Sex discrimination? By their very choice of a 'partner' of the same sex gays eschew marriage which is the union of a man and a woman. They don't like that definition? There have been numerous votes on marriage and the vast majority of people in the United States recognize marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and of course that is exactly how God identifies it.

1) It doesn't matter what the majority of the population recognize - we are not a democracy. 2) I disagree with your view on God, but religion has no relevance in a secular nation with secular laws.

There are several issues at work. One is what is marriage? Another is do men have 'rights' independent of what rights God grants us? Can those rights violate rights given to us by God?

Marriage has changed meanings countless times. The fact that you think it has religious origin or that it has never changed meaning is a huge mistake.

And frankly, some of you who are citing flawed court decisions on the nature of 'rights' are ignoring that the Supreme Court and all Federal courts are as bound by the Constitution as the Legislative and Executive branches are and that many of their rulings have no Constitutional authority. There is no right to privacy that supercedes the right to life of babies, there is no right to not be discriminated against that supercedes the right of a property owner to use their property as they see fit (note, racism is irrational and immoral but the courts solution to it has raised other problems).

Ill ask you to refrain from discussing Constitutional Law since you seem to need more education on it.

The whole issue of gay 'marriage' is just another sign of men deciding God is of no consequence in their lives and professing themselves to be wise (not that we should be surprised since we largely ignore God in marriage, the rearing of children, the handling of money, how we govern ourselves, how we spend our leisure time etc.).

And since the United States is a secular country with Freedom of Religion, men are perfectly within their rights to decide God is of no consequence to them, and it's none of your business.

 

[Jase]

your premise in how to answer sort of limits it to the answer you want to hear. In a world were reproduction is a need for survival i think its a bad idea. thats a worldly evolution theory answer. Its against nature in large degree. And there is a thing such as civil union. So its answered isnt it.

outside of that without absolute morals all thats left is anarchy. the strongest rule and they set the moral standard. which usually isnt very good.

I don't get the whole, the world will stop reproducing argument. Gays are a minority and they have existed for all of human history. Did the population not continue to flourish for the past many thousands of years by having gays around? Why would them getting married change that? Are you suggesting that the majority of heterosexuals in the world secretly want to marry gays and stop reproducing?

 

[Jase]

This is a Christian web site and the perspective of many members here is Christian. God's commandments take precedence over anything men might prefer be it sex with a member of the same sex, divorce at whim, theft ad infinitum. Men cannot create a 'right' to do what God condemns and to equate racism with distaste for the abomination of homosexuality is bizarre to say the least.

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Roman 13:1

They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. Matt 22:21


Seems like God told us to follow the government, regardless if it disagrees with his views. This is not his kingdom. God certainly knows that secular governments are not going to abide by religious law, nor does he seem to want them to.

 

[hollyda]

I don't get the whole, the world will stop reproducing argument. Gays are a minority and they have existed for all of human history. Did the population not continue to flourish for the past many thousands of years by having gays around? Why would them getting married change that? Are you suggesting that the majority of heterosexuals in the world secretly want to marry gays and stop reproducing?

Apparently, some people think that the only thing stopping gays from reproducing is the inability to get married. Otherwise, it's perfectly logical that a man could get a man pregnant.

Or they think allowing gays to marry will increase the number of homosexuals in the world. I rather doubt those toting this argument or claiming it's a legitimate concern has met a homosexual person, let alone talked with them for fear of "catching the gay."

 

[BondiHarry]

1) It doesn't matter what the majority of the population recognize - we are not a democracy. 2) I disagree with your view on God, but religion has no relevance in a secular nation with secular laws.

God is never irrelevant to the affairs of men and I suggest you study what the Founding Fathers had to say about the importance of the gospel of Jesus to men, even deists like Benjamin Franklin recognized the good in His gospel.

Marriage has changed meanings countless times. The fact that you think it has religious origin or that it has never changed meaning is a huge mistake.

God created man and created the institution of marriage for men and women so yes, I am certain of its origins. What men have done with it over his history is another thing.

Ill ask you to refrain from discussing Constitutional Law since you seem to need more education on it.

I know that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, that it reflects many of the teachings of God and that the Supreme Court is obligated to base its decisions on it rather than inventing 'rights' out of its own imagination.

And since the United States is a secular country with Freedom of Religion, men are perfectly within their rights to decide God is of no consequence to them, and it's none of your business.

God has indeed given men the freedom to deny and reject Him and many obviously take advantage of that. On the flip side, if gays want to 'marry' as I've said earlier in this thread they are free to declare themselves married but they don't have the right to force me or anyone else to recognize their union as a marriage and treat it as legitimate ... or as you might say 'it none of their business'.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

God created man and created the institution of marriage for men and women so yes, I am certain of its origins. What men have done with it over his history is another thing.

We created the institution of marriage. We changed it throughout the course of history. We can change it again. We will change it. In fact, we are in the process of doing so.

 

[hollyda]

Sex discrimination? By their very choice of a 'partner' of the same sex gays eschew marriage which is the union of a man and a woman. They don't like that definition? There have been numerous votes on marriage and the vast majority of people in the United States recognize marriage as the union of a man and a woman, .

Because majority=right. Let's ask the slaves it took us centuries to liberate if they thought the majority opinion was correct, then.

and of course that is exactly how God identifies it

Irrelevant in secular society. God also speaks against adultery (it's actually one of those commandments) and divorce, but those actions are not prohibited by law. Try again, please.

There are several issues at work. One is what is marriage? Another is do men have 'rights' independent of what rights God grants us? Can those rights violate rights given to us by God?

Also irrelevant in a secular society. If you want a theocracy, I suggest moving to the Middle East.

The whole issue of gay 'marriage' is just another sign of men deciding God is of no consequence in their lives and professing themselves to be wise (not that we should be surprised since we largely ignore God in marriage, the rearing of children, the handling of money, how we govern ourselves, how we spend our leisure time etc.).

And yet we're still not a theocracy. I'm a heterosexual atheist. I've decided God has no consequence in my life, and I do it while under legal protection of our Constitution. If you can find a non-theist argument that holds water as to why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, I'd like to hear it. "Because God says so" is not a reason in a country that celebrates the freedom of and FROM religion.

 

[BondiHarry]

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Roman 13:1

They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. Matt 22:21


Seems like God told us to follow the government, regardless if it disagrees with his views. This is not his kingdom. God certainly knows that secular governments are not going to abide by religious law, nor does he seem to want them to.

Anytime there is a conflict between what God tells us to do and what man tells us to do, God wants us to follow Him (look at your second quote from scripture). God did not establish governments to bring men to faith as He governs not from top to bottom or outside in but from inside the man outward.

 

[Jase]

God is never irrelevant to the affairs of men and I suggest you study what the Founding Fathers had to say about the importance of the gospel of Jesus to men, even deists like Benjamin Franklin recognized the good in His gospel.

It doesn't matter how they viewed Jesus. Most of the Founding Fathers were not very religious (and fundamentalism didn't even exist yet). They specifically created a government meant to prevent tyranny of the majority or oppression by certain religions.

God created man and created the institution of marriage for men and women so yes, I am certain of its origins. What men have done with it over his history is another thing.

Wrong. Marriage began long before Judeo-Christianity as a business contract between a man, and usually multiple young girls (pedophilia/polygamy). The girls were nothing but disposable property. That is "traditional marriage". And many prominent Christians throughout history have opposed marriage. Even Paul didn't particularly agree with it - but he said it's a better alternative than suffering from passion.

I know that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, that it reflects many of the teachings of God and that the Supreme Court is obligated to base its decisions on it rather than inventing 'rights' out of its own imagination.

The Supreme Court does base it' decision on the Constitution. And their decisions can result in the changing or addition of certain rights. That is their job.

God has indeed given men the freedom to deny and reject Him and many obviously take advantage of that. On the flip side, if gays want to 'marry' as I've said earlier in this thread they are free to declare themselves married but they don't have the right to force me or anyone else to recognize their union as a marriage and treat it as legitimate ... or as you might say 'it none of their business'.

No one intends to force you to accept it. You are not the government. Nobody cares what your opinion on gay marriage is. All that's required is a judge and city hall.

It's rather ironic that you keep toting this anti-Christian marriage, and yet I don't see you advocating to ban atheists or muslims from getting married - both groups who also completely oppose your God.

You also show a lot of intolerance and hatred towards those who disagree with you. Calling gays abominations, bizarre, evil, etc. Your views on the Bible are quite likely to be wrong, and I don't think Jesus would appreciate how you treat people he loves.

 

[SOAD]

Anytime there is a conflict between what God tells us to do and what man tells us to do, God wants us to follow Him (look at your second quote from scripture). God did not establish governments to bring men to faith as He governs not from top to bottom or outside in but from inside the man outward.

I have men (some like you) always trying to tell me what God wants.

Who to believe?

What a dilemma!