An example of how your marriage was undermined by the existence of SSM would certainly be a compelling argument,
You and Kylie have this tactic of limiting the possible options of how to support ones claims. In court this would be unfair. But at least you have relinquished and are allowing me to expand examples.
but an example of any traditional marriage being undermined by the existence of SSM was all I was asking for and you cannot provide even that.
I already did, you either ignored it or are denying it under your shifting criteria for what counts. Here is the example once again. So a religious adoption agency cannot place a child in a TM within the government system. It used to be able to but now it cannot promote exclusively TM as being the better option. This now makes TM no different to other forms of marriage like SSM or any other one that will be legalised like polygamy or open marriages. So those traditional marriages are seen as no different to any other form of marriage.
Trying to show that SSM is "not as good" as TM won't cut it. Being "not as good" as traditional marriage does not undermine any actual traditional marriages.
It’s not just a case of not as good. It’s the fact that TM has a certain value that no other marriages have. If it cannot be differentiated and promoted anymore within the government system then it is undermined. If a religious organisation or individual cannot hold up TM exclusively compared to SSM or any other form of marriage it is undermined. It no longer differentiates from other versions of marriage.
It is brought back to be of equal value to all other definitions.
You take great pains to show that other forms of families (childless couples and singles adopting, for example) are "not as good" as traditional marriages
I never said that and you are attributing a sentiment I have not portrayed. This is something you are doing like a logical fallacy Ad hominem to try and discredit my argument.
--but somehow these relationships do not undermine traditional marriage as you claim SSM does--because of reasons which you do not make clear.
I thought you said that being not as good as traditional marriage does not undermine TM. Then why make it a point. You are all over the place which shows you don’t have a real argument.
Without any examples of actual traditional marriages being undermined by the presence of SSM that's just so much moonshine.When I see it happen I'll let you know.
So let me ask you do good arguments count for showing how TM has been undermined. Aren’t good arguments the basis used in courts for proving a case. They certainly don’t rely on examples alone in court and in fact I would say a good argument trumps examples as you could just dismiss my examples out of hand. But you cannot knock down a good argument without a good argument.
See here we are with you once again controlling the eligibility of what counts as support. Anyone who does that knows they don’t have a good argument and are too worried about giving their opposition too much opportunity to support their case. Even so I have also provided examples which as I predicted you dismissed like the adoption example. But I would be interested in you addressing my arguement which I have made below and in post
#866.
BTW, your characterization of SSM is mere companionship is ignorant and offensive.--just the kind of casual bigotry that earns opponents of gay marriage so much criticism. Gays marry out of sexual/romantic love and a desire to have a family just like straight couples.
I never said it was just companionship and included sexual partnerships. I don’t dispute that many have the desire to have a family as it’s a natural human one. But you missed my point. It wasn’t to denigrate anyone but to point out the different and unique definition of TM as opposed to other forms of marriage like SSM.
That uniqueness makes a difference to the sexual part of marriage as it makes sex not just about sex but the natural act of joining complimentary humans in the act of procreation. This has important benefits such the connections between biological parents which has been shown to make a difference to a child’s wellbeing and the connection of a child to his biological parents which is important as well.
That cannot happen in SSM and they have to step outside the natural act and use other means. That introduces situations that may not be best for relationships, families and society. So this needs to be highlighted as it has implications for children, families and society.
As with other issues like abortion it seems the demands of SSM is all about the adults and doesn’t consider the wider implications on children and society. Now with the marriage definition changes the uniqueness and difference that TM had is being diminished and the promotion of less beneficial situations are being pushed which will devalue marriage as a whole.
It still is the norm. It will always be the norm. Only a small percentage of the population is gay and an even smaller percentage will marry.
That may be in practice but it is no longer in principle. That small portion has changed the definition of marriage. It is no longer between man and women (TM). So how can anyone promote and push TM above SSM as the norm. That would be against the law and bring consequences. I have already shown this IE religious adoption agencies cannot promote TM couples anymore within the State. So the new norm will be marriage is between 2 people and all the knock practcies like adoption, marriage celebrates will have to conform to this or else.
TM is not seen as a position opposing SSM.
So adoption agencies, businesses like cake and flower shops, individual marriage celebrates and the like can promote it above SSM then without any repurcussions. Wouldnt upholding TM above SSM under the state law be opposing SSM and the law.
Some religious extremists are trying, with limited success, to make it into a position opposing SSM.
Religious extremists. Like I pointed out most people who have been hauled before tribunals and courts or forced out of a job or have lost tax ememptions and accreditations are average everyday people and businesses or non-profits.
Never the government's job, anyway.
It was up until recently and why wouldn' t the government take an interest in marriage. Marriage is the institution that produces its new citizens and the government will want responsible citizens that can contribute to society to make their job easier. The family is the protection against all the problems created by broken families. So the government knows that protecting marriage and the family helps them govern as it reduces their imput in mopping up all those problems.
The problem is when the government doesn' t take an interest in marriage we will see more family breakdowns and when that happens we will see more government intervention and control in peoples lives dictating what we can and cannot do.
Yes indeed, unless SSM is suppressed, we will soon by marrying dogs and cats and rocks in our yard. Oh, my!
I think its a bit early for this yet but something similar may happen now that marriage is open to other challenges on legal rights. A newsweek report mentioned there were around 500,000 polyamorous households in America. So this will probably by the next redefining of marriage. Otherwise those who are in polygamious relationships will claim they are being descriminated against and rightly so if we use the same logic as SSM.
Only You. And You. And You. Polyamory—relationships with multiple, mutually consenting partners—has a coming-out party.
http://www.practicalpolyamory.com/images/newsweek_7-29-09.pdf
I don't know how it is in Australia, but in this country religious adoption agencies can decline to place orphans with gay couples--they just can't do it in association with government programs or with government subsidies.
Oh so wait a minute they can stay in the adoption industry so long as they breach their conscience. What a horrible scenario to be in. You seem to think thats all OK for religious people to just ignore their beliefs and conscience. That is exactly what I just said that religious adoptive charities are being forced out of adoption business.
That still makes it wrong as they have been in the industry for decades and are helping the government with these social problems as all charities do. Suddenly the government is now forcing them to conform or else and destroying years of helping people. Its societies loss.
I don't now how it is in Australia, but in this country any Christian can promote traditional marriage,
So if any Christian can promote TM then how do you explain that long list for which I have plenty more examples where people and organisations are being attacked and forced out of work, and suffer other damages merely for promoting TM.
but if they denounce SSM in ignorant and bigoted terms they are likely to receive some criticism about it.
Where not even talking about getting that far. We are talking about just promoting TM and people are not just getting criticized but are being attacked with more bigotry and hate then any Christian would express and are being forced out of work and suffering damages and you don’t even bat an eyelid.
If they expect to be able to flout public accommodation and labor law they are likely to be hauled into court for it. Whining about the 1st Amendment won't cut it.
They are being hauled into court for expressing and promoting TM which you said was something they could do. I gave you the examples. We should be concerned about 1st Amendment rights because that is what is being denied. Once again this shows your hostility and indifference towards religion that you don’t even acknowledge this but are quite quick to highlight how other rights should be upheld.
