that is an opinion which has no impact on anything one way to the other.
yes it is. And a year and a half after the supreme court ruling marriage is just as special as before.
no cause and effect shown
that is pretty meaningless. What qualifies as unity? cohesiveness?
once you defien those and show it all to be menaingfull you then get to show that the legal recognition of same sex marraige has any effect on anything
Discrimination is a cause of this loss.
Seems like fewer divorces would be a good thing to you.
and since homosexual couples are less likely to divorce this would only help in doing that.
Ref Badgett, M.V. and Mallory, C. New Data from Marriage Licenses for Same-Sex Couples. UCLA 2016
your opinion.
which is unchanged
You have yet to provide a single example of this
If by "real" you mean opposite sex marriages then you havn't shown this at all
no evidence
- getting married iself destructive?
the idea that homosexuals have a lower life expectancy was originated by Paul Cameron. Cameron was a psychiatrist teaching at the univ of Nebraska but lost his job and was expelled form the APA when he got caught making up research data. His claim that gay men have a life expectancy of 42 years is based on his infamous obituary study. Cameron clipped obituaries from various newspapers and then selected that obituaries he thought belonged to gay men.
There are proofs done to show morality/truths cannot be subjective, without going into those here. Claiming those -are subjective still certainly matters in talking about promoting unity, cohesiveness and stability in a society as being subjective would not promote those aspects. For example if not everyone agrees stealing is wrong, then the unity, cohesiveness and stability of such a society would be negatively impacted. Examples of promoting that lost to history because such societies did not last our testimonies to this.
No the point about being "special" in the law is two fold. Whether it matches reality and did it formerly have a special status. Take a reality like all men are created equal. If there was a law encouraging slavery, such a law goes against that reality.
So the law encouraging SS "marriages" is against the human reality of what a marriage is now and always has been. Marriage also has held, until such recent laws were introduced, a special status in the law that no other human partnership/union has been provided. By opening the legal definitions to multiple various other types of human partnerships that status of a male-female union can no longer be said to be "special".
The cause/effect of stability of a "family unit" can be shown as there is no data to support that a SS family unit would on whole be better than a marriage. It would have to be better to improve the current state of all family units, otherwise it is contributing to the overall increasing instability of such units in our society. There is also a good case to be made that the effect on heterosexual view of marriage from endorsing SS marriage would further discourage some to marry - which is also a negative on the stability of society's fundamental building block.
If people in a society are very divided on anything, in this case a fundamental building block of a society, then the cohesiveness is weakened - meaning it helps make it easier to pull that society apart rather than helping it continue. So it follows from the obvious division we have on this issue.
No, losing human dignity occurs when mistreat, abuse or attempt to degrade our human nature. A part of human nature is to be male female. Walking around in a vagina costume in a protest supporting women's dignity would be an example of a loss of that person's own human dignity - as well as being ironic. Endorsing behavior which is degrading to human dignity is a loss in my book, most people's book for that matter.
The topic was what do we loose by endorsing SS unions as "marriage. The loss would be shorter lines and less parking at divorce court. Not that I believe most SS couples will abide by our divorce laws and as some bigamy suits have already demonstrated. But yes, thank you, I am for shorter lines and parking at all govt facilities - the point was endorsing SS unions as a "marriage" will negatively impact that and I don't need examples of it to say that must be so.
No, it is not an opinion that laws should reflect the "natural law" or "laws of nature". In fact my understanding is that our legal system and many before are founded in part on that. Supporting that line of thinking was one reason equality was even mentioned in our Declaration of Independence. So no, that was not an opinion.
A loss of service will naturally occur in various ways when demand is increased and supply is not. Endorsing a behavior that is unhealthy will increase demand on health services. So everyone's access is effected simply by the supply/demand when we encourage unhealthy behavior as a society. Again, not opinion but simple statement of fact.
If anyone watched TV after any state or the federal ruling, they would know that we have increased the occurrence of SS unions being labeled "marriage". Am unclear why anyone would think it would increase or continue to do that - that is the outcome of adding a legal benefit to human behavior - more of it. You brought up unicorns to no one's surprise, but in general any society that moves toward disorder increase panic and fear for everyone as well as animals.
I do not need to show a further decline in marriage rates to make a point that something which does not promote or encouraging the behavior by degrading or diluting what was a "special" benefit status has a negative effect. So given the degree it is no a longer benefit of a specific behavior, it will naturally result in a decrease of people wanting to do it. The more people we give a benefit to, the less it is seen as a benefit and so less behavioral incentive for doing it. Should not need an example to show that if we took the welfare budget and say just gave out $1000 to every citizen there would be more people looking for jobs.
In order to make any claim against saying legally endorsing SS "marriage" will increase single family homes, one would have to show SS unions who obtain children would be MORE stable than our real marriages are. Otherwise they are adding to the problem, not making it better. Nothing we currently know about such unions suggests they would be more stable than real marriages currently are. If you have such "evidence" to the contrary please share.
Giving the overwhelming documented evidence of the effects of single parent homes to poverty, teen pregnancy rates, diseases, general misery...etc. am unclear why anyone would assume a homosexual single parent population would not have similar effect. Do you have "evidence" it would not be so for homosexual single parents?
Yes, a society encouraging a behavior by giving benefits to engaging in it will result in an increase of people doing it. Am at a loss why anyone would suggest we need evidence to show that is true. Encouraging behavior is part of the reason for giving a benefit. If the behavior is shown to be self destructive, then giving that benefit will increase the numbers of people doing it.
Our government studies and many others show the LGBT population has significant statistically differentiation in all sorts of health related issues. Our only disagreement could be the cause, which the govt sites tend to agree if we were all just OK with it that much of that goes away - Whether that is true or not is a different topic. And yes they all show some differences in life expectancy even though many of those studies (like the govt's) are LGBT friendly. I never said expectancy was 42 years old, the actual numbers are not the issue. The fact they are lower than other groups is the issue.
I don't think it is reasonable to dismiss all those studies simply because one guy said gay men had a number of 42. (not familiar with that study, but would not surprise me if that was an accurate number in the 80s in several US population centers).
