The Strategy Behind Same-Sex Marriage

[Autumnleaf]

savethemales.ca - The Strategy Behind Same-Sex Marriage

What this guy says seems to make some sense as it pertains to marriage. Is he right? What are the moral and ethical ramifications if he is?

Because of contraception: A

"We now have a culture of sexual vagrancy. We're all aware of the "hookup", along with the devastating impact this has on the lives of young women (and in truth on all of us).

The second consequence is that contraception has fundamentally changed the meaning of marriage. Most married couples still have one or two children. But big families are now rare, and many couples are childless.

There was a name for them in the 80s: Dinks (i.e., "dual income, no kids.") It now became widely acceptable -- "normal" -- not to have kids. In other words, even though in practice most couples still had children, in principle the link between marriage and children had been severed."

Because of divorce on demand: B

"Wasn't this a good thing? Certainly there were people who felt trapped in a loveless or unjust relationship. But the consequences today are tremendous, especially for the children of divorce.

Marriage vows had always emphasized "till death do us part." Monogamy didn't just mean one partner at a time, it meant one partner for life. And while many people still remain married for life, we now have a culture where multiple marriages are normal.

In other words, since marriage can now easily be dissolved, in principle the link between marriage and permanence has been severed."

We now have C being more agreeable to society:

"It wasn't until the changes wrought by "A" and "B" had time to permeate our culture, both practically and psychologically, that the campaign for "C" got underway.

But when it did, opponents of same-sex marriage had already all but lost the battle. They had surrendered the ground on which they could have fought. They had accepted a redefinition of "normal" marriage that made it virtually indistinguishable from homosexual liaisons.

Homosexuals live together. They don't (for the most part) have children, but neither do many heterosexual couples.

Most of them are not faithful to their partners, and they change partners often. There's little permanence. But that's now acceptable among heterosexuals. And since homosexual "marriages" and heterosexual marriages have come to resemble each other, how can we accept one and reject the other?

And just to make it doubly hard to object, homosexual activists launched a campaign for homosexual adoption. See? They're just like us, raising a family.

So having homo-sexualized traditional marriage by severing its links to children and permanence, they now supplement that strategy by presenting a grotesque counterfeit of traditional marriage: the happy homosexual couple, faithful for life and raising a family. How could you deny them the right to marry? They're more traditional than you!"

 

[b&wpac4]

Marriage vows had always emphasized "till death do us part." Monogamy didn't just mean one partner at a time, it meant one partner for life. And while many people still remain married for life, we now have a culture where multiple marriages are normal.

In some cultures, not in others.

Making it sound like the homosexual community at large is responsible for heterosexuals not having good marriages is faulty logic.

 

[Infernalfist]

I am going to lay this out on the table, no fancy words, and no long winded statements.
there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality.
if your god had intended for people of the same sex not to have intimate relationships, then he wouldn't have created an external pleasure point on women(the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]) and an internal pleasure point for males(the prostate).

 

[BigBadWlf]

savethemales.ca - The Strategy Behind Same-Sex Marriage

What this guy says seems to make some sense as it pertains to marriage. Is he right? What are the moral and ethical ramifications if he is?

Wow…this site is almost as credible as the site where you vote for the cutest pictures of human/bigfoot hybrid babies

Because of contraception: A

"We now have a culture of sexual vagrancy. We're all aware of the "hookup", along with the devastating impact this has on the lives of young women (and in truth on all of us).

The second consequence is that contraception has fundamentally changed the meaning of marriage. Most married couples still have one or two children. But big families are now rare, and many couples are childless.

There was a name for them in the 80s: Dinks (i.e., "dual income, no kids.") It now became widely acceptable -- "normal" -- not to have kids. In other words, even though in practice most couples still had children, in principle the link between marriage and children had been severed."

Wow this has no relevance to…anything

Because of divorce on demand: B

"Wasn't this a good thing? Certainly there were people who felt trapped in a loveless or unjust relationship. But the consequences today are tremendous, especially for the children of divorce.

Marriage vows had always emphasized "till death do us part." Monogamy didn't just mean one partner at a time, it meant one partner for life. And while many people still remain married for life, we now have a culture where multiple marriages are normal.

In other words, since marriage can now easily be dissolved, in principle the link between marriage and permanence has been severed."

Wow… I didn’t think it was possible but this has even less relevance

We now have C being more agreeable to society:

"It wasn't until the changes wrought by "A" and "B" had time to permeate our culture, both practically and psychologically, that the campaign for "C" got underway.

But when it did, opponents of same-sex marriage had already all but lost the battle. They had surrendered the ground on which they could have fought. They had accepted a redefinition of "normal" marriage that made it virtually indistinguishable from homosexual liaisons.

You mean getting married. Buying a hose together…raising kids…paying taxes…mowing the lawn…having a fulfilling career…growing old together…yep same sex marriage is indistinguishable from opposite sex marriage

Homosexuals live together. They don't (for the most part) have children, but neither do many heterosexual couples.

Incorrect. The US censuses shoed that 34% of same gendered couples were raising children, only slightly less than the 48% of opposite sexed couples who were raising children

Most of them are not faithful to their partners, and they change partners often. There's little permanence.

Absolutely correct a significant number of heterosexual married men will have an extramarital affair sometime in their marriage
Meanwhile gays tend to be monogamous:

Vierod E. A. “Prevalence and trends in homosexual behavior” Scandinavian Journal of Social Medicine. 1997. Vo. 25(1):33-38. found that Gay men averaged 1 sexual partner in a given year. Heterosexual men, on the other hand, averaged 4.6 partners per year.


Bryant and Demian “Partners National Survey of Lesbian & Gay Couples” Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services (Vol. 1, #2, 1994) found that 78% of gay men were either in a mutually monogamous relationship or was celibate. They also found that 26.4% of married heterosexual men were having sexual contact with at least one other woman (a quarter of these men were having sexual intercourse with multiple women)

And just to make it doubly hard to object, homosexual activists launched a campaign for homosexual adoption. See? They're just like us, raising a family.

I love it when they contradict themselves. “They don't (for the most part) have children” but somehow they are adopting poor unsuspecting children by the truckload.

 

[Autumnleaf]

Does the logic follow that acceptance of contraception and easy divorce make homosexual marriage more agreeable to the public?

 

[quatona]

Does the logic follow that acceptance of contraception and easy divorce make homosexual marriage more agreeable to the public?

No.

 

[Nithavela]

Does the logic follow that acceptance of contraception and easy divorce make homosexual marriage more agreeable to the public?

For what would homosexual people need contraception?

Maybe condoms so gay men won't catch STDs. But that's not contraception.

 

[steelie]

Wow. Oversimplification much? The thing that always bugs me when people try to open up a marriage debate is that so few people know ANYTHING about the history of marriage (Western or worldwide) and that even fewer can logically analyze the ramifications of such an institution.

Marriage is starting to lose its function altogether either way... I honestly don't see why we need to push for it.

 

[HannahBanana]

Just because someone happens to be a homosexual doesn't mean that he/she should be denied the right to marry the person he/she loves. How would you like it if you were denied the right to marry the person you love just because you happen to be straight?

 

[levi501]

Feels like I'm reading from the point of view of a child attempting to reason something out.

 

[Archer93]

Does the logic follow that acceptance of contraception and easy divorce make homosexual marriage more agreeable to the public?

How on earth would it?
Please, describe the logical process, if you think there is one.

 

[Autumnleaf]

How on earth would it?
Please, describe the logical process, if you think there is one.

The link leads to the guy's arguments. I sort of smiled when I read his theory because I've had all sorts of people around here who are for homosexual marriage throw out reasons very similar to the ones this guy cites for why gay marriage is a morally sound idea.

 

[keith99]

I'm half afraid to say this, I have too much experience on how things hget twisted. But here goes anyway.

For this to make any sense as a strategy (which it does not) it would mean those wanting gay marriage would have had to create teh frist 2 steps. It is the classic conspiricy theory problem, this is an absurd path to tkae. If one had anywhere near that kind of power and control they would just jump straight to the desired goal.

 

[HannahBanana]

So AutumnLeaf, tell me, how exactly is homosexual marriage not morally sound, considering the fact that your morals are no more correct than anyone else's morals?

 

[Archer93]

The link leads to the guy's arguments. I sort of smiled when I read his theory because I've had all sorts of people around here who are for homosexual marriage throw out reasons very similar to the ones this guy cites for why gay marriage is a morally sound idea.

As arguments go, his are sorely lacking. He seems to be suggesting that the acceptance of not having children means that any non-reproducing couple is acceptable?
The flaw in that argument is that infertile opposite-sex couples are accepted, and that about a third of same-sex couples do raise children.

 

[Jase]

The link leads to the guy's arguments. I sort of smiled when I read his theory because I've had all sorts of people around here who are for homosexual marriage throw out reasons very similar to the ones this guy cites for why gay marriage is a morally sound idea.

Why is gay marriage a morally sound idea?

14th Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [My emphasis]

 

[dies-l]

Does the logic follow that acceptance of contraception and easy divorce make homosexual marriage more agreeable to the public?

Yes, but to call it a strategy is rather silly. This would imply that a long time ago, a group of homosexuals came up with the idea that, if only we could get straight people to use birth control, we can get married someday. I would suggest that anyone who believes that this is how it happened really ought to invest in a tinfoil hat.

But, here is what I do think is reasonable. Society transitioned from one in which marriage existed primarily to create a relatively stable foundation in which to raise children to one in which marriage exists primarily as a contractual relationship between two people to practice sexual monogamy and to support one another financially, emotionally, spiritually, and otherwise. In the former model, gay marriage makes no sense. In the latter model, gay marriage fits perfectly.

Now, how did we get from the former to the latter? I would argue that the transition was an inevitable consequence of modernization. Over the past few hundred years we have seen technological advancements in just about every area of our lives, including medicine and communication. Because of advances in medicine, infant mortality substantially decreased, it became unnecessary to have large numbers of children in order to advance our gene pool. At the same time, we transitioned from a primarily agricultural society to one that is industrial and now post-industrial. Consequently, large families went from being an asset (more children meant more people to help in the fields) to a liability (more mouths to feed that are too young to earn income). Likewise, medical advancement meant that we became better able to choose to limit the number of children that we have without having to limit the amount of sex that we have. Add all these factors together, and what do you get? Smaller families of course!

So, families get smaller and smaller, and since children no longer serve the economic purpose they once served, some couples decide to have none at all. At the same time, advancements in communicative technology allow people who have always believed one thing (e.g., that everyone ought to have lots of children) to consider other perspectives more readily. So, some couples decide to have no children at all. So, the social structure that used to exist to provide structure to large groups of offspring now no longer serve this purpose at all. So, then what? Society begins to rethink the role of marriage. Rather than dismantling marriage altogether, we begin to understand marriage as a means to provide some element of predictability for those involved and for any offspring that come about. As in any contractual relationship, part of predictability demands some idea of liquidated damages (ie. what is to happen if the contract fails). And, here enters no-fault divorce.

So, now that marriage exists primarily as a contract between two people with a built in liquidated damages clause, we need to define what that is. Because marriage is a particularly complicated and emotional contract, to assess damages in a way that requires a court to find fault only invites divorcing couples to air all of their dirty laundry in a public forum. This kind of freakshow is clearly not in society's best interest, so we decide that it is no longer necessary to determine who is at fault to assess damages in divorce. The consequence of this is that divorce becomes ever easier to obtain.

So, now we have marriage as largely a contractual relationship between two people with a liquidated damages clause for predictability. Although children may result from that relationship, they are not the purpose of it. Another reason for this is that it has become equally likely that non-contractual relationship will produce children. So, with this new view of marriage that has arisen, not because of any person or group's concerted effort, but as a result of modernization, the question arises why should this particular type of contract be limited to heterosexuals?

Those who oppose gay marriage generally believe that this transition has been negative and that gay marriage only further cements this change that has been bad for society and will only get worse. Those who favor gay marriage, I think, would tend to look at the trend and say it is either positive or that it is what it is and that there is no point resisting it. But, I do think that there is benefit in understanding the trend, even if my explanation of it is a gross oversimplification.

 

[BigBadWlf]

As arguments go, his are sorely lacking. He seems to be suggesting that the acceptance of not having children means that any non-reproducing couple is acceptable?
The flaw in that argument is that infertile opposite-sex couples are accepted, and that about a third of same-sex couples do raise children.

I think we are supposed to ignore these facts…otherwise the ‘logic’ wont work

 

[MajorMonogram]

Does the logic follow that acceptance of contraception and easy divorce make homosexual marriage more agreeable to the public?

No

 

[lawtonfogle]

Why is gay marriage a morally sound idea?

14th Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [My emphasis]

That does not mean homosexual marriage is morally sound. That means that, regardless of if it is or is not morally sound, it should be allowed.