Why the Same-Sex Marriage Experiment Will Not Work

[oldzimm]

Why won't same-sex marriages work?

God made Adam an Eve, not Adam an Steve, case closed.

[Arthur Durnan]

God never made two men to procreate. Call homosexuality what you may wish, but don't call it "Christian." Jesus Christ, the Head of the Christian Church emphasized neither homosexuality or lesbianism when He declared in Matthyew 19: re marital union, "male & female"; "man & wife"; and "mother & father." Sounds school-room obvious here. Why knock it? To argue that homosexual sexual relations are a healthy and acceptable norm in human relations is pure sophistry and casuistry of malignant dimensions. Diversity is one thing. Bizarro-Land quite another.

What homosexuals call gay "marriage", I call homosexual shacking-up. What they refer to as "gay", I call perversion, deviation, abnormal, a distinct sin (Genesis 19:5; Romans 1:24-27; 1 Cor. 6:9,10). Even the late homosexual playwright, Truman Capote said: "I don't know why they call it 'gay.' There's nothing gay about it!" Yea, spot-on, Tru! Oh, cry me a river of Chateau Lafite Rothschild!

Arthur Durnan.

[ollkiller]

A few things in that article i would take issue with are. Now i'm no expert in these matters but here are my two cent opinions

1. Quote "In the late 1960s, no-fault divorce promised to simplify, streamline and decrease the contentiousness surrounding marital breakup. Instead, it only encouraged struggling spouses to throw in the towel. Fathers abandoned their families in droves. Poverty levels skyrocketed. Prison populations increased at dramatic levels, a consequence of kids now growing up without a father in the home."

Here he is only showing the bad points. Divorce also allowed men or women (mostly women) who were the victims of physical and mental abuse from their partners to start a new life without abuse. Why should someone who's being subjected to abuse have to stay with that person for the rest of their life. Next poverty levels skyrocketd. So there was less poverty from say from 1900 to the end of the 1950's. Lunacy. I don't know if prison populations skyrocketed but if they did i'm sure there are more factors involved like say an increase in drug abuse and from over here america seems to like putting lots of people in jail.

2. Quote "A few years later, in 1973, the Supreme Court legalized abortion in all 50 states. Supporters heralded a new era of responsibility, where every child would be a wanted child. Tragically, over 48 million babies have now been aborted and the beauty of life has been cheapened as a result, while child abuse has skyrocketed."

Now i am not advocating abortion at all. I don't have an opinion on abortion mainly as i am a man it's a very difficult topic to discuss. The only issue i have is where the author said that child abuse has skyrocketed. I think the author has lost the plot here. There is way less child abuse today than back years ago. When i was growing up every child got hit by either their parents, thie teacher or even other kids parents if they were misbehaving. It has totally changed nowadays where physical punishment of children is totally frowned upon.

3. Quote "The expansion of welfare promised to alleviate human suffering. While in some ways noble in intent, it disincentivized work, undermined the family unit and created a perpetual cycle of dependency and poverty."

It might have in some cases i agree but it also has allowed people without a job to eat, have electricity and survive in hard times. Sure take welfare away and then see poverty rise. Big time.

4. Quote "Cohabitation is yet another experiment which promised to liberate couples from the “burden” of marriage. The number of couples living together outside of marriage has increased ten-fold between 1960 and 2000. Over 12 million unmarried partners now live together in the United States. The result? Cohabitation not only decreases a person’s appetite for marriage, it also increases the risk of divorce, should the couple ever tie the knot.

I co-habit. It has not dimished my appetite for marriage in any way. Why has cohabitation increased. Maybe, just maybe people want to try living with someone before they get married to see if they get on. I've gone out with girls in the past who i thought were brilliant. All changed when i lived with them.

These are just four points from the article i wanted to flag. I just think the article is very poorly written and put together.

Now my personal opinion on same sex marriage is this. I have a cousin who is gay and being with the same partner for the last 26 years. Both lovely people. They had a civil ceremony here in Ireland a few weeks ago (it became legal last year). I would have no truck with them getting married. Who am i to deny them the happiness straight couples have in marriage. In the same way i find it wrong that Muslim men say that women should wear the burka i think it is wrong for people to put their idea of marriage onto others. If you are happy in your marriage why are you bothered if two gay people want to get married.

There's my two cents. Probably worth only one cent though.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

A few things in that article i would take issue with are. Now i'm no expert in these matters but here are my two cent opinions

1. Quote "In the late 1960s, no-fault divorce promised to simplify, streamline and decrease the contentiousness surrounding marital breakup. Instead, it only encouraged struggling spouses to throw in the towel. Fathers abandoned their families in droves. Poverty levels skyrocketed. Prison populations increased at dramatic levels, a consequence of kids now growing up without a father in the home."

Here he is only showing the bad points. Divorce also allowed men or women (mostly women) who were the victims of physical and mental abuse from their partners to start a new life without abuse. Why should someone who's being subjected to abuse have to stay with that person for the rest of their life.

Hello olkiller.

Thank you for your reply but I'm afraid I must protest.

You're committing a bait and switch fallacy, followed by a false dichotomy, and topped off with a strawman fallacy to present this first point.

The quote you're referencing is not about divorce in general, but specifically 'no-fault divorce'. The issue is not whether or not abused people should be afforded the opportunity to escape their abusive spouse, but specifically the problem with the ‘no-fault’ approach, so your comments aren’t salient to the point.

Next poverty levels skyrocketd. So there was less poverty from say from 1900 to the end of the 1950's. Lunacy.

Please cite a source.

I don't know if prison populations skyrocketed but if they did i'm sure there are more factors involved like say an increase in drug abuse

Certainly, but that doesn’t disconfirm this as a contributing source. There might be correlations among all the factors that can be attributed to the increase in prison populations, so while you may not be able to point to a single one and suggest that it is the cause, the observation of increase may still point to a relationship between one of the factors and the increase in prison populations.

2. Quote "A few years later, in 1973, the Supreme Court legalized abortion in all 50 states. Supporters heralded a new era of responsibility, where every child would be a wanted child. Tragically, over 48 million babies have now been aborted and the beauty of life has been cheapened as a result, while child abuse has skyrocketed."

Now i am not advocating abortion at all. I don't have an opinion on abortion mainly as i am a man it's a very difficult topic to discuss.

I must admit, I don’t understand this line of reasoning.

If fetuses are actually human beings then abortion is actually murder. If a mother murders her baby, do you refrain from having an opinion because of your gender?

The only issue i have is where the author said that child abuse has skyrocketed. I think the author has lost the plot here. There is way less child abuse today than back years ago. When i was growing up every child got hit by either their parents, thie teacher or even other kids parents if they were misbehaving. It has totally changed nowadays where physical punishment of children is totally frowned upon.

There is a difference between physical punishment and child abuse.

I was spanked as a child from time to time, but I was never abused, nor did I resent the spankings. I was much more deeply hurt if I was yelled at unfairly when my parents were frustrated (though they’d usually apologize if that was the case) than if I was spanked for doing something dangerously irresponsible.

3. Quote "The expansion of welfare promised to alleviate human suffering. While in some ways noble in intent, it disincentivized work, undermined the family unit and created a perpetual cycle of dependency and poverty."

It might have in some cases i agree but it also has allowed people without a job to eat,

The problem is that they can do so, even if there is work available. I know a number of able bodied, skilled people who capitalize on such opportunities instead of contributing, therefore I think it’s a good rule that "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." (2 Thes. 3:10).

have electricity and survive in hard times. Sure take welfare away and then see poverty rise. Big time.

This is a strawman. The position of the author was on certain ‘expansions’ on welfare, which “promised to alleviate human suffering” but in point of fact proved to enable people to continue on paths that facilitated long-term poverty and suffering.

Your points are valid if the point of the article were to attack any and every alteration or re-visitation of such social structures, but that’s not the point the author was establishing.

The point is, these grand-scale social changes were accompanied by the promises of a brighter tomorrow. These changes where implied to in some respect be a breaking free from the traditions that were keeping us in a sort of social dark ages, from which a utopian future awaited if we would just cast off the conservative shackles.

The point is, such was not the case, and it is arguable that things in fact got worse as a result of the changes which promised a better future. If someone makes false promises, it simply stands to reason that their future promises are not to be trusted.

That some arguable benefits may have occurred is really beside the point – it was purported that these things would be a demonstrable, tangible improvement, and though some aspects may have needed some reform does not demonstrate that society at large received the benefits it was promised. Demonstrably the contrary occurred.

That’s all that’s required to establish the author’s point.

4. Quote "Cohabitation is yet another experiment which promised to liberate couples from the “burden” of marriage. The number of couples living together outside of marriage has increased ten-fold between 1960 and 2000. Over 12 million unmarried partners now live together in the United States. The result? Cohabitation not only decreases a person’s appetite for marriage, it also increases the risk of divorce, should the couple ever tie the knot.

I co-habit. It has not dimished my appetite for marriage in any way.

But you are a sample size of one. That’s totally irrelevant.

What’s relevant to the author’s case is the overall picture, not an isolated case.

Why has cohabitation increased. Maybe, just maybe people want to try living with someone before they get married to see if they get on.

Motive is irrelevant to the point. The point is the effect of the behaviour, not the motive which drives the behaviour.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

I've gone out with girls in the past who i thought were brilliant. All changed when i lived with them.

That does nothing to demonstrate an overall change in appetite of marriage or risk of divorce.

The fact of the matter is that people are getting married less frequently, older, and divorcing more often.

That’s all that’s required to establish the point.

These are just four points from the article i wanted to flag. I just think the article is very poorly written and put together.

I submit that you’ve focused on aspects that were not required to establish the author’s point. You’re objections actually do no material damage to the author’s purpose.

Now my personal opinion on same sex marriage is this. I have a cousin who is gay and being with the same partner for the last 26 years. Both lovely people. They had a civil ceremony here in Ireland a few weeks ago (it became legal last year). I would have no truck with them getting married. Who am i to deny them the happiness straight couples have in marriage.

You’re a contributing member of society.

What happiness do straight couples experience that same sex couples were being denied? No one was protesting their relationship (in terms of legally keeping them apart), no one was keeping them from anything. If the institution of marriage was established to facilitate a nuclear family to procreate and certain benefits were offered to facilitate that future investment then great, but why is a couple’s happiness contingent on capitalizing on benefits that were not established for their particular lifestyle choice?

Maybe I can’t be happy until the benefits offered to a single parent are offered to me. Who is anyone to deny me a seniors’ pension before I’m 65? Maybe I can’t be happy until someone pays me welfare, even if I choose to remain gainfully employed. Why can’t single people get marital benefits? What if their happiness depends on us affording them the same benefits as the married? Are we then discriminating against the un-married?

It really isn’t society’s responsibility to anti up to ensure that someone else’s concept of happiness is afforded at the financial expense of the whole. Two able bodied individuals who are fundamentally incapable of producing offspring should not be included as participants in a program established to invest in people who are capable of producing offspring.

In the same way i find it wrong that Muslim men say that women should wear the burka i think it is wrong for people to put their idea of marriage onto others.

There’s all the difference in the world between the two cases.

In one case, someone is being forced to do something. In the other, its society in general that’s being forced to pay out to people who can support themselves as though they were participants in an institution that was not set up for such an arrangement.

Second, gender discrimination is based on inalienable rights. A woman is a woman. That’s a physical fact. Without some major reconstructive surgery, nothing will change or alter the reality of a person’s gender, or their ethnicity. That is why such things are protected by anti-discrimination laws. Some people identify themselves as becoming homosexual, some people who say they were gay at one point ceased to be so (David Bowie is a notable example).

What this comes down to is homosexuality is not something like gender or ethnicity. It is not based on a recognizable physical trait but on a person's feelings. Inalienable rights are not a matter of feelings which can and do change or the manifestation of those feelings in behaviors which are necessarily based on choices. Even if there is some physical element to same sex unions, there may just as well be physical elements that drive any of our feelings or choices. Alcoholics may be genetically predisposed to alcoholism, but it doesn't mean that society is responsible for affirming and supporting their choices or behaviors.

It’s not an issue of putting an idea of marriage onto others. The institution of marriage has never included same sex relationships before, even in societies that glorified such unions. The definition of marriage has always meant among procreative participants because affording such people certain benefits is society’s investment in the future.

If someone elects alternative arrangements they are, and should be, free to do so, but that should not qualify them to capitalize on benefits offered to those who require them.

If you are happy in your marriage why are you bothered if two gay people want to get married.

There's my two cents. Probably worth only one cent though.

First, because we all pay for them. That’s the whole deal of marriage. If two guys want to shack up, that’s their business. If one of them decides he wants to be a stay at home kind of guy and lists himself as a “dependent” of the other, even though he’s just as capable of going to work as the rest of us and we have no particular reason to support him doing so, why should it be my responsibility to facilitate him doing so?

Marriage is a benefit offered to encourage procreative couples to procreate. It is general and inclusive, but has definitive boundaries for which there is no reason to expand to include those who fundamentally defy the purpose of the institution.

Besides, in some places there are bills circulating which seek to make it mandatory for people in the education system to affirm alternative lifestyles.

Advocates of same sex lifestyles (as a movement in general, not specifically individuals) are not looking to be allowed to do what they want free from persecution, they’re looking to force people to affirm their choices - that is persecution. This disallows people the right to respectfully agree to disagree by undermining people’s freedom of speech and freedom of religion, which would reserve the right to disagree with other peoples feelings and choices.

I appreciate your comments, but I submit that it affects much more than just the happiness of people like your cousin.

[esyflw]

“He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord – how he may please the Lord. But he who is married cares about the things of the world – how he may please his wife” (1 Corinthians 7:32-33).

Paul's point is a good one. Anyone who has been married knows that a married life brings many responsibilities and with it will eat away your time, energy and other resources that could have been spent on matters of God.

Therefore the same sex marriage may work because to me Paul's passage seems to suit gay couples, whom I think are set on pleasing themselves on worldly matters rather than on God.

[~candice~]

“He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord – how he may please the Lord. But he who is married cares about the things of the world – how he may please his wife” (1 Corinthians 7:32-33).

Paul's point is a good one. Anyone who has been married knows that a married life brings many responsibilities and with it will eat away your time, energy and other resources that could have been spent on matters of God.

Therefore the same sex marriage may work because to me Paul's passage seems to suit gay couples, whom I think are set on pleasing themselves on worldly matters rather than on God.

Except that Paul also said this:

1 Cor 6

⁹ Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men^{[a] 10} nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. ¹¹ And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Paul's message isn't pro gay marriage at all.

[esyflw]

I understand that.

I am checking the validity of the OP source that the Same-Sex Marriage experiment wont work.

The point still stands and even Paul recognizes is that the marriage life will tax our focus on God. This is well suited for Gay couples.

I think no one here will argue that gay couples will surrender any focus on God and put more focus on themselves than our Christian brethren. The fact is they insist of having a marriage law that they don't need = Worldly. They are worldly people, right? "But he who is married cares about the things of the world" is Paul's observation of human who are married.

Less God + worldly people = successful gay marriages.

[~candice~]

I understand that.

I am checking the validity of the OP source that the Same-Sex Marriage experiment wont work.

The point still stands and even Paul recognizes is that the marriage life will tax our focus on God. This is well suited for Gay couples.

I think no one here will argue that gay couples will surrender any focus on God and put more focus on themselves than our Christian brethren. The fact is they insist of having a marriage law that they don't need = Worldly. They are worldly people, right? "But he who is married cares about the things of the world" is Paul's observation of human who are married.

Less God + worldly people = successful gay marriages.

Their focus is already off God if they are engaging in homosexual relationships. And no, I don't think that less God = successful gay marriages. I think gay marriages and indeed any marriage without the Lord is doomed to fail.

[UndecidedFrog]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Dear ~candice~,

Thanks for the comment.

I think gay marriages and indeed any marriage without the Lord is doomed to fail.

Do you think that all non-christian marriages end up in divorce? Or am I misunderstanding your meaning here?

Regards,

UF

Edited July 13, 2011 by UndecidedFrog