6 thoughts on “Same-Sex Marriage”

1. I just don’t see it. How a hetero person acts towards their partner and their offspring has zero to do with the two unrelated gay newly weds. This is saying that society will be sending a message that we “no longer need men to bond to women to form… families. And that message is especially likely to … promoting casual or uncommitted sex”
   The discouragement of marriage and the promotion of uncommitted sex is not a new message (just ask your local hippy) nor does it have anything to do with gay bonding. In engineering speak:
   These two things are completely decoupled.

   1. Part 2:

      Because historic marriage presumes to define proper operational parameters for our species’ default s*ual orientation, by definition it stigmatizes s* outside of life-mate relationships (although some societies allow for homos*uality because gay s* doesn’t breed children; one of the basic functions of marriage is to preserve civilization by minimizing the dysfuctions that threaten assimilation of the replacement population). This is anathema to SSM crusaders and the s*ual Revolution in general, who view committed and uncommitted s*ual relationships to be morally and sociologically equal.

      If two contradictory concepts are given the same name, and people are given the impression that they’re the same thing, only one of those concepts will wind up earning that name among the general population and the other concept will have to find a few name to survive. Case in point: the word “liberal.” SSM will defeat marriage, because humans tend to be lazy and selfish and will gravitate toward the alternative that requires less effort. We had the s*ual Revolution and marriage at the same time; the concept of marriage as a mere benefits program was already making major headway before gays became infatuated with the word “marriage.”

2. We need an eleventh circle of hell for spam filters. Have to do this in stages.

   Part 1:

   SSM and real marriage are entirely coupled – the activists are trying to convince us that the two concepts are one in the same.

   The SSM crusaders think that marriage is a vehicle for gaining benefits for the married party, and nothing more, that it seeks to change the behavior of society toward the married party. Historic marriage is designed to change the behavior of the married party, to oblige the married party via law and/or custom to lifetime sexual and cohabitational fidelity, with one another and with minor children.

3. I see a very strong link between the methodology of this study, and the methodology of some global warming claims. In brief, unsubstantiated assumptions are extrapolated into ‘scientific’ detailed results.

   The word “conveys” jumped out at me right away. It pretends, and attempts to hand-wave away, the fact that (a word that rhymes with ‘hex”) outside of marriage has long been quite common, both regarding the married (affairs) and the unmarried. For example, college students are not noted for their celibacy.

   Also, this study seemed to ignore the inconvenient fact that rates of (word that rhymes with hex) in colleges and high schools are declining a bit, not going the other way, in this era of widening acceptance of gay marriage. This, to me, indicates that the issues are unrelated (much as are many climate-science claims that falsely link cause and effect). It certainly is a contra-indicator of the article’s claims.

   Personally, I’d like to see the government get the heck out of the marriage business, which it has no business being in, just the same way the government has no business doing a lot of the meddling in people’s lives that it does. Marriage is a personal, private matter, not something the government should be the arbiter of.

   1. If marriage is a private matter, then it is no longer marriage. It is cohabitation and nothing more.

      Marriage is a social contract. Universally it means that a party has agreed to share a lifetime s*xual/cohabitational fidelity and that a formal promise has been made among members of the party and with society at large. I stated society’s interest in the union already. The formality of marriage need not be governmental – it can exist as a private-sector phenomenon working roughly like a professional association. APICS gives certification to people who have learned certain principles of production control and inventory/resource management. Marriage is certification for s*xual unions that meet the aforementioned minimal standards of what what society perceives as human s*xual and sociological sanity. This certaification communicates through culture how heteros*xuality works properly. People who want to enter SSM relationships (which, judging by European standards is a tiny percentage of gays) don’t think they owe society anything; they just want cohabitation, benefits, and people calling their unions “marriage.”

4. Your definition of marriage is as relevant to me as mine is to you. You have every right (and I will vehemently defend that right) to believe as you see fit. What you do not have a right to do is impose your beliefs on me. Nor, of course, do I have any business imposing mine on you. There’s a definition of that: It’s called individual liberty. Or just plain liberty and freedom. Your rights stop at the tip of your nose, as do mine at mine.

   Your blanket assertion regarding the motives of people who wish to enter SSM want is utter nonsense, simply because it is a blanket assertion. Anytime you, or I, or anyone, makes such a blanket assertion about any group, it is inherently near certain to be untrue (It’s called stereotyping.). You are most likely right regarding many. You are surely wrong regarding others. For example, can you seriously contend that conventional marriage always has procreation as a component for everyone seeking to enter it? Of course not, as many senior citizens getting married will tell you, and as many childless by choice couples will also. Do all non-SSM newlyweds consider themselves as owing society something? I think we both know that a great many don’t (And that too is their business). Likewise, there are what are referred to as open marriages. I find the concept of those immoral, disquieting, and also against my personal concept of what marriage means (to me, part of it is monogamy). But that is their business, not mine. There are also some who consider a celibate marriage to be a marriage, and that too is their business, not mine, or anyone else’s. (Would you tell a physically disabled couple for whom non celibacy is impossible that they cannot marry?).

   Caveat: I do, of course, mean marriage amongst consenting adults (regardless of whether SS or not), because there is a word for a non-consenting participant in anything: victim. And minors, by definition, cannot consent (Likewise, they cannot consent to other matters, such as other kinds of contracts). Do I call an adult legally married to a 15 year old (which happens to be legal in places) a marriage? No, I don’t. It’s molestation.

Comments are closed.