In any case, why do you assume that allowing the fraction of that 2-3% of the population who are gay and want to marry to do so will cause heterosexual marriage to decline or cease?
Amcoph .. I don't think, IMO, that anyone believes that having Homosexuals marry would have much on an impact on society .. in and of itself. As I said before, and will repeat.
What is at stake, IMO, is the general perspectives of society. For example .. is it ok to have sex before marriage ... or ..... safe sex considerations like using condums. It is "socially acceptable" to live together, or is this frowned upon by society. Multiple wives?? ... Multiple Marriages and divorces? .. etc.
In general, the "collective perspectives" of the LEFT, lead to a decrease in Marriage. That is the case in Europe, and that is the case here in the US. Thus, we are left with choosing a path to take, based on individual feelings about what is best for society's future.
So, in the "general perspective", are we going to be a society that accepts all forms of attractions and relationships as normal and healthy, or are we going to be a society that promotes lasting marriage, defined as a man and woman, as the ideal.
In my mind, this is the question?? [..IMO, as in, I"m no expert, just based on my observations and conversations with people about the topic]. It's not about Gay Rights. As I've repeatedly stated, I support equal rights among all peoples with respect to the law. If Gays want to be "married", that is their business, but if society is going to be strong armed in to recognizing their uinons as "marriage" [ie., equal to what is accepted as Traditional Marriage], then by default, it goes against the position stated above .... "are we going to be a society that promotes lasting marriage defined as a man and woman, as the ideal".
I'll repeat, this is about "perspectives" .. not rights. I'd think the Gay Community would run into no problem in establshing a legal precedent with regards to a "union contract", issued by the State, for a measly $50, that confers executorship rights, ownership rights, benefits rights, etc. But, where they are running into a road block, is this idea that SSM is on the same level as Traditional Marriage. [the majority of people do not hold this view, and as such, it is not the view of society]
As noted by Coontz, referenced ad nauseum here, Marriage evolves to fit society's views. This is not the case for Gay Marriage. Marriage is not evolving to fit Society's view on the idea of Gay Marriage, but rather, ideologues are trying to evolve society's views to fit their definition of what is or should be, by pushing Gay Marriage on society, whether it like it or not. And .. that is the source of the resistence.
If all that is at stake is the general perception of society, then it makes sense for people to stop fighting the idea of same sex marriage legalization. After all, the other examples you gave, such as living together and having sex before marriage, are still frowned upon by a large segement of our society, in spite of the fact that they are completely legal. Legalization doesn't force acceptance.
Your argument cuts both ways. Homosexual Marriage is not illegal .. they are free to marry all they wish. It's just not sanctioned ... just as cohabitation is not sanctioned.
Am, even if that were true, you still lose your point. You have nothing to support your position. It brings to focus the polar opposites of the left and right. The Left (broad brush intended) will always choose symbolism and style over substance. Bo gives a great example here, and thank you for the object lesson.
Any man can count the seeds in an apple.... .......but only God can count the apples in the seeds.
In general, the "collective perspectives" of the LEFT, lead to a decrease in Marriage. That is the case in Europe, and that is the case here in the US.
Balderdash. As usual.
Supported by data.
Feel free to argue with the data ... but you will lose. The data says what it says.
No, it is balderdash for the usual reason: your habit of identifying as "The Left" anyone who disagrees with you about anything.
LOL .. you two guys calling it Balderdash doesn't make it so.
The Data are clear, .... the more "leftist" a State or Nation, the lower the marriage rate.
You say I'm "identifying as "the left" anyone who disagrees with me", when in fact, I've identified no one .. but rather, the States and Nations that ascribe predominantly to Leftist perspective based on their positions on policy and issues. They are self proclaimed "progressives" ... ie., leftist. I'm more identifying the "ruling class" of the Leftist movement. The peasants who live in Left Ruled areas don't have much of a say, as Leftism is Dictatorial.
Are you going to deny that New York does not consistently vote Democrat .. ie., "left". The Netherlands?? ... France?? [who just voted in a the socialist regime].
I think a forced discussion of 'left'/'right' is a diversionary tactic since it does not address the topic at hand - namely, the UN-Constitutionality of the mis-named "Defense" of Marriage Act.
Typical of the 'right' to do so, though.
No .. it's not a diversionary tactic .. it is the position I've held since joining this thread.
Reference .. post 61 and 63, two weeks ago.
I've held all along that this whole issue is wrapped up in the Leftist Thinking. That Leftist philosophy is bad for the family. That Leftist States and Nations, assumably based in Leftist philosophies and perspectives, have destroyed commitment and Marriage, and that that Marriage rates in those states and nations is very low.
My husband and I have been married, not "married" for 34 years. Not only is my marriage not threatened by same sex marriage, I am glad that DUO and others can enjoy what I have. Why should I want to deny others the joys I have had? Talk about selfishness.
Yesterday I clicked on an article about how hospitals are starting to add statements about gay rights. There was some discussion afterwards and someone posted that knowing their healthcare provider was gay would make them sick. They posted that having someone sick taking care of them just wasn't right. That is the stuff DUO and others are fighting. That is the kind of attitude the anti-gay posters foster, even as they claim they are not. There is a lot of sheer nastiness yet out there and this gay marriage thing just gives the haters a chance to pretend to be moral while covering up their belief that gays are as sick and disgusting as the above moron posted.
BTW, I was doing a crossword this week--the clue was prejudiced and the answer was hater.
I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize what you heard was not what I meant...