Gay marriages... dictated by religious authorities

[Peter666]

"However, I am sure there are also gay couples who want gay marriage for more symbolic and emotional reasons. Perhaps they simply want to be able to avail themselves of the things that other people enjoy."

Like making children? This is an emotional and psychological issue. Legal means already exist for common law people to make important decisions on each others behalf. A medical directive can appoint anyone you wish to make medical decisions for you, and a will can let you leave money to whomever you want. So I don't think this is for practical reasons, but the emotional reasons you outline above.

We are essentially in a culture war where gays want to be thought of as completely normal people and accepted by society as such. But they are not. Their sexual preference is a statistical anomoly, a minor reflection of societal behaviour, and there is no reason for anyone to accept it as something healthy or desirous.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
We are essentially in a culture war where gays want to be thought of as completely normal people and accepted by society as such. But they are not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well at least you are not trying to beat around the bush like some others. I'd actually prefer it if people just admitted they were against gay marriage because they think gays are abnormal or perverse, rather than all the attempts to sugarcoat their prejudice.

From today's USA Today, I'm sure this is all the gay's fault:

[ QUOTE ]
SECTION: LIFE; Pg. 1D

LENGTH: 450 words

HEADLINE: Society switches focus away from children;
Not as much adult life spent with kids

BYLINE: Sharon Jayson

BODY:


The USA is becoming a much more adult-focused society after being child-centered for decades, a report suggests.

Longer life expectancy, delayed marriage and childbearing, and increased childlessness add up to a longer life without kids, says the analysis, released today by the non-partisan National Marriage Project at Rutgers University.

Child-rearing occupies a smaller share of a person's adult life because there are longer periods before and after raising children compared with previous generations, says Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, the project's co-director and author of the study. It is based on U.S. Census data as well as cultural and social research.

"It's almost as if raising children, which used to become the common lot of most adults, now has become more of a niche in your life rather than one of the main features of adult life," she says.

In 1970, for example, 73.6% of women ages 25-29 had at least one minor child at home; 30 years later, 48.7% did.

In 1990, the most common household type was married couples with children. Now, single, childless households are the most prevalent.

And today, more women in their 40s are childless, the report says. One in 10 were childless in 1976; in 2004, it was about one of five.

Although Whitehead says Americans aren't "anti-child," she suggests that a society indifferent to parenting will further aggravate current attitudes and account for what Whitehead calls "the cultural devaluation of child-rearing."

"People who are rearing children and have children in the household no longer represent the dominant force in society or politics," she says.

The shift also is evident on TV, says William Douglas, a professor of communication at the University of Houston and author of Television Families: Is Something Wrong in Suburbia? "The plot more often than previously focuses around parents. Children simply no longer hold this elevated status where the plot is necessarily around them."

Workplace policies also reflect the greater attention to adults, says Thomas Coleman of Unmarried America, a Glendale, Calif., group, formerly the American Association of Single People.

"The so-called family-friendly programs that emerged in the '80s and '90s are being replaced with work-life programs," he says. "The terminology is changing to be more generic."

Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution's Center on Children and Families is not ready to sound any alarms yet about what this adult focus suggests for child well-being.

Fewer children "may make for a more adult-oriented society," she says, "but it's not necessarily going to have bad consequences for children. Everything depends on how much we're investing in those smaller numbers of children."


[/ QUOTE ]

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
"However, I am sure there are also gay couples who want gay marriage for more symbolic and emotional reasons. Perhaps they simply want to be able to avail themselves of the things that other people enjoy."

Like making children? This is an emotional and psychological issue. Legal means already exist for common law people to make important decisions on each others behalf. A medical directive can appoint anyone you wish to make medical decisions for you, and a will can let you leave money to whomever you want. So I don't think this is for practical reasons, but the emotional reasons you outline above.

We are essentially in a culture war where gays want to be thought of as completely normal people and accepted by society as such. But they are not. Their sexual preference is a statistical anomoly, a minor reflection of societal behaviour, and there is no reason for anyone to accept it as something healthy or desirous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, my use of an analogy to 'fat weddings' seems to have unintended implications, both accurate and misleading. Even if we were to grant that somehow homosexuality was not 'healthy or desirous' you still have absolutely no leg to stand on. We still allow fat people to get married, no matter how terrible a message this may send to the rest of society. No one cries, "But how will I explain to my children when they come home asking questions about why the fat man is holding hands with the fat woman?"

Needless to say, I don't really agree with you that homosexuality is in some way unhealthy (well, besides all sex being technically unhealthy and homosexual sex between men being slightly higher risk than heterosexual sex). But even if it were, there is simply no reason to single out homosexuality as the one 'unhealthy' lifestyle that we choose to segregate and attack. At least, there is no secular, rational reason. There are plenty of "Jebus says" and "It's icky" reasons, I suppose.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We are essentially in a culture war where gays want to be thought of as completely normal people and accepted by society as such. But they are not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well at least you are not trying to beat around the bush like some others. I'd actually prefer it if people just admitted they were against gay marriage because they think gays are abnormal or perverse, rather than all the attempts to sugarcoat their prejudice.

From today's USA Today, I'm sure this is all the gay's fault:

[ QUOTE ]
SECTION: LIFE; Pg. 1D

LENGTH: 450 words

HEADLINE: Society switches focus away from children;
Not as much adult life spent with kids

BYLINE: Sharon Jayson

BODY:


The USA is becoming a much more adult-focused society after being child-centered for decades, a report suggests.

Longer life expectancy, delayed marriage and childbearing, and increased childlessness add up to a longer life without kids, says the analysis, released today by the non-partisan National Marriage Project at Rutgers University.

Child-rearing occupies a smaller share of a person's adult life because there are longer periods before and after raising children compared with previous generations, says Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, the project's co-director and author of the study. It is based on U.S. Census data as well as cultural and social research.

"It's almost as if raising children, which used to become the common lot of most adults, now has become more of a niche in your life rather than one of the main features of adult life," she says.

In 1970, for example, 73.6% of women ages 25-29 had at least one minor child at home; 30 years later, 48.7% did.

In 1990, the most common household type was married couples with children. Now, single, childless households are the most prevalent.

And today, more women in their 40s are childless, the report says. One in 10 were childless in 1976; in 2004, it was about one of five.

Although Whitehead says Americans aren't "anti-child," she suggests that a society indifferent to parenting will further aggravate current attitudes and account for what Whitehead calls "the cultural devaluation of child-rearing."

"People who are rearing children and have children in the household no longer represent the dominant force in society or politics," she says.

The shift also is evident on TV, says William Douglas, a professor of communication at the University of Houston and author of Television Families: Is Something Wrong in Suburbia? "The plot more often than previously focuses around parents. Children simply no longer hold this elevated status where the plot is necessarily around them."

Workplace policies also reflect the greater attention to adults, says Thomas Coleman of Unmarried America, a Glendale, Calif., group, formerly the American Association of Single People.

"The so-called family-friendly programs that emerged in the '80s and '90s are being replaced with work-life programs," he says. "The terminology is changing to be more generic."

Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution's Center on Children and Families is not ready to sound any alarms yet about what this adult focus suggests for child well-being.

Fewer children "may make for a more adult-oriented society," she says, "but it's not necessarily going to have bad consequences for children. Everything depends on how much we're investing in those smaller numbers of children."


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank the Lord (figure of speech [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]) for that. I can think of few 'arguments' that get under my skin worse than "But what about the CHILDREN!?!?!?111oneone!!"

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"but there is almost no practical application of that in this country, today."

This is probably true. So why should we even have state recognized marriage to begin with, and why do gays need it?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are asking two completely different questions. Marriage, in the legal sense, serves to bind two people who choose to join, in terms of finances, etc., and also infers certain legal rights, i.e. medical decisions. In that regard, I suppose it is at least useful, if not necessary. However, I wouldn't be absolutely opposed to getting rid of marriage as a LEGAL or state-sponsored entity. Leave it to those who want it.

Why do gays want it? For exactly the reasons above.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you see... if gay couples are allowed to make medical decisions for each other and gain the other legal benefits and responsibilities that come with a legal marriage... people will stop reproducing and the human race will die out.

I'm laughing just typing this, but that apparently is the reason FlFish and others who oppose it have been arguing. So, obviously gay marriage is bad. It's the END OF OUR SPECIES. (ORGAN NEEDLEDROP)

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
"It is not taking anything away"

Marriage is recognized by the State because it sees the propagation of children as necessary and beneficial to the future of the state. State recognition and support of marriage is a not a "right" meant to only please the couple involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just so.

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
Needless to say, I don't really agree with you that homosexuality is in some way unhealthy (well, besides all sex being technically unhealthy and homosexual sex between men being slightly higher risk than heterosexual sex).

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to research the mortality rates, str8 VS gay. You'll be enlightened. Then you'll dismiss it. Ignorance will again be bliss.

[bdypdx]

"... Making those rights and responsibilities available to gays, or universally, has no impact at all on the heterosexual ones. It is not taking anything away from them. It simply allows people to enter into that agreement without discrimination..."

Exactly! I have hetero siblings, 2 sisters and 1 brother, who are married. They agree that I will not be taking anything away from them if I am allowed to "marry" my partner.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Needless to say, I don't really agree with you that homosexuality is in some way unhealthy (well, besides all sex being technically unhealthy and homosexual sex between men being slightly higher risk than heterosexual sex).

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to research the mortality rates, str8 VS gay. You'll be enlightened. Then you'll dismiss it. Ignorance will again be bliss.

[/ QUOTE ]

All right, I'm a med student, a poker player, and a baseball fanatic, so there is little that I love more than health statistics. Seriously. I will endeavor to look this up for you, I suppose, although if you have these so-called gay mortality statistics handy I would really appreciate it. Offhand, I am fairly positive that the CDC and NIH do not sort or collect data on health statistics based on sexual orientation. I suppose that someone, somewhere, does or has. Could you help a brotha out?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
"... Making those rights and responsibilities available to gays, or universally, has no impact at all on the heterosexual ones. It is not taking anything away from them. It simply allows people to enter into that agreement without discrimination..."

Exactly! I have hetero siblings, 2 sisters and 1 brother, who are married. They agree that I will not be taking anything away from them if I am allowed to "marry" my partner.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we're trying to reach a quorum, I also agree that you won't be taking anything away from me if you get married.

<-----straight