Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Another Slippery Slope


courtesy GraphJam

10 comments:

Publius said...

Should be all yellow.

Danielk said...

But it's NOT Blanche. It's NOT!

All righty, explain how that works, and as a bonus explain why there are families in Europe, Boston, Iowa, etc.

Publius said...

Who said it'd be instant? That seems too simple minded a point even from you.

Danielk said...

Well let's just stick to how gay marriage destroys heterosexual marriage. Maybe then you won't have to bother with the second point.

Warner Todd said...

First of all, there is only one real reason for marriage: lineage/family.

Gays don't have lineage and, therefore, do not build families.

Marriage is an aspect of social order that creates immediate family, extended family, community connection.

Gay "marriage" simply does not.

Marriage sets a stage for building the life of a family to be based on the ties to a family that exists.

Gay "marriage" does not.

All this is to say that gay "marriage" is a pointless and empty gesture.

Next, marriage has ZIP to do with "love." I don't need a state to certify my love. Gays don't either. But, I do need a social practice sanctioned by the authority of the state to serve as a template for social continuation. Husband, wife, kids, uncles aunts, grandparents, town, city county, state, country. All interconnected and built on the institution that promulgates that chain: marriage.

Gay "marriage" does NONE of that.

So how will it tear marriage and by extension our society down?

Once the idea gains currency that marriage has no obligations but "love" there will be no such template to build family as marriage will permanently be considered a pointless gesture that has no deeper meaning tan the "feelings" of the minute.

Gays do not marry in youth, they usually marry in the late 30s and 40s or even later. This means there is no intrinsic worth placed on marriage in that community, no drive to do it to start an adult life. But it is an afterthought intended as some sort of kitschy thing to do after you've spent decades sleeping around with anything that moves. Then, when it is discovered that there is real value to it, it is something that is easily jettisoned.

This will become a general feeling throughout society once marriage is turned into an empty gesture. It will, in turn, cast more and more children into the unstable environment of men and women that aren't really committed to each other and will also put child bearing off more and more into later years. This will cause fewer children, make society smaller and less vital and allow foreign immigrants to supplant our own weak society.

Gay "marriage," in fact, is just one more example of the end of our society.

So, if you want to see the U.S. destroyed, by all means. Let the gays marry.

This is not to say that gays should be stopped from civil unions for legal purposes nor is it to say that gays can't truly love each other. But, as I said, marriage isn't based on "love" in the first place. It's based on obligation willingly entered into to promulgate society and keep the whole thing rolling onward generation after generation.

Johnny Appleseed said...

Publius:

"So, if you want to see the U.S. destroyed, by all means. Let the gays marry."

Unfortunately, all the left wants to see is the U.S., as it was created by our framers and founders, destroyed.

Gay marriage is just another stepping stone in building that wall of destruction.

The left has no interest in the values and morals that this great Nation was founded upon.

If it feels good, do it. Sadly.

Danielk said...

Wow, that's a lot to digest. Okay first of all Warner: that definition of "marriage" is self-serving. Since when? If America was a society that promoted arranged marriages I could see your point better but we're not. And of course, any conventional marriage where the kids are adopted is rendered a sham in your eyes. What's worse, a REAL sham marriage where a gay man marries a straight woman to produce offspring (and keep the parents off the scent) is rendered more legitimate than having these people spend their lives with someone they really want.

If you're worried about marriage losing its legitimacy, considering the high divorce rates it's pretty obvious that ship has sailed.

To "Johnny Appleseed:" Miss Coulter, I'll thank you to post under your real name next time. By the way, why haven't you married?

Publius said...

"... any conventional marriage where the kids are adopted is rendered a sham in your eyes."

Not at all because the general template is still being followed. Husband, wife, kids. What's the "sham" in that?

"What's worse, a REAL sham marriage where a gay man marries a straight woman to produce offspring (and keep the parents off the scent) is rendered more legitimate than having these people spend their lives with someone they really want."

No because the obligation of marriage is broken if a gay man marries a woman, has a family, but continues his gay lifestyle.

On the other hand, if he marries, has kids and from then on foregoes his gay lifestyle, then there is no violation of obligation.

On the high rate of divorce, that in no way invalidates my argument. It is a problem that makes traditional marriage in jeopardy, yes. But it does nothing to my argument at all. In fact, it is one more aspect of the tearing down of society, as difficult, maybe equal to, but only a separate manifestation. Gay marriage would hasten that demise but is not the cause and I never said it was. (I said WILL cause not is causing)

But let's use your logic. It would go like this:

Why are you all upset about murder laws? Forget them. People keep getting murdered anyway. That ship has sailed.

Publius said...

The societal angle of marriage is far deeper than I have said, too. Traditional marriage also serves as a "protector" of women and children that gay marriage cannot serve.

Danielk said...

"No because the obligation of marriage is broken if a gay man marries a woman, has a family, but continues his gay lifestyle.

On the other hand, if he marries, has kids and from then on foregoes his gay lifestyle, then there is no violation of obligation."


Gay people therefore are to allowed marriage as long as they're willing to lie to themselves and those around them for the duration of their lives. I have a problem with this.

We as a society value marriage highly. Much like freedom, if we say it is a thing to be prized and then add "but YOU can't have it, because of who you are" that's the worst kind of suppression.

In the scenario you describe above, all the gay man has to do is choose to have sex with women and as far as you're concerned he'll be fine. Let me throw out a hypothetical to you - it's well-known that gay couples, because of the gender pay disparity, tend to be better earning households than conventional couples. So, if you were single and needed the extra cash, would you be willing to choose to only sleep with a man from now on? Oh? Why not?

I have to admit that I worry about the fall of the Empire myself, but there is no evidence among the numerous places where it is allowed that same-sex marriage has any kind of corrosive effect.