Is It Overall In A Nation's Interest To Recognize Gay Marriage?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' date='12 October 2009 - 12:26 AM' timestamp='1255321606' post='1983728']
Why not?
[/quote]

Because you don't have the right to take other people's money and give it to other people. And if you don't have the right, you can't give that right to anyone else, including State actors.

~Sternhauser

[bonkers]

Gay marriage is inevitbale, it will happen. Eventually , these same folk will campaign for same sex education to be taught in schools. Anyone who disagrees will be labelled a bigot and homophobe.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='12 October 2009 - 02:54 AM' timestamp='1255330479' post='1983860']
Because you don't have the right to take other people's money and give it to other people. And if you don't have the right, you can't give that right to anyone else, including State actors.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

People act like they have rights.


[quote name='bonkers' date='12 October 2009 - 08:12 AM' timestamp='1255349539' post='1983908']
Gay marriage is inevitbale, it will happen. Eventually , these same folk will campaign for same sex education to be taught in schools. Anyone who disagrees will be labelled a bigot and homophobe.
[/quote]

If so, then it will be polygamy.

[Christie_M]

[quote name='bonkers' date='12 October 2009 - 06:12 AM' timestamp='1255349539' post='1983908']
Gay marriage is inevitbale, it will happen. Eventually , these same folk will campaign for same sex education to be taught in schools. Anyone who disagrees will be labelled a bigot and homophobe.
[/quote]
It looks like you pointed out what's already happening, at least in California anyway. And I think it's unfair that just because someone doesn't want their children to learn same-sex education in a privet school that they're paying for, they're thought of in such a way.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='bonkers' date='12 October 2009 - 07:12 AM' timestamp='1255349539' post='1983908']
Gay marriage is inevitbale, it will happen. Eventually , these same folk will campaign for same sex education to be taught in schools. Anyone who disagrees will be labelled a bigot and homophobe.
[/quote]
You're apparently behind the times then. For Canada at least.

I've been called a bigot and a homophobe in the last week alone. Also compared to a jihadi terrorist and fire and brimstone preacher.
Why? I posted a quote which disagreed with same sex 'marriage'.

This is the new reality that we have to deal with.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='13 October 2009 - 09:45 AM' timestamp='1255387513' post='1984130']
You're apparently behind the times then. For Canada at least.

I've been called a bigot and a homophobe in the last week alone. Also compared to a jihadi terrorist and fire and brimstone preacher.
Why? I posted a quote which disagreed with same sex 'marriage'.

This is the new reality that we have to deal with.
[/quote]

Retaliation with name calling is usually the defence of people who cannot defend their actions by other means.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='12 October 2009 - 09:47 PM' timestamp='1255402056' post='1984268']
Retaliation with name calling is usually the defence of people who cannot defend their actions by other means.
[/quote]
I find it a good tactic to remind those kinds of people how anti-Catholic the KKK was. Shuts them right up, let me tell you. I always work in the word bigot, and the adjective appalling.

Obviously it's a complete logical fallacy to assume that it contributes to the argument, but I point that out too, and they don't seem to mind.

Edited October 13, 2009 by Nihil Obstat

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='bonkers' date='12 October 2009 - 08:12 AM' timestamp='1255349539' post='1983908']
Gay marriage is inevitbale, it will happen. Eventually , these same folk will campaign for same sex education to be taught in schools. Anyone who disagrees will be labelled a bigot and homophobe.
[/quote]

and in MA!

to the larger argument, i would say that "OK-ing" consensual sexual activity with whoever and how many others you want IS damaging to society, and most certainly damages traditional marriage. The reason why gay marriage rights "just makes sense" to those in favor of it is because we are already drowning in a pro-contraceptive society. The idea that sex could possibly mean something more than a single nights worth of fun, or that two people can come together to build something more than their own happiness is utterly foreign to our society.

The same voice will never be able to promote traditional marriage and whateverthehell this new idea of "marriage" is. They are based on totally opposite principals. There is no equality because they are not equal. They are not different flavors of the same thing. They are utterly different.

[kujo]

I agree with what someone else (I think it was jesus_lol) said earlier: there is almost no argument, save for one rooted in the Bible and other Christian sources, that could be used to prevent the legalization of homosexual marriage. And since our country is governed by secular laws rather than Christian ones...

Edited October 19, 2009 by kujo

[Servus_Mariae]

I think Rexi has touched upon the central issue here, and that is the implication of natural law. Removing religion and divine revelation, the natural law is the main source of authority in determining right conduct. Customarily...when we go against nature, nature goes against us...and quite harshly.

Human sexuality from a strictly scientific point of view is the means by which humanity reproduces. Homosexuality deviates from this basic tenant of human sexuality and thus incurs the penalty of being unnatural. Because of this, its legalization would be a breach in a necessary component of a healthy society: pursuit of right conduct as indicated by nature. Certainly, one might argue that two people who love each other should be permitted to have there love recognized in the way that heterosexual couple's relationships are recognized...however, the rational assent to the initial breach from natural law must be made for this claim to bear any weight.

So, I would say that the novelty of gay marriage from a secular point of view would be damaging to a society in that law would be determined not by a rational relationship with nature, but by rhetoric and societal permissiveness.

I am sure there are implications on the family which are also quite important components to look at...but I think this is uniquely foundational.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='08 October 2009 - 04:27 PM' timestamp='1255033676' post='1981134']
Well we can't know that until we see some charts.
We'd need data for countries at all levels of development too, to get an accurate picture.
[/quote]

My guess is that the effect would range from none to very little on the reduction side.

I got some data here from here: http://www.yale.edu/yaw/northamerica.html

Of the 298,248 men (of 13 years or older) who were living with AIDS:

* 57% were men who had sex with men (MSM),
* 23% were intravenous drug users (IDU)
* 10% were exposed through heterosexual contact
* 8% were both MSM and IDU (surprised this isn't higher).

Of the 82,764 adult and adolescent women with AIDS:

* 61% were exposed through heterosexual contact
* 36% were exposed through intravenous drug use
* 3893 children were living with AIDS.

Of course, no women were exposed to AIDS through homosexual contact, which makes sense.

So, approximately 50.8% of the people currently living with AIDS are MSM (including those who are also IDU). Assuming that gay "marriage" affects fidelity within gay relationships, there may be something to this question.

I found two abstracts that shed some light indirectly on this question. Note that I couldn't find full text for free ...

Here's the first:


[indent]
The "Marital" Liaisons of Gay Men
Joseph Harry
The Family Coordinator, Vol. 28, No. 4, Men's Roles in the Family (Oct., 1979), pp. 622-629
(article consists of 8 pages)
Published by: National Council on Family Relations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/583527

Abstract
The present paper reports current research on the nature of enduring sexual liaisons among homosexual men. Such relationships vary widely in their characteristics and may be seen as subinstitutional adaptations to a lack of community support. Those gay men who remained socially and psychologically committed to the heterosexual world were less likely to enter enduring relationships and, when they did, their liaisons were less marriage-like in terms of fidelity and emotional intimacy. The data were also consistent with the proposition that the open marriage is the more viable and enduring form of gay male liaisons.
[/indent]

The second:

[indent]
Gay marriages and communities of sexual orientation, by Joseph Harry and Robert Lovely
Journal Journal of Family and Economic Issues
Publisher Springer Netherlands
ISSN 1058-0476 (Print) 1573-3475 (Online)
Issue Volume 2, Number 2 / May, 1979
DOI 10.1007/BF01082594
Pages 177-200
Link http://www.springerlink.com/content/g04l707004604305/

This article focuses on gay male couples as they exist within friendship networks of other gay men. By comparing homosexual men who are part of a gay community with those who are less integrated into a gay community, we attempt to show that the sexual liaisons of the former are more "marriage-like." Gays committed to a community of other homosexual men were found to live more often with their lovers, be more sexually faithful to their lovers, and to have more emotionally intimate relationships. Also, they were found more likely to associate with other gay couples. Commitment to a gay community was not found to be associated with length of a liaison, and it seemed that when respondents defined emotional intimacy in terms of sexual exclusiveness there may have been a tendency for disruption of relationships. The gay community validates the sexual liaisons of gay men in the same way that the heterosexual world validates the pairings of heterosexuals and transforms their subinstitutional sexual liaisons into the institution of marriage.
[/indent]

I doubt very much that either of these scientific articles are free of political bias; but unfortunately, I have neither the benefit of the full text of their work, nor a degree in social science in order to be able to evaluate their research methods properly.

That said, it appears that a "normalizing" of gay relationships helps to provide stability to those gay relationships, which to some extent seems to increase sexual fidelity (though not to 100%, as the second article points out: "when respondents defined emotional intimacy in terms of sexual exclusiveness, there may have been a tendency for disruption of relationships"). Honestly, this makes sense just intuitively, as much as I hate to admit it. Of course, infidelity is the primary means of transmission of the HIV virus.

So, it would seem to me that instating gay marriage would actually decrease new exposures to the HIV virus. Perhaps even to a noticeable extent, but we can't quantify precisely how much (I imagine far less than we should be excited about). Further, even if my hypothesis is true, and even if instating gay marriage led to the outright eradication of the HIV virus (unlikely); even in this extreme case, it still would not justify gay marriage.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Servus_Mariae' date='19 October 2009 - 07:59 PM' timestamp='1255996741' post='1988032']
I think Rexi has touched upon the central issue here, and that is the implication of natural law. Removing religion and divine revelation, the natural law is the main source of authority in determining right conduct. Customarily...when we go against nature, nature goes against us...and quite harshly.

Human sexuality from a strictly scientific point of view is the means by which humanity reproduces. Homosexuality deviates from this basic tenant of human sexuality and thus incurs the penalty of being unnatural. Because of this, its legalization would be a breach in a necessary component of a healthy society: pursuit of right conduct as indicated by nature. Certainly, one might argue that two people who love each other should be permitted to have there love recognized in the way that heterosexual couple's relationships are recognized...however, the rational assent to the initial breach from natural law must be made for this claim to bear any weight.

So, I would say that the novelty of gay marriage from a secular point of view would be damaging to a society in that law would be determined not by a rational relationship with nature, but by rhetoric and societal permissiveness.

I am sure there are implications on the family which are also quite important components to look at...but I think this is uniquely foundational.
[/quote]

Agreed. Even if the Bible said absolutely nothing on homosexuality (some Gay activists attempt to argue such, or even that the Bible looks favorably on gay relationships), homosexuality would still be immoral because it is contrary to the law that God wrote on our bodies by their very form.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='kujo' date='19 October 2009 - 05:11 PM' timestamp='1255993876' post='1988012']
I agree with what someone else (I think it was jesus_lol) said earlier: there is almost no argument, save for one rooted in the Bible and other Christian sources, that could be used to prevent the legalization of homosexual marriage. And since our country is governed by secular laws rather than Christian ones...
[/quote]

thanks for the back up, i think it was me.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='kujo' date='19 October 2009 - 06:11 PM' timestamp='1255993876' post='1988012']
I agree with what someone else (I think it was jesus_lol) said earlier: there is almost no argument, save for one rooted in the Bible and other Christian sources, that could be used to prevent the legalization of homosexual marriage. And since our country is governed by secular laws rather than Christian ones...
[/quote]

As I stated earlier, the immorality of homosexual acts and the invalidity of marriages between two persons of the same sex is a truth that can be known by natural reason.

That said, I think that Catholicism should be the official religion of the State. If that is not possible, Catholic moral principles should at least govern the laws. I have no problem with imposing my beliefs on others (in most cases).

Edited October 20, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Jesus_lol]

Well, there is your problem right there.

cause imposing beliefs has always worked so well in the past