Ruth Institute President Dr. Morse often says that gay marriage reduces marriage to a "government registry of friendships" and this Star Observer coverage of a proposal to legalize same-sex marriage in Finland makes it clear that redefining marriage would, in the minds of SSM proponents, reduce marriage to simply a "government registry of relationships":
"...Considered one of the most conservative Nordic nations, there is already a relationship register in [Finland] for same-sex couples, which has been in place since 2002.
... European Affairs and Foreign Trade Minister Alexander Stubb, the first signatory of the initiative, spoke passionately for the amendment during debate.
“This initiative [to legalize SSM] is aimed at dismantling a system that causes inequality, in which couple relationships are divided into A and B categories” he said.
Really? There is no difference in category whatsoever between heterosexual couples that can create new life through each other and homosexual couples that must always rely upon a third-party to become parents?
And the only thing that marriage does to distinguish the union of husband and wife from every other union is simply to put a label (A or B) on it?
Frankly, if the no difference between relationship A (opposite-sex couples) and relationship B (same-sex couples) why should there be a difference between relationship A (two sexual partners) and relationship B (three sexual partners)? What's so special about couples?
39 Comments
Exactly. The formation of couples between people of the same sex is just an imitation of heterosexual couples. Marriage exists as a union of two people because it takes two, a male and a female, to create a child, and the creation of a child has important ramifications on the State and society.
The formation of couples between people of the same sex has no ramifications on society. Without procreation, two is a random number, no different from one or three or more. Homosexual couples are just imitations of heterosexual couples wanting to be treated the same, but lacking the key element that makes heterosexual couples unique and special.
Marriage is the construct of the church that was embraced by government because it recognized the societal value in it. Government does not have the right to change the meaning of words they had no hand in establishing.
This is a full frontal assault on the right of conscience and the free exercise thereof.
one does not need to be married to have a child, and one does not need a child to be married. gay couples can and do have children from previous relationships, from adoption, and from IVF. these are families by any estimation, and deserve protection.
some heterosexual couples choose to never have children. some cannot have children. some marry much later in life and have no wish to have further children.
the inclusion of same-sex couples into the institution only strengthens the institution because it affirms it's values -- commitment, love, protection, stability -- that are of a much higher order than mere opposing genitalia.
one does not need to be married to have a child, and one does not need a child to be married. gay couples can and do have children from previous relationships, from adoption, and from IVF. these are families by any estimation, and deserve protection.
some heterosexual couples choose to never have children. some cannot have children. some marry much later in life and have no wish to have further children.
the inclusion of same-sex couples into the institution only strengthens the institution because it affirms it's values -- commitment, love, protection, stability -- that are of a much higher order than one P and one V.
one does not need to be married to have a child, and one does not need a child to be married. gay couples can and do have children from previous relationships, from adoption, and from IVF. these are families by any estimation, and deserve protection. some heterosexual couples choose to never have children. some cannot have children. some marry much later in life and have no wish to have further children.
the inclusion of same-sex couples into the institution only strengthens the institution because it affirms it's core, transcendent values -- commitment, love, protection, stability.
one does not need to be married to have a child, and one does not need a child to be married. gay couples can and do have children from previous relationships, from adoption, and from IVF. these are families by any estimation, and deserve protection.
you are not better than them, Resist. and you know this, otherwise you wouldn't feel the need to proclaim it to be so.
some heterosexual couples choose to never have children. some cannot have children. some marry much later in life and have no wish to have further children.
the inclusion of same-sex couples into the institution only strengthens the institution because it affirms it's values -- commitment, love, protection, stability.
What is so special about couples?
Nova's argument applies equally well to polygamy to strengthen commitment, love, protection, and stability within the three- or four-some.
But let us also not forget singles. Some singles choose never to have children. Some cannot have children. Some choose to marry much later in life. Why shouldn't the government strengthen and support the lives of single people? Have they nothing worth protecting and strengthening? Is it not inequality to treat singles differently from couples?
Nothing wrong with friendships, but they are not, and can never be marriages.
you bring up a good point. single mothers (or fathers) with children certainly need help and protection.
we have that, of course, in the form of tax deductions.
polygamy is at present illegal (as is incest). if polygamists and father/daughter couples would like to take a stand and argue for their relationships to be recognized as marriages, they are free to do so. it is a free country.
however, being gay is not the same as being polygamist.
being gay is not illegal. gay people have made their case and won over people at an incredibly rapid speed because the arguments for it are sound.
'polygamy is at present illegal (as is incest). '
So is SSM in most countries
'however, being gay is not the same as being polygamist.'
Being heterosexual is not the same as being homosexual. Hence, the marriage laws in place in most countries.
I have yet to hear a sound arguement for SSM. All I hear about it is how it will benefit me, me, me.
but being gay isn't illegal in many countries, nor in the US.
being heterosexual and being homosexual are different in one way, but they are alike in many other ways, especially in those ways that relate to marriage. with marriage comes a series of tax breaks and privileges that are unavailable to people for no other reason than their sexual orientation, and that isn't a good reason to discriminate against them.
we've debunked the notion that one must have children to be married. so let's not even try that again.
Nova, who said you must have children to be married? I would like a quote.
Nova, why has society been involved in the sexual relationships of men and women for all this time via the institution of marriage? And please don't say "to discriminate against gay people."
@Nova
"but they are alike in many other ways, especially in those ways that relate to marriage. with marriage comes a series of tax breaks and privileges that are unavailable to people for no other reason than their sexual orientation, and that isn't a good reason to discriminate against them"
You are speaking of financial and legal benefits. You don't explain how the two couples are the same. I can tell right now that the two couldn't be more different. Men and women are NOT the same, each gender has characteristics unique to their own and each have something unique and profound to give to a child that two people of the same gender do not. No matter how much you will it, a woman cannot take the place of a father and a man cannot take the place of a mother. Nature won't allow it.
TC,
"Nature won't allow it."
You couldn't be more wrong. In nature, the one to which you refer, there are many different mammal and bird species that engage in lifetime homosexual pair bonding. In nature, the one you refer to, TC, these homosexual pairs provide all the same things heterosexual pairs do for the young. This is the reality of nature. You don't have to believe it, TC, but it will be impossible for you to contest this and prove to the contrary.
SSM makes all children wards of the state. And that is a problem.
"In nature, the one you refer to, TC, these homosexual pairs provide all the same things heterosexual pairs do for the young"
What you're saying/implying is that men and women are interchangeable, and that gender isn't an essential characteristic in parent/child relationships. But, if gender isn't important in parent/child relationships, then why is it important in marriage? Those promoting SSM vehemently argue for the right to choose to marry the gender of choice. So, why is gender important in marriage, but not important in parenting?
The truth is that mothers are different from fathers, biologically, emotionally, psychologically, physically, etc., and that children deserve to have a legal and physical bond with both, and both procreators share equal responsibility for the nurture and care of their own young. SSM always requires extramarital procreation, and purposefully divides children from their own parents.
"SSM makes all children wards of the state. And that is a problem."
Agreed. Who needs courts deciding which parents are parents, which are donors and which are irrelevant to their children?
sorry for the repeated posting earlier. the filter/moderation on here is a bit wonky.
well, no, SSM helps children. it creates more potential adoptive couples, helps those that have already adopted, and provides incentives for more couples already with children to stay together longer.
amazingly, people -- gay and straight -- have successfully navigated IVF and all sorts of different arrangements quite successfully. some of this requires trusting people, especially women, and that can be hard for some to do.
marriage and parenting are different things, DOE.
"The truth is that mothers are different from fathers, biologically, emotionally, psychologically, physically, etc., "
X and Y chromosomes are completely different. Are we surprised to find out that makes a difference? It's astounding to me that anyone could even imagine that gender is irrelevant.
As Dr. Morse has stated: "The same sex partner of a biological parent is never the other biological parent. Rather than attaching children to their biological parents, same sex marriage is the vehicle that separates children from a parent."
Where children are involved, same-sex coupling always separates a child from at least one of her natural parents. Genderless marriage would normalize this practice. It isn't normal, nor should it be.
"marriage and parenting are different things, DOE."
Yep, but only marriage between a man and a woman holds both men and women equally responsible for the care of their own offspring, and legally and emotionally ties children to their own parents. All other marriage paradigms separate children from their parents, by design. Also, SSM makes every child a ward of the state, by ignoring natural legal ties found only in man/woman marriage.
Even IVF requires participation from both a mother and a father.
"being heterosexual and being homosexual are different in one way, but they are alike in many other ways, especially in those ways that relate to marriage. with marriage comes a series of tax breaks and privileges that are unavailable to people for no other reason than their sexual orientation, and that isn't a good reason to discriminate against them."
We've also debunked that those who call themselves homosexual are unable to acquire marital privileges. If they choose to get married, they get the privileges. There is no law which discriminates against an individual who wishes to marry, based on their sexual orientation or which even requires them to publicly divulge their sexual identity (whether gay or straight) on a marriage license application.
"We've also debunked that those who call themselves homosexual are unable to acquire marital privileges. If they choose to get married, they get the privileges. "
True. You may disagree with marriage but you can't say you are denied marriage on the same grounds everyone else has it.
@David
Then I suppose cannibalism is perfectly normal. You know mother birds force their newborns out of the nest so that they learn to fly. In our world, that's called child abuse because it involves a life or death situation. Incest is also quite common. The difference between us and animals is that animals lack a moral compass and reason.
These are all perfectly normal practices that animals engage in. Yet they are not legal in society.
You can't base human nature on one occurring phenomenon in the animal kingdom.
And all animals understand are: sex and survival. As I said before animals lack a moral compass and the ability to reason so to say anything they do is normal is rather ignorant since animals don't understand the concept of right and wrong. They do what they do to survive and nothing else.
Poster#3 said this:
and do have children from previous relationships
In this post they are admitting that homosexuality is a chosen behavior and not born that way.
Stubb made a big dookie.
--Victor Golf Charles, opponent of same-sex "marriage"
There are the same defects in natures animal kingdom too, inter-sex, dual gender, gender variant.
NEWSFLASH : Gender is a human construct/concept. Please don't anthropomorphize, as doing so reveals, get this, MORE ignorance about ANOTHER, go figure, topic upon which nom's case rests. NATURE KNOWS NO GENDER. Gender is non-applicable in nature. The ferrel know no gender.
DavidKCMO, I realize that you dislike the idea of gender, and that annihilating gender is central to your core mission.... but what proof do you have that gender doesn't matter?
Men and women are different, in all societies, everywhere. Uniquely, beautifully, wonderfully different. I think it's a great thing. Why would you want to destroy that?
Heh, heh, anyone who has children knows that gender is not a construct. Or watch some TV shows that show different cultures and witness how all cultures treat men differently from women based on their inherent differences.
Some people get gender confused, no doubt about that, but boys are different from girls; men from women.
Yes, Marie, it is a great thing.
" Gender is a human construct/concept."
Perhaps, but sex is not. "Gay" is also a human construct/concept. Male and female is a biological reality. Marriage unites the two, with no interest in their individual sexual orientations. Marriage is a choice, with eligibility requirements and clearly defined parameters, with equal treatment for all individuals, because it makes no stipulations on sexual orientation.
Your tweet implies that it was the marriage proponents who said that; it was actually Morse. Lie.
You then mock the idea of marriage as a registry of partnerships; this is actually what the marriage proponents are opposing. Lie.
The truth hurts... when you're a liar.
DavidKCMO said:
"Gender is a human construct/concept. Please don't anthropomorphize, as doing so reveals, get this, MORE ignorance [...]"
You said that immediately after you left a comment that anthropomorphized regarding gay identity.
When a dog, or a pet rabbit, humps the legs of an adult human being, is that animal expressing a socio-political identiy? Nope. Expressing a sexual orientation? Nope. Expressing sexual romance? Nope. And so forth.
Likewise, when SSMers cite abnormal behavior among animals in captivity as being relevant to human beings of free will. Perhaps they mean to compare with abnormal behavior in prisons or somesuch.
Meanwhile, the concept of "homosexuality", the concept of gay identity, the concept of same-sex sexual romance, all of that, on the whole, is a relatively recent and novel construct of a socio-political kind -- most deliberately.
A wide variety of sexual behavior has always been available to human beings, ancient and modern, but the issue regarding the special place of marriage in our society is based on moral assessment of the behavior -- sexual and otherwise.
The fact that two things are different is insufficient justification for perpetuating inequality. Men and women are different, but that does not justify giving one more rights than the other.
Look at what the Star Observer article said:
You can acknowledge that couple A and couple B are different .. AND ... dismantle the system that causes unjustified inequality because of that difference.
The types of relationshp are different. What makes marriage, marriage, is its core meaning which distinguishes it from nonmarriage.
Society may discriminate between marrige and nonmarriage.
Your rely on the gay emphasis. So, the question you need to answer competently is why you would have the law show preference for the gay relationship over the rest of the types of relationships that are not gay but which populate the nonmarriage category?
No, you can't just piggyback on the union of husband and wife. You need to live up to your own stated standard regarding equal treatment. What is it about the gay subset of nonmarriage that you think merits preferential treatment amidst the vast nongay nonmarriage category?
Again, no, you can't arbitrarily stick the label marriage to your favored gay subset; nor can you affix marital status to it; first you must show why unequal treatment is justified based on gayness. If you don't bother to do that much, then, you fail on your own terms of argumentation.