Does Gay Marriage threaten traditional Family Values?

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Does Gay Marriage threaten traditional Family Values?

Post #1

Post by McCulloch »

WinePusher wrote: I don't think gay marriage is immoral by any means, I just oppose it because I support traditional family values.
McCulloch wrote: But gay marriage does not harm nor does it challenge traditional family values. I don't want to close down the Indian restaurant up the road because I like Italian food.
WinePusher wrote: It challenges the future of the nuclear family, which is generally one mother and one father and a # of children. Anything that does not include these factors (such as single motherhood, foster homes, divorces, and gay marriage) should be avoided in order to preserve traditional family values.
Does Gay Marriage threaten traditional Family Values?
Are Traditional Family Values in any danger of not being preserved?
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
nygreenguy
Guru
Posts: 2349
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:23 am
Location: Syracuse

Post #81

Post by nygreenguy »

dianaiad wrote:
actually, you aren't the one who claimed that 'the government has always upheld..." that was indeed someone else. However, believing it to be unlikely, in the face of, for instance, the FLDS compound assininity, is somewhat naive.
Except for the raid was beased upon reports of abuse on women and children.




I can show you examples of both of those. In fact, I've already given one, with Reed Smoot.
Your examples are literally one hundred years old. The governement has (thankfully) become much more liberal on this issue and for the past 50 years or so upheld a private organizations right to discriminate

User avatar
Kuan
Site Supporter
Posts: 1806
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 12:21 am
Location: Rexburg, the Frozen Wasteland
Contact:

Post #82

Post by Kuan »

nygreenguy wrote:
I can show you examples of both of those. In fact, I've already given one, with Reed Smoot.
Your examples are literally one hundred years old. The governement has (thankfully) become much more liberal on this issue and for the past 50 years or so upheld a private organizations right to discriminate
100 years really isnt that long.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Voltaire

Kung may ayaw, may dahilan. Kung may gusto, may paraan.

User avatar
LiamOS
Site Supporter
Posts: 3645
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:52 pm
Location: Ireland

Post #83

Post by LiamOS »

Politically and socially, 100 years is a very long time.
70 years ago the area I come from spoke only Irish and didn't have a radio.

User avatar
Kuan
Site Supporter
Posts: 1806
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 12:21 am
Location: Rexburg, the Frozen Wasteland
Contact:

Post #84

Post by Kuan »

AkiThePirate wrote:Politically and socially, 100 years is a very long time.
70 years ago the area I come from spoke only Irish and didn't have a radio.
Womens suffrage took 100 years.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Voltaire

Kung may ayaw, may dahilan. Kung may gusto, may paraan.

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #85

Post by micatala »

mormon boy51 wrote:
AkiThePirate wrote:Politically and socially, 100 years is a very long time.
70 years ago the area I come from spoke only Irish and didn't have a radio.
Womens suffrage took 100 years.

If you are willing to say that there is some basis that your fears will come to pass in 100 years, then I would at least say that the uncertainties in predicting the future make your fears somewhat less baseless.

As far as within, say, the next 25 years, I think the fears can still be labeled as baseless.

I would also say long term trends have been towards more tolerance of a greater diversity of viewpoints. That long term trend would have to reverse itself, or there would have to be a complete degeneration of the reputation of religion in general for what you are fearing to become more likely than, say, a constitutional amendment outlawing non-Christian religions.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn

User avatar
Kuan
Site Supporter
Posts: 1806
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 12:21 am
Location: Rexburg, the Frozen Wasteland
Contact:

Post #86

Post by Kuan »

micatala wrote:
mormon boy51 wrote:
AkiThePirate wrote:Politically and socially, 100 years is a very long time.
70 years ago the area I come from spoke only Irish and didn't have a radio.
Womens suffrage took 100 years.

If you are willing to say that there is some basis that your fears will come to pass in 100 years, then I would at least say that the uncertainties in predicting the future make your fears somewhat less baseless.

As far as within, say, the next 25 years, I think the fears can still be labeled as baseless.

I would also say long term trends have been towards more tolerance of a greater diversity of viewpoints. That long term trend would have to reverse itself, or there would have to be a complete degeneration of the reputation of religion in general for what you are fearing to become more likely than, say, a constitutional amendment outlawing non-Christian religions.
Is it really all that baseless to worry that your gonna be sued cause you wont marry a gay couple? McDonalds got sued cause they didnt tell the lady that her coffee was hot. Homosexuals have a more solid case than any of the frivolous lawsuits you will see.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Voltaire

Kung may ayaw, may dahilan. Kung may gusto, may paraan.

User avatar
dianaiad
Site Supporter
Posts: 10220
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:30 pm
Location: Southern California

Post #87

Post by dianaiad »

nygreenguy wrote:
dianaiad wrote:
actually, you aren't the one who claimed that 'the government has always upheld..." that was indeed someone else. However, believing it to be unlikely, in the face of, for instance, the FLDS compound assininity, is somewhat naive.
Except for the raid was beased upon reports of abuse on women and children.
Actually, it was based upon ONE report that was not only later proven fraudulent, it was known to be fraudulent at the time of the raid. It was an excuse, not the reason.
nygreenguy wrote:
I can show you examples of both of those. In fact, I've already given one, with Reed Smoot.
Your examples are literally one hundred years old. The governement has (thankfully) become much more liberal on this issue and for the past 50 years or so upheld a private organizations right to discriminate
My friend, I am simply not as trusting as you are....and, as I have also shown, with pretty good reason.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Post #88

Post by JoeyKnothead »

From Post 87:
dianaiad wrote: ...
My friend, I am simply not as trusting as you are....and, as I have also shown, with pretty good reason.
I find this rather ironic, given so much of religious belief is based on faith - including a belief, on faith, that a god prefers we discriminate against others.

User avatar
nygreenguy
Guru
Posts: 2349
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:23 am
Location: Syracuse

Post #89

Post by nygreenguy »

mormon boy51 wrote: Is it really all that baseless to worry that your gonna be sued cause you wont marry a gay couple? McDonalds got sued cause they didnt tell the lady that her coffee was hot. Homosexuals have a more solid case than any of the frivolous lawsuits you will see.
Actually, in another thread with YOU (or perhaps WP) I showed how this lawsuit was NOT frivolous and how it went WAY beyond "hot coffee". If coffee melted your flesh down to muscle tissue, how is that frivolous?

User avatar
Kuan
Site Supporter
Posts: 1806
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 12:21 am
Location: Rexburg, the Frozen Wasteland
Contact:

Post #90

Post by Kuan »

nygreenguy wrote:
mormon boy51 wrote: Is it really all that baseless to worry that your gonna be sued cause you wont marry a gay couple? McDonalds got sued cause they didnt tell the lady that her coffee was hot. Homosexuals have a more solid case than any of the frivolous lawsuits you will see.
Actually, in another thread with YOU (or perhaps WP) I showed how this lawsuit was NOT frivolous and how it went WAY beyond "hot coffee". If coffee melted your flesh down to muscle tissue, how is that frivolous?
It was me, It isnt frivolous. But it is well...stupid. Yeah it is a major deal that the coffee burned her that bad, but its common sense. If you buy coffee, its going to be hot.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Voltaire

Kung may ayaw, may dahilan. Kung may gusto, may paraan.

Post Reply