Does Gay Marriage threaten traditional Family Values?

[McCulloch]

I don't think gay marriage is immoral by any means, I just oppose it because I support traditional family values.

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.

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?

[LiamOS]

I've had the misfortune of spilling coffee on myself a few times, and never once did it melt through my skin. If McDonnald's coffee did that to me, you're darn right that they'd be paying up.

For a little burn, I'd not sue or anything, but in cases of serious harm and ignorance on the part of a company, I'd take what I can get.

[Kuan]

I've had the misfortune of spilling coffee on myself a few times, and never once did it melt through my skin. If McDonnald's coffee did that to me, you're darn right that they'd be paying up.

For a little burn, I'd not sue or anything, but in cases of serious harm and ignorance on the part of a company, I'd take what I can get.

True which is why that one isnt frivolous but there are frivolous lawsuits out there.

[LiamOS]

I don't doubt that. A bell curve has two sides.

[JoeyKnothead]

I've had the misfortune of spilling coffee on myself a few times, and never once did it melt through my skin. If McDonnald's coffee did that to me, you're darn right that they'd be paying up.

For a little burn, I'd not sue or anything, but in cases of serious harm and ignorance on the part of a company, I'd take what I can get.

True which is why that one isnt frivolous but there are frivolous lawsuits out there.

Not that either of the above are saying otherwise, but...

The problem seems to be when folks are unaware of all the facts of the case and when they have only a layperson's understanding of the law.

That case could not have gone forward if a judge - who is considered an expert - didn't think it had merit. Then to have a jury rule that McD's was in violation of the law indicates further there was some merit to the case.

The issue was actually over the lid not being properly placed on the cup.

[JoeyKnothead]

I've had the misfortune of spilling coffee on myself a few times, and never once did it melt through my skin. If McDonnald's coffee did that to me, you're darn right that they'd be paying up.

For a little burn, I'd not sue or anything, but in cases of serious harm and ignorance on the part of a company, I'd take what I can get.

True which is why that one isnt frivolous but there are frivolous lawsuits out there.

Not that either of the above are saying otherwise, but...

The problem seems to be when folks are unaware of all the facts of the case and when they have only a layperson's understanding of the law.

That case could not have gone forward if a judge - who is considered an expert - didn't think it had merit. Then to have a jury rule that McD's was in violation of the law indicates further there was some merit to the case.

The issue was actually over the lid not being properly placed on the cup and the woman receiving third degree burns as a result.

[nygreenguy]

I've had the misfortune of spilling coffee on myself a few times, and never once did it melt through my skin. If McDonnald's coffee did that to me, you're darn right that they'd be paying up.

For a little burn, I'd not sue or anything, but in cases of serious harm and ignorance on the part of a company, I'd take what I can get.

True which is why that one isnt frivolous but there are frivolous lawsuits out there.

Not that either of the above are saying otherwise, but...

The problem seems to be when folks are unaware of all the facts of the case and when they have only a layperson's understanding of the law.

That case could not have gone forward if a judge - who is considered an expert - didn't think it had merit. Then to have a jury rule that McD's was in violation of the law indicates further there was some merit to the case.

The issue was actually over the lid not being properly placed on the cup and the woman receiving third degree burns as a result.

Ive read the case, and I dont recall that ever being the issue.

[micatala]

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 will grant that anyone can bring a suit for any reason.

BUt as pointed out above, a judge will decide if the case has merit. With respect to product liability cases, there is a huge amount of precedent that helps determine when such cases go forward.

Do you have any precedents for the type of case you are concerned about going forward, say, in the last 30 years?

[JoeyKnothead]

I've had the misfortune of spilling coffee on myself a few times, and never once did it melt through my skin. If McDonnald's coffee did that to me, you're darn right that they'd be paying up.

For a little burn, I'd not sue or anything, but in cases of serious harm and ignorance on the part of a company, I'd take what I can get.

True which is why that one isnt frivolous but there are frivolous lawsuits out there.

Not that either of the above are saying otherwise, but...

The problem seems to be when folks are unaware of all the facts of the case and when they have only a layperson's understanding of the law.

That case could not have gone forward if a judge - who is considered an expert - didn't think it had merit. Then to have a jury rule that McD's was in violation of the law indicates further there was some merit to the case.

The issue was actually over the lid not being properly placed on the cup and the woman receiving third degree burns as a result.

Ive read the case, and I dont recall that ever being the issue.

Lacking a source and trusting your integrity, I'll plow it under.

[Tymygy]

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.

I'm sure people have already replied to this comment and I'm sorry for a repost, but I don't have time to tonight to read all the comments.

Anyways, what a poor argument against gay marriage. 2000 years ago(may have went on for much longer, forgive me) stoning people was OK to do. In order to protect the traditional punishment by stoning someone, should we get rid of jails? Should we remove our judicial system?

I'll finish typing this later tonight. Must be getting off now.

-Ty

[Faith Seeking Understandi]

I've just read the title and i have not got the time to read all the messages within this debate but i just want to add my thoughts.

With such a wide set of family values that were already in place before this debate ever came to the surface within society, one must ask what basically is family values. With what i have concluded is that traditional family values are what we consider to maintain a healthy family. So the debate really is what aspects of a Gay marriage, as being the head, influences a families healthy way of life.

I have a gay sister who i love dearly, as does the rest of the family,and we all associate regularly with her friends. I'm also a bible college student who had a gay guy take me to church when i was down and out, which saved my life. I am straight and as a loving brother who has seen my sister grow and have been around allot of gay people have personally sort out whether being gay is really ok. Its what a loving brother does. What i have realized is a few things that society seems to ignore as they want to help but they only hinder as they gain a selfish group mentality that doesn't allow gay people to decide for themselves. It also hinders a brothers chance to communicate his thoughts in a loving way as society butts in, and takes that freedom to choose what is ok or not, even from my sister. What i don't like is that the world will only give them 2 choices, your gay or your not. But what about allowing them the freedom to see whether it is ok to be Gay. We can say that they do have this choice but when the rest of society say's its ok, and that there biggest lustful passion agree's also, well then they don't have that freedom, do they.

Anyway i can give a gene debate and a phycological development theory that can nullify all pro gay thoughts but i will try to stay with this topic, and the topic is whether healthy family values exist within a gay marriage. Well as with all relationships we find that with true love comes self-less acts that supports healthy growth within the relationship and the family. Lust is not one of them. Any form of lust is selfish. So in any straight or gay relationship, someone who has an issue with lust can cause problems within a marriage which affects the rest of the families development. Now i'm not saying that a straight person never has trouble with lust, and if they do it should be handle the right way but i have noticed that when someone is gay their boundaries towards sex is opened right up as they begin to openly explore everything associated with lustfull sex. With any form of lust, it can become addictive and with this new experience in life they explore even more and is encouraged by society to do so. By a society that "at large" encourages them because their selfish aswell. (I get into this more down the page).

Now we can say that its in their genes but there is also a gene to say that they can get cancer, but is that a good gene. But the topic here is how healthy sexual boundaries are affected by lust which would then affect a families values as the marriage leads and teaches the children. When we look into the affects of being selfish, it goes against humility which is a big factor of being humane, and lust is not what we should teach our children. This goes for straight people also. The difference with straight and gay people is that straight people would more likely grow up with sexual boundaries and continue through the rest of their life with them, but gay people begin by exploring beyond these boundaries, where they may at some point settle this down, but lust may never get questioned as society encouraged it and it is what helped them chose homosexuality. To be selfless is a matter of the heart and so is lust and for us to debate this will take time and a deeper study, but it is one of my points.

Im not here to label gay people or even separate them, but we do need to look into the effects of being gay and societies imapact before we can come to any conclusion. We cannot jump the gun so to speak with stubborn selfish view's and just say, yeh go for it. At the end of the day we all think that we are so smart that we can make this choice without even doing studies on both sides and then coming together in non confrontational group studies, to freely explore why and whats happening. But because it has to do with peoples sexual lustful drive, we want them to freely chose for themselves because then our own lustful drives can be accepted in society all the more. "As long that it doesn't hurt people its ok?." Or is it that we may hurt ourselves and our families, that should be the question.. We all need to take a good look at ourselves and realise why we debate this and lets humble ourselves to love each other enough to selflessly see the truth in love. We should pull down the social wall of only giving gay people two choices. Your gay or your not. Lets have that 3rd choice for them to choose, not us. My point is that its when we see the affects of being gay do we see whether gay marriage affects family values.