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]

As WinePusher correctly stated, those instances must be avoided to preserve traditional family values.


Why you'd want to preserve that is beyond me, though.

[McCulloch]

As WinePusher correctly stated, those instances must be avoided to preserve traditional family values.

I disagree. The measures he advocates are attempting to preserve traditional family values' exclusive hold on our society. I believe in pluralism, and that those who have traditional family values, should not feel threatened by those who do not. Traditional family values are not going to go away because some people choose non-traditional values. I can still get a traditional North American steak and potatoes dinner, even though numerous ethic restaurants are open in my neighborhood.

[LiamOS]

Sorry, you're right.

What I meant was that it threatens that family structures position as a social norm.

[cnorman18]

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 would agree that single motherhood, foster homes, and divorces ought to be avoided; I don't know of anyone who says, "Let's get married just so we can get divorced, that's so much fun." I don't know of anyone, including single women who quite purposely have children alone, who thinks that single motherhood is better than having two parents, or of anyone who thinks that foster homes are better than real ones.

The difference is that no one wants to make those illegal. Those alternatives are all acceptable, if not the ideal, especially when there is no alternative -- and for gays, there is no alternative to gay marriage, at least none that makes sense. It shouldn't be illegal either.

I doubt very much that that the one-man/one-woman model is going to become extinct anytime soon. It seems to have survived for ten or twelve thousand years, and it's not like the majority of marriages are suddenly (or even eventually) going to become same-sex marriages if they become legal. Nor are opposite-sex marriages going to become weaker or less common or less acceptable.

That whole argument is, frankly, either disingenuous or paranoid.

[madfrog]

[/quote]

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.

It is impossible to expect every person to conform to life in a "nuclear family." The next step is to look at what is second-best. Looking at this from the perspective of wanting to protect children, it seems to me that a child would be better off living with two mothers or fathers than drifting through the foster system. I also think it would have a lower impact on kids to have two committed mothers or fathers than to have divorced heterosexual parents.

[Kuan]

I see implications arising religously though. When the gay couple goes to get married, what will they do if the pastor, reverend (whatever) wont marry them?

[LiamOS]

Wear a wig?

There'll soon be denominations that will do that, though. I don't see why a couple would go to their religious authority knowing that their religious authority will disapprove.

[Kuan]

Wear a wig?

There'll soon be denominations that will do that, though. I don't see why a couple would go to their religious authority knowing that their religious authority will disapprove.

Well, for example my religion.

(I am not posting the following beliefs to debate, merely to make a point.)


We get married in temples, because we believe it is for eternity. Well, you have to be worthy to enter our temples and gay marriage is not of god (to us.) Therefore we wont perform gay marriage in our temples. So what about gay mormons who want to be married? They dont have to do it in the mormon tradition of course but its what they believe.

Thats what im trying to point out as a possible issue.

[LiamOS]

Well there'll probably be a denomination that does gay marriages, if it becomes a problem.

I don't see why it would technically be one, though.
Asking a Catholic priest to wed you with another man is comparable to asking if you can enter the 100m sprint with a bike; that's not how that event works.