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?

[Kuan]

I object to, and apologize for the post mormon boy51 is addressing here.

What does monopolizing marriage even do and why would anyone want to do that?
Fine, everyone gets married in "marriage" then religious groups can do civil unions. I dont really care what it is called. Isn't the freedom of religion guaranteed under the constitution? We are living in a world of varying opinions and we hold our own beliefs. We arent forcing them on you, but we are not going to change how we belief because someone wants to murder us and deprive us of our rights. We are not depriving anyone either, I dont care if all the gays got married, good for them. They are happy. What I dont want is someone like you barging through my door and forcing us to contract gay marriages.
...

I kept as much context as I could, and seek clarification for the emboldened section.

Do you object to the government's use of the term "marriage" for homosexual unions?

I do agree that a church should not be bound to perform ceremonies for which they hold objections. This doesn't mean I may not hold them morally accountable on some level.

Not really, I have no power to say they cant be married or have a union or whatever, but I can hold my own religious objection to it.

[dianaiad]

From Post 34:
<snip to here>
1st challenge.
<snip to end>

As you can see, though I did rather blitz the forum on my first day in, I'm very new. Could you explain the protocol behind formal challenges? I attempted to find some mention in the rules, but could not.

That could be the result of my own lack of research skills, or time (I actually have to go to work this morning!) but I'm guessing that this is one of the unwritten, more set in stone than the forum Debate Rules, traditions that one breaks at one's peril.

How does this work?

Diana

[k-nug]

I'm heterosexual myself, but I've always had trouble defining what exactly it is to 'preserve tradition marriage.' Does it mean that the 50% divorce rate in this country should be outlawed, or does it mean that you want everyone to have the same vision as you do, in what defines traditional values. You know what else used to be traditional values? Slavery. I'd like to hear anyone claim that letting 2 strangers of any sex get married hurts their own marriage. Go ahead, preserve traditional marriage. Stop breaking the first amendment and quit telling other people that their non-religious view of marriage is wrong. I'ts wrong for you, so don't have a gay marriage. Let other people do what they want, it's none of your business. How's that for small government??

[dianaiad]

I'm heterosexual myself, but I've always had trouble defining what exactly it is to 'preserve tradition marriage.' Does it mean that the 50% divorce rate in this country should be outlawed, or does it mean that you want everyone to have the same vision as you do, in what defines traditional values. You know what else used to be traditional values? Slavery. I'd like to hear anyone claim that letting 2 strangers of any sex get married hurts their own marriage. Go ahead, preserve traditional marriage. Stop breaking the first amendment and quit telling other people that their non-religious view of marriage is wrong. I'ts wrong for you, so don't have a gay marriage. Let other people do what they want, it's none of your business. How's that for small government??

As for me, it's not about 'traditional values,' except when someone decides that 'tradition' (that is, the definition of a word) includes gay marriages when, as far as I am aware, it has not, in the history of the vast majority of western civiliziation...and for that matter, the vast majority of eastern, northern and southern civilization...done so.

The only problem I have is the preservation of my own faith within my own faith tradition, so that what others do or believe does not end up biting ME in the doctrinal...area. Since I do come from a faith tradition in which the government has done exactly that---attacked us using our marriage customs as part of the excuse, including sending half the American armed forces (quite literally) to invade us after having kicked us entirely out of the USA, you can see that I might not be all that accepting of the standard "oh, nobody can force you to accept gay marriage as valid in your church" line.

Gays want to marry? Fine. Gays want to form unions with civil rights equal to heterosexual marriages? Equally fine. No problem. I simply want to see that this is accomplished in a way that keeps everybody out of MY faith tradition.

I made a proposal that would do precisely that, and the reaction was typical, proving my assertion; gay marriage rights activists do not want to merely win--which my proposal would allow; they want to destroy the opposition.

(shrug)

Whatever.

[McCulloch]

The only problem I have is the preservation of my own faith within my own faith tradition, so that what others do or believe does not end up biting ME in the doctrinal...area. Since I do come from a faith tradition in which the government has done exactly that---attacked us using our marriage customs as part of the excuse, including sending half the American armed forces (quite literally) to invade us after having kicked us entirely out of the USA, you can see that I might not be all that accepting of the standard "oh, nobody can force you to accept gay marriage as valid in your church" line.

In my country, where same sex marriage is legal, there is protection for faith communities, both in legal precedent and explicitly in legislation, saying that faith communities may reject to perform or recognize marriages on whatever basis they wish. Our society has not crumbled, the vast majority of marriages performed are between a man and a woman. Churches that choose to do so, do perform same sex marriages and churches that have issues accepting such things are free to reject them. I can eat pork even though some religious groups prohibit it.

[dianaiad]

The only problem I have is the preservation of my own faith within my own faith tradition, so that what others do or believe does not end up biting ME in the doctrinal...area. Since I do come from a faith tradition in which the government has done exactly that---attacked us using our marriage customs as part of the excuse, including sending half the American armed forces (quite literally) to invade us after having kicked us entirely out of the USA, you can see that I might not be all that accepting of the standard "oh, nobody can force you to accept gay marriage as valid in your church" line.

In my country, where same sex marriage is legal, there is protection for faith communities, both in legal precedent and explicitly in legislation, saying that faith communities may reject to perform or recognize marriages on whatever basis they wish. Our society has not crumbled, the vast majority of marriages performed are between a man and a woman. Churches that choose to do so, do perform same sex marriages and churches that have issues accepting such things are free to reject them. I can eat pork even though some religious groups prohibit it.

That's nice...and it invalidates my point, and my concern, how, exactly?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 52:

As you can see, though I did rather blitz the forum on my first day in, I'm very new. Could you explain the protocol behind formal challenges? I attempted to find some mention in the rules, but could not.

That could be the result of my own lack of research skills, or time (I actually have to go to work this morning!) but I'm guessing that this is one of the unwritten, more set in stone than the forum Debate Rules, traditions that one breaks at one's peril.

How does this work?

You have presented "as fact" various claims, which I'll get back to here in a bit. When presenting claims in debate, those claims are open to challenge, in order that the veracity of those claims can be examined. It is then expected the claimant would support those claims (by forum rules) or withdraw those claims (in honorable debate). With this in mind I'll present my referenced post again...

From Post 34:

I'll be snipping some side issues, but want to acknowledge that just because I don't think a given point was addressed does not mean dianaiad didn't do just that.

The word [marriage] is already in use. Why should we toss it as a term when it is so well understood?

"well understood?" By whatset of logical processes do you come to the conclusion that this is 'well understood,' when the entire fight is about how differently people DO understand the meaning?

The fact folks use it, and it is found in many dictionaries indicates the term is understood - though admittedly folks have different perspectives regarding what actually constitutes a marriage. I'll retract the "well" part of "well understood", as I agree it is rather subjective.

Do you not understand you are "forcing" your "cultural and religious approval" when you seek to remove a commonly recognized word from the government lexicon?

Nope. I simply propose to even the playing field, so that everybody can have both the civil rights...AND the right to call themselves 'married' if they wish, according to their own beliefs and inclinations, while leaving others the freedom to define marriage according to their own ideals. Everybody wins. Gays and straights get the rights AND the marriages--and nobody is forced to change their doctrine and beliefs to accomodate someone ELSE'S opinion. Fair enough for everybody, I think.

Though you apparently have no problem with forcing folks to accomodate your opinion.

...
The point is, m'friend, I'm not trying to get them to live my way, or believe my way, or accept my lifestyle as admirable and acceptable, or to change the way they worship/describe/treat others because I want them to.

You are, however, asking the government to strike a readily usable term from its lexicon.

But you are trying to do that to me. I'm simply proposing an idea that would fix the problem. In fact, the only people, I notice, who dislike it are those who are looking, not for equality, but for...I don't know...revenge? They don't want legal equality; they want to be theologically vindicated and accepted.

How is my support of a term an infringement on your right to reject the definition of that term?

I'm not gay, I've no need to seek revenge in this regard.

Well, there are many religious faiths out there who do accept them theologically. They can't have everything...they will have to accept equality and be happy with that.

How is reserving a term for a favored group equality?

Of course. I did mention that in my religion 'marriage' can only be between members of the opposite sex, right? I CANNOT accept that homosexual unions are 'marriage' as defined by God.
...

And therein lies the rub. You base your rejection of the use of a term on a god you can't show exists having an opinion you can't show it has.

I won't bother with the theology, as it is built on an unproven assumption.

IT's the old 'you can call a cat a dog all you want to, but it's still going to go meow and have retractable claws." A cat is not a canine, and a homosexual relationship is not a marriage, by definition, for us.

"For us."

I read that to mean, "And we refuse to allow anyone else to use the term unless "we" let them".

For US. That doesn't mean that I think that because *I* do not believe that these relationships are 'marriage,' that they cannot be a; afforded equal civil rights
...

How is it "equal" to disallow the government calling homosexual unions "marriages", when you yourself admit you have no problem with homosexuals calling themselves married?

Why would you restrict the government's use of a term homosexuals may use to describe their own unions?

and b: be married according to their own beliefs. What must not happen, though, is that we be forced to recognize, in any official way, their marriage as we define marriage to be.

Are you aware that dictionaries track the usage of words, and that meanings of words are in a constant state of flux?

And THAT, sir, is what will happen. It's what lawsuits are in the wings already attempting to force.

Please cite examples of these "lawsuits... in the wings" for examination.

1st challenge.

How does the government recognizing homosexual unions as a "marriage" deny you the right to not accept those unions?

It does so by suddenly making certain requirements for, oh...employment and housing illegal, for one thing--and you can be certain that gay rights organizations will sue.

Do you object to homosexuals having jobs?

Do you object to homosexuals having housing?

...and boy, is their agenda obvious!

And yours ain't?

For instance, just recently the CoJCoLDS came out publically in SUPPORT of an anti-discrimination law adding 'sexual orientation' to the list of people it is illegal to discriminate against in terms of housing...

Again, do you object to homosexuals having housing?

... and gay rights advocates are absolutely in full bore critical mode against the church for doing so.

I propose if "the church" wasn't attempting to prevent homosexuals from having housing, there'd be little concern of the church being targeted for such.

Where would you have homosexuals live?

Article after article go on and on about how the church has to be forced to accept gay marriage within employment/church culture.

Please present "article after article" for examination.

1st challenge.

One group even wants to sue to force the church to allow gays to marry in the Temple, since once marriage is considered to include gay couples, then LDS gays who qualify in all other ways MUST be allowed full access--since of course anything less would be illegal discrimination.The only thing my proposal would do is make the civil and legal rights of such unions (and for the unions of members of the opposite sex, as well) the purview of the government alone

Please present this group and their argument for examination.

1st challenge.

My proposal would prevent that...while allowing gays to have the civil rights AND the right to be married--just not by us.

Do you consider preventing homosexuals' access to housing is an "equal right"?

Don't we all lose if we ask the government to remove a commonly understood word from its lexicon?

It would be...if indeed the word WERE 'commonly understood.' Evidently it isn't, since it is a minority which seeks to redefine it.

I don't see it so much as "redefining" the term as I do "one group steadfastly refuses to accept a changing culture's use of a term".

...
The fact is, the vast majority of Americans commonly understand that the term 'marriage' pertains to unions between members of the opposite sexes. Which means that the 'common understanding' of the term is not being changed by me, but by the minority that wishes now, against all tradition and custom, to be included in it. The common understanding doesn't include gay couples...has never included gay couples, and the resistance to including gay couples now does not reflect MY wish to change things.

I can accept that angle, while considering the use of the term in a changing culture.

My point is that you have admitted to accepting homosexuals calling their unions "marriages", while rejecting the government's use of the very term you don't have a problem with homosexuals using. Don't you think that's a bit hypocritical?

It's a way to get everybody what they want, yes.

Except homosexuals, who want their unions recognized on a level with heterosexual unions, through the use of a term that holds much cultural, and yes, religious significance. (along with employment, and housing, and who knows what else)

Now, my point with "religious significance" here is that some religious folks are homosexuals who seek to have the government recognize their unions by using what is also a culturally significant term.

If, as you say or imply, you have no problem with homosexuals calling their unions marriage, why do you object to the government recognizing these unions for what homosexuals would call them?

The power of government regulation.

Indeed. You seem to worry the government won't regulate your way.

Do you not understand that when you ask the government to not use a term because you have religious objections, it is YOU who starts getting into other folks' "religious business"?

Nope. Please note: I'm not asking anybody else to abide by my rules.

Aren't you? Your "rule" is that the government shouldn't use such a readily recognized term.

I'm simply proposing a way that allows all parties to the conflict to win. Frankly, those that object to this idea seem to have gone past the desire to have equal civil rights and the right to marry; they don't want merely to win; they wish their opponents to LOSE. I see this here in your argument.

Are you not wishing for those who want employment, housing, and to use a term to lose?

What of a religion that accepts homosexual unions as marriages, are you not interferring with their "religious business" when you ask the government to remove that term (where that religion would be asking the government to keep such language)?

How in the world would I be doing that? It doesn't affect them in any way.

You seem only concerned with how it affects you, IMO.

They may continue to perform marriages for gay couples...and accept those marriages as valid under God. What they cannot do is force ME to recognize those marriages as valid under God.

Who is forcing you to recognize homosexual unions as marriages?

The only thing my proposal would do is make the civil and legal rights of such unions (and for the unions of members of the opposite sex, as well) the purview of the government alone...

If it's the "purview of the government alone", why are you so adamant the government decides this issue your way?

so that...rather like they do in England and France now...all couples who wish to marry must be civilly joined first, and then have a religious ceremony.

I really don't give two hoots what England and France do, as long as we don't have to bail them out of another war.

It simply separates the legal from the religious--and solves the whole mess.

For the religious. How convenient.


My issue here is that the term marriage holds cultural significance, and now that homosexuals are more adamant about getting married, suddenly folks want to remove that significance for homosexuals. Notice dianaiad herself admits she has no problem with folks calling these unions "marriages" - but objects to the government using a term she's perfectly happy to have homosexuals use.

Me personally, I don't allow the word to even be mentioned in my relationships, but that's me, I hate marriage. But what of those who dream of being married? Is it so bad that the government would recognize their unions as marriages, especially when there is so much "cultural baggage" tied to that term?

Who breaks out their "civil unioning" videos everytime they get a chance? Who goes around saying, "I'd 'civil union' that'n right there if only to spend one night in the 'civil union' bed"?

Who wakes up after a three day binge and says, "Well dangit all, I done gone and got 'civil unioned'?

What are the objections?

"God don't like it."

The problem here is that none have shown their favored god exists to "not like it". Don't make me put up a formal challenge

Are we to restrict such a culturally important term to those folks who declare a god would get upset if we used the term "incorrectly"? I say no. I say religious folks had them a right good run at the term, but the times, they are a-changin'. I propose we keep the term in place, as the only objection to its use boils down to "A god I can't show exists has an opinion I can't show he has".

We, "the people", get to decide, and I say we decide once and for all that the unions of homosexuals are just as valid as any other, that they, and they alone should decide what they wish to call their unions - and the government, if it is recognizing other unions, should be bound to use the terms of those involved.

(edit for clarity)

[McCulloch]

In my country, where same sex marriage is legal, there is protection for faith communities, both in legal precedent and explicitly in legislation, saying that faith communities may reject to perform or recognize marriages on whatever basis they wish. Our society has not crumbled, the vast majority of marriages performed are between a man and a woman. Churches that choose to do so, do perform same sex marriages and churches that have issues accepting such things are free to reject them. I can eat pork even though some religious groups prohibit it.

That's nice...and it invalidates my point, and my concern, how, exactly?

I am not quite up on your particular faith history, but one of the smoke screens raised by the foes of the recognition of same sex marriage is frequently that such things will be imposed on them, even though they find homosexuality morally reprehensible. It appeared to me that is what you were doing, although I must admit your language is a bit vague and ambiguous. I do not know what your faith tradition is, how what others did or believed that ended up biting you in the doctrinal area, how the government attacked your faith group using marriage traditions as an excuse. Being kicked out the USA and being invaded by half the American armed forces, what is that in reference to?

I might not be all that accepting of the standard "oh, nobody can force you to accept gay marriage as valid in your church" line.

I was just trying to illustrate that it can work that way. I am sorry that you live in a country where you feel that religious freedom is not as well protected as it is in mine.

[Kuan]

In my country, where same sex marriage is legal, there is protection for faith communities, both in legal precedent and explicitly in legislation, saying that faith communities may reject to perform or recognize marriages on whatever basis they wish. Our society has not crumbled, the vast majority of marriages performed are between a man and a woman. Churches that choose to do so, do perform same sex marriages and churches that have issues accepting such things are free to reject them. I can eat pork even though some religious groups prohibit it.

That's nice...and it invalidates my point, and my concern, how, exactly?

I am not quite up on your particular faith history, but one of the smoke screens raised by the foes of the recognition of same sex marriage is frequently that such things will be imposed on them, even though they find homosexuality morally reprehensible. It appeared to me that is what you were doing, although I must admit your language is a bit vague and ambiguous. I do not know what your faith tradition is, how what others did or believed that ended up biting you in the doctrinal area, how the government attacked your faith group using marriage traditions as an excuse. Being kicked out the USA and being invaded by half the American armed forces, what is that in reference to?

I might not be all that accepting of the standard "oh, nobody can force you to accept gay marriage as valid in your church" line.

I was just trying to illustrate that it can work that way. I am sorry that you live in a country where you feel that religious freedom is not as well protected as it is in mine.

She is referring to the persecution of the early members of our church. They were kicked out of ohio, missouri, and illinois till they pionereed across the country to utah. Then while in Utah, not a part of the U.S. at the time, the U.S. invaded and attacked us.

[McCulloch]

She is referring to the persecution of the early members of our church. They were kicked out of Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois till they pioneered across the country to Utah. Then while in Utah, not a part of the U.S. at the time, the U.S. invaded and attacked us.

So the Mormons faced persecution for their religion and their marriage practices. Therefore they should sympathize with those who also may be persecuted by religious dogma for their marriage practices. So the Mormon church stands in solidarity against the foes of same sex marriage. Good to hear it!