Topic: Gay marriage will destabilise family life - page 6. (Read 10771 times)

I'm straight and married and as far as I'm concerned, if two gay people want to get married, that's their business.  It's hard to criticize when a large percentage of traditional marriages end in divorce and there are a lot of other heterosexual relationships that produce children out of wedlock.

Gays destabilize family life that's for sure..Only if your family are homophobes.

All that writing only to be told your full off shit..

Taxation, personal rights, adoption rules, perhaps labor discrimination and societal snowball effects.

It's more of a butterfly effect it creates rifts all over the place.

In Taxation if its not set equal to marriage between traditional couples it creates issues defining benefits and taxation rules similar to or different to straight couples based on children etc and if their is any other benefits based on minority rules. If nothing is different no snowball effect, but if any subsidy for minorities as defined by legal changes is done then it starts to impact the revenue and takes away from other services.

In the case Taxation is impacted, lets say it was done indirectly, example a law is passed in adoption priorities, where services prioritize perceived minority adoption over traditional families in this case gay marriage couples are first on the ticket for adoption of a child.
This can create a perceived and actual affect on the people involved as the agency may have a bias either way based on a formula set by the law.

If so does a child have the right to decide who they will accept as their parents, it can be made that the child should makes that decision, if its not in their opinion to be adopted by gays or traditional families but is set in law that minorities are first that would raise an issue. As it is that is not defined and should not be no special privileges based on gender race or orientation in adoption should be set.

I guess here it could destabilize a potential family life that could have been in that wishy washy oh what could have been if only X didn't happen sense of the word

Labor discrimination comes up on occasion in gay marriage, but its in the sense that a person can identify as gay to get a competitive edge in the labor market. (So it's more less another way to try to declare as a minority and get a foot in the door over someone else equally qualified) Legal now so it's a bit of an edge that comes from its legalization, where as before it's still fair game for both while adding a criteria for minority groups might have added gay marriage after the court ruling in some companies.

Again more of it could have been me if the employer didn't have a minority quota that defined gay married couples as a group to meet a quota maybe I could get that job. Wishy Washy since an employer has other considerations.

The real backbone of this argument of how it impacts me is in Societal snowball effects:

I say I don't like Gay marriage which is within my rights, now I'm perceived as a racist, geez I rather get on board or someone will trample over my liberties.

I run a traditional school that has for years encouraged prayers in school and straight sex relationships, now the government is telling me to quash my religious liberties and traditions because Gay Marriage is legal, allow gays into my school and legalize gay sex in my dorms even though it's against my schools beliefs and their are other schools possibly even next door that a Student can take law classes in that would gladly accept them.

(Kind of like inclusive catholic schools , theirs a public school next door it's a great school if you don't want to take religious classes here their is no problem going over there.)

Yet for some reason they want to go to this law school and impose their agenda on my institution, maybe cause its close by or the entrance requirements are lower and easier to get in, maybe its their first choice for some obscure reason, or they have a hidden equality agenda and want to screw around with the rules here and prevent another Scalia in the Supreme Court who knows, but I know one thing don't mess with the status quo, in a religious institution obey the rules and follow them else apply elsewhere as its within the rights of the school to deny students for this and I have done a reasonable amount to accommodate them as students.

Either way the rule of dormitories and the impact of gay married couples in schools that prohibit that type of marriage is a testy ground. Lets say the school decides to take them in but later another issue arises.

A Politically Correct agenda would feed money towards any Public Action Committee that opposes the viewpoint of gays needing to not be gay at a religious institution and call them villains even though they are the ones intruding on the rules set by the organization and breaking the tradition.

The media now has free reign to say whatever they want to support this new legislation, and anyone who offers criticism pertaining to it is censured silenced and not allowed to express their opinion without being called a bigot boo-hoo for equality.

Those are the main issues of snowball effects that can impact life from that ruling.

And for your comfort

How would it destabilize a family, said parents are gay they adopt a kid and they want housing in that religious schools dormitory for married couples because they are students at that school.

Now is that an intrusion on personal liberties, religious liberties or did they give up the right to their viewpoint and access to the dormitory housing when they decided to apply for that religious community and school knowing all of this beforehand and the regulations they had.

The butterfly effect is far reaching one little ruling can create some quite fun scenarios

Destabilize by the gay marriage

Gays destabilize family life that's for sure. But their right to get married? I don't see how this part could destabilize anything ^^

Hmm it doesn't yugo the OP was related to the Destabilize family Life aspect
I was referring to that part.
Semantics aside

If Gay Marriage was there it would be
Gay parents raise child
Child says he Gay
Hurray

Gay Parents Raise Child
Child says he Straight
or Acceptance

I guess that could still destabilize their relationship depending on if they want their adopted kid to be raised up like their parents and be gay.
(Deem that acceptable?)

In the end presume
Child says he straight
Gay parents intervene

Social Services appear (Is this discrimination if they take the kid away) Or in a parents right

Reverse the switch and see if your double standardizing or share the same rationale and reasoning.

Where does the gay marriage appear in your reasoning?

Intruding in

Marriage is a union between a man and a women is the traditional definition.
(Last decade or two definition changes make it a government intervention in the legal definition so both are accurate statements.)
Marriage means intrusion by (the Judiciary) to standardize a definition. (Per say not Government but I'm being nitpicky) Although the government does Impose that all of society by definition needs to accept it raucous opposition or not. Like banning booze in prohibition etc.

Either way I'm having a bit of fun in here Trumping it up a bit he-he

One of the main remaining debates are the rationale for economic benefit to legalizing it as a marriage by definition.

A state bestows numerous benefits on marriage that by its very nature and design promotes children and increasing the population, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, and is an evident interest of any State population = labor = growth.

That said the Supreme Court did just rule on an adoption case so that avenue is available but it still seems like an interesting footnote should you get tax discounts if you don't adopt but are by definition married, answer seems to be yes because traditional marriages do but recieve more with kids but I feel like its murky legally.

Especially if we start a priority system of adoption on who gets a kid first using minorities first logic.
Minorities as recognized based on a labor code could apply to an adoption process which seems unfair by standard definition to a traditional family who want to adopt.

In a sense it also depends on how people believe in a child being raised a traditional Yin Yang Approach aka balanced raising between a Male and Female, Yang Yang or Yin Yin and their definition of balance at this point aka the moral order and were not going to even get into polygamy combinations but I have a feeling that will come up in the future following this progressive logic line of what is the next cutting edge in the sexual revolution.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/the-us-supreme-court-refuses-to-adopt-an-alabama-ruling/472722/

--
To techshares point
Child says hes Gay
Parents intervene
Social Services appear take child away where before it was within the parents purview to intervene.

Yes it can destabilize a family life simply said.

False. Never said that. You just keep ignoring our arguments.

You're wrong on the definition of marriage itself. Marriage means regulation by government. It's in the definition of the word...

Vote for Trump?
Something Something Rage Against Something Today then Tomorrow.
Trump: I'm doing a Samson here I ain't got time for this.

Independent View
Keep your wang out of my closet, do what you want in your own bedroom.
But for petes sake stop with all the rainbow parades and forcing it down society's throat at every opportunity with TV Ads, Late Night TV, Print Articles we got it shuddup.

Democrat View
Let it be let it be down smooth as a gin drink it up our liberal media encourages it, let it be its the law of the land this is the new family life and its not going away.

Outsider Looking In: Calls it the Mexican Viewpoint

Wow look at all the refugees coming into Europe Raping all those Boys in that Refugee Camp, this is what we need a new LGBT demographic leaving the Barbaric Middle East for friendlier lands and new marriage opportunities.
(By definition they fit into that category even if its because they treat women more like cattle uh oh identity crisis incoming.)

Hurray For Equality everyone needs to be arrested equally.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/03/france-multiple-young-boys-brutally-raped-by-muslim-migrants-in-refugee-camp
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/austria/12144039/Iraqi-migrant-admits-raping-boy-in-Austrian-pool-after-having-too-much-sexual-energy.html

Sums its up for me.

The only problem with your logic: I never made any of those statements.

It's a statement like this statement.....Straight marriage will turn you into a mental thief and cause your family problems

Now tell me what's wrong with the statement I just made

It's the same sort of statement as Gay marriage will destabilise family life

Getting married is also about getting each others money.Its about being recognised as partners
by law..Then no problems when it comes to the will or house and so on.

well said

I love your thinking.And thanks for being a great human being..If only the whole planet was like you..Not asking for much but logic.
I do read what you always got to say and your logic is nice to see

SO THANKS..Some good thinkers some crazy thinkers

See the frothing rage people get into over the mere concept that people should have any say what their government imposes upon them? Anyone who protests is clearly a (insert marginalizing phrase or word here). I simply suggested that anyone under the rule of said government has a right to protest the changing of laws which directly effect them, but in your little myopic reactionary minds any such suggestion is equivalent to being anti-gay. You claim I have no argument, but your entire argument rests upon:
against gay marriage = closet gay/bigot/homophobe/jesus freak

I say it directly effects every resident of the nation (as all laws do), you reply "NO, BECAUSE HOMOPHOBIA!"
Reactionaries such as yourself sure do seem to take issue with people having an opposing opinion to them, or having a say in how one's own government is run for reactionaries.

Wrong. People are only asking for the right to chose if they want to be regulated by the government or not. Nothing more. they never asked for government regulation, only the possibility to be regulated by gov. because believe it or not, some people like both their country and their institutions 

Again you're wrong simply because marriage is linked to government. It's an official recognition of being a couple. If it doesn't involve government, it's not a marriage, it's something else. That's what we call definition of words.

You seem to have incredible problems with government... But would you care to explain me how people get more regulated by notifying the state they live with someone? I mean nobody forces you to do so, you chose to get married or not, you don't have to get married in order to go together to the church and get married (though the word is here misused) in front of god if you want.

Marriage is total freedom. The freedom to give up parts of your freedom and to officially claim a relationship. But it's in no way mandatory.

Freedom means you also have the freedom to give up this freedom. Simple logic man.

Incredible how you can't simply politely expose your point of view... You seem to have to be rude...

Anyway. Your argument is a complete nonsense because the notion of mariage itself is linked to government. Being married means to be recognized as a couple in the eye of the state: marriage (oxford dictionary)-The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship:. If you don't want to be regulated by government don't marry at the city hall! Only marry at the church!

You just refuse to grant more freedom to others. Simply because you don't want to be involved in any official thing doesn't mean others don't want either. Legitimate gay marriage doesn't increase state regulation! It only gives the right to homosexuals to be regulated by the gov if they want.

I agree with you 100%, it is nobody's business, even the government's. I never argued against homosexual relationships. I stated that people are demanding increased regulation via the government, as a result it effects everyone subject to that government regardless of your sexuality, therefore merely objecting to it does not make one a homophobe or a bigot. The idea that it doesn't effect anyone else is a myth designed to mask the fact that this makes people less free, not more free, exploiting the LGBT movement to do so. This directly involves the government and gives them more power, control, and authority over gay marriage when the government shouldn't be involved in any kind of marriage at all.