Envision, Create, Share

Welcome to HBGames, a leading amateur game development forum and Discord server. All are welcome, and amongst our ranks you will find experts in their field from all aspects of video game design and development.

Same Sex Marriage (revisited)

Volrath;159446 said:
I realize that, but that also seems like a total non-sequitur. He implied that gay marriage might have had some role to play in that. Some kind of explanation for that might be nice.

Ok, the implication is that, in Europe where same-sex marriage is accepted (I'm assuming) there has been a rise in children born out of wedlock. The assumption here is that because gay couples are allowed the marry the importance or value of marriage is devalued in the eyes of the public. Because marriage has been devalued it's not as important, so people will copulate in larger numbers without being married.

Marriage serves as a way to keep couples together, and not divorce, or that couples should be married before having children. Because of the weight marriage carries it is (assumed) to carry a certain psychological lock on it that keeps people from playing hip hockey willy-nilly.
 
Right.....well, I guess that makes a little se--oh, who am I kidding. No it doesn't. I can't fathom how the marital status of gay strangers would have any effect on how a straight person goes about their lives.

me":1xq5lell said:
The only arguments I ever hear against [same-sex marriage] are abstract bullshit.

This is not an exception.
 
Some people argue gay marriage will destroy the standard of marriage based on many accounts by contributing out of wedlock births, teen pregnancy, divorce, and even cheating and such in a region to the homosexual community. Simular arguments have been made saying that cable tv and even gambling does the same. Personally, I don't see how it can affect anything.

Too me, saying a person of a certain sexual orientation is like saying a certain political party can't vote (I understand you can't vote for a primary if you're not of that party here, I meant in the final elections). Or that a person of a certain religion can't pray. A person of a certain ethnic background can't live in a certain area, because it could be viewed as bringing down the value of the neighborhood.

It's all bigatry to me. If a Mongolian Jew who belongs to the Communist party can marry a Mexican Sic who belongs to the Republican party, in a court of law being seen by a judge from Africa who happens to be an independent, in an all white neighborhood I see no reason why two equally happy and wanting adults can't do the same. There is nothing wrong with a Mongolian Jew marrying a Mexican Sic in a court with an African judge in a white neighborhood, each with there own religious and political views, afterall. And I can't see the difference between that and any other couple reguardless of any orientations.

At one time it was believed that mixed race marriages would bring on social anarchy and such unions. I've even seen people believe to this day that if a black man and a white woman had a child, the child would somehow be slower in mental capacities, and in some way be violent by birth - reguardless of the truth that all it did was birth another child with the same probability of being slow, violent, or whatever defects or "gifts" (intelligence let's say) than other children.
 
O_o He said that he didn't care about gay marriages. He was talking about marriage as a whole being in decline. Not related to gay marriage at all.
 
Volrath;159984 said:
Right.....well, I guess that makes a little se--oh, who am I kidding. No it doesn't. I can't fathom how the marital status of gay strangers would have any effect on how a straight person goes about their lives.

Just answering your question.

Anyway, I'm going to cite Wikipedia here (especially since I just spent the last hour referencing and cross-referencing the article):

Wiki":jzpv1tje said:
Those who advocate that marriage should be defined exclusively as the union of one man and one woman argue that heterosexual unions provide the procreative foundation of the family unit that is the chief social building block of civilization. Libertarians and others may see marriage not as a legal construct of the state, but as a naturally occurring "pre-political institution" that the state must recognize as it recognizes other natural institutions such as jobs and families. "Government does not create marriage any more than government creates jobs."[21] They argue that the definition proposed by same-sex marriage advocates changes the social importance of marriage from its natural function of reproduction into a mere legality or freedom to have sex. These sides of the argument may refer to themselves as "defenders" of traditional marriage. As any customary relationship may be considered "marriage", some argue that this then leads to undue legislative burden and an affront to the social value and responsibility of parenting one's own children.

Same-sex marriage does have an affect on heterosexual couples, in fact, it has an affect on every living conscious person within the society that defines a marriage.

When you allow homosexuals to marry legally in the eyes of the state you cause those same states to essentially take on the idea that marriage is nothing more than a legal agreement to have sex and get tax breaks for it. Now, the important part to take away and think about is just how important is the value of marriage? Just as abortion isn't about "free choice" or "fetus murder" but "what constitutes 'life'?" gay marriage is about the importance of a couple in the eyes of a culture.

Personally, and as an aside, I see the main problem with homosexuals in general is the way the labels are used as a sort of a lifestyle. The title homosexual at the end of the day is only a defining word that states what gender person the user finds appealing, and that by proxy dictates what gender people one would like to copulate with. It's a word that carries a heavy bit of sexual weight. I'm trying to word this as carefully as I can and appear as neutral as possible. Anyway, that's my own musings, and it is slightly off-topic, just wanted to mention it.

Anyway, being realistic, people already have sex willy-nilly without marriage licenses. However right now marriage isn't seen as just the right to horizontal shuffle every night until you get tired of each other. If it did become legal, the "theory" that the devaluation of marriage in the eyes of the public and a possible resulting increase in children born out of wedlock because of it isn't a completely insane theory.
 
ixis;160722 said:
When you allow homosexuals to marry legally in the eyes of the state you cause those same states to essentially take on the idea that marriage is nothing more than a legal agreement to have sex and get tax breaks for it. Now, the important part to take away and think about is just how important is the value of marriage? Just as abortion isn't about "free choice" or "fetus murder" but "what constitutes 'life'?" gay marriage is about the importance of a couple in the eyes of a culture.

If you're thinking about how important the value of marriage is I think you should also think about what the value is. Likevise, I think it would also be a question about what a couple is in the eyes of a culture, not just how important a couple is. If allowing homosexuals to marry causes a state to see marriage as something less than previously, then said state had a view that puts less value on same-sex couples. If that's the case, there's a good chance it's the same people who dissaproves of same-sex marriage that put a lesser value same-sex couples.
 
ixis":36y2t9ss said:
Anyway, being realistic, people already have sex willy-nilly without marriage licenses. However right now marriage isn't seen as just the right to horizontal shuffle every night until you get tired of each other. If it did become legal, the "theory" that the devaluation of marriage in the eyes of the public and a possible resulting increase in children born out of wedlock because of it isn't a completely insane theory.

Maybe not completely insane, but still reeking of bullshit. I still can't believe that people think that straight people will see gay marriage and say "Oh, what's the point?" and just decide to make a bunch of kids. By this logic, I suppose widespread gay adoption would lead to the extinction of the human race. :-/

I was very impressed by a point sixtyandaquarter made a few posts ago:

sixtyandaquarter said:
It's all bigatry to me. If a Mongolian Jew who belongs to the Communist party can marry a Mexican Sic who belongs to the Republican party, in a court of law being seen by a judge from Africa who happens to be an independent, in an all white neighborhood I see no reason why two equally happy and wanting adults can't do the same. There is nothing wrong with a Mongolian Jew marrying a Mexican Sic in a court with an African judge in a white neighborhood, each with there own religious and political views, afterall. And I can't see the difference between that and any other couple reguardless of any orientations.

People made (and some still make) very similar "predictions" for the future of society if inter-racial marriage was allowed. There are no legal obstacles in the way of such a coupling now, and surprise! People are still getting married. These "theories" can be dropped until the cows come home, but it's painfully clear to me that they're just elaborate rationalizations of personal discomfort with issues regarding race and sexuality.
 
Really, far as I can see, gay marriage isn't the problem with children being born out of wedlock. Gay marriage is illegal here, and Vegas is practically next door (to the state, not my city). We got a rising rate of children born out of wedlock too. Heck, my son was born out of wedlock. It's not because marriage is devalued or any bullshit like that. My boyfriend and I were horny, decided we were gonna take the chance, and got blessed with a baby. Not because we didn't care about the sanctity of marriage any longer. Just because we were horny and stupid. Mind you, we are married now, after taking some time and being sure it was what we wanted.

Seriously. Some people are already deciding to just have a partnership and have children. And so many pregnancies out of wedlock are probably due to the same teens that I deal with every day who come to me and say, "okay, so my friend says that the week after your period you can't get pregnant because the uterine lining is already shed and needs time to build back up. Is that true?" If anyone's worried about babies being born out of wedlock, get better sex ed in schools before getting into the value of marriage.

So, of the arguments I've seen, here's a little more...

Argument one: Gay couples can't have children.
So, in addition to gay couples, infertile couples should also not be married. Can't have a child at all? Well, guess someone else needs to have a baby for you. Oh, wait... what keeps a gay couples from doing that?

Argument two: But infertile couples can undergo treatments and have options to have children.
Sperm donors, surrogacy, and adoption. All those unwanted kids in children's homes? Why do we need more procreators anyway when those kids need homes too?

Argument three: Gay couples shouldn't adopt children, because the child will grow up to be gay.
That's like saying so long as both parents are straight, the child will grow up straight too. Plenty of gay children are raised by totally straight parents. What? Did you think it's because the gay people were procreating?

Argument four: Allowing gay marriage devalues marriage because anyone can do it.
...So, would it still be devalued if no one was gay and "anyone" could do it? It isn't devalued by 14, 15, 16-year-old kids swearing they're in love and getting married as soon as they're 18, learning by the time they're 20 that they aren't the same people anymore and getting divorced? It isn't devalued by the fact that people who don't even love each other are getting married because they had created a child out of wedlock in the first place? It isn't devalued when a person gets married for sex, money, or status?
 
If the taz breaks are designed for people to have children, why not give them the tax breaks... When the have the children... Not when they get married?
 
Marriage has been, god, who knows how many things. A way to get pigs for your farm when your flock was leen, a way to quell a possible war or uprising, or a simple way of gaining respect, money, alliances, or just to be able to say "this one's mine" the way a jealous person would peck over a prized belonging. But is there, or at least has there been, a sanctaty in marriage in a "traditional" sence? Marriage, today, has become something romantic. Something you had control over. A voice and a choice.

We wouldn't let people take away that choice would we? Yet we are perfectly willing to deny that power, freedom, and choice from other people. This is my hang up. I could care less if the values of marriage were somehow destroyed by gay people securly living together in the full light of the law, to the highest of possible standings there in. Marriage has moved beyond a buisisness transaction and political power struggle to something far more personal and deep, or at least in the region I live in. Some peopel rush into it. But out of rash recklessness, not because two homosexuals are doing whatever pleases them behind their own bedroom door - that they most likely, like I would with a girl, be doing without the ring, the ceremony, and that little legal paper showing one is married.

Education/Ignorance is the monster, not equal rights. Education about sex ed, safe sex, STDs, and the idea that pregnancy is the end of you're current road, now let's move on to marriage reguardless of your own personal feelings for each other style of mentalities are. One girlfriend I had in highschool got pregnant, and she never cheated, so it was definatly mine. But she miscarried. I was saddened, but amazingly releived and happy. It destroyed that sence of invincibility I had in my 16 year old mind, and that sence of invincibility in whats in my pants. A reality check.

I was suddenly in a real situation that could alter my entire life, and not once did I ever talk about two homosexuals doing whatever it was I was doing, in the fullest light of the law and in the highest legal standing they were, or should be allowed to do it in. But I (well, not me, I never went to school really, but my girlfriend at the time) had sex ed classes telling us not to do this or that, but not what the precausions were. We spent more time on "don't" as opposed to "why you shouldn't" and that does make a difference. If I had examples, thrown in my face, like those scared straight dealies, it might have, and could have, made a differance. Maybe not in my case, but in someones.

So when it comes down to marriage, the value, the sanctity, and all that jazz being in danger, because of either A) Gay people having a legal paper and the rights of everyone else, or B) the misinformation and lack of responsibility... I think I'll chose B). Educate and be responsible, and I can guarantee you'll see happier wedded couples.
 
Volrath;160784 said:
Maybe not completely insane, but still reeking of bullshit. I still can't believe that people think that straight people will see gay marriage and say "Oh, what's the point?" and just decide to make a bunch of kids. By this logic, I suppose widespread gay adoption would lead to the extinction of the human race. :-/

I was very impressed by a point sixtyandaquarter made a few posts ago:



People made (and some still make) very similar "predictions" for the future of society if inter-racial marriage was allowed. There are no legal obstacles in the way of such a coupling now, and surprise! People are still getting married. These "theories" can be dropped until the cows come home, but it's painfully clear to me that they're just elaborate rationalizations of personal discomfort with issues regarding race and sexuality.

Interracial marriage wasn't that big a problem (compared to same-sex) because the end result still was the ability to birth children. It was simply taking what was already written and defined as marriage and applying it to all people. That's what anti-gay marriage folks will tell you at least from what I've read. But back on your main point...

I'm trying to come up with the link between gay marriage and an increase in children born out of wedlock. I think it might have to do with marriage no longer being viewed as a pure family venture. Yes, the elderly and impotent still get married anyway, and have great marriages, but it's the minority. Besides, there's a great pressure from society to get married and have kids. It's seen as all part of the "American Dream" (or at least an aspect of it.) At least that's all I can think of right now. Too tired to really care about this topic anymore seeing as there are no real counter-arguments.

*floats back to the religious topics*
 

Thank you for viewing

HBGames is a leading amateur video game development forum and Discord server open to all ability levels. Feel free to have a nosey around!

Discord

Join our growing and active Discord server to discuss all aspects of game making in a relaxed environment. Join Us

Content

  • Our Games
  • Games in Development
  • Emoji by Twemoji.
    Top