Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

What bad thing would happen?

Page 2 of 3 [ 33 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Lord_Gareth
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 440

13 May 2012, 11:41 am

Tequila wrote:
edgewaters wrote:
The government would have to allow churches that wanted to perform gay marriages to do so, instead of dictating their religious choices.


I think the worry might be that churches that did not want to recognise gay marriage would be forced into doing so.


It doesn't matter if the church recognizes it or not. I don't recognize incestuous marriage, but Alabama is still truckin' along just fine. My failure to recognize it doesn't change the law.


_________________
Et in Arcadia ego. - "Even in Arcadia, there am I."


AstroGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,582

13 May 2012, 12:46 pm

Tequila wrote:
edgewaters wrote:
The government would have to allow churches that wanted to perform gay marriages to do so, instead of dictating their religious choices.


I think the worry might be that churches that did not want to recognise gay marriage would be forced into doing so.

Which is absurd. Look at Canada, for instance. When the courts ordered that gay marriage be legalized they also made it very clear that the -government could not force a church to recognize or perform a same-sex marriage. Now, in Sweden and other countries where there is insufficient separation of Church and State, the national church has been forced to perform same-sex marriages. But as the US has not national church that can not be done and has not been done in the states where it was legalized.

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
I can't tell you if this is good or bad, but its conditional in all fairness.

Gradeschool kids would be asked - when they grow up - whether they'd want to marry a man or a woman. You also could not have prince and princess fairytales read without having prince and prince, princess and princess included.

I think the reason why people are afraid of this is not a fear of gays but a shock and awe of just how pervasive this really is and how much its going to rewrite culture.

Unfortunately that has not happened in places where it was legalized. Mind you, I am thinking of it in terms of Canada, and our culture tends to be American-dominated anyway.



shrox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

13 May 2012, 12:51 pm

Here's what I want, if someone tells me that they are married, then introduces a person of the same sex as their spouse, and I am momentarily confused, please don't yell at me and call me a bigot just because I was expecting something else.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

15 May 2012, 5:04 am

Okay, so you wouldnt be able to think of marriage as automatically being between a man and a women.

But gays only make up five percent of the population.

So 95 percent of marriages would still be hetereosexual.

So you could still teach little kids that marriage is "between a man and a woman" and wait until theyre a little older to worry about teaching them that "well, there are exceptions for folks who want to marry their own gender".

So besides the fact that its mentally taxing to think of marriage as "95 percent of the time being between a man and a woman" instead of it being "100 percent of the time being between a man and a woman" what are the bad things that would happen if we had nationwide legal same sex marriage?



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

15 May 2012, 5:14 am

shrox wrote:
Here's what I want, if someone tells me that they are married, then introduces a person of the same sex as their spouse, and I am momentarily confused, please don't yell at me and call me a bigot just because I was expecting something else.


No, I wouldn't fault you for being confused - many of us would be. Bigotry would come into play if someone would seek to deny equal human rights to that gay couple.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Oldout
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Feb 2012
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,539
Location: Reading, PA

15 May 2012, 10:24 am

Rush Limbaugh would have cardiac arrest. Rick Santorum might leave the country. Michelle Bachman would spend the rest of her days skiing in Switzerland.

That's not bad for a start.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

15 May 2012, 10:37 am

Gay culture would probably get a little more boring but other than that not much.

A lot of social conservatives say allowing gay marriage could lead to legalization to polygamy, my response to that is why not? People should be able to enter any contractual agreement they want with each other provided that they can consent.



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

15 May 2012, 10:47 am

Nothing bad has happened as a result in the places where it was made legal. It is possible that in a couple communities that really didn't want it there might be some criminal backlash (assault, vandalism). But then again, not necessarily.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

15 May 2012, 11:42 am

Tequila wrote:
I think the worry might be that churches that did not want to recognise gay marriage would be forced into doing so.


Has any Roman Catholic church been compelled to celebrate a marriage between a couple where one of them is divorced with a previous spouse who is still living? A perfectly legal marriage, which a Roman Catholic priest may perfectly legally refuse to celebrate.

The second marriages of the Prince of Wales and the Princess Royal were not celebrated by a Church of England officiant even though they were perfectly legal marriages.

If that's the worry, then the worry is ill founded.


_________________
--James


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

15 May 2012, 12:05 pm

I never really got that argument about fearing churches would be forced to preform gay marriages. While there are some poop stirers out there, why would a gay couple have their ceremony done somewhere they aren't welcomed? If there is a sufficient demand for steeples where gay marriages are preformed, then that demand will be met. I believe this has happened in New York since legalization.



AstroGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,582

15 May 2012, 3:54 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
Okay, so you wouldnt be able to think of marriage as automatically being between a man and a women.

But gays only make up five percent of the population.

So 95 percent of marriages would still be hetereosexual.

So you could still teach little kids that marriage is "between a man and a woman" and wait until theyre a little older to worry about teaching them that "well, there are exceptions for folks who want to marry their own gender".

So besides the fact that its mentally taxing to think of marriage as "95 percent of the time being between a man and a woman" instead of it being "100 percent of the time being between a man and a woman" what are the bad things that would happen if we had nationwide legal same sex marriage?

Or you could just teach it as being between two people who really love each other etc. If I have kids that's what's going to happen. Of course, I'm gay so if I adopt kids I'll be having to explain why they have two dads anyway.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

15 May 2012, 3:59 pm

AstroGeek wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Okay, so you wouldnt be able to think of marriage as automatically being between a man and a women.

But gays only make up five percent of the population.

So 95 percent of marriages would still be hetereosexual.

So you could still teach little kids that marriage is "between a man and a woman" and wait until theyre a little older to worry about teaching them that "well, there are exceptions for folks who want to marry their own gender".

So besides the fact that its mentally taxing to think of marriage as "95 percent of the time being between a man and a woman" instead of it being "100 percent of the time being between a man and a woman" what are the bad things that would happen if we had nationwide legal same sex marriage?

Or you could just teach it as being between two people who really love each other etc. If I have kids that's what's going to happen. Of course, I'm gay so if I adopt kids I'll be having to explain why they have two dads anyway.


Cool beans. 8)

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



AstroGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,582

15 May 2012, 4:15 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Astrogeek wrote:
Or you could just teach it as being between two people who really love each other etc. If I have kids that's what's going to happen. Of course, I'm gay so if I adopt kids I'll be having to explain why they have two dads anyway.


Cool beans. 8)

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

?



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

15 May 2012, 4:47 pm

Astrogeek wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Astrogeek wrote:
Or you could just teach it as being between two people who really love each other etc. If I have kids that's what's going to happen. Of course, I'm gay so if I adopt kids I'll be having to explain why they have two dads anyway.


Cool beans. 8)

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

?


The phrase "cool beans" is like "cool"- a thumbs up, or an affirmation of what you said.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

15 May 2012, 5:00 pm

Astrogeek wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Astrogeek wrote:
Or you could just teach it as being between two people who really love each other etc. If I have kids that's what's going to happen. Of course, I'm gay so if I adopt kids I'll be having to explain why they have two dads anyway.


Cool beans. 8)

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

?


What Naturalplastic said.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

15 May 2012, 6:06 pm

AstroGeek wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Okay, so you wouldnt be able to think of marriage as automatically being between a man and a women.

But gays only make up five percent of the population.

So 95 percent of marriages would still be hetereosexual.

So you could still teach little kids that marriage is "between a man and a woman" and wait until theyre a little older to worry about teaching them that "well, there are exceptions for folks who want to marry their own gender".

So besides the fact that its mentally taxing to think of marriage as "95 percent of the time being between a man and a woman" instead of it being "100 percent of the time being between a man and a woman" what are the bad things that would happen if we had nationwide legal same sex marriage?

Or you could just teach it as being between two people who really love each other etc. If I have kids that's what's going to happen. Of course, I'm gay so if I adopt kids I'll be having to explain why they have two dads anyway.


Don't forget the "two grown ups" and "who are not already related" parts, or your toddler will be quite adament that you marry HIM (Or her!)


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).