We hear (or at least we did before the 2006 U.S. election) a lot about
same-sex marriage as a grave threat to the traditional institution of
heterosexual matrimony. Those who hold this view apparently feel it's a
matter of common sense, obvious to all, and that anyone who can't see the
connection must be stupid. Well, I've never heard such a connection
actually explained, and my stupid little brain can't seem to bridge the gap
on its own. Because I truly can't fathom a valid logical connection between
legally sanctioned gay unions and the impending doom of conventional
marriage, all the reasons I've managed to envision on my own read like straw
men, red herrings, question-begging, ad populum, and false cause. Clearly
"A same-sex couple moved in down the street" has not translated...

S. A. Joyce wrote:

Snip! No threat but as ludicrous as same sex impregnation.

Perhaps the threat is to the cultural processes that
keep heterosexual unions functional. Those processes must
be exceedingly strong as primate folk men and women due to the
added complexity of culture and intelligence may be considered
as separate species. I imagine homosexual unions do not have as much
of these stresses. But then, without technology only the
heteros may normally breed, thus the hetero unions must not be
threatened by the presence of the less difficult and sanctioned
homo union. Thus homo sanctioning (marriage) is not accepted.

It's a symbol for the fall of the traditional morality:

When following only logic, you get to the conclusion that same-sex
marriage is not a threat at all: One might consider marriage and the
legal priviliges of married couples useful only to raise children, but
in that case one has as equally to question the acceptability of
marriage for different-sex couples that don't want to or are not able
to have children.

On the other hand it's an old tradition that marriage is possible only
for different-sex couples.

So the question is: Do we want to allow what makes sense or do we want
to allow what is tradiation?

People are afraid of changes.

Against all logic and against proofs of the contrary, they are
believing traditional morality would be the only defense against chaos
and social dysfunction.

Once you are accepting traditional morality as value in itself you have
to refute same-sex marriage, not because it is a threat, but because
it's against tradition.

On the contrary.
Same sex marriage strengthens the entire concept of marriage.
Rather than increase divorse or decrease the number of marriages it
clearly represents and upsurge in the marriage figures.
I think it has many positive ramifications. Marriage does help slow the
spread of sexually transmitted diseases, fosters an atmosphere of
honour and dedication between the participants, produces life stability
due to sharing of difficulties.
Gay marriage is all plus plus plus.
Where is the down side?

S. A. Joyce wrote:

Sir Frederick wrote:

None of this makes any sense to me at all.

"thus the hetero unions must not be

They are not threatened are they??

I have an inkling that much of this anti-gay stuff is propogated by
crypto-gays. The only people that could possibly be threatened by
homosexual activity are those that are gay but pretend to be
heterosexual. They are daily faced with the guilt of living a lie.

"S. A. Joyce" SPAMatt.net> wrote in message
news:_S5ah.105004$Fi1.88904@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

One has to ask what is the purpose of marriage
The roots of marriage grew in a atmosphere of ownership from a time
when daughters were bought and sold to the parents of their future
husbands.
Sometimes it was the converse. Daughters left the household of their
parents and took money with them (the dowry), this was returnable if
the marriage did not work out the daughter would return home with the
dowry.
In both cases (there are other variants) an amount of cash or other
movable items of wealth guarenteed the "welfare" of the participants
and laws followed the customs as history moved on to continue these
guarentees. Sadly the laws relating to marriage made the institution
less flexible to social change. Whereas before dowry systems were
contingent on economic circumstances, laws set things...

On 26 Nov 2006 02:00:48 -0800, "chazwin" yahoo.com> wrote:

Sammybaby wrote: