Why Same-Sex Marriage really does threaten traditional marriage.

[emzie]

Short excerpt from a fantastic article:

Marriage equality is a threat to those who do not believe in EQUALITY between the sexes in general. Some who oppose marriage between two women or between two men believe that homosexuality is a sin, or that same-sex marriage harms children, or that it will lead to more divorces. But as I listened to the “protect traditional marriage” ralliers outside the U.S. Supreme Court hearings last week one unified message came through loud and clear: same-sex marriage threatens traditional marriage because it challenges ideas about proper gender roles.

...

I am struck by the continual references from the traditional marriage camp to “the protection of the father” and “the tenderness of the mother.” To a view that only fathers can or should be breadwinners and only mothers can be caretakers. Traditional marriage defenders believe that a man is needed to protect and provide for a family – and a woman is needed to nurture a child. That a man/father/husband is the rightful head of the household and that a wife must submit to her husband in all things.

...

Instead, the conservative/traditional view of marriage is grounded not in the pursuit of personal freedom or individual happiness or rights, but in gender essentialism – in the belief that the purpose of marriage is procreation and that woman’s highest role is as wife and mother. The questions in the Griswold case are the same as those in the debate about same-sex marriage today: What is the definition and meaning of marriage if it’s not about procreation? How to define the sexuality of women if not exclusively around reproduction? Just as the Pill separated sex from reproduction, same-sex marriage threatens to finally separate gender from marriage. (This is not to say that gays and lesbians in same-sex couples do not ever take on gendered roles within their relationships, only that same-sex marriage exposes the lie that gender is directly related to biological sex.) The lawyer arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court last week admitted that “the main concern [for opponents of same-sex marriage] is redefining marriage as a genderless institution.” Let that sink in for a moment.

(emphasis in original)

I highly recommend you read the whole article at: http://nursingclio.org/2013/04/02/same-sex-marriage-does-threaten-traditional-marriage/

Anyway, to summarize, because SSM is a genderless marriage, it affirms that traditional marital and gender roles are a construct. By acknowledging this construct, it does change what "traditional" marriage represents. Is that a bad thing? Should traditional marriage just die?

 

[squadbroken]

Is that a bad thing? Should traditional marriage just die?

Short answer: yes
Long answer:

Spoiler :

hell yes

 

[ace99]

Kill it with fire.

 

[Arakhor]

That's certainly an interesting article. I don't think traditional marriage needs to 'die', specifically, but it absolutely needs to stop having a monopoly on 'marriage', so as to allow people to marry if they so choose, according to the law of the land etc.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Insert comment here comparing traditional marriages to marriages for the purposes of transfer of property, inheritance, or to seal diplomatic negotiations between nations or houses, to say nothing of polygamous unions throughout history.

Insert comment here regarding drive-thru wedding chapels where you are married by a fully licensed Elvis impersonator, right next door to the lawyer's office specializing in prenuptial agreements and divorces.

Insert comment here regarding marriages for the purposes of skirting immigration law.

Insert comment here regarding celebrities who marry seemingly as a yearly hobby.

Insert comment here about the divorce rate being over 50%.

Insert outrage about how all of this is the fault of the gays, who for some silly reason want a shot at beating our impressive numbers.

What's that silly reason? Oh, right.... love.

But since when did love have anything to do with traditional marriage?

 

[Borachio]

Insert obligatory comment here about how marriage is a private commitment between two people.

Insert obligatory comment here about the essential equal nature of people, and how unequal relationships are positively toxic to mental health.

 

[Leoreth]

I still don't see what the problem is. If a man and a woman are in a relationship and both believe they should fill their "traditional" (as in, maybe a century old) roles, then what's stopping them from having their traditional marriage?

 

[squadbroken]

I still don't see what the problem is. If a man and a woman are in a relationship and both believe they should fill their "traditional" (as in, maybe a century old) roles, then what's stopping them from having their traditional marriage?

it's not traditional if it can't be denied to interracial homosexual couples

 

[Tani Coyote]

Any people who are capable of consent and love eachother should be able to marry in my opinion. I don't care if they're gay, straight, interracial, or even incestuous. If two people love eachother, I see no reason the state should be able to tell them their love isn't as valid as another couple's.

So, yes. Traditional marriage needs to die.

 

[Formaldehyde]

This battle has always been about "love, honor, and obey", especially the last bit.


Link to video.

Maddow hits the GOP for their long history of Todd Akins-type rhetoric

If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.

Quote by Ann Coulter (a single woman).

But, there is no War on Women, right?

So does SSM "threaten" them? Much to to do with basic human rights does, especially women's rights. They have just learned to not express it except in certain cases due to the pressures of political correctness.

 

[anandus]

So does SSM "threaten" them? Everything to do with women's rights does...

Well, it wouldn't surprise me if you'd ask the people that are against SSM if they honestly think that women should have the right to vote (or work) then they'd answer 'no'.

 

[bhsup]

Actually, this almost makes me want to switch back to opposing SSM... almost.

 

[useless]

Just to re-affirm "traditional" gender roles?

 

[bhsup]

I'm a pretty old-fashioned guy, useless. Don't try to spin that into me thinking women should remain at home, barefoot and preggers cooking in the kitchen. That's not what I mean at all.

 

[lovett]

What do you mean?

 

[Peck of Arabia]

Nobody really wins whenever gender roles are brought to the discussion (well, except political scientists but that's as damning a statement as anything) In the interests of necessity maybe we should wait until SSM become a legal and generally accepted part of society before we further complicate the issue.

 

[bhsup]

Eh, just the little things. When I was a kid and I'd crash my bike or whatever and sustain injury, it was mom I ran to. When I needed help building something (or if I was to be whipped for doing something wrong) it was daddio up to bat.

Men and women -are- different. Go ahead and try to rinse and sanitize us to being exactly the same in the glorious name of social progress, it'll never work.

 

[Cynovolans]

Eh, just the little things. When I was a kid and I'd crash my bike or whatever and sustain injury, it was mom I ran to. When I needed help building something (or if I was to be whipped for doing something wrong) it was daddio up to bat.

Do you think everyone else was like that?

 

[bhsup]

OF course. The entire world surely had a conservative, protestant upbringing.

 

[useless]

I'm a pretty old-fashioned guy, useless. Don't try to spin that into me thinking women should remain at home, barefoot and preggers cooking in the kitchen. That's not what I mean at all.

You might not mean that, but for other conservatives "Old fashioned family values" means exactly that, same with gender roles.