Why Same-Sex Marriage really does threaten traditional marriage.

[Cynovolans]

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

Well, I'm sorry to tell you this but no. Some people went to their dad if they fell off their bike, and some people went to their moms if they needed help building something.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[bhsup]

Well let me ask you something. What do you think of a woman who chooses to stay at home of her own volition to raise her children? Decides that is the best choice she can make? Is she some oppressed sell-out to other women?

 

[Carras Dad]

well, since she can afford to financially, she's probably some upper class twit.

 

[bhsup]

Actually, I was using two of my three sister-in-laws as references there. They made the choice to sacrifice financially so they could be home with their children. Quit their jobs to do it because they thought it was the best thing for the kids.

 

[useless]

Well let me ask you something. What do you think of a woman who chooses to stay at home of her own volition to raise her children? Decides that is the best choice she can make? Is she some oppressed sell-out to other women?

That's her decision.

I find it strange that you think i believe a woman is a sell-out if she decides to live at home. You've completely missed the point that for along time women DIDN'T have that choice, it was expected of them to stay at home.

 

[Thedrin]

VRWCAgent:
Well let me ask you something. What do you think of a woman who chooses to stay at home of her own volition to raise her children? Decides that is the best choice she can make? Is she some oppressed sell-out to other women?

Of course not. The point of the article, which you said almost makes you want to switch back to be against SSM, is that many SSM opponents believe that women should be restricted to just this role and that men should be excluded from this role.

It's pretty difficult to interpret your initial comment as anything other than a belief that these restrictions should exist. Falsely implying that the SSM supporters want to enforce the opposite restrictions does not alter the implications of that comment. What did you mean?

 

[Cynovolans]

Well let me ask you something. What do you think of a woman who chooses to stay at home of her own volition to raise her children? Decides that is the best choice she can make? Is she some oppressed sell-out to other women?

Good for her. Feminism means giving women options, not forcing them to go out in the business world.

 

[bhsup]

I find it strange that you think i believe a woman is a sell-out if she decides to live at home.

There is nothing at all strange about thinking you might believe that. It's a widely held belief among the lefty hippie liberal lefty left.

 

[useless]

I'm glad that you believe you know me well enough to automatically judge what my views are or are not on this matter.

Unfortunately you are wrong, if a woman *WANTS* to stay at home, go her, but if she doesn't thats where it becomes a problem.

 

[Thedrin]

Actually, I was using two of my three sister-in-laws as references there. They made the choice to sacrifice financially so they could be home with their children. Quit their jobs to do it because they thought it was the best thing for the kids.

There's nothing wrong with that. If you took from the article that the pro-SSM crowd do think there's something wrong with it, then one of us misread it. It might have been me, but I can't be bothered to reread it.

 

[Peck of Arabia]

I still don't understand why gender theory is really being dragged into this debate. SSM is about personal liberty and what rights you have as an individual to live your private life as you please. Anything more is superfluous, really

 

[emzie]

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.

Having each parent take the lead in fulfilling different needs in a child's life isn't the issue. The issue is that "traditionally" this was decided upon by the shape of each parents genitals.

I would rephrase your question here:

Well let me ask you something. What do you think of a woman who chooses to stay at home of her own volition to raise her children? Decides that is the best choice she can make? Is she some oppressed sell-out to other women?

Is there anything wrong with a stay-at-home dad? I would say no. Your first comment in this thread implies a yes. If you don't have a problem with a stay-at-home dad, then you should really clarify your initial comment.

I still don't understand why gender theory is really being dragged into this debate. SSM is about personal liberty and what rights you have as an individual to live your private life as you please. Anything more is superfluous, really

That's how I, and I imagine the rest of the left, have always seen it. This article is more about explaining some of the opposition and why, to them, SSM really would destroy their idea of marriage. It's not an argument for or against SSM.

 

[Truronian]

There is nothing at all strange about thinking you might believe that. It's a widely held belief among the lefty hippie liberal lefty left.

Do you truly believe this, or are you dabbling in hyperbole?

 

[Formaldehyde]

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.

What if your dad worked as a flight attendant and your mom was a subcontractor in the construction industry? Would you still automatically go to him for help building something? If he worked as a nurse or a paramedic, would you seek his help if you were injured?

 

[classical_hero]

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?

These questions perfectly explain why we should be opposed to "same sex marriage". the purpose of it is to destroy marriage and when you destroy marriage you are destroying the fundamental building block of society, that being the family. It is about destruction of society plain and simple. We are already seeing effects when we have devalued marriage and devaluing it more will put society on a path to destruction. You want to let marriage die, then watch as society falls with it.

 

[Arakhor]

And heterosexual divorce rates above 50% have no effect on "traditional marriage", right?

 

[bhsup]

Is there anything wrong with a stay-at-home dad? I would say no. Your first comment in this thread implies a yes. If you don't have a problem with a stay-at-home dad, then you should really clarify your initial comment.

Not wrong per se, but I think it's a bit odd, yes. Now, what I do support is 9 months paid leave for any father. If the woman can have maternity leave, then so should the dad. Equal rights, ya know?

Do you truly believe this, or are you dabbling in hyperbole?

Well, the "lefty hippie liberal lefty left" was hyperbole. The rest wasn't.

What if your dad worked as a flight attendant and your mom was a subcontractor in the construction industry? Would you still automatically go to him for help building something? If he worked as a nurse or a paramedic, would you seek his help if you were injured?

Obviously if he had actual medical training, I'd probably go to him. if the sun went supernova tomorrow, would we all die??

 

[emzie]

These questions perfectly explain why we should be opposed to "same sex marriage". the purpose of it is to destroy marriage and when you destroy marriage you are destroying the fundamental building block of society, that being the family. It is about destruction of society plain and simple. We are already seeing effects when we have devalued marriage and devaluing it more will put society on a path to destruction. You want to let marriage die, then watch as society falls with it.

Well, at least you're honest about it. I think that view is far more repugnant than, "ewww, gays are icky" though. My wife kept her surname. I have no expectations for her to submit to me.

If your future wife wishes to submit to you, cool. More power to you.

 

[Thedrin]

These questions perfectly explain why we should be opposed to "same sex marriage". the purpose of it is to destroy marriage and when you destroy marriage you are destroying the fundamental building block of society, that being the family. It is about destruction of society plain and simple. We are already seeing effects when we have devalued marriage and devaluing it more will put society on a path to destruction. You want to let marriage die, then watch as society falls with it.

So you are saying that a woman should be the caregiver in a marriage and the man should be the provider (since that is how traditional marriage is being defined in the article and, thus, in Contre's post).

 

[bhsup]

I highly doubt I would marry a woman who wouldn't take my last name (or even wanted to hyphenate her last name and mine). That is in no way "submission", though, and I cannot believe that's how you view it.