Why Same-Sex Marriage really does threaten traditional marriage.

[AlpsStranger]

Lol, yep, traditional marriage needs to 'die.'

You're all ridiculous and you don't even realize it. Do you think that 'traditional' marriage became a tradition by accident? Do you think all of history was just waiting, with baited breath, for your amazing insights?

EDIT: Feel free to misread what I said as opposition to gay marriage or misogyny or pretty much whatever you like. I didn't say any of that stuff, but don't let that stop you.

 

[Thedrin]

Didn't "traditional marriage" emerge during the industrial revolution?

 

[AlpsStranger]

Yep, there was absolutely no concept of 'husband' or 'wife' before that. None at all.

 

[Snorrius]

Should traditional marriage just die?

The question is what is offered instead. The same-sex "alternative" is certainly is not an option - it is just a s variation of Christian way to handle marriages slightly modified to please homosexuals. If we talk about "dying traditional marriage" then the whole thing should redefined and redesigned.

 

[Thedrin]

Yep, there was absolutely no concept of 'husband' or 'wife' before that. None at all.

Traditional marriage as defined in the article and, thus in my post and many other posts in this thread: the wife stays at home and provides care while the husband works to provide income.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I am in favor of gay marriage because it's something some people want I have no good reason to deny. It's called fairness. But it's still going to be a minority of people.

I never signed up for some kind of weird utopian take on this. We don't need to arbitrarily destroy every tradition we stumble on any more than we need to cling to the past and fear the future. It's crazy.

 

[bhsup]

Yep, there was absolutely no concept of 'husband' or 'wife' before that. None at all.

Then why did David have Uriah offed so he could 'know' Bathsheba??

Btw, folks, you should read my first post in this thread. If you think I want to prevent SSM, you're wrong. That doesn't mean I can't have views that don't personally mesh with what I think should be legal.

 

[AlpsStranger]

VRWC, I was being sarcastic

EDIT: Anyhow, I just don't feel like these sort of ideas are actually "progress." It seems to be less about improving things and making them more fair and rational and more about just flipping over all the tables and burning down all the support beams.

 

[bhsup]

Sorry, it's one of my more severe online failings. I frequently fail to pick up on stuff like that.

 

[Thedrin]

I am in favor of gay marriage because it's something some people want I have no good reason to deny. It's called fairness. But it's still going to be a minority of people.

I never signed up for some kind of weird utopian take on this. We don't need to arbitrarily destroy every tradition we stumble on any more than we need to cling to the past and fear the future. It's crazy.

Are you saying, like classical hero, that the wife in a heterosexual marriage should stay in the home and that the husband should work to provide, or do you think that it is acceptable for the wife to work and the husband to stay at home.

Nobody is advocating that the wife should work and the husband should stay at home. A married couple may choose to adopt traditional roles. The article attempts to link opposition to SSM to the belief that there are specific roles assigned to each gender in a marriage (and as a result implies a correlation between opposition to SSM and holding a dim view of single mothers).

 

[bhsup]

Btw, I dispute that an SSM marriage would be genderless. I suspect that even in a same sex marriage, you're probably going to frequently have one of them fall into a more traditional caregiver role if kiddies are present.

 

[Evie]

Probable, but then that would prove once and for all that caregiver (and provider) can both be roles played by either gender. Which I believe is the whole crux of the issue people are raising - if you can have a man playing the traditional woman role in marriage, or a woman playing the man's traditional role, then by extension there is nothing preventing a heterosexual marriage from reversing those roles.

Of course, the reversion is actually nothing new, but so long as it was a few hetero couples doing it without mentioning it, people could pretend it wasn't there. If it's something as blatant as allowing two men or two women to marry, then those who want a full-on traditional marriage where people are mandated to play certain specific role solely on the basis of their gender are in a lot more trouble.

(And btw as a complete opposite to VRWC, on the whole I've never been comfortable with girlfriends who wanted to take my name and just my name. Hyphenated I can sort of see, but not just mine.)

 

[Thedrin]

Btw, folks, you should read my first post in this thread. If you think I want to prevent SSM, you're wrong. That doesn't mean I can't have views that don't personally mesh with what I think should be legal.

Nobody has accused you of being against SSM in this thread. Your very first comment implied you were opposed to a man taking the traditionally female role or a woman taking the traditionally male role. That is what has sparked a lot of responses to your posts and requests for clarification.

Btw, I dispute that an SSM marriage would be genderless. I suspect that even in a same sex marriage, you're probably going to frequently have one of them fall into a more traditional caregiver role if kiddies are present.

The article doesn't say that same sex marriages would be genderless. In fact it says that in such marriages a man might take up the traditionally female role or a woman might take up the traditionally male role, and that a rejection of this idea is - to some extent - behind opposition to SSM

 

[AlpsStranger]

Are you saying, like classical hero, that the wife in a heterosexual marriage should stay in the home and that the husband should work to provide, or do you think that it is acceptable for the wife to work and the husband to stay at home.

No, I'm saying that I suspect that more women will choose to behave that way voluntarily than some people are comfortable admitting. I'm arguing against "shoulding" people either way. I'm arguing that it's entirely possible that this tendency is deeper than culture and that it's nothing to necessarily be ashamed of or afraid of.

I'm not advocating legal or cultural coercion either direction. I'm merely saying that "corrective" cultural coercion may not be any better than "traditional" cultural coercion.

 

[emzie]

Traditional marriage as defined in the article and, thus in my post and many other posts in this thread: the wife stays at home and provides care while the husband works to provide income.

I'm not sure it has to be so 1950s, rather, that there's a job for each person to do based on their sex and that the woman's job is first and foremost to take care of the kids and be nurturing and that careers come second.

Btw, I dispute that an SSM marriage would be genderless. I suspect that even in a same sex marriage, you're probably going to frequently have one of them fall into a more traditional caregiver role if kiddies are present.

Yes, true. The article even mentions that. The point is that the gender part is a social construct, not tied to the genitals of each partner. SSM belies that.

 

[Thedrin]

No, I'm saying that I suspect that more women will choose to behave that way voluntarily than some people are comfortable admitting. I'm arguing against "shoulding" people either way. I'm arguing that it's entirely possible that this tendency is more than cultural.

Nobody is "shoulding" (I like that word) women into the non traditional role in this thread. The article did not should women into the traditional role.

I'm not sure it has to be so 1950s, rather, that there's a job for each person to do based on their sex and that the woman's job is first and foremost to take care of the kids and be nurturing and that careers come second.

True. I'm making overly specific assumptions about what those who wish to defend traditional marriage view traditional marriage as.

 

[GhostWriter16]

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?

You do realize that not everyone who opposes same-sex marriage opposes all types of same-sex unions, right? Granted, the civil union position seems to be gradually dying out but it still does exist and to entirely ignore it is a strawman.

 

[civ_king]

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

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.

If you believe a fetus has personhood it does not stop being a person because it is the result of rape.

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

For a small amount that is what they believe.

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.

Considering how old VRWCAgent is I imagine not many peers built a treehouse with mommy.

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

Hypothetical, if there are 100,000 jobs in an engineering field with 200,000 men with necessary training and 40,000 women with necessary training how do you make the numbers equal and non-misogynistic?

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

We should clearly have better pre-wedding discussions.

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?


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

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

You see, since there is a rare exception the whole rule is obviously bunk

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).

Is there something inherently wrong with having those as primary roles?

Didn't "traditional marriage" emerge during the industrial revolution?

Yes, this polished up medieval wedding vow is drastically different from traditional vows

Groom: I,____, take thee,_____, to be my lawful wedded Wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I plight thee my troth.
Bride: I,_____, take thee,_____, to be my lawful wedded Husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and to obey, till death us do part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I give thee my troth.

English Christians have only been using that for at least 800 years.

The question is what is offered instead. The same-sex "alternative" is certainly is not an option - it is just a s variation of Christian way to handle marriages slightly modified to please homosexuals. If we talks about "dying traditional marriage" then the whole thing should redefined and redesigned.

Should we set up a homeland for tolerasts and liberasts and ship all of them there?

Then why did David have Uriah offed so he could 'know' Bathsheba??

Btw, folks, you should read my first post in this thread. If you think I want to prevent SSM, you're wrong. That doesn't mean I can't have views that don't personally mesh with what I think should be legal.

It wasn't obvious?



Would anyone oppose the US having maternity leave as progressive as... Vatican City?

The women pointed out that the growing presence of women in the Vatican has led to a very pro-family environment. The Vatican, whose workforce is approximately 40 percent female, has a very progressive maternity leave policy, allowing women paid leave beginning two months before their due date and allowing them a year of paid leave after birth. When the women return, they are allowed to create a “milk schedule” so that they can structure their hours around their nursing needs.

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2013/03_04/2013_03_08_McGuire_AreWomen.htm

 

[bhsup]

Oooh, oooh. Nonono. "civil union" just.... no. Talk about the ghost of separate but equal raising its ugly head.

 

[lovett]

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

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.

What do you mean?

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.

I don't understand this exchange.

Your original comment implies that, because same-sex marriage may undermine traditional gender roles, you are less supportive of same sex marriage. So, presumable that expresses a normative opinion; you think traditional gender roles are good, and should be supported (rather than undermined).

Then your a little vague about what you means by gender roles; you only say what you don't mean. So you get asked for a clarification. Your response is that, when you were a child, you treated your mother differently than your father. In the little things. What I don't understand is why your actions as a child should set a normative standard for anybody. Why should anybody, even you, care how you acted as a child? As a child, were you so morally perceptive that we need no exercise our moral faculties now?

Well, you also say 'men and women -are- different.' But this is largely fluff. Nobody (serious, nowadays) denies men and women are different. And nobody (serious, nowadays) is trying to make men and women exactly the same in the way you mean. But that does nothing to support the maintenance of traditional gender roles. So i'm still at something at a loss what your conception of traditional gender roles is, and why we should think those roles are worth supporting.