Why I support SSM, for my conservative friends.
On my last post, a lot of people made the completely valid point that SSM is a serious erosion of the institution of marriage. Specifically, it moves the focus of the institution from procreation and continuity of inheritance and makes the institution of marriage about "love". Romantic "Love" being a notably fickle beast, one can reliably predict
( Read more... )
That's an assumption that I don't know is correct. I don't know all the numbers, but people do still get married and stay married.
Even if that were true, why throw out something that functions, just because some people (or even most people, if that were the case) don't choose to use it?
M/F marriage has always been the basic cornerstone of society. Even if there are other arrangements done in a society, this is still the case.
And again, it's simply factually true that children thrive best in a home with a married mother and father. I don't know how we can get around that. It just is.
That should've always been the focus of this issue. That was an error of those on the "traditional marriage" side.
"A lot of people asked, essentially "But what about civil unions". That would have been my preference as well."
I forget the states where this was proposed. But the SSM side didn't WANT that - even if they got all or very nearly all the same benefits as marriage. They wanted the word "marriage". Why? Because this is not really about marriage! This was, is, and ALWAYS has been about social acceptance, changing marriage to mean, in practice, "Whatever you think" and destroying anyone who dares disagree.
This has played out over and over and over.
"However, it doesn't make it okay to inflict the injustices of limited visitation, uncertain partner support, uncertain pension passover, and all the other issues that have been enumerated ad nauseum on other than heterosexual people."
It's not an injustice. Different situations are treated differently. Men and women are NOT the same. A M/F union and a same sex one are NOT the same. Therefore, they are treated differently.
Siblings don't have all those things, because that relationship is not a marriage. Best friends don't have these things, because that relationship is not a marriage. You and your neighbor down the street don't have these things, because that relationship is not a marriage. And two men or two women did not have these things, because it's not a marriage.
If people really wanted all those things, legal arrangements can be pursued to that end. But this argument of hospital visitation and all the rest was the weakest of all I've heard. It's just a smokescreen.
Ask yourself this. Heterosexual couples can get married and have all these benefits. But so many of them these days do not. Why would homosexual couples be any different? Once the novelty wears off, you will see that.
But by that time, marriage will have been destroyed as an institution. Because once something becomes "whatever you want", it effectively ceases to exist.
That was the whole point: destroy marriage, have sexual anarchy reign, and destroy anyone who dares speak out against it.
Reply
Actually, it's not an assumption, it's a conclusion that I reached. I understand if you reach a different one.
For the rest of it, Yeah, I know what you mean. however, I don't see a better remedy to the issues than to follow this rabbit hole.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment