Does "Gay" Marriage Harm the Institution of Marriage?

http://www.cybcity.com/bibchr/gaymarriage.html ^ | Daniel J. Phillips

[LiteKeeper]

INTSUM - SOCIOLOGY

[Cicero]

Excellent argument. It couldn't be clearer.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

While I find this claim initially hard to believe, I'm not sure I've ever seen a direct response. So here is my own modest effort. I phrase it in the form of a question: "Does counterfeit money threaten genuine currency?"

The answer to that is that, of course, counterfeit money does threaten genuine currency. It devalues it. If a $1 bill bearing picture of Bill Clinton on it, run off on someone's HP printer, suddenly is accepted as being as legitimate as a genuine $1 bill, then all currency is devalued. The broader the acceptance, and the greater the proliferation, the more devastating the blow to currency.

Not quite right, even by the response he's looking for. If a Bill Clinton $1 bill became accepted as worth $1, it would just be an object of trade. It would be so obviously not a dollar bill that it wouldn't be a problem. It would become a form of barter in collectables.

It's when a counterfeit bill is mistaken for the real thing that counterfeiting becomes a problem.

The question is whether gay marriage is a counterfeit dollar bill or a British pound -- a different currency, but currency nonetheless.

[TheCrusader]

"Does "Gay" Marriage Harm the Institution of Marriage?"

Of course it does, and that's the underlying intent of the entire movement. The Catholic Church, and other Orthodox Christian Churches hold that marriage is sacred, a holy Sacrament that was instituted and blessed by God. Be certain that Satan is behind the "gay marriage" agenda, because it is Christianity that suffers the deepest wound from this perverted debauchery.

[xzins]

ping

[Falcon4.0]

The bottom line here is that we as a society have to admitt that there is somthing wrong with us, so that people who are gay can tell themselves that there is nothing wrong with them.

[Truth Table]

The answer to that is that, of course, counterfeit money does threaten genuine currency. It devalues it. If a $1 bill bearing picture of Bill Clinton on it, run off on someone's HP printer, suddenly is accepted as being as legitimate as a genuine $1 bill, then all currency is devalued.

That is all that needs to be said

[xzins]

I believe that's the intent of his line. He's saying that the counterfeit money in circulation, fooling others into accepting it as real, causes a devaluation of the dollar as the number of dollars is falsely increased.

Obviously, every dictionary doesn't accidentally define marriage as between a male/female. They do so because that relationship, male/female, is unique and requires its own word....marriage It is unique in that its issues, difficulties, responsibilities, and potentialities are entirely different than those presented by other relationships. Therefore, it requires its own word.

The same reason why we call a "platypus" a different name than we call a "lion." They are different.

[biblewonk]

Excellent post!!!! This is my biggest issue of the month. I'm pretty much out of the Republican party over it.

[BibChr]

ping

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

I say hammer the point home. Let the demoncRATs be the outspoken supporters of Satan. Lets see who wins future elections...

[TexasCajun]

It's always the Liberals that want to change the meaning of words.

Marriage = Man + Woman
Deviant = Man + Man

[puroresu]

Even if I favored gay marriage (I don't, I'm 100% against it) I would oppose the judicial aggression that is imposing it on us by force.

Why do so many libertarians applaud judicial power grabs, or at least shrug them off as no big deal, as long as the result is one they like? We saw that with the sodomy ruling a few months ago. Their attitude seemed to be, "We don't like state laws against sodomy, so we're happy the feds used whatever means were necessary to get rid of them."

That's a very dangerous attitude, and it's beginning to appear in the gay marriage debate as well. The attitude is, "Hey, it's none of my concern if two gay guys want to marry, so it won't bother me a bit if unelected federal judges invoke federal power to force gay marriage on every state in the union."

It's what I call Big Government Libertarianism. Not only does it invoke federal power to get rid of state laws they don't like, but it transfers power from the people to unelected branches of government. I won't even bother getting into the inability of such people to grasp that these rulings ultimately lead to bigger government at both the state and federal level (e.g., forcing kids to be taught that homosexuality is normal in the public schools, FCC rulings forcing advertisers to include gay couples in their ads, all of which will follow in the wake of these pro-gay rulings).

[ConservativeDude]

"If a Bill Clinton $1 bill became accepted as worth $1, it would just be an object of trade. It would be so obviously not a dollar bill that it wouldn't be a problem."

I'm not sure that is right. It would still result in inflation (if practiced widely)because nothing of value was produced to cause that dollar to enter into the realm of trade. This analogy is like if you are using gold coins, then someone discovers gold and makes a bunch of coins, then those gold coins all become devalued. Inflation is a monetary phenomenon. If you artificially increase the money supply, each unit of money becomes devalued.

That said, the finer points of monetary theory/inflation aren't really the topic here, are they?

[Modernman]

The Catholic Church, and other Orthodox Christian Churches hold that marriage is sacred, a holy Sacrament that was instituted and blessed by God..

The issue here is not religious recognition of gay unions (let's keep the word 'marriage' out for now). There are religions that already recognize, and perform, such unions. Other religions will probably never recognize gay unions, regardless of whether or not those unions are legally recognized.

No, gay unions will have little or no effect on the religious concept of marriage. The bigger issue is whether the state should recognize such unions. The best solution may be for the state to simply get out of the marriage game. Rather, private persons should be allowed to enter into whatever contractual agreements they desire (from a legal point of view, marriage is really just a peculiar type of contract). This would resolve a lot of the issues regarding wills, disposition of property, the right to visit a dying partner in the hospital (which is a big issue for gay couples- there have been many instances where hospitals have not allowed a homosexual person in to see their partner in intensive care since they were not a family member). Maybe getting government out of the marriage game would make this whole issue go away.

[etcetera]

There is a link between heterosexual marriage and child-bearing and child-rearing. This link has roots in almost every facet of our society.

In our current culture, that parent-child link is under assault from many sides. Homosexual marriage assists in that assault.

It is in the interest of the state to prevent the parent-child link from weakening further. One thing the state can do is to ban homosexual marriage.

[newgeezer]

But, does it harm marriage?

Frankly, as much as I despise the thought of it, there's not much left of marriage to be harmed. No-fault hetero divorce has done irreparable damage. This is just the next logical step.

For a secular analogy, Sodomite "marriage" harms marriage about as much as [insert your social program of choice here] harms the Constitution. There's precious little left to be harmed by it.

Come, Lord Jesus.

[biblewonk]

I think there is still more harm to be done. This harm is partly symbolic. It is the ashes of Sodom being resurrected and thrown in God's face. There is another aspect of harm, look at what divorce has done to a generation of bastard kids. The bible doesn't even have a term for kids raised in sodomite homes. Oh, wait, yes it does,....bastards.

This makes marriage one step less a Godly institution and one step more meaningless as the article said. When a word can mean anything then it means nothing.

[claudiustg]

--The bottom line here is that we as a society have to admitt that there is somthing wrong with us, so that people who are gay can tell themselves that there is nothing wrong with them. --

Exactly right! So, do you think we'll have to pay reparations?