The first principle of civilization is the control of impulse. Sharing things in common -- values -- is what keeps it functioning with peace and harmony. What nearly all persons who lived before us, and a vast majority of those who live now agree on is the fact that the nuclear family is the foundation of civilized society, precisely because of that heterosexual principle we talked about earlier.
As demonstrated by the Dutch, raising other relationships to equal status lowers the value of the essential one. What is happening there is a separation of childrearing and marriage. They view marriage as just an adult convenience; having kids is something else. The out of wedlock birthrate is something like 60%. Couples are often waiting until the second child to consider marriage. This actually increases government costs and is certainly not an idea structure for a nation.
I'm running out of time. Talk to you later.
LOL. You've ahown correlation, now show causation. It's hilarious to me that some people are trying to blame a rise in unwed motherhood on the advent of gay marriage. To say it's a stretch is being diplomatic.
Yes, to those who place themselves at the top of the structure, it certainly always does! I thought that was the uniqueness of the American experiment in self-government, the people were put at the top of the structure. We all know that definition of "the people" has evolved from white, 21-or-over, property-owning, males to a greater understanding of who freedom was meant for.
The first principle of civilization is the control of impulse.
Well, the first principal is control of the impulses of those lower on the pecking order, anyway. The king applies the rule of one-man, one-woman for the serf class, while having as many concubines, mistresses, and prostitutes as he can afford, and the clergy will let him get away with.
a vast majority of those who live now agree on is the fact that the nuclear family is the foundation of civilized society,
Sorry, won't go there with you, the extended family was the norm for nearly all except the last few generations of people in the industrialized nations. Prosperity made it possible for Mom, Dad, Wally, and the Beaver to have their own home without having to take care of Granny, Cousin Itt, or one's (rumored to be lesbian) spinster aunt. You remember her, she's the one that Ross Perot talked about being hidden away in the attic. But, all those members of that extended family were conceived in the usual way, so I digress.
As demonstrated by the Dutch, raising other relationships to equal status lowers the value of the essential one.
I've never been to Holland, and I'm going to go out on a wild limb here and presuppose that you've never been there, either, with the possible exception of time spent as a tourist. If I'm wrong, and you have been a resident in that nation, perhaps you can tell me why you think that gay marriage has cheapened heterosexual marriage in Holland. It's my contention that there have been other forces at work to cause less marriage between heterosexual couples in that country, and most of them would revolve around things inherent to Dutch culture that have nothing to do with homosexuality. There's got to be a major difference in a country that rolled over twice for the Germans, and one that strikes back immediately at attackers, as ours does.
Besides, the figures you cite for out of wedlock birth are exceeded in our country in the welfare classes, leading me to conclude that a welfare society is what cheapens heterosexual marriage. Most homosexuals, except those on the receiving end of NEA arts grants, are not part of the welfare society, they just don't have the qualifying offspring to pull on the government teat.
Couples are often waiting until the second child to consider marriage. This actually increases government costs and is certainly not an idea structure for a nation.
What is the mechanism that government costs are increased by a couple getting married after two kids, where they wouldn't get married after one, besides the aforementioned welfare? And what does that have to do with gay marriage? Also, your contention that this is not ideal for a nation is a judgement call on your part, and while I agree that kids in single parent families are often disadvantaged as compared to kids in two parent families, reproductive biology and fosterparent/adoption law make single parenting possible, for straights and gays.
I'm running out of time. Talk to you later.
Thanks for your response, I appreciate being able to discuss these issues with thoughtful individuals. If there are really good reasons to keep marriage for heterosexuals only, there is only a short period of time to make the case. If someone cannot convince a fellow conservative who is not encumbered by religion, then it will be tough to sway people who are predisposed to liberal ideas, who even though they are religious, do not want to impose their beliefs on others in this case.