Posted on 06/20/2025 8:20:55 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
On the 10th anniversary of Obergefell v. Hodges (federally mandating “marriage equality”), it’s proper to ask whether same-sex marriage is a good idea. One reason to think that it’s not is the existence of an epistemic oddity, an oddity which strongly undermines any argument for same-sex marriage (hereafter “SSM”). The oddity in question is characterized by what may be called an "underdetermination asymmetry."
Start with the following very simple observation.
There are two ultimate positions in the SSM debate, and only two. On the one hand, there’s love or care as the basis of marriage, as in the view of SSM’s supporters. On the other hand, there’s procreation as the basis of marriage, as in the view of traditional marriage’s defenders. Any apparent exceptions will turn out to be folded into either love or procreation -- for example, commitment, which is parasitic on love and/or procreation. (I’ll henceforth ignore care -- the radical marriage reformers’ favorite criterion of intimate personal relationships -- because it cashes out similarly to love.)
The reason why SSM is supported by so many people is that everyone can see the salience of love. If marriage exists for romantic or erotic love rather than for procreation, as many people think, and if David and Ted love each other, then why not let them marry in a civil ceremony, with the full approval of the state? Conversely, if marriage exists for procreation rather than love, then why grant civil marriage at all to same-sex couples, who can’t procreate?
This is where the idea of underdetermination can help us to see the truth about marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Simple answer. No.
We conservatives need to stop giving in to the redefinition of words that the left continually does. We should at least say “so-called same-sex marriage” or, when written, put the word marriage in quotes as in same sex “marriage”. There is no such thing. The word partner suffices.
I think marriage ultimately has its roots as a way to provide stability in society. Parents who are committed to marriage will raise more stable children. In that sense, marriage has a positive influence for the entire community, and benefits were granted to those who practiced that.
Along came the same sex couples who were interested in obtaining the benefits (such as health insurance coverage, survivor benefits, etc.), but really have provided little in the social stabilization element. And in some cases, have eroded the social fabric.
Then there is the religious factor, where marriage is a sacrament-a gift from God. And in that respect, there really isn't same sex marriage, but just a civil union.
Literally the day after SCOTUS declared gay marriage was legal, the campaign to recognize transgender rights and aggressive grooming began. Anthony Kennedy said that anyone who opposes gay rights is a bigot. Kennedy was a fool.
Marriage is where the two sexes truly come together and meld into a spiritual, and a new and powerful physical union of the two minds and hearts which then expands to their family unit which in itself is a new and powerful entity created from the pairing, it is far more than the two sexes merely meeting for rutting, entertainment, and cooperative interaction for tasks.
Marriage is a picture, type or foreshadowing of Jesus (the Bridegroom)relationship with His believers (the Bridegroom of Christ) and that’s the reason it is under attack. Marriage was created by the Lord, not government, for this reason.
Auto spell got me, Believers are the Bride of Christ.
What’s wrong with same-sex marriage should be naturally obvious. If marriage were meant to be same sex, then they wouldn’t have
Different names for each gender as a distinguishment. But whole idea is to have children and start a family, it’s not for the purpose of people’s own vain self indulgence.
It probably isn’t great. But we have huge issues to take care of. I’m not sure this would help 2026 midterms.
Marriage was created by God.
Two sodomites can not be married anymore than God could bless any sin.
Love whoever you wish, but you can’t be married, and you don’t have to put your pecker in another man hairy butt hole, it’s nasty and bad for your health.
Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
Redefining marriage obliterates it. Societies will not thrive with screwed up notions of marriage. Whether sodomite or serial monogamy or porn addiction or whatever. All attempts at destruction of the nuclear family must be opposed.
The Obergefell case was argued on stupid, losing grounds. The best way for conservatives to win that argument would have been to make a startling admission that the Plaintiffs in the case were right. Provisions of federal law — particularly the U.S. tax code — that relate to married couples should be eliminated entirely. This is because marriage law is a STATE responsibility, and has no place in federal law.
The defense in that case should have addressed the idiotic REMEDY the plaintiffs wanted to impose — by having the Supreme Court impose a federal mandate on an area of law that isn’t even mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.
The best argument to put forward in any dispute about “gay marriage” should be to get the government the hell out of marriage entirely.
It just ain’t natural! Isn’t that clear? Ever try breeding two same sex dogs?
The author way overthinks this issue.
If we would just awaken ourselves out of our moral stupor, and come to the clear, obvious realization that homosexuality is simply IMMORAL and wicked, everything else falls into place. No deep philosophizing needed.
Correct. And it is not a proper question in the first place.
Of course it isn’t a good idea. It’s a deviant idea. There are a lot of deviant ideas aside from or flowing from homosexuality. The thing that makes me shake my head today is that we are starting to hear from homosexuals that other such deviants are, you know, weird and a bridge too far. See the story about the physical trainer lesbian babe who doesn’t like “leather guys “ whatever the hell they are.
Kennedy authored FOUR of the sodomites' foundational 'rights' cases.
Romer v. Evans essentially reversed Bowers v. Hardwick, a case affirmed that there was no constitutional protection for acts of sodomy, and that states could outlaw those practices.
Lawrence v. Texas affirmed homosexuals right to engage in any kind of sexual behavior in private that they wanted, invalidating a slew of state anti-sodomy laws, and throwing gasoline on the fire of the "homosexual rights movement."
United State v. Windsor struck down Section II of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA,) passed in 1996, mandating the federal government recognize as valid same-sex marriages performed in states which allowed them, with all federal benefits bestowed on real marriage.
Obergefell v. Hodges finished off the rest of DOMA by ordering all states and territories to perform same-sex marriages, against the precepts of 31 state constitutions.
Exactly right. There is no such thing as “same-sex marriage.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.