Heterosexual, barren, childless women loudly supporting gays
04-01-2013, 03:20 AM
First post!!
Great discussion. The fact that we’re even having it on this forum speaks volumes about the lack of any sort of credible intellectual discourse in the mainstream media and among elites, who have pretty much silenced any anti-gay marriage debate IMO. I mean when did you see something on CNN, the NY Times etc. negative about gay marriage? Let alone the ‘pros and cons’. When it is entertained, it’s in the “Progressives versus the Neanderthal Religious Nuts” context, with the underlying message “why can’t Americans/Brits/etc. get over their predjudice and get on board the train?”
We really get zero real debate on it and the costs and benefits (socially and economically) – and the pro gay marriage guys frame up the debate anyway and avoid the tougher issues. To me it’s similar to how they don’t ever dare question (and never did) Feminism and many other things in the more broadly liberal media. The media and elites basically all want gay marriage, and will stop at nothing to silence debate.
(BTW I’m fairly liberal on most social issues and not really all that religious, know some gay dudes who I’ve worked with and had no issues, etc.).
Anyway, I’ve been struggling with this whole gay marriage thing, but if I had to spell it out, basically here’s my “gay marriage sounds good an all but is actually a bad idea and road to ruin” rational. (I’m willing to hear any rebuttals for sure as my mind is not made up yet, but right now am pretty much against, which I think is fast becoming non-mainstream):
1)The primary reason for marriage should be for the stable raising of children. Simply put, it takes a man and a woman to have a kid, and anything else isn’t supposed to be how it works, in recent history and in theory at least;
2)Second, given divorce rates and the difficulty of modern marriage, why would the government be incentivizing ANYONE to get married unless it’s to help raise kids who will eventually become educated, participate and support the society, spend money/pay taxes/buy houses etc. and become citizens? As pure public policy, marriage reduces state income and gives tax breaks, so the government take goes down if more and more people get married. So only those who really are committed to living together to raise kids really qualify in my mind – I mean why the hell else would I get married and give up chasing women, especially considering the massive downsides with divorce for men??;
3)Third, as Baldwin81 wrote, marriage is a Trojan Horse for eventual gay adoption, which I think is not in the interests of society and the state in general, and is frankly just not normal. I know, I know…..the gay lobby will come up with tons of exceptions about how gays make good parents (usually sourcing some biased research from some San Francisco study), show the high divorce rates/single mom’s raising kids and point out how committed gays would make better parents, etc. (which is actually an argument AGAINST them being awarded state marriage rights I would say). I’m generally against promoting gay adoption in society, and think it should only be allowed in special cases and not as general public policy – that’s ridiculous.
4)Fourth, as Soup said, “I don't consider any marriage--gay or straight--"sacred". I think that’s a ridiculous conceit. It’s probably the best structure we have (and the one with the most historical context) to raise kids in a supportive environment, but it’s a long, difficult road and not much fun most of the time, and demands completely committed partners to get through it all without eventually hating one another.
5)Fifth, economically gay marriage will cost us all something bc of the benefits and tax breaks that the recipients receive. Gays already have Civil Unions that give them certain breaks, medical coverage etc, but I’m not sure I really want to award two dudes who basically are roommates for life with all these benefits just bc they are gay. Could be argued out of it, but why do they get breaks that many times are really for the benefit of couples with kids? (same goes with married couples with no kids – will admit I’m not up to speed on how these benefits work as I’ve never been married).
6)Sixth, as stated above, gays already have Civil Unions and the track record of the Gay Community in terms of monogamous relationships isn’t very good. Now I’m sure that there are plenty of monogamous gays out there would might make good couples, but I think it’s pretty well established that gay men (and men in general) stray a lot and there’s a culture with gay people of having multiple partners all the time, the public toilet glory holes, etc. Ok this isn’t the best reason to say no marriage, but gays already have Civil Unions in many states awarding them benefits, why do they need Marriage too? Sounds politically motivated and fishy.
7)Seventh, “Marriage” in the modern context has been defined as a man and a woman for many years. Now we’re saying everyone can have it including two women and two men. Ok great…but obviously the next question is if we’re going to broaden that definition, then the next step is polygamy right? (which I’m not necessarily against) Or communal raising of children on a mass scale (even by the State, which I am against) way bigger in scale than current foster care programs, etc. You can’t award gays marriage and not look down the road and see what’s coming, and not discuss it – these issues are all interconnected. But that’s exactly what’s happening now…the Gay Lobby and Progressives want to go step by step without highlighting or even discussing the ‘Big Picture’;
8)Eigth, this whole silly debate (or lack thereof) shows the ‘herd’ mentality of ‘wanting to do the right thing’ when it actually might very well be the wrong thing to do, and we all know we’ve seen that before with things like divorce laws that are incredibly skewed-against men, ‘anti-discrimination/female empowerment’ laws, ‘harassment’ legislation, etc. So I think you should always be questioning these seemingly innocuous do-gooders who don’t tell you the whole story and are hiding things under the auspices of being “Progressive” and “Liberal” when most of the time they are anything but.
Finally, from 10,000 feet, it’s unreal that given the MASSIVE societal breakdown issues were facing in the West these days, and with and collapse of the Western economies, lack of jobs, out of control spending and non-discretionary benefits, rampant military buildup, increasing domestic surveillance, etc. that all the major media outlets and even the Democrats and President would choose to push forward gay marriage as one of the supposed main issues of our times. Where are our priorities? (I’m no Republican but would say they are not pro gay marriage in general).
In general I tend to err on the side of more freedom and ‘let them do what they want’ but come on gay marriage will cost something and change society, especially marriage, potentially in a dramatic way, and to pretend otherwise is just silly.
That’s my tldr 2 cents for now.
2015 RVF fantasy football champion