Pope: Catholics should ask gay people for forgiveness

[Giancarlo]

That only means, however, that the increase of marriages after introduction of homosexual marrtiages in said province (i.e. BC) wasn't big enough to counter the general decline.
Very probably marriage rates would be even lower (and the decline even steeper) if said province wouldn't have introduced homosexual marriages

You can't talk sense to a bigot. Let's all ignore him now. He is like a bad case of herpes.

[Jon Miller]

No it isn't. False equivalence.

And same sex marriages are often about raising children. Oh and they are about uniting families and being a socioeconomic partnership too.

Just ask gay couples and realize that.

They can be.

But that isn't the reason behind the gay marriage drive. The gay marriage drive happened because of romantic love became the driving force behind relationships. That wasn't true before the last century.

JM
(If it was purely about the old values, there wouldn't be a real need for homosexual marriage just like there wasn't thought to be one before the late 20th century. Previously you were expected, either straight or gay, to have your romantic loves on the side.)

[Giancarlo]

They can be.

But that isn't the reason behind the gay marriage drive. The gay marriage drive happened because of romantic love became the driving force behind relationships. That wasn't true before the last century.

JM
(If it was purely about the old values, there wouldn't be a real need for homosexual marriage just like there wasn't thought to be one before the late 20th century. Previously you were expected, either straight or gay, to have your romantic loves on the side.)

This is utterly false. Same sex marriage had mainly economic and family motives. Love comes second. Oh and last century was just so awesome. Spouses treated like slaves. Great example.

I just love it when someone drives themselves into a ditch.

[Jon Miller]

I support gay marriage. I didn't make value judgements about which marriage I prefer (after all, I am a product of my times, so I married for love).

I am just noting that marriage use to be about something else, and the change of marriage to be about romantic love is both was has driven marriage being an 'endangered' institution and the acceptance of gay marriage.

JM
(I do have friends from Africa and Asia so I am familiar with more traditional marriage.)

[Jon Miller]

This is utterly false. Same sex marriage had mainly economic and family motives. Love comes second.

This isn't what I have seen in the arguments on FB and in the papers and other places.

Yes, there is the claim that partners needed to be able to support eachother. But that is because of the point that partners should be partners based on romantic love and not based primarily on socioeconomic alliances and the raising of children.

Based on rah and Ming's posts I think even Ben must believe that marriage should be based on romantic love. To find people who think differently I Think you really have to go to Asia or Africa.

JM

[Proteus_MST]

This is utterly false. Same sex marriage had mainly economic and family motives. Love comes second. Oh and last century was just so awesome. Spouses treated like slaves. Great example.

I just love it when someone drives themselves into a ditch.

Well, JM has a point ... traditionally often the people couldn't even decide who they would like to marry ... instead it was arranged by their parents when they were kids (as it still is widespread in certain parts of the world, like India for example)

Those were the "good old times" when the old values still prevailed and also religio n/ the church still had more influence on society

[Giancarlo]

I support gay marriage. I didn't make value judgements about which marriage I prefer (after all, I am a product of my times, so I married for love).

I am just noting that marriage use to be about something else, and the change of marriage to be about romantic love is both was has driven marriage being an 'endangered' institution and the acceptance of gay marriage.

JM
(I do have friends from Africa and Asia so I am familiar with more traditional marriage.)

Except what does this have to do with anything I said? Marriage often was prearranged and more like slavery. Does make it right?

How the heck does same sex marriage damage marriage or endanger it? Your argument is silly.

[Ming]

You're a business. Why might you want to direct something at the 96.5 percent of your customers if you're a wedding store?
If I'm a wedding store? My business depends on their patronage.

So now you are arguing simply for wedding stores? There is a lot more to weddings then wedding stores. I thought this discussion was about the state, not the very small percentages of businesses that wedding stores represent.
As far as business goes... when people want to increase sales the have sale prices or offer deals... But you don't have sale prices limited to just some of the customers, you offer it to ALL of your customers.

Because that's what I'm doing and I'm still losing money.

Then fix the real problem... straight marriages. But as most people have noted, there are OTHER factors in play here.
But your solution is to discriminate against the group where marriages are increasing. You would make a terrible businessman.

[Giancarlo]

Well, JM has a point ... traditionally often the people couldn't even decide who they would like to marry ... instead it was arranged by their parents when they were kids (as it still is widespread in certain parts of the world, like India for example)

Those were the "good old times" when the old values still prevailed and also religio n/ the church still had more influence on society

I am not buying it.

Marriage, even now, has a lot to do with financial and societal security. Look at the benefits that come with it.

People who think same sex marriage is going to endanger marriage are the ones with no real argument.

[Jon Miller]

Well, JM has a point ... traditionally often the people couldn't even decide who they would like to marry ... instead it was arranged by their parents when they were kids (as it still is widespread in certain parts of the world, like India for example)

Those were the "good old times" when the old values still prevailed and also religio n/ the church still had more influence on society

Yes, many people (I included) like modern marriage better. But it is true that the forces that caused the 'downfall' of marriage are also the ones that caused the acceptance of 'gay' marriage.

JM
(I don't like the reference 'gay' marriage, I think it should instead be referred to as extending the institution of marriage to same sex couples.)

[Giancarlo]

What downfall? This is just one silly argument.

[Proteus_MST]

I am not buying it.

Marriage, even now, has a lot to do with financial and societal security. Look at the benefits that come with it.

People who think same sex marriage is going to endanger marriage are the ones with no real argument.

I don't understand it as if JM wants to make homosexual marriage / hoimosexual relationships responsiblöe for the decline in heterosexual marriages.
It is my understanding that he just wants to say that tghe rise in homosexual relationships (and the acceptance of homosexual couples and homosexual marriages) is determined by the same factors that also cause a decline in heterosexual marriages.

To be more exactly, the development of society in a more liberal one.
Just 100 years ago, the roles a woman could take in society were limited ... and becoming a housewife and mother was an important "career step" for almost all women.
Therefore, marriage rates were, of course, also much much higher. And women who weren't married in their 30s were looked down upon by many people in society.

Nowadays however, in the liberal society that also allows homosexual couples to live out their love openly, women can make career as well as men can ... and marriage isn't as important anymore, as it has been in those past times.

You see, homosexual relationships/marriages don't cause the decline in heterosexual marriages, but both are governed b y the same factors (i.e. the liberalisation of society, which nowadays enables its members to better live out their dreams than in past times)

[Giancarlo]

It is a false equivalence. I am not buying it.

[Jon Miller]

I don't understand it as if JM wants to make homosexual marriage / hoimosexual relationships responsiblöe for the decline in heterosexual marriages.
It is my understanding that he just wants to say that tghe rise in homosexual relationships (and the acceptance of homosexual couples and homosexual marriages) is determined by the same factors that also cause a decline in heterosexual marriages.

To be more exactly, the development of society in a more liberal one.
Just 100 years ago, the roles a woman could take in society were limited ... and becoming a housewife and mother was an important "career step" for almost all women.
Therefore, marriage rates were, of course, also much much higher. And women who weren't married in their 30s were looked down upon by many people in society.

Nowadays however, in the liberal society that also allows homosexual couples to live out their love openly, women can make career as well as men can ... and marriage isn't as important anymore, as it has been in those past times.

You see, homosexual relationships/marriages don't cause the decline in heterosexual marriages, but both are governed b y the same factors (i.e. the liberalisation of society, which nowadays enables its members to better live out their dreams than in past times)

Exactly.

JM

[Berzerker]

Something is not well with marriage in general. It has major demographic roots. Marriage is too expensive these days, and people are less inclined to get married - especially at a younger age. These trends will need to be reversed. Given housing prices....

My argument is that cutting taxes for married men and women is a good way to incentivize marriage in general. Overall, we'd need to see some major, major changes in how the market works, including eliminating the benefits for homebuyers and decreasing the amount of land owned by the state.

The state owns the land, we just rent... I'm not a fan of social engineering and generally oppose using the tax code to promote or suppress expressions of freedom, eg "sin" taxes. I dont think unmarried people should be compelled to pay higher taxes to subsidize married people nor should homeowners get subsidies from people who dont own homes. But I thought you were arguing against gay marriage, nevermind

It is probably related. Marriage use to be primarily about uniting families, a socioeconomic partnership and raising children.

Not about romantic love.

JM

both would be a consequence of romantic love, that wouldn't make them related in any cause and effect solution

the argument I've heard from opponents is that gay marriage diminishes straight marriage thereby causing a decline

edit nm