We liberalized marriage to a great degree here with the passage of the divorce laws that we live with at present. Are you going to argue that the society hasn't suffered greatly and is experiencing grave symptoms as a result of even that relatively mild liberalization? Do I really need to remind you of the life long problems that children of broken families have which they in turn tend to pass along to their own children as a result of their own broken familes?
Our society was already suffering prior to the introduction of divorce laws. The only thing that changed when they were introduced was that people in abusive or unwanted relationships had a way out; the things that caused those bad relationships has changed only gradually. My parents are still together but they hate each other; as a result, I had a pretty screwed up childhood.
It is possible to continue ad nauseum throughout history detailing the problems various societies have suffered as a result of liberalizing marriage but I am not going to do it for you. The burden of proof that allowing gay marriage won't harm society falls squarely on you since it is you who is advocating that we disregard social norms that have been time tested for millenia. Feel free to prove your case at any time.
I asked you for historical precedents for liberalization of marriage because I don't know of any; the ball is, therefore, in your court. You've provided one and I'm sure that our debate on that one isn't over. Feel free to provide any others or we can just consider this section of the debate closed.
There is an ever growing body of evidence that highlights the destructive nature of homosexuality and homosexual relationships. To advocate normalizing a relationship that is unhealthy for those who participate and in turn, normalize the consequences for society as a whole is simply irresponsible.
So much for your disdain for laws that are "for your own good."
The American Journal of Public Health Highlights Risks of Homosexual Practices
by A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., M.B.A., M.P.H., (June 2003, Vol.93, No. 6)
http://www.narth.com/docs/risks.html
"Suicidality and Sexual Orientation: Differences Between Men and Women in a General Population-Based Sample From The Netherlands", 17Oct06, published in Archives of Sexual Behavior (June 2006) found that even in gay-tolerant cultures, suicidality rates are higher among gays than among heterosexual males.
http://www.narth.com/docs/netherlands.html
The Health Risks of Gay Sex, by internist John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D. (Note: this is a 19 page downloadable PDF file from the web site of the Corporate Resource Council -
www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf
Why Isn't Homosexuality Considered A Disorder On The Basis Of Its Medical Consequences? By Kathleen Melonakos, M.A., R.N.
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/medconsequences.html
Studies on Homosexuality and Mental Health
http://www.narth.com/docs/recent.html
Research Studies and Journal Articles of Interest
http://www.narth.com/docs/studiesofinterest.html
Sexually Transmitted Depression – The New STD?, Warren Throckmorton, PhD,
November 29, 2005
http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=173
Hopefully I'll get a chance to read some of these later, but I only have an hour before class and I'm trying to polish up a paper on the Trojan War.
The beneficial effect of a stable family structure for generation after generation upon a society is well known and undeniable as well as the harmful effect of an unstable family structure. Since you are primarily interested in homosexual marriage, here are some results from a study in a nation in which there is no particular stigma attatched to homosexuality and in which homosexual marriage is legal.
Your article says nothing about the stability of the resultant homosexual marriages, only that many people wind up homosexual if their home lives with the traditional Mom and Dad (or without one or the other) didn't exactly go very nicely. Do you suppose that people with bad childhoods don't make good parents?
How we view them may have changed, but we have not redefined thier meanings. There is a difference between simply changing ones view on a thing and redefining that thing entirely.
Last stop, obfuscation station, everyone off.
This is all legality, palerider. If you make something illegal you change its legal definition. That's how the definitions of slavery and voting were changed and that's how the definition of marriage will be changed.
The sweeping changes to the definition of marriage that I hear about from the right
won't even affect most people. This isn't going to pull the rug out from under the institution, just extend to grant rights to a minority that has been, until now, oppressed (kind of like how we extended the right of freedom to slaves...). You're married, right? Tell me, how does allowing two gay men to get married adversely affect your own marriage?
My definitions are accurate. It is telling that you find it necessary to overcomplicate an issue in order to make a point. If your point was valid, it could be made in the face of the simple truth.
The world is not so simple as you would like it to be. If you oversimplify enough, sure, things look clear and dandy, but there are a lot of people who'll get left out of the equation.
Palerider, can you stop for a moment and just try to imagine what it's like to be a homosexual, watching hetersexual couples that are no more in love than you and your partner get married and to know that society will not let you express that love in the same way as those heterosexual couples?
