Illogic of Prop. 8

[SeattleUte]

The most devastating attack ever on the institution of marriage was no fault divorce. Other tremendous blows included sophisticated forms of birth control, destigmatization by popular culture of pre-marital sex and common law arrangements, to some extent destigmatizing of adultery (comparing current attitudes to past times), and, to be honest, the normalization of gay sex. The spectacular ascendency of women in higher education and corporations and the professions, the two-working couple, and employment laws outlawing work place sexism have also facilitated divorce by making women more self-sufficient.

Yet despite this assault marriage continues to be the norm. Gays even want it now. Marriage is still strong.

I could articulate a strong rationale for no-fault divorce threatening the institution of marriage, but I just don't get how gay marriage weakens it. All I hear are a bunch of conclusory assertions. Pretty words rationalizing hate. (I wonder if the LDS Church campaigned against no-fault divorce.)

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Other tremendous blows included . . . to be honest, the normalization of gay sex.

* * *

[i] just don't get how gay marriage weakens it.

Huh?

[Indy Coug]

Having a sister that went through a no-fault divorce, I can say that the church didn't make it easy on her to get another temple marriage.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

Huh?

As long as gay marriage is not available.

Do you think it's easier now for a closet gay or lesbian to leave their marriage to pursue their natural form of romantic love? I do. As long as they can't remarry the fact thta this is not sitgmatized in many places or indeed illegal as it once was technically is an assault on marriage. (Again, however, marriage seems to be surviving just fine nevertheless.)

[SeattleUte]

I'm making two points here. First, that a societal change might in theory damage the institution of marriage ought not be the be all and end all. I'm in favor of no-fault divorce and gender equality in academia and the work place.

Second, in any event, the rationale for Prop. 8 seems specious, because I defy anyone to even articulate a conceptual threat to marriage posed by gay marriage, and even so marriage has survived more formiddable threats that were ultimately sociatal goods.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I'm making two points here. First, that a societal change might in theory damage the institution of marriage ought not be the be all and end all. I'm in favor of no-fault divorce and gender equality in academia and the work place.

Second, in any event, the rationale for Prop. 8 seems specious, because I defy anyone to even articulate a conceptual threat to marriage posed by gay marriage, and even so marriage has survived more formiddable threats that were ultimately societal goods.

The closest thing to a conceptual threat I've heard that sounded decent to me is the idea that homosexual marriage reinforces the notion that marriage is primarily about cohabitation and companionship, when its major focus should be raising a family. If it's mostly about being with somebody you love, marriage lasts only as long as both partners feel like they're getting as much in it as they put in. "Till death do you part" is rendered into something more like "till inconvenience do you part." This makes for a much less stable foundation upon which to raise children.

But I'll be the first to admit that this may be insufficient grounds for drawing the line in the sand HERE of all places.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by All-American

The closest thing to a conceptual threat I've heard that sounded decent to me is the idea that homosexual marriage reinforces the notion that marriage is primarily about cohabitation and companionship, when its major focus should be raising a family.

The purposes are not mutually exclusive, and nothing could have reinforced the idea that marriage is unavoidably at least in part about companionship more than no-fault divorce. Be that as it may, companionship is not an ignoble end of itself. I can't even dignify this "logic" enough to say it is strained.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Second, in any event, the rationale for Prop. 8 seems specious, because I defy anyone to even articulate a conceptual threat to marriage posed by gay marriage, and even so marriage has survived more formiddable threats that were ultimately sociatal goods.

You're looking for an argument that heterosexuals will stop marrying or more heterosexual couples will get divorced b/c of gay marriage. Isn't it fun to set up a test for others when you know they'll fail?

You've set up the wrong test and you misapprehend why the Church opposes gay marriage. It's not that people will stop loving and wanting to commit to a life together. Selfless, committed love is a life force, and won't disappear. Second, more heterosexual couples won't get divorced. Actually, there may be a very small percentage who will: (1) a gay partner will finally feel free to get married to a person of his/her own sex, and will divorce; (2) the two partners could so virulently disagree over the issue of gay marriage, and have such tremendous rows over it, that it is the straw that breaks an already weakened camel's back. But in the end, the health of heterosexual marriages is not affected by gay marriage.

The test for you is this, SU: You admit that the normalization of gay sex has weakened hetero marriage. How does the acceptance of gay marriage not further legitimize gay sex?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Levin

The test for you is this, SU: You admit that the normalization of gay sex has weakened hetero marriage. How does the acceptance of gay marriage not further legitimize gay sex?

I think the legitimization of gay sex is a good thing. I have not the least problem with it. I don't see a trade off here. You have a choice of letting someone fully realize the joys of matters of the heart, or live a life deprived of such. I don't believe being gay is a choice, and that is the crux of my position. If you can't disabuse me of that conviction we have no place to go in this discussion. So yes, even though normalization of gay sex may have resulted in more divorces, I say it's a societal good. Gay marriage will arguably repair whatever damage has been done to marriage by normalization of gay sex.

[SeattleUte]

I credit Levin for being honest. That's more than I can say for his church. People support Prop. 8 because they don't like gays. It's that simple, and Levin stated the true motivation precisely.