Before same-sex marriage was legal, there was zero divorce among lesbians because they couldn't get married
That's not what Ms Drew is trying to explain. She regrets converting her own civil partnership to a marriage. ‘We were much more relaxed as civil partners than as a married couple,’ she said. Getting married puts pressure on lesbians to adopt roles more typically associated with heterosexual couples. Etc.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Here's some food for thought:
The founder of Britain’s first fertility clinic for same-sex couples, Nathalie Drew, believes the legalisation of gay marriage has resulted in a soaring divorce rate among lesbians. Government figures in UK recently showed that divorces among lesbian couples were about three times higher than those among gay men. It came as the overall number of divorces in England and Wales saw their largest rise for nearly half a century. Natalie Drew’s concerns over gay marriage, which was introduced in 2014, have grown since she discovered that about a third of the 586 lesbian couples she helped to have babies between 2011 and 2015 have split up. Ms Drew, 45, whose own same-sex marriage ended last year, believes the breakdown of many lesbian relationships today is caused by couples rushing into traditional married life that they may be unsuited for. 'I don’t think the law should have changed from allowing gay people to have civil partnerships to actually getting married,’ she said.
Ms Drew suggested that getting married put pressure on lesbians to adopt roles more typically associated with heterosexual couples. ‘You get caught up in these expected roles, one being the breadwinner, going out earning the money, and one being the mother,’ she said. ‘There’s an expectation you’ll fit into these traditional roles because you’ve done the norm, you’ve done what everyone else has done and got married. ‘But we are not the norm. And I think this causes an imbalance, because the one going out to work feels left out of motherhood.’ She feels too many female couples had rushed into marriage, saying: ‘With lesbian couples, everything happens so fast. They move from a relationship into marriage, sometimes within months. There’s no steady, easy-going dating process.’ Ms Drew regrets converting her own civil partnership to a marriage in 2015. ‘We were much more relaxed as civil partners than as a married couple,’ she said.
Kanak Ghosh, of the ONS, said that since same-sex couples have been able to marry in England and Wales from 2014, there has been an increase in divorces year on year. He added: ‘Unreasonable behaviour, which includes adultery, was the most common ground for divorce among same-sex couples this year, as almost two-thirds of couples divorced for this reason.'
0 ( +1 / -1 )
The thing about LGBTQ+ is that to a certain extent everybody can identify as such. It depends on which interpretation you give to certain feelings or character traits. How many times do you have to experience attraction to someone of the same sex to be at least a bit bisexual? How many traits do you need to have which are more related to the opposite sex to be at least partially trans? I could myself identify as slightly bisexual and trans exactly because of such ambiguity. Some also claim that everybody is bisexual or that there's an infinite number of genders. And to experience something that relates to LGBTQ doesn't mean you have to agree with everything a certain vocal majority from the LGBTQ community says. There are for example also people who openly identify as gay but still disagree with for example same sex marriage or even that homosexuality is a good thing.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
"people are lobbying for the right to marry the person they love. This is a fundamental human right."
Nope. There's not a single legal system in human history which has ever recognized that right. If you want to have a private marriage ritual you can do whatever you want, but marriage was never about marrying the person you love without any restrictions. As pointed out before, those restrictions are typically based on age, number of partners, degree of blood relationship and sex. The universal declaration of human rights in 1948 declared marriage as a human right, but the signing countries never used that right to abolish all existing restrictions. It said: "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family." Restrictions related to age, sex, number of partners or degree of blood relationship were still valid. To understand more about what marriage is, how people started redefining it and why this matters for society, I suggest you look for the article "Redefining Marriage, Part 1-10: Who’s to Blame? The Root of the Problem".
-1 ( +4 / -5 )
If it's about measures to recognize certain rights of people sharing their lives outside of marriage, then that's understandable, but I don't think there should be any support at all for homosexuality itself. If people want to act like that, it's not illegal, but why should it be recognized by society as something worthy of respect?
And when they talk about marriage, they try to to obtain the same social status as heterosexual relationships. But the reason heterosexual relationships have obtained a certain social status is because the relationship between man and woman is important for society, for our survival. It's like wanting the same medal without offering a similar contribution to society. This is a clear form of decadence introduced by Western culture and it certainly shouldn't be adopted by other cultures.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
Maybe it's not birth - maybe it's a chemical in the air. What would that matter?
We are born as a heterosexual species because of our genitals. The only way to put homosexuality on the same level as heterosexuality is by pretending that we can be as much conditioned by homosexuality as by heterosexuality (meaning that we are born that way). That's how the gay movement became a movement about gaining equality.
When homosexuality is caused by a chemical in the air, it's obviously not as much part of our identity as heterosexuality, because chemicals in the air are not part of our physical anatomy.
The whole point about being born that way, is that they are that way not by choice. Expecting them to stop being gay because you don't like it, is expecting them to be something they aren't.
Our feelings are never a choice and for sure we can't simply expect people to stop having feelings, but we do have a choice about what we do with those feelings. When I feel jealous, I didn't choose to feel that way and people can't expect me to stop feeling jealous, but I have a choice about what I do with those feelings. If I am angry about something at my job, people can still expect me to act without showing my anger towards the customers. We are not like animals who only know how to act based on impulses.
There's a long list of (weird) forms of sexual behavior or fantasies (paraphilia) and as they are all about erotical sensations, nobody chooses any of them. And while we can't force people to not have such feelings, we can still expect them to not promote them in public, to not introduce them in the education system, to not claim that people are suffering from some kind of phobia for feeling aversion (this is also something we don't chose) towards some form of sexuality.
The reason homosexuality is treated differently from all the paraphilia is because of the idea that we are born that way. For sure pedophiles, sadomasochists, nymphomaniacs etc didn't choose to be that way, but have you heard a lot about them being born that way? If we would claim that pedophiles are born that way, then suddenly the whole 'born this way' argument would lose all of its meaning for accepting homosexuality. And similarly, whether or not it's a choice, doesn't matter. What matters is which meaning something has. Feelings can be interpreted in multiple ways. Understanding yourself can be quite complex. We are being influenced by theories and examples from others and maybe we never heard about the correct interpretation of our feelings.
Nowadays LGBT is simply an ideology focused on normalising homosexuality and gender confusion that is being pushed into every corner of society wherever possible. This doesn't help anyone.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
And yet, gay people continue to be born
Except that … we don't know that. Being born gay is a myth that was deliberately created to gain rights. You can find more about that by looking up Marshall Kirk, Hunter Madsen and the 'born gay hoax'.
The official position of the APA (which is actually very supportive of homosexuality) is that "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."
A study this year, conducted by Christine Kaestle (Sexual orientation trajectories based on sexual attractions, partners, and identity), has indicated that a sexual orientation can change until late in the 20s. "The study, which analyzed surveys from around 12,000 students, found that substantial changes in attractions, partners and sexual identity are common from late adolescence to the early 20s, as well as from the early 20s to the late 20s. This indicates that the development of sexual orientation continues long past adolescence into adulthood."
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
"deepen students' understanding of issues and provide support for the LGBT community."
In practice, this strongly tends to translate into convincing everybody that homosexual acts are morally good and equally normal and natural as heterosexual acts, that recognizing same sex marriage by law is a human right, that children don't need a mother and father, and that transgender women/men are real women/men, no different than other women/men. And if you don't agree, you are a bigot who makes people commit suicide.
And after they successfully silenced nearly all opposition, they will have solved nothing because they will still be depressed and commit suicide, as can be seen in many countries nowadays where a strong increase in LGBT acceptance has not significantly diminished health concerns in the LGBT community.
So called "understanding of LGBT issues" is more like a form a denial of most problems in the LGBT community in favor of a simplified message which says: "we are victims and you have to agree with us".
They will never let former homosexual activists like James Parker become involved with "understanding LGBT issues". A quote from his article, titled "Fifty years after the Stonewall riots, what the LGBTQI+ movement needs is less pride and more humility": "On a daily basis I walk with young people coming to terms with their same-sex attractions, with individuals struggling with the concept of being male or female, and with men and women ditching their other-sex spouse and children (and now even their same-sex spouse and surrogate or adoptive children) to pursue a “more fulfilling” relationship with one or more people somewhere over the rainbow.
Fifty years on from Stonewall, with every pillar of society now rainbow-friendly and frightened, I see 50 plus shades of gay grey which continue to imprison those who pursue an LGBTQI+ utopia. Five decades later, dysfunction has not only been accepted, but in places it has actually worsened.
The cocktail of gay hook-up apps along with accessibility to the drug Truvada taken by HIV-negative people to reduce their risk of HIV infection has birthed a more sexually compulsive world than existed prior to the AIDS epidemic of the 80s." I doubt very much that this will be part of what Gon Matsunaka wants to communicate to "deepen students' understanding of LGBT issues".
0 ( +2 / -2 )
The fact they can spit out kids is not deserving of any recognition or special status.
It's the fact that they 'can spit out kids' which gives them a responsibility towards each other and their kids. This responsibility begins already before they have children, because a child needs to be able to live in a safe, caring environment. The recognition is a reminder about how important their relationship is. This is particularly significant for men, who unlike women, don't carry a child for 9 months in their own body. That's why marriage as recognized by society is a form of protection for women and children.
I am going to quote Ryan Anderson, who has written a lot about this topic:
"While respecting everyone’s liberty, government rightly recognizes, protects, and promotes marriage as the ideal institution for childbearing and childrearing. Adults are free to make choices about their relationships without redefining marriage and do not need government sanction or license to do so.
Government is not in the business of affirming our love. Rather, it leaves consenting adults free to live and love as they choose. There is no ban on same-sex marriage. Two people of the same sex may choose to live together, choose to join a religious community that blesses their relationship, and choose a workplace offering joint benefits. There is nothing illegal about this.
What is at issue is whether the government will recognize such relationships as marriages—and then force every citizen, house of worship, and business to do so as well. At issue is whether policy will coerce and compel others to recognize and affirm same-sex relationships as marriages. All people have the freedom to live as they choose, but they do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else."
0 ( +0 / -0 )
I will take the gay couple that adopts and raises a child over an irresponsible pair of married misfits who created and abandoned that child
As would I. Any single person would be better than parents who abandon their child. Even dogs could do a better job. And when you say that it takes a village to raise a child, it points to the responsibility of society towards the wellbeing of children. But this has nothing to do with marriage.
It's simply because the sexual relationship between man and woman has a unique, essential purpose that this relationship deserves to have a unique form of recognition. If you want to have a recognition for another type of relationship, you can have that too, like a civil union or cohabitation contract. Why does it have to be the same exact form of recognition for different types of relationships?
0 ( +0 / -0 )
This is like saying the unmarried old woman who lives next door is not much use, ...
I didn't say that people have not much use when their relationship is not as important for society as another type of relationship. The topic is about so called marriage equality. It's not about how people can in general contribute to society.
Fine, you just keep your fingers in your ears and decide there is nothing to convince you without even hearing the argument first.
I replied to your comments. Did I miss something important?
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Same-sex marriage is not illegal. It just isn't recognized by the petty government. If you want to marry someone of the same sex... or the opposite sex....or multiple people...or your pet...or your car, you just do it however you want to do it....in private...in a lavish ceremony, your choice. Stop looking to the government for permission to live your life.*
I agree. People can have private marriage ceremonies any way they want. But they can't force me to recognize all kinds of relationships (in the form of marriage) as equally important for society. And because the sexual relationship between man and woman is literally of vital importance for the survival of our bloodline, tribe, race, nation … this type of relationship deserves a unique form of recognition by society.
even if marriage is allowed that is a separate question from procreation anyway. Unmarried people procreate anyway. If its procreation you have a problem with, that is what you ban, not marriage.
Marriages between first degree blood relatives are illegal in every country of the world, even though consensual incest itself is legal in a number of places like Spain, Russia, Australia, Brazil etc. So it's obvious that there's a universal connection between marriage and procreation. If you want to disconnect procreation from marriage, then what would be the difference with a civil union or cohabitation contract?
twin brother and sister having 3 basically normal kids. Its quite possible and has happened.
Of course it may happen that siblings have healthy children, but increased health risks are still the reason that marriages between siblings are forbidden everywhere now.
Whether two consenting people can procreate or not, maybe or maybe not, is not the business of the government unless the government is our master and we are but slaves.
There's no futur without children and for the protection of women and children, men shouldn't be allowed to make women pregnant without assuming responsibility. That's the reason why society and its government have an interest in procreation.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
So opposite sex couples who cannot produce offspring shouldn't get married? Should they get divorced? Is the only goal of marriage to produce offspring?
The only reason that some infertile couples can marry is because they are the same type of relationship as fertile couples who are allowed to marry. For example: If an opposite sex couple of two 80+ year old get married, it's the same type of relationship as a similar couple of the same age who got married at a younger age.
A relationship between man and woman also starts as only potentially fertile. You never know if they will really be able to procreate. And because procreation starts with a relationship and requires to have a stable commitment in order to create a safe, healthy environment for children to grow up, you can't tell people that they have to be sure already that they are fertile, in order to get married. Marriage comes first, and then their sexual intercourse may result in having children. So there's a bit of a gray zone between being potentially fertile, actually fertile and perhaps never fertile.
To force people to divorce because of infertility is cruel, because they have become intimate and shared their lives, so it would be painful to force them to separate. And at what point are you going to decide that someone is permanently unable to have children?
It's clear also that siblings aren't allowed to get married, fertile or not, and that's only because procreation is the reason marriage exists and incest leads to genetical degeneration. But once you allow same sex marriage, how are you going to argue that siblings aren't allowed to marry? Or are you going to discriminate against opposite sex couples by letting only same sex siblings get married? And there are already examples of such couples you can find on internet who would like to get married to enjoy certain benefits given to married couples.
And for those who support same sex marriage, I have also this question: in some places cousins are allowed to marry and in some places they are not allowed to marry. Would you consider this unjust discrimination? If so, why? And if not, then why would it be unjust discrimination to not allow same sex couples to marry?
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Plenty of comments here saying that same sex couples can't have kids. Thats totally incorrect. They can adopt, they can have sperm donors, they can even be transgender and do it the 'normal' way.
By your definition anyone can of course 'have' a child. Three sisters could raise several children together if they want and are allowed to. But this has nothing to do with marriage. The point is that a man and a woman are responsible for their own children and that's why it's important that this type of relationship receives a form of recognition with specific rights and duties. To extend this recognition to other types of relationships obscures the meaning of the relationship between man and woman. It's not the fact that you are able to obtain and raise child which matters, but your biological connection to them.
And it's in the best interest for children to have both a mother and father anyway, because it offers better role models for them and it doesn't make them feel so different from others who have their own mother and father.
Transgender identities obscure the meaning of being a man and a woman, by focusing mostly on feelings and fantasy. So when there's a transgender woman with male genitals in relationship with a cisgender woman you might want to call this a same sex relationship. But when you start calling someone a woman who has naturally functional male reproductive organs, then you could call anyone a 'woman' simply by how they want to identify. It's only because of procreation that man and woman exist with different bodies. That's the only reason nature created this difference between both sexes. So it would be better to call this a same gender relationship between opposite sexes instead of a same sex relationship. Actually, current prevalent ideas about transgender make any discussion about sexual orientation pointless, because sexual orientation is not based on which gender you are attracted to, but the biological sex, the male or female anatomy.
-4 ( +1 / -5 )
The main arguments put forth for legal recognition of same sex marriage are, equality, fairness, non discrimination etc. Can these same arguments be used by polygamists (any number or combination) or incestuous people to claim recognition for their unions?
I think you are absolutely correct about that. It's the elephant in the room. Supporters of same sex marriage have created a definition of marriage which makes it impossible to have a solid argument against polyamorous or incestuous marriages.
Why should we give the same form of recognition to different types of relationship? That should only be the case if the difference between those relationships is not important. But on a sexual level, there's a very clear difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality as the latter has also importance for society. A man and a woman should be held responsible for the children they have and without children there's no futur. And the fact that infertile opposite sex couples are allowed to get married is only because it's the same type of relationship. But infertile incestuous couples still aren't allowed to get married, exactly because fertile incestuous couples can't get married.
-4 ( +0 / -4 )
Identifying as someone or something doesn't make it true. If you want to respect women, you shouldn't tell them that someone who only identifies as a woman, is a real woman. I would never want to send my children to a school which accepts current thinking about transgenders, as if all that matters is what you feel and what you want.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
"All individuals are granted the freedom to decide whether they marry as well as who and when they wed". This is a misleading statement when it claims to refer to legal recognition of marriage. People can have a private marriage ceremony in any way they want (siblings, multiple partners, same sex, with an animal or a tree …) but that doesn't mean that the law has to recognize such 'relationships' as marriages. There's no equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality because our existence as male - female defines us as a heterosexual species. To think that recognizing heterosexual relationships as legal marriages could automatically create a right to legally marry someone of the same sex, completely obscures the reason why heterosexuality deserves such formal recognition.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )