Words denoting prestige and respect gradually lose their original meaning and association in a free society. Commercialization will tap into the prestige of the word, while radicals are always looking for something to rebel against. "Civil Marriage" is one such word. Many want its respect and benefits, but few want to adhere to the rules that made it socially respectful and State supported. [PROTOTYPES - 3 blogs]]
Allegedly, approving same-sex civil marriage will not "hurt" opposite-sex marriages. (This argument is usually posed as a question, without explaining what is meant by "hurt".)
"Hurt" has to do with pain, or has to do with damage. Both can arise from demise created for the institution of civil marriage, and society in general by the approval of same-sex marriage in any State or in the Nation.
Certainly, adopting the view that same-sex couples are to specify how we all define civil marriage, would have a seriously detrimental sociological effect on children, and therefore on civil marriage. It is a theoretical statistical effect, not easily understood by those who don't want to understand it in the first place; and it is not about how many people marry or stay married in a particular State.
Here is one way same-sex marriage is detrimental, in general, to opposite-sex married couples: On the average, State and Federal tax deductions for married couples compensate married couples to some extent for taking on the expense of ENGENDERING the next generation.
If the tax deductions and other benefits of marriage are also given to all same-sex couples in the nation - roommates in college, blood-related couples, the relative advantage of the government support for engendering children within the protection of their genetic parents is effectively neutralized.
The human species takes longer than any mammal to produce a self-sufficient offspring, and the first 9 months or so are in a woman's womb. Many of the benefits granted to married couples are to encourage couples that can potentially be interested in engendering children (same-sex couples cannot even be considered, without adding a third person into the matter). This a small gesture of compensation for the task many couples of the opposite sex take gladly upon themselves to go through the fulfilling sacrifice of one or more 9-month terms of pregnancy, in which the woman/mother gives up for sure her career continuity, and perhaps comes close to risking death during childbirth. Lesbians can also do this, but adding a 3rd person into the matter, and raising the child without the father, but anatomically male/male partnerships cannot. It is obvious that not all same-sex partnerships are "equal".
Childbirth is what make women less competitive in the marketplace, but are otherwise even more competitive than men in modern society (more organized, patient, wise and function better in a group) where strength is not as important, unless the job is to load trucks or dig ditches... There's no comparison to what a same-sex couple goes through to adopt a child or more (using a surrogate is like adopting).
Childbearing merits even MORE support from the government, not relatively less. Even so, where are the funds coming from? The governments are ridiculously "broke" ("hurt").
Another damage: Insurance companies base their premium rates on statistics. If health coverage has to be automatically given to all same-sex couples, the premiums for opposite-sex marriages will increase. Mind you that it is not possible to discriminate against same-sex couples who are NOT of homosexual behavior. They would need to get the same privileges and responsibilities, currently reserved for opposite-sex marriage too.
So, how will it "hurt"? Accepting for the sake of argument the rhetorical and intentionally vague word "hurt", it will hurt IN THE POCKETBOOK. And the pocketbook (the benefits) is what this is all about; and activist same-sex couples will be blamed (hurt) for it in the long-run.
And yet another damage: The government has a "Public Interest" (in legal jargon) in supporting opposite-sex marriage (some forms, exclusively). If marriage becomes extended to all types of same-sex couples, that pretty much covers everybody. This would lead to the governments considering it is too expensive to provide benefits to civil marriage. If the Public Interest of marriage is negated, then the Public Interest of all partnerships and couples has to be also negated. The Public Interest of same-sex relationships is much less than for opposite-sex couples.
Same-sex marriage activists have put themselves in a "check-mate" situation.
"Hurt" has to do with pain, or has to do with damage. Both can arise from demise created for the institution of civil marriage, and society in general by the approval of same-sex marriage in any State or in the Nation.
ReplyDeleteCertainly, adopting the view that same-sex couples are to specify how we all define civil marriage, would have a seriously detrimental sociological effect on children, and therefore on civil marriage. It is a theoretical statistical effect, not easily understood by those who don't want to understand it in the first place; and it is not about how many people marry or stay married in a particular State.
Here is one way same-sex marriage is detrimental, in general, to opposite-sex married couples: On the average, State and Federal tax deductions for married couples compensate married couples to some extent for taking on the expense of ENGENDERING the next generation.
If the tax deductions and other benefits of marriage are also given to all same-sex couples in the nation - roommates in college, blood-related couples, the relative advantage of the government support for engendering children within the protection of their genetic parents is effectively neutralized.
The human species takes longer than any mammal to produce a self-sufficient offspring, and the first 9 months or so are in a woman's womb. Many of the benefits granted to married couples are to encourage couples that can potentially be interested in engendering children (same-sex couples cannot even be considered, without adding a third person into the matter). This a small gesture of compensation for the task many couples of the opposite sex take gladly upon themselves to go through the fulfilling sacrifice of one or more 9-month terms of pregnancy, in which the woman/mother gives up for sure her career continuity, and perhaps comes close to risking death during childbirth. Lesbians can also do this, but adding a 3rd person into the matter, and raising the child without the father, but anatomically male/male partnerships cannot. It is obvious that not all same-sex partnerships are "equal".
Childbirth is what make women less competitive in the marketplace, but are otherwise even more competitive than men in modern society (more organized, patient, wise and function better in a group) where strength is not as important, unless the job is to load trucks or dig ditches... There's no comparison to what a same-sex couple goes through to adopt a child or more (using a surrogate is like adopting).
Childbearing merits even MORE support from the government, not relatively less. Even so, where are the funds coming from? The governments are ridiculously "broke" ("hurt").
Another damage: Insurance companies base their premium rates on statistics. If health coverage has to be automatically given to all same-sex couples, the premiums for opposite-sex marriages will increase. Mind you that it is not possible to discriminate against same-sex couples who are NOT of homosexual behavior. They would need to get the same privileges and responsibilities, currently reserved for opposite-sex marriage too.
ReplyDeleteSo, how will it "hurt"? Accepting for the sake of argument the rhetorical and intentionally vague word "hurt", it will hurt IN THE POCKETBOOK. And the pocketbook (the benefits) is what this is all about; and activist same-sex couples will be blamed (hurt) for it in the long-run.
And yet another damage: The government has a "Public Interest" (in legal jargon) in supporting opposite-sex marriage (some forms, exclusively). If marriage becomes extended to all types of same-sex couples, that pretty much covers everybody. This would lead to the governments considering it is too expensive to provide benefits to civil marriage. If the Public Interest of marriage is negated, then the Public Interest of all partnerships and couples has to be also negated. The Public Interest of same-sex relationships is much less than for opposite-sex couples.
ReplyDeleteSame-sex marriage activists have put themselves in a "check-mate" situation.