Is an organization/Coalition that is “pro traditional marriage” ALWAYS considered anti same-sex marriage?
In my mind it is
Sorry you feel that way, because I’m reality it doesn’t. I am pro traditional marriage, but not anti same sex marriage. I’m a love and let live kind of person.
I totally understand and respect that i just generally feel like an organization saying “pro” something can at times imply ideology of being against the opposite
By the left?, yes !
Not necessarily, I happen to believe a traditional marriage is one where both spouses respect and love each other.
What does it mean to be pro “traditional” marriage if not anti gay marriage? Is there some group trying to stop men and women from marrying each other?
My understanding is it means you favor arranged marriage and polygamy/concubines. For most of human history, marriages were arrangements between families that involved a dowry (property, livestock, etc). Polygamy (at least for men) and concubines were also incredibly common for many humans throughout most of human history. I won’t even mention the fact that in our modern society, traditional (arranged) marriage would qualify as human bondage and society-sanctioned rape.
I always assume people who say they are for “traditional marriage” mean that they are against people marrying out of love and/or being monogamous. They want to go back to the arranged, polygamous marriage system. (Or they simply don’t understand what “traditional marriage” really means.)
Being pro Traditional and/or same-sex marriage are not mutually exclusive. Why do you believe that to be the case?
Just like being a nationalist or a patriot doesn’t mean you hate other countries or races, you just prefer your race, or you prefer traditional marriage.
Encouraging traditional marriage is just that- encouraging others to marry opposite sex. I don’t care if same-sex marriage happens, I just don’t understand the decision.
By being “pro” same-sex you are engaging in the same concept that I am. You are for it, and encourage it.
That doesn’t mean you denounce and discourage traditional marriage.
Not at all omni.
There’s no reason to be pro-something unless there’s opposition to it. If you feel the need to encourage opposite-sex then you clearly do care if same-sex couples marry.
I fully disagree - being pro something doesn’t automatically make you anti something else. You just prefer something else.
For example - I am pro-dark haired women, but I married a light haired woman.
I’m pro-beer but certainly like liquor.
I’m pro-action film, but don’t mind the love movies my wife has me watch.
My point is - I encourage my kids to be contributing members of society who respect people, but will be happy all the same if they just respect people.
Arguing that I’m anti something because I’m pro something else just elevates divide. Make sense?
Creates divide - doesn’t our country do this enough already?
ConD- Sure it is. I mean, what I said is certainly historically accurate. “Traditionally” most marriages were arranged by families with women being exchanged for cattle and whatnot. In the great span of human history, marrying for love is an extremely modern concept.
I don’t understand why people don’t say “pro-heterosexual marriage” which would be more technically correct.
If you insist.....I’m not arguing this point with you.
I’m exposing my position and why I think it’s odd that being pro-traditional marriage doesn’t mean anti-same sex marriage - at least not from myself and I would argue a large group of people that share this perspective.
Explaining * fuck my auto correct....
It’s pretty hard to separate a “preference” for one race over another from racism, and it’s similarly pretty hard to separate a “preference” for heterosexual relationships over homosexual relationships (in terms of other people’s relationships, not just yours) from homophobia.
“It’s pretty hard to separate a “preference” for one race over another from racism, and it’s similarly pretty hard to separate a “preference” for heterosexual relationships over homosexual relationships (in terms of other people’s relationships, not just yours) from homophobia.”
Again - how is it hard to separate?
Racism is based on action, the micro-aggression bullshit is just that. Homophobia is based on action....it’s two sides of the same coin but at the same time - no one can choose their race, preferences that is a different story.
Choosing one race over another is an action. It’s the act of choosing.
Racism and homophobia are based on attitude, not action.
Tal - How do you measure attitude if the action of that attitude is never shown (other than here, since I don’t have an anti-perception, just not a pro-perception).
Omni - sexuality is a choice, your race is not.
Sexuality is no more a choice than a race. Attitudes can be measured by what you say.
Respectfully - as a former bi individual, yeah...it’s a choice. I was pretty confused in my mid teen years, figured it out in my early twenties.
There is no such thing as a “former bi.” Either you were never bi and were just experimenting with your sexuality, or you’re still bi and just choose not to date members of the same sex.
🤣 ok....now this has become pointless. Your arguing my life experiences as not valid or plausible. I would say being “curious” for 4 years is more than adequate for me to determine if I was bi or not.....
I can also say that I am very much into women, more specifically my wife.
Right, you determined if you were bi or not. That is, you discovered for certain what your sexuality is. You did not choose to become bi and then choose to stop being bi.
So are you saying that curious people are not gay? That if they had relations with other members of the opposite sex that their was not an attraction there?
“I’m also confused because you keep describing your opinions as “opposing” or “conflicting,” which suggests you actually acknowledge the inconsistency in your ideas, but just don’t care, which is really weird, to say the least.”
No you are the one who asserted that from the beginning - I just followed the narrative so that clarity for the sake of the argument was in place.
Not necessarily. They could just think traditional marriage is better for society and the married couple but not think it should be illegal to marry the same sex. Like I think doing excessive amounts of drugs or drinking too much is bad, so I’m pro moderation, but that doesn’t mean I think drugs and alcohol should be illegal
I am asking this question because I was reading an article about how “pro traditional marriage” organization was considered “anti-gay” - I struggle to get this direct connection, because I am “pro traditional marriage” but at the same time have no concerns or want to stop gay marriage. It’s honestly none of my business what two consenting adults do......so by that very thought process, I get lumped into the “anti-gay” circus......which I personally believe to be untrue.
Am I off the mark here on something?
What do you mean by “pro traditional marriage” if not “against homosexual marriage”? Or are you trying to argue that being anti gay marriage isn’t the same as being anti gay?
Nvm I missed this part: “but at the same time have no concerns or want to stop gay marriage.” So it’s not the latter part of my first comment, then.
So then how does it make sense to say you’re “pro traditional marriage” if all it really means is you support the right of one man and one woman to marry? That’s not exactly a unique or controversial position. You might as well say “I support the right to go to the movies” or “I support the right to turn over in bed at night.” The reason this organization is being described as anti gay is probably because the only time it ever even makes sense to bring “traditional marriage” up is when you’re using it as a euphemism for being against gay marriage.
Not really. See my comment above
“So then how does it make sense to say you’re “pro traditional marriage” if all it really means is you support the right of one man and one woman to marry?”
Essentially what thedman said - my view on gay marriage is that it’s their choice. I personally believe that traditional marriage is better for society as a whole. At the same time I feel that a family unit as a whole creates successful children, so gay-marriage isn’t an “abomination” so much as it is an unsustainable platform for generations to generally continue - especially if EVERYONE is doing it. So that plays into the moderation comments that thedman made.
I’m fine with people that love each other - so that, I just don’t directly understand the purpose.....essentially I respect the decision of it, just don’t understand the decision. Like drinking or drug use....if you want to do those things, I can respect your decision to do it but done understand it.
If you are Not against same sex marriage than you are Not pro traditional marriage. Traditional marriage is defined as being in support of a man and women Only.
Not necessarily - I prefer and encourage heterosexual marriage, but I don’t discourage and condemn same-sex marriage.
They don’t have to mutually exclusive, but for some reason our society has turned it into that.
I just operate from the assumption that homosexuality is an innate genetic reality of a small and unchanging percentage of our population, thus it doesn’t pose a threat to the stability of the nuclear family if they get married (and their individual freedom outweighs any societal concerns or needs)
That just means you’re anti-gay on the moral level, not on the legal level. It’s still entirely valid for people to criticize you or that organization for having anti-gay attitudes.
“At the same time I feel that a family unit as a whole creates successful children, so gay-marriage isn’t an “abomination” so much as it is an unsustainable platform for generations to generally continue - especially if EVERYONE is doing it.”
But that’s not a scenario that would ever happen. Homosexuality is naturally uncommon. There will never be a population where more than a small percentage are homosexuals. Furthermore, there’s no reason why we would ever need to maximize the amount of children being born, and even if we did for some reason, gays could just donate to a sperm bank.
“I just don’t directly understand the purpose.”
The purpose is love itself, just like every other romantic relationship. The idea that the purpose of having a romantic partner is to reproduce is an untenable and nonsensical notion. Nobody is under any obligation to bring more people into this world.
Ok, that might be fair to say about my morals, but how on earth could you be critical of my beliefs if I’m not pushing for that it should be stopped what gives someone the right to be “critical” of it when I’m not being critical of homosexuality? I struggle with the idea that you or anyone would being critical of my “morals” if I’m not being objectionable to the actual actions?
How are you not being critical of homosexuality if you think traditional marriage is “better for society as a whole”? You can’t simultaneously not object to homosexuality and think the world would be better off if no one was homosexual. Pick one.
Why do I have to pick one? I can have conflicting opinions about things. This doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive - why do you believe they have to be?
So societally speaking - marriage is and should be a life long commitment. Not a revolving door of “husbands/wives.” I’m not condemning past individuals who have had divorces, please don’t take it that way. Statistics show that if you have one divorce your more likely to have more. Statistics also show that same sex marriage/relationships have had less statistical probability of surviving the woes of their lifestyle.
My concern is predominately when children are involved, as a parent we want to model stability so they continue this stability in their adulthood.
I concede some recent studies show more stability, but that study was wrapped around younger relationships, the test of time has not eroded the relationship yet.....all relationships have erosion and trials/tribulations, how we respond is the difference.
Considering that homosexuality is a small make up of society - having higher statistics of failure is concerning at the least.
Now that all being said - those that have entered into a same sex relationship I absolutely pray and hope that their relationships succeed - more so if they have children.
I mean, you certainly CAN have conflicting opinions; I’m not going to stop you. But if you’re like most people, I’d expect you wouldn’t WANT your opinions to conflict with each other, because your opinions aren’t worth anything if you’re not going to bother to be consistent with them.
Did it ever occur to you that their lack of stability is due not to their “lifestyle,” but to the way society treats them?
If society treats gay people so poorly that it alters their sexual behavior, you’d expect it to make their rates of sexual activity go down, not up. But instead the average gay man has over 50 sexual partners in a lifetime (the top 20% with over 500). Which is far more than heterosexual men at 7-10.
Also his opinions don’t contradict each other just like mine don’t on drugs. Do I think you should do drugs, no. Do I think you should be prevented from doing drugs if you so choose, no. That’s a reasonable libertarian perspective. Just because I don’t like something doesn’t mean it should be illegal. Just because I think something should be legal doesn’t mean I have to like it. There’s a big difference between wanting people to do something and not thinking they should be forcibly prevented from doing it. There’s no contradiction there, just a difference between law and person opinions and life choices.
“If society treats gay people so poorly that it alters their sexual behavior, you’d expect it to make their rates of sexual activity go down, not up.“
Why? I see no reason why society’s treatment of homosexuals should cause their sexual activity to go down. Sexual activity is a private affair and would therefore be minimally affected by society. The stability of relationships as a whole, on the other hand, is not purely private.
“Just because I don’t like something doesn’t mean it should be illegal.”
Nobody is talking about the law anymore. The contradiction in question is simultaneously having no objections to homosexuality and believing that it would be better for society if people didn’t have same sex relationships. If you’re going to jump back in to a conversation after you haven’t participated for a little while, at least keep up with where the conversation has gone.
Also, what do you mean by “you’d expect it to make their rates of sexual activity go down, not up.”? When was this time before homophobia existed when gay sex was much less common?
So I will just say this - opinions that appear on the surface to counter each other don’t fundamentally detract from my beliefs.
I think sexuality is a choice - just like the preference of beer is a choice. The first time you try beer most people reject it, it’s taste is not really that good. After and over time and steadily subjecting yourself to it you can and most likely will come to like it.
I also believe that traditional marriage has a longer sustainability as history has shown especially in comparison to strong religious relationships. This is fundamental to sustainable development for children as statistically they benefit greatly from a strong family unit.
Now that being said - I have NO problem with homosexual lifestyles, I have NO problem with same-sex marriage.
So because I have opposing opinions on the matter, I argue that groups that are pro-traditional marriage are not inherently or automatically anti same-sex.
However your trying to convince me that because I’m not encouraging of same-sex, but rather I’m accepting of it - somehow it’s acceptable for society (per you) should be critical of my feelings.
I guarantee rates of same sex have gone up since the 30s and way up since the 1640s and way way up since the 100s, and as has gay acceptance in society since then, so the idea that they’re oppressed today when they’re having so much sex, public gatherings, and establishments (in western countries) is laughable.
“I think sexuality is a choice - just like the preference of beer is a choice.”
That’s not the same at all. You have to expose yourself to beer to develop a preference for it. You do not just reach a certain age and start having intense desires to drink beer without having ever tried it.
“I also believe that traditional marriage has a longer sustainability...
Now that being said - I have NO problem with homosexual lifestyles, I have NO problem with same-sex marriage.”
But again, believing that same sex marriages/relationships are better, whether it be that they’re more sustainable, are better for kids, etc., ENTAILS having a problem with homosexuality.
“So because I have opposing opinions on the matter, I argue that groups that are pro-traditional marriage are not inherently or automatically anti same-sex.”
So since your opinions contradict each other, we shouldn’t expect anyone else’s opinions to be consistent either? Doesn’t that just render all opinions meaningless?
*Believing that traditional marriages/relationships are better, not same sex
I’m also confused because you keep describing your opinions as “opposing” or “conflicting,” which suggests you actually acknowledge the inconsistency in your ideas, but just don’t care, which is really weird, to say the least.
“That’s not the same at all. You have to expose yourself to beer to develop a preference for it. You do not just reach a certain age and start having intense desires to drink beer without having ever tried it.”
So two things to this argument - your essentially making my argument for me. If your feeling one way or another (curious) and you don’t expose yourself to it - you could in fact turn away from it. There are some people who expose themselves to beer who NEVER take a liking to it. There are some people who never expose themselves to beer because it is against their religious/moral views. I exposed myself to the same sex, I thought I liked it but also had a lot of confusing emotions around it. If chose in my twenties to stop playing around, I am no longer confused about ALOT of things.
“But again, believing that same sex marriages/relationships are better, whether it be that they’re more sustainable, are better for kids, etc., ENTAILS having a problem with homosexuality.”
Because I’m stating facts around homosexual relationship stats and in turn garnering an opinion of traditional is better for society as a whole, that means I have a problem with it? Why does the promotion of one mean the denouncing of the other in your eyes? You so BADLY want to tear down my opinion, when I am verbally and actionable events say differently??
“So since your opinions contradict each other, we shouldn’t expect anyone else’s opinions to be consistent either? Doesn’t that just render all opinions meaningless?”
That in fact does ring true, even if it’s highly critical opinions of someone - when arguably there is no validity to it.
Sorry - I reposted my question, I totally messed up my post in the other question! Sorry and thanks!!!