Civil partnerships offered equal protection under the law. It's nobody else's business how long such relationships last. But the moment redefine what marriage is, you bring children into the discussion, and that ought to change the way we work out what our priorities are.
It's true straight people have not made a good job of stable relationships, and kids have suffered badly. But here as they say, is the thing; and I'm sorry to turn to statistics again. How long do straight marriages last? Not long enough obviously, but the figure is about 58% of traditional marriages last longer than 20 years.(Source: National Centre for Health Statistics, Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (2001). What do we know about same sex stability? ....The evidence is that same sex relationships are much more fragile even than opposite sex ones- and if you are creating a framework to bring up children, this instability matters;
Such statistics are usually done by the CDC or similar organizations (and ignored by the MSM, who prefer "academic" studies).
I don' t have statistics for those questions but here are a few statistics that need to be part of the discussion
Quick stats: Annual birth statistics:
The birth rate for married women (97.0 per 1,000) was more than three times that for unmarried women (29.4) in 1980. From1980 to the mid-1990s, the birth rate among married women generally declined, whereas the rate for unmarried women generally increased. Both rates stabilized in the mid-1990s and then increased until 2007–2008. The birth rate among unmarried women declined from 51.8 in 2007 and 2008 to 44.0 in 2014. The birth rate for married women dropped 5% during 2007–2010 but increased to 88.7 in 2014.
note: The numbers don't add up to 100 percent because it compares the rates for each demographic.
Family and children wellbeing study report here.
Single parenthood and cohabitation have lost much of their stigma as their prevalence has increased. But there are still many reasons to be concerned about the well-being of children in fragile families, and, indeed, research overwhelmingly concludes that they fare worse than children born into married-couple households.4 What remains unclear is how large the effects of single parenthood and cohabitation are in early childhood and what specific aspects of life in fragile families explain those effects.
the article calls some families "fragile families" and then goes on to note " Men who choose to cohabit, for example, may not have the same family values that men who choose to marry do." It is a long, complicated analysis that one should read if one is interested in the problem of marriage and families in the USA.
But essentially it can't tell which came first; the chicken or the egg.
The answer is that the ecology where children are raised is the problem.
The sixties' generation pushed normalization of recreational sex, drugs, and the "me" generation instead of encouraging people to grow up and take responsibility.
If gay activists started pushing stability and family values as part of their search for "dignity", they'd have a lot less problem with those of us who see how society is toxic for raising children with values that include self control and responsibility, values that often go against the commercialism pushing more stuff and the values free sex in too many movies and tv shows.
and for those of us who live outside the US, it is disturbing that your tax money is being used to push a sexual agenda on us, a values free agenda that pretty well destroyed the family in the USA?
Here in the Philippines, where gays and transvestites are part of the landscape, we have (often American NGO's using tax money to pay them) activists pushing abortion, divorce, contraception, and now the gay marriage agenda...at the same time our elites are pushing casinos and ignoring the sex tourism and drug problems that have even hit our small towns.
Just ignore that our main problems are stealing/bribery/corruption, and that the only way a non elite can get a decent job or get rich is to emigrate to Manila or to work overseas, where you don't need bribery or family connections to get ahead.
and that is one reason that the Pope is so "anti capitalism". He sees capitalism as putting money first, over people.
Here in the Philippines we see companies that destroy the environment (bribe local officials to look the other way when they destroy land to mine minerals, use dangerous agricultural chemicals and then dump them into the environment, or denude mountains of their trees causing landslides).
Just ignore companies that underpay the poor who work for them, have them work in unsafe factories (let flammable trash accumulate, have inadequate sprinkler systems and few emergency exits, and bribe fire officials to ignore this), encourage hundreds of thousands of people to emigrate to find work (either to cities or overseas where they are cheap labor for factories) which often means destroying the family left behind.
So he does have a point.
But of course in the USA the argument will be used to criticize evil Republicans (just ignore that socialist countries are also corrupt and have pollution problems), and of course, ignore that Calvin saw making money honestly as a way to serve God...
. On the other hand, I thought it was ironic that the priest on Sunday gave a sermon against greed and living high on the hog.
Why ironic? Well, the 5:30 am mass was full of people who had to go to work early, most of whom were dressed in the local costume of cheap teeshirts, jeans and sandals.
Yup. Preaching a message to the wrong choir.