How exactly does gay marriage negatively affect traditional marriage?

[Untouchable_Fire]

If everyone agrees that gays deserve every single right afforded a straight person, then why don't they have them?

You see it as pro-gay people pushing their world view on everyone else, and pro-gay people see it as others pushing THEIR world view on pro-gay people.

Restrict religious rights? What rights are being restricted??? I have never seen anyone say that someone cannot practice their religion.

I HAVE seen people have HUGE problems with those who use religion as a tool to discriminate against other people. There are PLENTY of faiths out there that preach that other people, whether they are woman, gay, or simply people of another religion are not equal to someone who follows THEIR religion. In promoting this image that others aren't equal, they are discriminating, and perpetuating a FALSE PERCEPTION.

 

Because if gay people had all the rights and privelges of straight people, there would not be any reason for them to go the the polls and vote democrat at a 10 to 1 ratio. That's why I doubt there will ever be a solid compromise on a national level. It's too valuable a tool for both parties to use in rallying their respective bases.

 

If you restrict a person's ability to make moral judgments, then you are taking away their rights. If I am Muslim and don't want to serve alcohol at my restaurant... What right do you have to force me to?

 

I've seen the church create more tolerance and love than any other group.

 

This is untrue. The church has no obligation to perform a gay marriage.

The church can still freely discriminate on who it chooses to marry.

 

Only in areas where gay marriage is not legal. Our church in Hawaii was nearly bankrupted by such a lawsuit back in 2001.

[39388]

I'm sure 50 years ago it was tough to be gay in Kansas, but that just does not stack up to institutionalized racism. Even when it was illegal to be gay in some states, it was rarely prosecuted. They are not even in the same ballpark. One is like a 4 and the other a 9 on the discrimination scale.

You don't think it's still tough to be gay in Kansas today? Just 4 years ago, Bush campaigned in Ohio right before the election. What message did his people use? An anti gay message. The voters "responded". Middle America at its darkest. I'd say being gay in many parts of America is a still a 9 on a discrimination scale, especially when you own family rejects you.

 

People like you don't help at all by denying there is even a problem with discrimination.

[39388]

Under the right circumstances you could be attracted to a donkey.

 

Your thoughts and your actions have physiological responses within your brain. How you choose to mold yourself is up to you.

You are out of your mind.

 

I'm only attracted to woman. I could never be attracted to a man. Now you tell me that people can be attracted to Donkeys?

 

Then tell me how it's done. You know a lot more than me about Donkey attraction.

[amerikajin]

I'm kinda stuck on this.

 

Who wants to sue whom?

 

Who hates religion and the church?

 

Not I. But I'm for Gay marriage.

 

None of the card carrying liberals that I know "hate" religion or the church. Some may not agree that it's for them, but they don't hate it. Some actively participate in both.

 

Your perception is quite skewed.

 

I wouldn't have a problem with religion if they would stick to charitable work. The problem is that for many it doesn't end there. A lot of churches/religions use their publicity and influence to push agendas that are narrow interests and ideas which are based on nothing more than their own wild interpretations of "God's word." For fecks sake, God never wrote the Bible -- men did. Humans. Mortals - like us. And what's more, half of the original Bible...is gone and presumably never to be recovered.

[Untouchable_Fire]

You are out of your mind.

I'm only attracted to woman. I could never be attracted to a man. Now you tell me that people can be attracted to Donkeys?

Then tell me how it's done. You know a lot more than me about Donkey attraction.

 

Most medical professionals, including organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association, believe that sexual orientation involves a complex mixture of biology, psychology, and environmental factors.

 

Your not arguing with me... your arguing with the entire medical community.

 

Let me repeat what I've said several times before. Please read this slowly... You are born with a certain preference one way or the other.... then that is shaped by psychological factors, and environmental factors.

 

If you think I am saying that a guy just wakes up one day and says... You know what... I want to sleep with other dudes... then your not reading me right!

 

I believe that you have a degree of control over your psychological factors and some of your environmental factors.

 

Is that clear? Because I'm not going to talk in circles with you anymore. You are closed minded and refuse to pay attention to anything that won't fit your narrow agenda!

[IrishCarBomb]

Only in areas where gay marriage is not legal. Our church in Hawaii was nearly bankrupted by such a lawsuit back in 2001.

 

There is zero legal basis for this statement in a gay marriage context. I'd be curious to know the facts of the lawsuit.

 

Iowa legalized gay marriage, and my quotation comes from their Supreme Court. So yes, there is no legal course of action for when churches discriminate in who they want to marry, even in places where gay marriage is legalized. The government cannot discriminate, the church can freely do so.

[Untouchable_Fire]

There is zero legal basis for this statement in a gay marriage context. I'd be curious to know the facts of the lawsuit.

Iowa legalized gay marriage, and my quotation comes from their Supreme Court. So yes, there is no legal course of action for when churches discriminate in who they want to marry, even in places where gay marriage is legalized. The government cannot discriminate, the church can freely do so.

 

I know from experience that what your saying is only true in certain instances. A church could be immune to that provided that they took legal steps ahead of time to prevent these lawsuits. Most churches don't have the funding or the expertise to do that, and so they are vulnerable. Besides, if we made a national law of it, the chances are pretty good that they would make sure nobody was immune.

 

Look, if this was just about gay rights... the discussion would have been over long ago. We all agree. So, why not use a different word for it?

[Cherry Blossom 35]

 

I believe that you have a degree of control over your psychological factors and some of your environmental factors.

 

 

Many if not most gay people report knowing their same sex attraction at about 5 or 6 years old. Now how much control does a 5 year old have over their psychological state or environment?

 

Why is it that one of my gay friends, the youngest of 6 kids raised in a strict Catholic home, identifies as homosexual when his 5 brothers and sisters are all straight?

 

Life was very difficult for him. He has a very close family and they are very religious. It took time for his parents to accept the fact that he was gay, but they did and they remain close. Lucky for them all.

[Justanotherschmuck]

So that's the religious view of marriage. Does that mean that all other marriages/beliefs are not valid? And why does this necessarily exclude gay people?

 

 

 

What you're saying is that there are only two ways to think of marriage - sacrament, or cheap. Couldn't there possibly be people who do believe that a vow means something but that are agnostic or atheist? Do their vows mean less?

 

People don't always get married just to have children, no. They get married because they want to affirm a commitment to each other, they want to make vows to each other that say they forsake all others.

 

I don't understand why this would cheapen heterosexual marriage - makes absolutely zero sense to me.

 

 

I guess I didn't explain myself clearly. I was TRYING to say that ONLY if marriage TRULY has a religious reason can there be an arguement saying that gays cannot marry. IF christianity is true then there IS a basis for heterosexual marriage only.

 

But this country LONG stopped treating marriage as a BASIS FOR OUR COUNTRY. Its MEANINGLESS now. Vow count for nothing. And IF their is NO RELIGIOUS affiliation with marriage, well then, there is NO BASIS WHATSOEVER TO BAN ANY MARRIAGE TO ANYONE AND ANYTHING.

 

Take religion out of the picture and ALL should have the right to marry anyone they please.

 

Oh, and yeah, I beleive there are athiests who believe in vows. But that has NOTHING to do with gay marriage.

[sally4sara]

Adults have been able to draw up legally binding contracts obligating them to other adults for a long, long time. I have no marriage license or blood binding me to the person who carries me and my son on their insurance. We don't lie to the insurance company about that. That same person could will me all their socks, but will all their shoes to his mechanic if he wanted to. And none of us, gender aside, are married to each other nor born of each other.

 

I guess I'm "gay married".

 

While all this is true and nothing wrong with it, it is how legalizing "gay marriage" will change "traditional marriage".

 

Why does anyone care? is the question that should be getting asked. Its pretty obvious that it is the ones profiting from all the squabble. They've got all you arguing about the ability to do something we've all been able to do to begin with.

[39388]

Most medical professionals, including organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association, believe that sexual orientation involves a complex mixture of biology, psychology, and environmental factors.

 

Your not arguing with me... your arguing with the entire medical community.

 

Let me repeat what I've said several times before. Please read this slowly... You are born with a certain preference one way or the other.... then that is shaped by psychological factors, and environmental factors.

 

If you think I am saying that a guy just wakes up one day and says... You know what... I want to sleep with other dudes... then your not reading me right!

 

I believe that you have a degree of control over your psychological factors and some of your environmental factors.

 

Is that clear? Because I'm not going to talk in circles with you anymore. You are closed minded and refuse to pay attention to anything that won't fit your narrow agenda!

You give a very general statement with nothing backing it up. Let me correct you. I am disagreeing with you, not the entire medical community. It would be quite scary if the entire medical community thought like you do. You just can't accept that gays are born being attacted to the same sex and you marginalize what they go through. Try talking to some gays. You might actually learn something.

 

You are called me closed minded? :lmao:

 

That's what anti gay people do. They call those who accept gays bigots or closed minded.

 

More and more you sound more anti gay than anti gay marriage.

[39388]

Why is it that one of my gay friends, the youngest of 6 kids raised in a strict Catholic home, identifies as homosexual when his 5 brothers and sisters are all straight?

 

Life was very difficult for him. He has a very close family and they are very religious. It took time for his parents to accept the fact that he was gay, but they did and they remain close. Lucky for them all.

Lucky indeed!

 

Not all gay people are so lucky. Sometimes their parents never accept it or even completely disown their own children for being gay. A few posters in these threads have admitted that's what they would do if they had a gay child.

[Scottdmw]

Not EVERY human civilization. Many human civilizations, tribes and societies practiced polygamy - which is one man and many women. So not, one man one woman. And some tribes didn't practice marriage at all.

 

I'll grant it's not 100% of societies that follow traditional marriage. It is pretty high number though. The existence of a tribe of a few thousand, or other societies that make up a small percentage of people worldwide and throughout history, does not really affect the argument.

 

 

 

Don't be ridiculous. This is a straw man.

 

It is not at all ridiculous to say that if gay marriage is legalized polygamy will follow. Under what legal basis would you deny it? These are consenting adults. Same with marrying your sister. Consenting adults. How can you say that people wouldn't claim discrimination?

 

 

 

 

You won't get away from bigotry and violence without the stamp of approval.

 

You will never entirely eliminate bigotry and violence. The question is whether you do more harm than good.

 

 

 

Where did you get this statistic? Please, if you're going to make a statement like this - back it up with facts. What about female homosexual activity? Does it reduce life expectancy?

 

Google "gay life expectancy" and you will see a vast and politicized discussion on this subject. Here is a quote from one site about a 1997 Vancouver study:

 

"Despite their attempts to downplay the practical consequences of their research, it is difficult to ignore that the study concluded with the statement that “under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre [Vancouver, BC] are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.” Corresponding almost exactly with Cameron’s study, the Vancouver study indicated that “life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men.”"

 

There are many critiques of the statistics involved. I don't think anyone on this board has the time to really dig to the bottom of it completely. However, do you really doubt that homosexuals live significantly shorter lifespans on average? The AIDS crisis alone would seem to make that easy to believe.

 

Homosexual men suffer from this low life expectancy due to the fact that, on average, they are significantly more promiscuous than any other group and transmit STDs very readily due to the physiology of anal sex. From a practical standpoint the rectum is not nearly as well-suited as the vagina to accept penetration, it is simply not as ruggedly built for that practice.

 

It is true that if individuals are gay and monogamous they will not suffer nearly as badly. However, statistically speaking homosexual men do suffer these problems.

 

 

 

 

 

So, the argument that it will destroy society and everything that we know to exist is really unlikely. Society will keep on chugging. It will be different, sure. But it was different when the first woman got to vote. It was different when women went to work. It was different when african americans got to vote...and it will be different another day with marriage rights for gays.

 

I'm not claiming it would destroy society. The question is will the changes you speak of do more harm than good? On balance my inclination is it would do more harm to legalize gay marriage.

 

Scott

[Isolde]

While in theory, I agree that gay marriage wouldn't have any downsides--in practice it would, at least in the short term.

 

Now, it's also true that any positive form of change will have at least some negative effects. But how significant these effects will be, can't yet be known.

 

Those with starry-eyed, idealistic approaches to this issue, would do well to try to see the "other side." Only with the understanding of the complex ramifications involved, particularly those involving children, will gay marriage ever work.

 

As much as many of us want gay people to have happy family lives, are heterosexuals really ready to see large numbers of nontraditional families, with 2 same sex parents raising children? It's one thing to support your gay friends and want their happiness--another thing to support this on a large scale.

 

Maybe I am playing devil's advocate here--but I can see a good argument for legalizing gay marriage very slowly, allowing society time to adjust.

[IrishCarBomb]

It is not at all ridiculous to say that if gay marriage is legalized polygamy will follow. Under what legal basis would you deny it? These are consenting adults. Same with marrying your sister. Consenting adults. How can you say that people wouldn't claim discrimination?

 

Polygamy is a different legal issue.

 

The foundation of the homosexual marriage claim is that the state is discriminating on who can enter a bilateral marriage contract based on gender or sexual orientation. There is a discrimination claim because while the contract is granted if the parties are of different genders, they are not granted if the parties are the same gender.

 

The same doesn't apply for polygamy. Polygamy cannot argue discrimination because there are no similar multi-party contracts granted.

[Isolde]

Many if not most gay people report knowing their same sex attraction at about 5 or 6 years old. Now how much control does a 5 year old have over their psychological state or environment?

 

Maybe I'm an anomaly but I had no concept of attraction until I was in the fifth grade.

[Untouchable_Fire]

You give a very general statement with nothing backing it up. Let me correct you. I am disagreeing with you, not the entire medical community. It would be quite scary if the entire medical community thought like you do. You just can't accept that gays are born being attacted to the same sex and you marginalize what they go through. Try talking to some gays. You might actually learn something.

You are called me closed minded? :lmao:

That's what anti gay people do. They call those who accept gays bigots or closed minded.

More and more you sound more anti gay than anti gay marriage.

 

I copied and pasted that quote from the AAP website, I just didn't have time to post the reference. I work with them nearly every day. I know what the official stance is from the medical community.

 

You are being closed minded. Otherwise you would be talking to me about the content and not the context. Cherry actually had a good point in her last post about 6 year olds. I think she may have confused that study with one regarding gender identity, but I can't say for sure. Either way, that is something I will be researching when I get a chance.

 

If your argument is true then we have no choice in who we are as people, we are just born one way or another. Fat people are born attracted to food, smart people are born attracted to intellectual persuits, depressed people are just born sad... ect. While it may be true that we are all born within a certain condition, it's been shown that we can change ourselves for better or for worse. This

 

If you believe that we have no choices in life... that all things are fated, then I will concede that your argument makes sense on your terms.

 

What is so scarry about people being able to choose? Do you tihnk that if gay people chose to be gay that would make them somehow evil? I don't.

[Scottdmw]

Let me get this straight. You agree that homosexuality is not a choice somebody makes, but simply how they are born. But you still feel they should try to avoid being who they are?

 

I said they should refrain from sexual activity as much as possible, for their health. I also believe that heteros should restrain from sexual activity outside of marriage. It's not an issue of being who you are.

 

 

I'm sure all members of the gay community appreciate your concern for their well-being. What's still missing, after pages and pages of posts on this topic, is any concrete evidence to suggest that being homosexual is, by definition, unhealthy.

 

See my previous post for the evidence, particularly the Vancouver study from 1997.

 

It is easy, when you think someone is doing something self-destructive, to just say "go for it, I'm with you!" That is the politically expedient thing to do, with no personal risks. You don't have to worry that the person will attack you for delivering a message they don't want to hear. What is harder is trying to tell someone you think they should change.

 

 

True, having unprotected sex, especially anal sex, with a person who has an STD carries risk. But the practice of two gay people who are both disease-free having sex with each other is no less healthy than two straight people doing the same thing. So that takes care of the physical health argument.

 

The rectum is not as well-suited as the vagina for penetration. Even without STDs there can be problems with anal leakage and an increased risk of anal cancer. Check the Cambridge Medical Research Council study from 2008. The real problem though is that statistically few gay men are monogamous to the degree that straights are, on average. As I mentioned in my previous post, I do agree that if two gays really are monogamous and disease-free, they won't have nearly as many problems.

 

 

 

Again, what are you basing this on? As I said above, once we accept that gay sex is just as safe as straight sex as long as both partners are disease-free, then how does being gay automatically translate into a diminished life expectancy?

 

Homophobes' arguments would be a lot less absurd if they were supported by evidence and demonstrated any logical sense.

 

Why call me a "homophobe"? From my point of view this word is constantly used as a club to attack anyone who disagrees with homosexuality.

 

You ask where the evidence is. The fact is not many people do studies on the health risks of homosexuality, because they get labelled as homophobes and enormous political pressure is brought to bear on them.

 

Scott

[Scottdmw]

Polygamy is a different legal issue.

 

The foundation of the homosexual marriage claim is that the state is discriminating on who can enter a bilateral marriage contract based on gender or sexual orientation. There is a discrimination claim because while the contract is granted if the parties are of different genders, they are not granted if the parties are the same gender.

 

The same doesn't apply for polygamy. Polygamy cannot argue discrimination because there are no similar multi-party contracts granted.

 

Any man and woman can marry each other, even if the man and women are both gay. There is no discrimination there either. The argument is that they should be able to marry someone of the same gender because that's their orientation. Someone could say they have an "orientation to marrying several women" and thus it is discrimination to say that they can't marry according to their orientation.

 

In the one case discrimination is based on whether you're talking same or different genders. In the other it's on whether you're talking 1 person or multiple. Yes they are different cases but the point is once you legalize one there is going to be no logical place to stop. Is it a certainty? No. But it does seem likely to me and many others. Can you conversely prove it wouldn't happen?

 

Scott

[39388]

I copied and pasted that quote from the AAP website, I just didn't have time to post the reference. I work with them nearly every day. I know what the official stance is from the medical community.

 

You are being closed minded. Otherwise you would be talking to me about the content and not the context. Cherry actually had a good point in her last post about 6 year olds. I think she may have confused that study with one regarding gender identity, but I can't say for sure. Either way, that is something I will be researching when I get a chance.

 

If your argument is true then we have no choice in who we are as people, we are just born one way or another. Fat people are born attracted to food, smart people are born attracted to intellectual persuits, depressed people are just born sad... ect. While it may be true that we are all born within a certain condition, it's been shown that we can change ourselves for better or for worse. This

 

If you believe that we have no choices in life... that all things are fated, then I will concede that your argument makes sense on your terms.

 

What is so scarry about people being able to choose? Do you tihnk that if gay people chose to be gay that would make them somehow evil? I don't.

There is no solid 100% proof, yet. Do you know how hard it is to prove something like this? However, there is more and more evidence that gays are born that way. Many gays are discriminated against and made miserable. Why would more than a tiny tiny handful of people ever want to be gay given that? Every gay that I know of that has brought up why they were gay, said they were born that way. To me the evidence is overwhelming.

 

I can not change who I'm physically attracted to. I simply can't. You say that under the right circumstances, any person can be attracted to a donkey, which seems absurd to me. I can change many many things in my life, but not everything.

 

Again, since you have no leg to stand on, you call others closed minded. Convince me that I can change who I'm attracted to. If you can, I'll reconsider my position.

[Justanotherschmuck]

I'm kinda stuck on this.

 

Who wants to sue whom?

 

Who hates religion and the church?

 

Not I. But I'm for Gay marriage.

 

None of the card carrying liberals that I know "hate" religion or the church. Some may not agree that it's for them, but they don't hate it. Some actively participate in both.

 

Your perception is quite skewed.

 

That word makes that statement the biggest crock of crap I've ever heard. NONE. You must not know many "card carrying liberals".

 

The one thing the church the gays share is that there are an awful lot of people in this world who would be THRILLED if both ceased to exist. The Christian church, ESPECIALLY the Catholic church are now in "open season". No other institution or person can be disparaged as much as the church without some kind of ramification.

 

Oh, and this garbage about CHOOSING your preference.......isolated situations, yes. Modern social pressures (especially young woman) yes. But on a whole.............you are born gay or straight. You can't change it. Even though I am a practicing catholic, this "straightening out" is a bunch of bull.

 

Since I believe that the vast majority of gay people are born that way and have no choice in the matter, I leave the judging of them up to HIM, not me, not others , not church leaders, not even the written word. Just and simply...HIM. As for me, I'll treat them like every other person, sometimes positively, sometimes negatively.

[redfathom]

I was talking about this topic to someone the other day and he said he didn't want his kids to be taught about gay marriage in school. When prop 8 here in CA was trying to be passed that was the reason people gave against gay marriages, because it would allow it to be taught in school...that reason caused a huge fuss.

 

I said, well they're going to learn about it anyways from TV, friends, etc. He said he didn't want his kid to be taught that he could grow up and marry a boy. I wanted to say, well, what if he does. You would have spent his whole childhood telling him what he wants and makes him happy is not okay.

 

I have gay friends who got married prior to prop 8, they are very loving and have been together for over 15 years. They have a house, nice cars, two dogs, basically they have a lifestyle just like many straight married couples. They are also the glue that holds their family and friends together, and are the most generouse people I have met.

 

I tell them when ever this topic comes up that I consider their marriage no different from my own. They got married because they love each other, just like me and my husband.

[redfathom]

It is not at all ridiculous to say that if gay marriage is legalized polygamy will follow. Under what legal basis would you deny it? These are consenting adults. Same with marrying your sister. Consenting adults. How can you say that people wouldn't claim discrimination?

 

Don't many hetero marriages already practice a form of polygamy through mistresses and affairs. Sure they aren't married but some marriages have more then two people involved in their relationship (usually secretly). Sorry, but gay marriage won't cause polygamy, it's already happening.

[39388]

I said they should refrain from sexual activity as much as possible, for their health. I also believe that heteros should restrain from sexual activity outside of marriage. It's not an issue of being who you are.

An extremely anti gay poster on here claimed 1 in 7 gays have HIV. I believe the number to be much lower, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for this argument. That means 6 in 7 do not have it. The vast majority do not have it. If two gays without HIV have sex, guess what. Neither gets HIV.

 

I guess if I sleep with a woman after engagement, but before marriage, it is a horrible thing and I'll burn in he** for it. I guess if a couple decides they don't believe in the institution of marriage and live together for many years and then they have sex, they will burn in he** too.

[Molley]

Ok, here's my thought... everyone has a need to love and be loved. I don't seen any difference between man and a woman or two women or two men. We all have the same basic need... to make our love a commitment not only in the eyes of God but also with the State. Marriage is just a word. However it's the commitment each person need to make to each other. Same sex couples getting married will have not influence on hetero couples.... its crazy to think otherwise. I think we all need to focus on our own lives, how to improve them, and not focus so much on what others are doing in their own personal lives, behind closed doors.