How exactly does gay marriage negatively affect traditional marriage?

[Tired03]

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

 

Are you kidding me? I work at a University, live in a college town and my mother is an atheist.

 

I will repeat myself, they may not want the Church's imposition on THEIR lives, they may not want the Church's imposition in THEIR schools, but they DO NOT believe that people shouldn't be allowed to believe what they want to believe.

 

My husband grew up Catholic. Doesn't agree with the church, but doesn't want to see it abolished. My Mom grew up Catholic, believes that religion can be very damaging to people, but doesn't want to see the church abolished. I can keep naming people, but that would just be silly.

 

I guess I knew a few people who *hated* the Church, but we all would have been between the ages of 19-23 and we *hated* everything at that point anyway.

[Tired03]

Regarding life expectancy:

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_obit.html

 

http://threewaynews.blogspot.com/2005/08/gay-life-expectancy.html Blog post explaining a refutation of that 1997 study.

 

http://www.slate.com/?id=2098

 

I'll look for some more, but I have to go to work - those will start you off nicely I think.

[KikiW]

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.

 

So let me clarify... people who are fighting to receive EQUAL RIGHTS are being held back by other people who like to use it as a tool to get their base all worked up, correct? Considering that people fighting for equal rights for gays haven't been able to achieve equal rights for gays - which I believe we are actually IN AGREEMENT ON? - they should probably continue fighting for those equal rights until they are GIVEN TO THEM, correct?

 

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?

 

You are making assumptions without facts - no one is forcing Muslims to serve alcohol at a restaurant catering to Muslims. Go to any restaurant and you will find that some don't serve alcohol, some are BYOB and some serve alcohol. They are private establishments and can serve or not.

 

I have already asked for you to post a link to articles that explain how churches are going to be opened up for lawsuits based on the terminology. I still haven't seen that. Please cite your references - the more legitimate sources, such as AP articles, not the church newsletter, the more weight they will be given.

 

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

 

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

 

Again. Please cite it. I would be interested in reading the specifics of the case.

 

As for church creating more tolerance and love than any other group - that is your opinion. It is MY opinion that many churches CLAIM tolerance and love, but only for those who give them money on a regular basis. If someone finds happiness in attending church, then good for them, but until churches can stop being hypocritical, I choose to stay away.

[Tired03]

Some additional links

 

http://www.thetaskforce.org/TF_in_news/07_0813/stories/21_Study_Comparing_Gay_Life_Span.pdf

 

Regarding HIV life expectancy

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/07/03/2309?comments=true

 

Are you aware that there was an AIDS epidemic in Africa that was huge - and none of that was attributable to gay people? In fact, the researchers at the time (the virus appeared at around the same time) who were studying in each area were surprised at the difference in profile of the people who were getting it in both areas.

 

Maybe it's wrong to be Latina (this is tongue in cheek)

http://www.aegis.com/news/sc/1989/SC890407.html

 

Interesting study about men who have had sex with men, but do not identify themselves as homosexual and their risk factors - which are higher than those who identify themselves as homosexual.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00018791.htm

[Justanotherschmuck]

Some additional links

 

http://www.thetaskforce.org/TF_in_news/07_0813/stories/21_Study_Comparing_Gay_Life_Span.pdf

 

Regarding HIV life expectancy

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/07/03/2309?comments=true

 

Are you aware that there was an AIDS epidemic in Africa that was huge - and none of that was attributable to gay people? In fact, the researchers at the time (the virus appeared at around the same time) who were studying in each area were surprised at the difference in profile of the people who were getting it in both areas.

 

Maybe it's wrong to be Latina (this is tongue in cheek)

http://www.aegis.com/news/sc/1989/SC890407.html

 

Interesting study about men who have had sex with men, but do not identify themselves as homosexual and their risk factors - which are higher than those who identify themselves as homosexual.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00018791.htm

 

 

You can't be serious bringing up the "aids epidemic in africa". That whole scene is full of such "bull". You go in with ANY symptom that can be attributable to AIDS and is is listed as aids. Its a money grab. Trying to get US money to treat any other disease but AIDS is futile. Even in the usa, scientists are put the word AIDS in ANY study they need funding for.

 

Sorry. Aids has been pushed on the heterosexual drug free world for years. Scare tactics are used to try and tell these groups that THEY are in danger. If EVERYONE feels they are in danger, then funding and public interest soars. Remember Hiv to aids was one month? Then 1 year? Then 10 years? Now more?

 

If you are a heterosexual, non intervenous drug user youre chances of contracting aids is less not even worth trying to calculate. Check out how many people die of heart related disease and how many people die of aids. Check out the funding. Whats wrong with THAT picture?

 

ONce all the bullsheet started with the fake stats, the organized scare tactics, AIDS became a fiasco. ANd believe NOTHING that comes out of Africa.

 

If aids possed such a danger to heterosexual non drug users how does professional sports and the music industry even stay afloat today? Wouldn't they all be dead by now? Denying that sex with multiple partners is a common occurance in these industries is ludicris, but surprise, surprise, guys with hundreds and even thousands of partners are still alive! I guess being able to hit a free throw or play an instrument ups your immunity.

 

Aids is a horrible thing. BUt trying to scare the public hurts the cause in the long run, not help it.

[Scottdmw]

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.

 

I didn't say anything about burning in he**. I do believe in he** but I'm not going to be judgemental and say I know who's going, or that what one person does is worse than what another does. I believe I've stuck fairly closely to what I see to be observable facts.

 

Sleeping with a woman during engagement is to my mind less of a problem than having a one night stand, but it can still be a problem. I can tell you from personal experience that a woman may leave a man just one month before the wedding. If sex is involved it makes that a much more painful and difficult-to-recover-from breakup than it would otherwise have been, again from long and sad personal experience.

 

Scott

[Scottdmw]

Regarding life expectancy:

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_obit.html

 

http://threewaynews.blogspot.com/2005/08/gay-life-expectancy.html Blog post explaining a refutation of that 1997 study.

 

http://www.slate.com/?id=2098

 

I'll look for some more, but I have to go to work - those will start you off nicely I think.

 

 

Mmmm yes. The problem is that all three of these links refer to the Cameron obituary studies, which I grant have serious statistical problems. The study I quoted was the 1997 Vancouver study titled "Modelling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men", by Hogg.

 

It is true that since then HIV mortality rates have declined due to anti-retroviral drugs. However, no one has produced a study that definitively shows gays do not continue to have a shortened lifespan, or by exactly how much. HIV is not the only STD out there, either.

 

I will admit I was sloppy in my initial post with the "as much as smoking" comment which was imprecise and borrowed language from another site that may have been based on worse studies. I still think it is hard to argue that statistically gays have a shorter lifespan, the only question is by how much.

 

Let me ask what I think is a fair question. These studies about gay life expectancy have been around over a decade. Many people keep saying they are flawed. Why has no one then done a careful, bulletproof study to settle this issue one way or the other, to demonstrate exactly how the lifespan of gays compares with straights? To me it seems like people are afraid of what they might find, or afraid of being publically condemned even for looking.

 

Scott

[Tired03]

You can't be serious bringing up the "aids epidemic in africa". That whole scene is full of such "bull". You go in with ANY symptom that can be attributable to AIDS and is is listed as aids. Its a money grab. Trying to get US money to treat any other disease but AIDS is futile. Even in the usa, scientists are put the word AIDS in ANY study they need funding for.

 

WHAT?

 

Okay, so the CDC, all of the books related to infectious disease....they are all lying to us? Believe it or not, they CAN figure out what diseases are caused by AIDS, what are caused by Lassa, and what are caused by Ebola.

 

But ...they are not lying when they talk about the AIDS epidemic in the LGBT community?

[Tired03]

Let me ask what I think is a fair question. These studies about gay life expectancy have been around over a decade. Many people keep saying they are flawed. Why has no one then done a careful, bulletproof study to settle this issue one way or the other, to demonstrate exactly how the lifespan of gays compares with straights? To me it seems like people are afraid of what they might find, or afraid of being publically condemned even for looking.

 

One of the articles made the case (and I agree) that it would be very difficult to FIND such information - there just isn't enough data. To measure anyone over the age of 60 is quite difficult as being homosexual wasn't accepted at ALL back then, and I'm sure many closeted gay folks aren't going to admit it at all - even on their deathbed. And it's not like people put in an obituary "Loving father of two - oh, and by the way, he was gay"

 

Studies on sexuality are notoriously difficult BECAUSE they require people to self-report. And people lie about sex more often than they lie about anything else.

 

So, I don't think that it's intent, but rather, difficulty.

[clv0116]

Polygamy is a different legal issue.

 

Legally maybe, morally I don't see the distinction. It's all between consenting adults. As for the legal issues, a civil union seems to take care of that just dandy for homos and it would also work for straights!

[clv0116]

Sleeping with a woman during engagement is ...

 

Still fornication. Don't candy coat the stuff you might enjoy. Biblically it's no less offensive than other forms of gross sexual 'misconduct' and indeed, some other non-sexual misconduct.

[angie2443]

Legally maybe, morally I don't see the distinction. It's all between consenting adults. As for the legal issues, a civil union seems to take care of that just dandy for homos and it would also work for straights!

 

Polygamy is often not between consenting adults. It is often between young girls and their uncles. To compare a homesexual relationship with polygamy makes no sense.

[Tired03]

Polygamy is often not between consenting adults. It is often between young girls and their uncles. To compare a homosexual relationship with polygamy makes no sense.

 

True - for this culture. I actually have no problem with polygamy or is it...polyandry(?) when it occurs between consenting adults. But that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.

[amerikajin]

I will repeat myself, they may not want the Church's imposition on THEIR lives, they may not want the Church's imposition in THEIR schools, but they DO NOT believe that people shouldn't be allowed to believe what they want to believe.

 

My husband grew up Catholic. Doesn't agree with the church, but doesn't want to see it abolished. My Mom grew up Catholic, believes that religion can be very damaging to people, but doesn't want to see the church abolished. I can keep naming people, but that would just be silly.

 

That pretty much sums up my attitudes toward religion. If they would just stick to canned food drives and the occasional humanitarian mission to the Dominican Republic, I'd be cool with churches. But it doesn't seem to stop there and it never does. The people who get active in churches seem to let their influence go to their head and they just can't help themselves. Tony Perkins, for example.

[amerikajin]

Let me ask what I think is a fair question. These studies about gay life expectancy have been around over a decade. Many people keep saying they are flawed. Why has no one then done a careful, bulletproof study to settle this issue one way or the other, to demonstrate exactly how the lifespan of gays compares with straights? To me it seems like people are afraid of what they might find, or afraid of being publically condemned even for looking.

 

Scott

 

I admit to a degree of laziness and I haven't bothered to investigate the studies you linked, but I'll make a few comments in general.

 

There might indeed be a higher rate of suicide among gays. There might also indeed be a higher rate of HIV among gays -- in this country and perhaps in others as well. I would acknowledge that both could indeed be facts, but I have my doubts that they point to universal truths.

 

With regard to suicides, I think that in the case of suicides, these statistics could be used as a kind of self-fulfilling prophesy. Gays live in a world in which they know they are often shunned. They also know that, statistically speaking, there are fewer opportunities for intimacy as there are fewer 'of their kind.' There could be higher suicide rates for gays but a) if that is the case, then it probably has to do with social isolation which can be changed through more widespread tolerance and understanding; and b) I doubt that the incidence of suicides among gays are all that much higher than they are for heterosexuals. In fact, if my own experience is any reliable indication, I would have to say I am skeptical of the studies that purport to show gays being at greater risk of suicide. I have known a number of people (probably five or six) who have taken their lives, and every last one of them has been heterosexual. I have known not a single gay person to take their life.

 

Gays are supposedly more polygamous, but could that not be the result of the fact that society as a whole has not endorsed the idea of wedding gay couples? As I said sometime before (maybe on another thread), let's suppose that we were to can the whole idea of marriage altogether. How many heterosexual couples would stay together in the same household (even as parents) if there was nothing that legally or socially bound them together?

 

I don't know, I suppose that heterosexual couples could turn out to be more monogamous than gays, but the point is there is no way to know that unless we level out the playing field over a period of time. I think that, more than anything, is what gays want. Not to destroy heterosexual marriages, but to level out the playing field, to have the same opportunity to enjoy their love lives as much as the rest of us do.

 

Though we may disagree, I do so respectfully. You've clearly attempted to respond in earnest to legitimate criticisms and you've done so respectfully. Appreciated.

[Tired03]

Though we may disagree, I do so respectfully. You've clearly attempted to respond in earnest to legitimate criticisms and you've done so respectfully. Appreciated.

 

Proving myself even lazier - you said it very well - I Agree Thank you Scottdmw!

[Untouchable_Fire]

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.

 

Data is data, it doesn't draw any conclusions by itself. However, what I can say is that if you provide all the evidence and data to 100 rational, objective people the vast majority would come to the same conclusion. That is the litmus test we use when interpreting the information we receive from studies.

 

Here is where I think you might be stuck. Perhaps you are assuming that I mean a change in attraction is like flipping a mental switch. It's fast, easy and anyone can do it. However, that's not how it works.

 

Those who do choose to change what they are attracted to take huge amounts of effort to retrain neuropathways. Similar to people who struggle with controlling food. Also, the results are not always 100%. Now that I think about it, I never went into this before, and I probably should have.

 

If you want to do some reading on this I would suggest Dr. Spitzer's work in Columbia University.

 

Seriously, you can say what you want about the topic, but that won't make your conclusion rational. It's just some emotional argument, based on your desired outcome.

[Tired03]

However, what I can say is that if you provide all the evidence and data to 100 rational, objective people the vast majority would come to the same conclusion. That is the litmus test we use when interpreting the information we receive from studies.

 

Perhaps I'm confused - what data are you talking about here? The quote was out of context.

[Untouchable_Fire]

So let me clarify... people who are fighting to receive EQUAL RIGHTS are being held back by other people who like to use it as a tool to get their base all worked up, correct? Considering that people fighting for equal rights for gays haven't been able to achieve equal rights for gays - which I believe we are actually IN AGREEMENT ON? - they should probably continue fighting for those equal rights until they are GIVEN TO THEM, correct?

 

Yes. Both sides are guilty of not compromising on this. However, I find it nearly impossible to convince people on my side of the isle to support rights when your side won't even consider changing one word.

 

You are making assumptions without facts - no one is forcing Muslims to serve alcohol at a restaurant catering to Muslims. Go to any restaurant and you will find that some don't serve alcohol, some are BYOB and some serve alcohol. They are private establishments and can serve or not.

 

I was saying that it would be "like" as in "similar to", thus it was supposed to be an analogy.

 

Again. Please cite it. I would be interested in reading the specifics of the case.

As for church creating more tolerance and love than any other group - that is your opinion. It is MY opinion that many churches CLAIM tolerance and love, but only for those who give them money on a regular basis. If someone finds happiness in attending church, then good for them, but until churches can stop being hypocritical, I choose to stay away.

 

My church won our lawsuit, but it still cost a ton. I remember there was a similar lawsuit in NJ. I'm sure the AP picked that up.

 

I noticed ou put a dig on Fox news earlier... and I don't disagree that they have a massive bias, but they only exist and have viewership because the AP is just as biased in the opposite direction.

 

Just think about it... it's only common sense that people would use this as a chance to sue the Church. Face it, the official stance of most Judeo based religions is that being homosexual is a sin. If you give them the chance to sue, they will take it.

[IrishCarBomb]

If you want to do some reading on this I would suggest Dr. Spitzer's work in Columbia University.

 

Spitzer's work seems pretty weak.

 

It only used homosexuals that significantly wanted to change to being heterosexuals, and even then only found weak results that people changed.

 

Further, religion was a significant part of these people's lives. 78% of the people in his study had publically spoken at their churches that they supported any efforts to convert homosexuality. It is clear that these people desperately wanted to change, but their reasons for wanting to change are interesting to me.

 

In the study, the reasons the people wanted to change were:

Life as a homosexual was not emotionally satisfying: 80%

Conflicts between same-sex feelings and tenets of their religion: 79%

Desire to stay married, or to get married: 44%

 

Seems to be a stretch that people so motivated to change had trouble doing so. In general it seems the Spitzer's report was just indicating that there was a weak ability to condition responses but only when the people desperately wanted to have those responses.

[mockeryjones]

So for all of you who believe so fervently that gays should not marry....how exactly would gay marriage negatively impact traditional marriage?

 

That is your concern, right?

 

How would gay marriage cause straight marriages to lose value?

 

it's quite simple. first understand that marriage is a contract involving three parties, rather than the oversimplified model of two that is currently in vogue when discussing this subject.

 

For the two primary participants (husband and wife, wife, and wife, husband and husband ) the change would mean nothing. However the third party in the arrangement would be severly impacted. The third party of course being the surrounding community. Without the surrounding community that respects and acknowledges the marriage relationship as 'special' the institution has no meaning.

 

Court decisions (not legislative action, which i fully support) erode the legitimacy of the institution by eroding the right of the community to have it's say on it's approval or dissaproval of the relationship. Thus introducing gay marriage through court fiat (once again not through legislative or poular action) erodes the institution by undermining it's legitimacy as a community supported instituion.

[amerikajin]

it's quite simple. first understand that marriage is a contract involving three parties, rather than the oversimplified model of two that is currently in vogue when discussing this subject.

 

For the two primary participants (husband and wife, wife, and wife, husband and husband ) the change would mean nothing. However the third party in the arrangement would be severly impacted. The third party of course being the surrounding community. Without the surrounding community that respects and acknowledges the marriage relationship as 'special' the institution has no meaning.

 

Court decisions (not legislative action, which i fully support) erode the legitimacy of the institution by eroding the right of the community to have it's say on it's approval or dissaproval of the relationship. Thus introducing gay marriage through court fiat (once again not through legislative or poular action) erodes the institution by undermining it's legitimacy as a community supported instituion.

 

The community angle is thought-provoking, but I'm wondering how far we might be willing to take that. What if, say, Alabama's legislature decided that blacks and whites couldn't marry...are you cool with that? I don't necessarily believe everything is a slippery slope myself, but in the example I'm using, there is a very real history we are talking about.

 

I concede that if someone wants to use the community standard defense as a way to block gay unions, that might be more difficult to challenge. I guess I'm just not a big fan of the community standard argument. I'm not a big fan of giving absolute majorities the power to vote down what I consider to be someone's private personal conduct that otherwise doesn't really involve, and certainly does not hurt anyone else in the community.

[IrishCarBomb]

My church won our lawsuit, but it still cost a ton. I remember there was a similar lawsuit in NJ. I'm sure the AP picked that up.

 

I'm glad they won, because the church isn't bound by the same standards as the state.

 

The New Jersey case was a little different. A lesbian couple wanted to get married at a park (or retreat maybe?) that was owned by the church. They were not asking for the church to perform the service, they were just asking to use the land. As far as I know, their claim was rejected.

 

I personally think that they did it as a move to intentionally challenge the church, which sucks because it only makes people less willing to concede anything to the homosexual rights cause. A lot of people pushing for gay rights are hurt by other people that just want to demand popular tolerance for gays. Certainly the state cannot discriminate, but when you piss off so many people in the process, you don't help your cause for being accepted in the larger society.

[IrishCarBomb]

The third party of course being the surrounding community. Without the surrounding community that respects and acknowledges the marriage relationship as 'special' the institution has no meaning.

 

Court decisions (not legislative action, which i fully support) erode the legitimacy of the institution by eroding the right of the community to have it's say on it's approval or dissaproval of the relationship. Thus introducing gay marriage through court fiat (once again not through legislative or poular action) erodes the institution by undermining it's legitimacy as a community supported instituion.

 

You'd have to amend the Constitution to pass this, because currently, this would be unconstitutional.

 

Marriage is considered a fundamental right under the Constitution. This means it can only be taken away if an extremely compelling government interest overrides that right, and that the means used to serve the government's interest is as narrowly tailored as possible (so it doesn't take away more people's fundamental rights than is necessary).

 

I can't think of any compelling government interest that this process would serve, and it certainly wouldn't be narrowly tailored (as Amerikajin showed above).

[mockeryjones]

The community angle is thought-provoking, but I'm wondering how far we might be willing to take that. What if, say, Alabama's legislature decided that blacks and whites couldn't marry...are you cool with that?

 

Red herring arguments will not be addressed. Try again.

 

 

I guess I'm just not a big fan of the community standard argument. I'm not a big fan of giving absolute majorities the power to vote down what I consider to be someone's private personal conduct that otherwise doesn't really involve, and certainly does not hurt anyone else in the community.

 

I would agree if we were talking about a private matter. But marriage by definition is a communal act and therefore not private personal conduct.