How exactly does gay marriage negatively affect traditional marriage?

[sally4sara]

Tax wise, when considering the marriage penalty, its a wonder anyone wants to get married. As a single mom, I certainly get a larger tax refund than I will get once I get married again.

 

So if taxes, insurance, power of attorney, writ of will, and requested emergency contact are not gender specified, why the stink to get anyone to recognize a couple's devotion to each other by any particular title?

 

To be recognized by our communities? Yeah? That doesn't seem to stop anyone with a wish to disregard such a union to do so.

To encourage monogamy through the difficulties that come with divorce and the support of our friends and family rooting for us to work through conflict? Maybe there is something to that, but I don't think the courts can force people to be more supportive of anyone's marriage than they choose to be.

 

California courts agreed to recognize gay marriage, but funding by the Morman church helped get it over turned. The only married people who don't experience the marriage tax penalty are single income, "traditional" marriage couples with kids earning under $80,000 a year. Politicians want votes so I can understand their vague responses when asked which side of this debate they stand. All that aside, the IRS sees more money when people get married. Even more when they don't have kids and both work outside of the home. Gay married couples seem like the IRS dream come true.

 

Most of my gay friends don't give a crap about a marriage license or whether they can get one or not. I don't personally know any gay people who are upset they cannot get married. I DO know plenty of people who proudly claim they support the idea as well as many people who, just as proudly, claim they do not support it. None of these people are gay.......

But all things being possible; I'm sure some gay people are angry about being discriminated in this way.

The quickest way I've found to get a large group of people to do something they otherwise wouldn't choose to do is to tell them they CAN'T do it.

[Tired03]

I do know some. A very good friend of mine has been with her partner for 13 years. They would like to get married, and can't, unless they travel to another state.

[amerikajin]

Red herring arguments will not be addressed. Try again.

 

I think the example is fitting. You seem to be using community standards as a way to justify limitations on gay marriage. Although I tend to disagree with the idea of community standards, I acknowledge that they might seem more compelling in the eyes of some people, so that's why I raised the question. It wasn't long ago that 'community standards' forbade blacks and whites to marry. I could have used other hypothetical examples such as whether we should allow people with psychiatric issues such as clinical depression or bi-polar disorder to marry, but I figured I would use an example that has a fairly recent historical precedent.

 

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.

 

Perhaps you could see it as a public matter, and maybe in some places and in the eyes of some people -- a lot of people -- it's a public matter in the sense that it becomes a matter of public record. But as it stands now, two people can get married and it doesn't necessarily require public endorsement. I don't see my marriage (whenever that takes place) as a public matter, even if it's a matter of public record. If some gay couple gets married in a jurisdiction where gay marriage is legal, other jurisdictions within the United States have to accept it -- even if they don't want to.

[Untouchable_Fire]

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.

 

You guys were just saying it couldn't be done... now your quibbling over how hard it is. Give me a break.

 

Spitzer did his work back in the late 90's. He was kind kind of the first to really look at this. There are plenty of others now.

 

And... why else would someone TRY to change what they are attracted to besides family and religion? I can't think of any other more motivating factors.

 

Still... I don't really see the point at all in arguing this. You can believe in whatever you want. In your mind... how would it change the idea of gay marriage if people chose to be gay? Would you suddenly believe that they don't deserve rights? Do you think that we should then make it illegal to be gay?

 

In my opinion people have a right to be as they choose to be. That is what freedom is all about.

[Tired03]

Still... I don't really see the point at all in arguing this. You can believe in whatever you want. In your mind... how would it change the idea of gay marriage if people chose to be gay? Would you suddenly believe that they don't deserve rights? Do you think that we should then make it illegal to be gay?

 

In my opinion people have a right to be as they choose to be. That is what freedom is all about.

 

Okay, so are we taking the choice vs. nature debate off of the list?

 

So now, since I don't believe that it should result in a reduction in rights, what is your justification for believing that it should result in a reduction in rights?

[Untouchable_Fire]

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.

 

Most of the people in my church support the vast majority of changes to give gay couples rights. There are some hangups when it comes to adoptions, but many are like me and would rather see a gay couple raise a child than to see it aborted. (Please save any comments for another thread). The real hang up comes with the word marriage. Throw it out and you have a deal.

 

Most of us are more interested in ending religious discrimination... which has been growing rapidly over the last 30 years. It's especially bad in the education system!

[Tired03]

Can you explain the religious discrimination that you're seeing UT?

[IrishCarBomb]

You guys were just saying it couldn't be done... now your quibbling over how hard it is. Give me a break.

 

I don't think it can really be done. But I'm also open minded and willing to look at facts as facts. The study's results were weak, demonstrating how difficult it was even with a very skewed sample. I'm not changing my position, just being as objective as possible with the data you suggested we read.

 

Spitzer did his work back in the late 90's. He was kind kind of the first to really look at this. There are plenty of others now.

 

There aren't all that many. His work is largely unsupported by the APA.

 

And... why else would someone TRY to change what they are attracted to besides family and religion? I can't think of any other more motivating factors.

 

My point exactly. They only want to change because they are told they should do so. There is no compelling social, health, or legal reason to have them not be homosexual. Further, even in the cases where a person desperately wanted to change, they were unable.

[39388]

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.

I just researched Dr. Spitzer's study. Out of all the gays and lesbians, it took him almost a year to find 274 possibilities for the study and 200 of those were used. The sample was not random and there was no proof that they these people were actually homosexual. 86 of the 200 were referred by conservative Christian groups. NARTH (a group that believes that gays can change) referred 46 of the 200.

 

That is not a scientific study at all.

 

A far better study would be to ask gays and lesbians. I don't think you would like the results of that study.

 

I believe they were born that way and I think one day we will have very solid proof. Even if some are not, what do we gain by discriminating against them? To me, nothing.

[39388]

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

Ok I see now. You had a very bad experience having a woman break up with you one month before marriage. I feel for you and anyone else who has such a bad experience.

 

That said, it is no reason to restrict sex until marriage for everyone. Many people have sex very early on and have wonderful marriages. Many people live together for many years and never marry officially because they don't believe in marriage. How could someone tell them not to have sex??? Many gay couples live together and have sex and either want to marry and are not allowed to or don't want to marry. People are different and just because one person has a certain experience does not mean that everyone else will have the same experience.

 

What is even more disappointing is a lot of people who have a bad experience with something sometimes become radical activists against it. This might occasionially be a good thing, but is usually an extreme overreaction. I don't want to lump you in with these people either. I'm not a huge fan of alcohol, but I don't go telling the world not to buy beers. I don't like certain types of food, but I don't call the grocery store and demand that they be banned from selling those foods. The same is true with beliefs about sex.

[Scottdmw]

Ok I see now. You had a very bad experience having a woman break up with you one month before marriage. I feel for you and anyone else who has such a bad experience.

 

That said, it is no reason to restrict sex until marriage for everyone. Many people have sex very early on and have wonderful marriages. Many people live together for many years and never marry officially because they don't believe in marriage. How could someone tell them not to have sex??? Many gay couples live together and have sex and either want to marry and are not allowed to or don't want to marry. People are different and just because one person has a certain experience does not mean that everyone else will have the same experience.

 

What is even more disappointing is a lot of people who have a bad experience with something sometimes become radical activists against it. This might occasionially be a good thing, but is usually an extreme overreaction. I don't want to lump you in with these people either. I'm not a huge fan of alcohol, but I don't go telling the world not to buy beers. I don't like certain types of food, but I don't call the grocery store and demand that they be banned from selling those foods. The same is true with beliefs about sex.

 

Whoa, who said anything about restricting sex before marriage? Be careful not to read more into another person's words than is really there. All I've done is tell people, "Hey I had a bad experience and here's what I think happened, you might want to think about it." And, you might want to, really!

 

As far as homosexuality and gay marriage goes, a question was asked and I offered my opinion. That's not exactly radical activism. My honest opinion is that homosexual activity may be more bad than good even for those people who are born with same-sex attraction. I'm not going to try to force people to stop having sex with each other. However, it's different when they come to me and say, "Vote for gay marriage and make a public statement that you _approve_ of what we are doing". If I do that and they end up coming to the harm I fear, I will then be partly responsible.

 

Scott

[Scottdmw]

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.

 

If it wasn't clear I _am_ against pre-marital sex, even during engagement. Saying it's Biblically no less offensive than one-night stands however is not clear to me. I don't think God condemns things to be capricious but because they are harmful to us, and I see extreme promiscuity as more harmful than sleeping with your fiancee once or twice "by accident". There is a spectrum of behaviors and it doesn't help to over-simplify, I don't think.

 

Scott

[Scottdmw]

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.

 

And often it _is_ between consenting adults. Some of the rest of the time, maybe one person is not fully consenting in the sense we would all like, but they would still swear before a court of law that they are.

 

Scott

[White Flower]

well see, its sort of complex. i'll try to summarize and of course this is just me opinion...

 

"traditional" marriage is an institution where a hetero couple unites with teh primary goal of procreation and therefore raising the kids in a good and stable home. without "traditional" marriage many homosexual people would not exist, innit?

 

"gay" marriage is an instituiton where two people of the same sex can unite but not have their own kids, ergo they cannot procreate and therefore keep the human race going.

 

so basically, the two are not fully equal. one does not impinge on the other except for the ability to have offspring part. and that is an important piece of the puzzle.

 

its ironic that gay people owe their lives to heteros

Gay marriage, then, may be the answer to overpopulation?

[White Flower]

because wife #1 would be constantly fighting with wife #2 and wife #3 and vice versa. it would be an eternal cat-fight...

Polygamy exists in many countries successfully without dramatic cat fights. There are rules and social morés set in place to make sure this doesn't happen.

[amerikajin]

When you stop and think about it, straight people ought to be happy that gays exist. Gays just reduce the competition for members of the opposite sex.

[White Flower]

To use another member's illogical usage of statistics to back up bigotry, statistically speaking, how many gay divorces exist? None, therefore, allowing gay marriage would reinforce the institution of traditional marriage!

Great point TBF!

[Scottdmw]

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.

 

 

Your comment about leveling the playing field over an extended period of time reminded me of an interesting observation that once occurred to me.

 

It seems to be the consensus that people become homosexual through a combination of genetic factors, environmental factors, and early experiences. Let's take as a presupposition for a minute that there are some necessary genetic factors that figure in, while understanding that’s not the whole story.

 

Consider a historical period such as 100 years ago when homosexuality is strongly repressed by society. Some people will still be born with those genetic factors, and some will become gay due to the additional environmental or experiential factors. However, many of these or perhaps even most will end up in a heterosexual marriage anyway due to social pressure. For the moment I'll grant that they may not be as sexually satisfied as if they had been in a homosexual relationship, and indeed may have affairs on the side. However, they will end up having genetic children. The genetic factors for homosexuality will end up being passed down.

 

Now consider a historical period such as today, when gay partnerships are tolerated to some reasonable degree. Now, most of the people who end up gay will probably not enter a heterosexual marriage. They will be in a homosexual partnership of some kind. They may be more sexually fulfilled, but will be much less likely to produce genetic offspring. The genetic factors for homosexuality will become fewer in the population.

 

None of this means anything in terms of morality, evolution and morality really don't have much to do with each other, or it's not clear to me that they do. But in a practical sense, it is interesting that the society that is most tolerant of homosexuality is in the long-term going to reduce the number of homosexuality genes in the population, while the intolerant society will actually allow the genes to spread more. Seems very ironic to me.

 

This might be somewhat reduced if gay couples choose to have genetic offspring using technological means. However, they might still not have genetic offspring at the same rate they would have in the repressive society, certainly the technological means are very expensive (ie surrogate motherhood for male homosexuals).

 

As a separate point, it is also quite possible that these homosexuality genes may be similar to the genetic factors that influence sickle cell anemia. Sickle cell anemia is a recessive trait, you need two copies of the gene to get it. However, if you have one copy of the gene you get valuable resistance to malaria, and no sickle cell anemia. So, this gene is not really a disease gene so much as a trade-off gene. It has advantages and disadvantages genetically speaking. Sometimes I think that the factors that cause homosexuality may be like that, causing a person to be less likely to reproduce due to homosexual attraction, but have other advantages.

 

This is mostly beside the main issue, I want to emphasize again that I don't think this argument is really a reason to restrict gay marriage--I already gave my reasons for that. I thought though people might be interested. It also gets to the question of whether you can really set up a totally fair controlled experiment over the long-term--other things keep changing making it more difficult.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Thanks!

 

 

Scott

[39388]

Whoa, who said anything about restricting sex before marriage? Be careful not to read more into another person's words than is really there. All I've done is tell people, "Hey I had a bad experience and here's what I think happened, you might want to think about it." And, you might want to, really!

 

As far as homosexuality and gay marriage goes, a question was asked and I offered my opinion. That's not exactly radical activism. My honest opinion is that homosexual activity may be more bad than good even for those people who are born with same-sex attraction. I'm not going to try to force people to stop having sex with each other. However, it's different when they come to me and say, "Vote for gay marriage and make a public statement that you _approve_ of what we are doing". If I do that and they end up coming to the harm I fear, I will then be partly responsible.

 

Scott

I'll make my decisions. I'm not basing them on those that tell me to have sex almost immediately or those that say wait till marriage. How about when the woman and I are both ready?

 

As for gay marriage, if you don't like it, don't engage in it. I'm not attracted to other males so I will never ever have gay sex.

[boxing123]

How will it affect heteros?

 

Already, in many schools kids are being taught not to use the terms "husband" or "wife". Partner is preferred.

 

We will become a genderless society, with marriage crumbling even further, and more and more people being single and just getting each other off. Families are the foundation of society.

 

Now gays just marrying will not do this, it is just another important step in the overall plan of destroying the family, and making everyone individuals subservient to the state. Other ways to do this? Push sex, push porn, make men look either inept or as violent/controlling, make women look like cheaters, gold diggers, manipulative, etc.

 

From the beginning I have wondered why the huge push for gay marriage. As I have repeated ad nauseum, gays do not even want to marry. Only 1-5% of gays do where they can. And somehow, unfortunately, a large segment of the population has become so brainwashed, that they do not even see what is really happening.

 

Think about it for a second. Why on earth do a couple of gays NEED to marry? Very few want to or would, and obviously they cannot reproduce. So why? Just because?

 

There is far more at play, as is usually the case. The real reason is to blur the line between genders even more. And to lower the meaning of husband and wife.. They will just be "partners" like the buddies down the street marrying for some tax benefits..

[39388]

We will become a genderless society, with marriage crumbling even further, and more and more people being single and just getting each other off. Families are the foundation of society.

 

Now gays just marrying will not do this, it is just another important step in the overall plan of destroying the family, and making everyone individuals subservient to the state. Other ways to do this? Push sex, push porn, make men look either inept or as violent/controlling, make women look like cheaters, gold diggers, manipulative, etc.

How many gay people do you know in real life? You claim to know a lot about gays, so I have to assume you have a lot of gay friends.

 

I assume the gays you know must be telling you about how they really want to destroy families rather than marry because they love each other.

 

Right?

[sally4sara]

Boxing is on to a commonality in that not many gay people really want to get married. It doesn't mean none of them want to get married. I'm sure they would like to choose to not get married while having the option be as natural a right as it is for hetero couples.

I socialize with people who do not take issue with homosexuality so I do know the opinion of many gay people as well as other people who know the opinion of their gay friends and most are not fretting over not being married.

 

What boxing is incorrect about is the whole benefit of marriage tax wise thing. Most married people, especially two income married people without children, see less of a tax break than as single entities. And even less than single parents. Our government will see more revenue if we allow gay marriage. That is why it will eventually become legal. Of course, they're glad to get religious organizations money thrown around to delay it for a while, but it will be passed. Like it or not, its going to happen.

 

I personally, can't wait to see the concepts of gender dissolve. There is no 100 percent, all the time, gender difference other than one has a uterus and the other has a scrotum. Get over it boxing. Find something else to define your masculinity.

[boxing123]

You are telling me to define my masculinity, but then say we should be genderless. Makes no sense.

 

 

The effects of a genderless society are more far reaching than you can imagine.

 

Step back in time.. People married younger, were less selfish, 2 parents raised children. Married people live longer and are more mentally healthy. people NEED one another. I think ALL studies show, and common sense shows children NEED a mother and father. Of course there are exceptions.

 

We will step into a new era in which even more people choose random sex, instant gratification, selfishness, and children being raised by one parent. people will have even less of a clue as to what their role is.

 

Will gay marriage cause this? No. But it is another step in that direction. Individuals are much easier to control and manipulate than strong families. The bankers and govt know this. Things do not happen by accident.

[sally4sara]

You are telling me to define my masculinity, but then say we should be genderless. Makes no sense.

 

 

The effects of a genderless society are more far reaching than you can imagine.

 

Step back in time.. People married younger, were less selfish, 2 parents raised children. Married people live longer and are more mentally healthy. people NEED one another. I think ALL studies show, and common sense shows children NEED a mother and father. Of course there are exceptions.

 

We will step into a new era in which even more people choose random sex, instant gratification, selfishness, and children being raised by one parent. people will have even less of a clue as to what their role is.

 

Will gay marriage cause this? No. But it is another step in that direction. Individuals are much easier to control and manipulate than strong families. The bankers and govt know this. Things do not happen by accident.

 

If you're going to step back in time, at least be factual.

You don't know if they were more or less selfish because you were not alive or in everyone's home. One person was raising the kids and it was their mother almost all the time if not a nanny or grandmother. Remember the saying that children were best seen and not heard? Which parent do you think thought that up? Mom was home all day and not likely to get a child to shut up for every waking hour so it must have been dad's opinion. Married men lived longer, not women and even that was dependent on social class. Beyond that, they didn't live as long as we do today so what does that matter?

People have always had sex. Always and under many varied circumstances and number of partners, that is just applying more now to both genders rather than the usual one of the past. If it is wrong, then its wrong for both and all no matter what genders are involved for either partner.

 

You are constantly talking about how men do, or should be doing this and women do or should be doing that. You're standards and beliefs only work if everyone limits themselves to your formula. I suggest you define your own masculinity in ways that don't require others to limit themselves for you to accomplish it. That is what I meant so I hope that clears it up for you. Figure out some way where you feel like a man, but a way that doesn't require women to act one particular way for you to be secure in that belief. You cannot expect everyone to live a life that supports your reality for you.

The only real gender difference is that one has a uterus and one has a scrotum. The rest is social construct. Marriage is a social construct, not something our species very survival is dependent on. Its going to happen because it is profitable to our government (who incidentally needs mo money). Gay people might still not feel compelled to utilize their new rights. They might decide they do want to get married.........either way, we will survive as a species for a good long while.

[MissConduct]

Step back in time.. People married younger, were less selfish, 2 parents raised children.

 

 

Ahhh no, if you step back in time you will see that women were less selfish, men were just as selfish as they are now the difference is that back then men got away with a lot more. Women they stayed home and took care of all things family, while the men were out at with the ol'boys club screwing the secretary. Men were praised for being selfish and women had no where to go so they grinned and beared it. Now women no longer have to do that, thanks goodness, we have options too.

 

Yeah sure men feel jipped now a days with women having equal rights, what's good for the goose is finally good for the gander and men just don't like that. Oh well, boo-hoo for men!

 

Excuse me but we do not live in a "genderless" society we live in an equal "human rights" society. If you can't tell the difference then perhaps you are a biggot at heart.

 

 

A gay couple wanting to marry falls in that category of equality perfectly. They deserve "equal human rights"