How exactly does gay marriage negatively affect traditional marriage?

[burning 4 revenge]

And that change threatens you how? People seem to be worried about the collapse of society, but I don't get why. I think they're insecure about their own sexuality. I think people project on gays because they're afraid that gays are going to make an advance on them, and if they do, then they'll be left to wonder "OMG, could I be a fag/dike?" Or in some cases maybe they're worried about their children being gay "OMG, is my child gay? Did I miss the signs? Am I a failed parent" People are afraid of being excluded from others in their own circles. People who have a problem with gays usually spend a lot of time with other people who have a problem with gays. People who are confident about who they are and have a truly good moral compass don't waste their time worrying about the "fall of society."

It isn't anything so dramatic as the "fall of society" its just an increasing coarsening of society

 

And as far as worrying about your childrens sexual identity, thats a valid concern because like Boxing and some of the others Im pretty sure homosexuality is a mental illness. Your presumption that its a genetic predisposition is part of our basic disagreement

[amerikajin]

It isn't anything so dramatic as the "fall of society" its just an increasing coarsening of society

 

And as far as worrying about your childrens sexual identity, thats a valid concern because like Boxing and some of the others Im pretty sure homosexuality is a mental illness. Your presumption that its a genetic predisposition is part of our basic disagreement

 

I presume part of it is a biological predisposition, which is then influenced by the stimuli which bombard children at an early age. My position is that, whether it is all or mostly biological, all or mostly environmental, or a healthy combination of both, I do not know for sure, but the evidence I have seen personally and the reading I have done lead me to believe that it's probably a combination. I think it's a biological disposition that meets cues taken from interaction with the outside world. Sexuality could, and probably does, develop quietly as a child begins to react to images and other sensual stimuli and social interaction. If I had to guess, I would say that sexual orientation is strongly shaped between early childhood (4 or 5 years) and early adolescence. The closer to adolescence one gets, the more strongly those cues are embedded into the brain. I would say then that the tempest of hormonal change that takes place during adolescence is probably the trigger point for an individual developing their sexual identity. Obviously, though, we're not psychologists.

 

However, FWIW, while the psychological research leaves a lot of questions unanswered, there is no real definitive proof that sexual orientation is itself a mental illness. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there.

[Dumbledore]

To want to try to marginalise the context of a marriage between a man and a woman in human society - that it made us what we are today - is a dangerous path to take. It will take any meaning out of the human condition, and reduce us to an amorphous blob.

 

The only "marriage" that has any meaning is one between a man and a woman. Anything else is not marriage, but that doesn't stop society from having the freedom to choose any rules they want. Just don't redefine marriage to the point of diluting it to irrelevancy.

 

The gay lobbyist groups think that marriage needs to be redefined so that it loses all meaning. That's spectacularly unfair to all those who value their vows, and don't want their commitment diluted to irrelevancy.

 

Political correctness is here to say that the marriage of a man and a woman is an outdated concept, and has no bearing on the structure of modern society. If you don't find that disturbing, then I don't know what would ever make you think twice.

 

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Any other definition is ludicrous. Soon we will have generalised everything so much that nothing will have any meaning. Once again, the legal buffoons are wasting our valuable time with political correctness. As a gay, I don't want the concept of marriage redefined. If gays want the tax breaks of decent, hard-working families, then they can get them some other way. Civil unions are definitely the right way to proceed. Gay lobbyist groups (which don't speak for gays by and large) jumping on this blatantly self-serving opportunity to dilute the institution of marriage is quite sickening and distasteful.

 

If gays want extra government handouts and privileges, then they can get them some other way. Marriage is off-limits. If the foundation-stone of society we know as marriage gets replaced with a pile of cheap plastic dildos, then we are on shaky ground indeed. It's time for the American family to stand up and be counted. Enough is enough. Gay lobbyist groups must stop with the silly cries for "equal" rights, when you clearly don't qualify for them. Your life is your choice, and you need to accept yourself, and your decision. Take responsibility. If you want to be validated for your life choices, then don't ask society to foot the bill - both culturally and monetarily.

 

As a gay, I don't want to tell married people what their bond means to them, or to redefine the term "marriage" to suit my own ends. Marriage is between a man and a women, and I have no desire to let political correctness devalue a concept central to modern society.

 

Diluting "marriage" is the last thing we should be doing. We have enough worries with the economy, without taking the sledgehammer to the very foundations on which this country was built.

[pollywag]

Fine! Even if you COULD prove that homosexuality was made and not genetic, that still doesn't prove a darn thing on why two homosexuals cannot get married. In two or three threads going on this topic I have yet to see ONE compelling argument as to why marriage should not be for gays? ONE! And trust me I am looking for a good strong convincing argument.

 

 

If you live in North America where we have freedom of religion, it is also equally understood we have freedom from religion. So if you are not partisan to any particular faith then why not allow gays to marry? How do gays marrying really affect hetero marriages? It doesn't!

 

If you can even get married in a humanist ceremony, and marriage IS recognized what other debate other than religion could you possibly have to stop it? Even religion is a weak argument because a good number of people who do get married in churches today are not even practicing the faith they marry under, AT ALL.

[pollywag]

And one more thing...

 

Sodomy in a lot of states WAS illegal, yet that didn't stop a lot of people and men in particular enjoying their little anal escapades with women or sitting in front of the computer fantasizing hours on end watching anal porn on their computers, which I might add the large consumptions of clandestine porn in a relationship causes far more harm to marriages than any two gays getting married. And the argument of why homosexuality is "unnatural" stems pretty much from there. Sodomy was banned from a lot of states as platform for homophones to outcast gays, nothing more nothing less.

 

 

Please, what a hypocritical society we live in.

 

Notice almost all the ones that are predominantly against gay marriages are the men? With the exception of a few women, less than 5 maybe. The rest of the posters in all threads are all for it. Some of the same men who are against it also have admitted they get off on watching gay porn, or enjoy sodomy when it comes to women, or she male porn. But that's ok.

 

"I still want to exploit and capitalize on their freakish nature to get my rocks off in front of the computer when my wife/g/f is not around but don't go telling me these people actually want to take it outside the bedroom and love each other and want to marry one another because that is where I must step in to protect society's better interest!"

Pfft! :rolleyes:

 

All these arguments against are a joke! Not ONE thought provoking argument in favour of keeping gays out.

 

Come back and argue when you have a leg to stand on!

[pollywag]

That's cool. But thinking this is all about you would be a little on the vain side.

 

I think it's about you too Obama. Make it better, I know you can!

[boxing123]

Too strictly address the threads question, I ask

 

How would your people marrying a sheep negatively affect traditional marriage?

 

I realize the above is not between 2 consensual adults. But would your marriage be ruined? No. Would society fall apart tomorrow? No. It would have no effect on you personally. If you disagree with people marrying sheep, are you secretly in love with sheep yourself? No

 

I think most straight pro gay marriage people are simply anti-Christian, or anti what they perceive the right wing to be. Kind of a "haha in your face."

[reservoirdog1]

It isn't anything so dramatic as the "fall of society" its just an increasing coarsening of society

 

And as far as worrying about your childrens sexual identity, thats a valid concern because like Boxing and some of the others Im pretty sure homosexuality is a mental illness. Your presumption that its a genetic predisposition is part of our basic disagreement

 

Dumbledore... I think B4R just called you mentally ill.

[pollywag]

Too strictly address the threads question, I ask

 

How would your people marrying a sheep negatively affect traditional marriage?

 

I realize the above is not between 2 consensual adults.

 

Well, if you realize that then make a conscious effort to stop making a comparison between the union of two human beings, and that of a human being and a four legged woolly beast!

 

Deal?

 

We stopped slavery even though traditionally it dates back to very early beginnings of what historically we have accepted socially? But in time humanity has recognized the evil in slavery and we have done everything we could to abolish it. So we have evolved as a society, and to hold historical "institutional" social practices that are deemed as harmful to us for the sake of keeping "tradition" is ignorant. We have grown out of stupidity in many respects, this is just another way we needed to evolve. Heck in ancient Greece homosexuality was considered the purest form of respect and love men could share for one another, people were not pegged on sexual orientation.

 

 

 

 

I think most straight pro gay marriage people are simply anti-Christian, or anti what they perceive the right wing to be. Kind of a "haha in your face."

 

I think most straight anti gay marriage people are simply bible thumping overzealous closed minded fanatics that are afraid of their homo erotic tendencies and how it would be perceived by their close knit social environment, or anti what they perceive the left wing to be. (making a point, I don't think that!)

 

 

Who cares Boxing where the opinions stem from. Really, who cares?

Let's debate the argument and provide some valid strong points to substantiate them.

 

So far I see nothing in favour of how gay marriage affects straight marriage. I gave a few examples of how actions contradict wishes to impose on society's freedoms, and that to me is pretty big.

When we try to play god and we try to sanction what is correct and what is not for "others" then we need to start by setting a strong example ourselves. If you can't do that then don't bother telling others how they should live.

[Cherry Blossom 35]

Ok, so one poster used the word "dilute" to explain what would happen to the meaning of traditional marriage.

 

So what is that meaning? I think it means different things for different people.

 

1..I think it is important for raising kids to have a solid family home.

 

2. For some it has religious implications.

 

3. For others they want to be officially known as a couple.

 

4. For most it means fidelity.

 

5. It is the tie that binds through the difficult times of life.

 

6. Sometimes one partner is stronger, sometimes the other is.

 

Isn't it the responsibility of the two parties involved in a marriage to uphold its meaning? Is there anyone else, beyond the two people in the marriage, who can make or break that union?

 

Looks to me like the responsibility lies within.

 

Now how exactly is that gay couple down the street going to dilute your marriage?

 

I want some specifics here.

[amerikajin]

You could at least capitalise His name!?

 

You're proving why some of these discussions descend into stupidity. Your comment presupposes that everyone else either does -- or should -- share the same spiritual common ground. You're basically destroying the debate before it has a chance to get started, but then again, that's what religious conservatives do, isn't it? When you can't debate using facts or logic, move the discussion to a position that suits you: your own religious beliefs. That way, nobody can say you're wrong. And you don't have to run the risk of having your ideas seriously impugned. And the result is, you don't ever have to change your attitudes -- unless you want to.

 

I see why a nation of millions blindly accepted hook, line and sinker that Saddam Hussein was a 'gathering threat' to humanity.

[NoIDidn't]

Okay, kajin, it wasn't this serious. He was just expressing a preference IMO. I think you are thinking way too deep on this one. I, too, like to see God with a capital G. For some its simply a preference or almost a pet peeve. Come back down to Earth, K. We miss you.

 

You're proving why some of these discussions descend into stupidity. Your comment presupposes that everyone else either does -- or should -- share the same spiritual common ground. You're basically destroying the debate before it has a chance to get started, but then again, that's what religious conservatives do, isn't it? When you can't debate using facts or logic, move the discussion to a position that suits you: your own religious beliefs. That way, nobody can say you're wrong. And you don't have to run the risk of having your ideas seriously impugned. And the result is, you don't ever have to change your attitudes -- unless you want to.

 

I see why a nation of millions blindly accepted hook, line and sinker that Saddam Hussein was a 'gathering threat' to humanity.

[boxing123]

Pollywag,

 

How do you feel about platonic friends marrying each other of the same sex?

 

For example, 2 divorced women collecting child support, but they are not sexually attracted to females.They just have boy toys. Or 2 guys who marry each other, but have lots of no strings sex with women?

 

Or must they be getting eating each other/having anal sex to be married?

 

Would platonic friends marrying of the same sex, lower the meaning of marriage?

[NoIDidn't]

This is a little off-topic, but someone else mentioned it. I think that being gay is part genetic (like a mutation or recessive gene thing) and part environmental. Let me explain.

 

I grew up with a kid that I knew was gay when he was two. His family hated hearing us kids say it, but it was true. By the time we were teens he was out.

 

I played basketball growing up. I was the only female on the court most of the time. But when I reached high school, I joined the team. Most of the women on the team were gay. Most had horrible stories of rape by stepfathers and other men and thus they vowed to never trust men again. For them, gay was a choice.

 

In the debate for or against gay marriage, however someone came to be gay is moot. I don't think it matters. But I just thought I'd put this out there.

[burning 4 revenge]

 

Please, what a hypocritical society we live in.

 

Notice almost all the ones that are predominantly against gay marriages are the men? With the exception of a few women, less than 5 maybe. The rest of the posters in all threads are all for it. Some of the same men who are against it also have admitted they get off on watching gay porn, or enjoy sodomy when it comes to women, or she male porn. But that's ok.

 

"I still want to exploit and capitalize on their freakish nature to get my rocks off in front of the computer when my wife/g/f is not around but don't go telling me these people actually want to take it outside the bedroom and love each other and want to marry one another because that is where I must step in to protect society's better interest!"

Pfft! :rolleyes:

And your point is?

[amerikajin]

To want to try to marginalise the context of a marriage between a man and a woman in human society - that it made us what we are today - is a dangerous path to take. It will take any meaning out of the human condition, and reduce us to an amorphous blob.

 

How is this dangerous? Please enlighten me -- what are you afraid of? What tragedy is waiting to send our society to ruin?

 

The only "marriage" that has any meaning is one between a man and a woman. Anything else is not marriage, but that doesn't stop society from having the freedom to choose any rules they want. Just don't redefine marriage to the point of diluting it to irrelevancy.

 

I think a marriage is ultimately an issue between the two people who get married. In all seriousness, with no less than half of the heterosexual marriages failing, one could easily make an argument that they have already done a great job of making marriage "irrelevant" or "meaningless". Seriously, what about those vows "Til death do us part"...half of the people end up eating their words. If you want to talk about protecting the marriage, then let's start there.

 

The gay lobbyist groups think that marriage needs to be redefined so that it loses all meaning. That's spectacularly unfair to all those who value their vows, and don't want their commitment diluted to irrelevancy.

 

I refer you to what I just wrote above. It seems to me people need to worry more about making their own marriage work than they should worry about what the two "roommates" across the street are doing when they turn out the lights at night.

 

Political correctness is here to say that the marriage of a man and a woman is an outdated concept, and has no bearing on the structure of modern society. If you don't find that disturbing, then I don't know what would ever make you think twice.

 

"Political correctness"...is code for "I don't really have anything intelligent to add to this discussion so I'll start by bashing left-wing pinko commies!"

 

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Any other definition is ludicrous. Soon we will have generalised everything so much that nothing will have any meaning. Once again, the legal buffoons are wasting our valuable time with political correctness.

 

Yep, you said the magic phrase again.

 

As a gay, I don't want the concept of marriage redefined. If gays want the tax breaks of decent, hard-working families, then they can get them some other way. Civil unions are definitely the right way to proceed. Gay lobbyist groups (which don't speak for gays by and large) jumping on this blatantly self-serving opportunity to dilute the institution of marriage is quite sickening and distasteful.

 

Are you an Uncle Tom, er, Uncle 'Toine???

[NoIDidn't]

Pollywag,

 

How do you feel about platonic friends marrying each other of the same sex?

 

For example, 2 divorced women collecting child support, but they are not sexually attracted to females.They just have boy toys. Or 2 guys who marry each other, but have lots of no strings sex with women?

 

Or must they be getting eating each other/having anal sex to be married?

 

Would platonic friends marrying of the same sex, lower the meaning of marriage?

 

Not polly, but wanted to answer.

 

I think I understand what you are trying to say, but you aren't understanding why others are telling you it doesn't matter. In cultures where marriages are arranged when people are children and basically strangers to each other, it doesn't lower the value of marriage.

 

I don't even know why you mentioned anal sex here. Hetero couples do this too. And it doesn't lower the value of their marriages. In fact, to some, it probably raises their value. LOL.

 

I think, and this is just my thinking, that we aren't talking about people trying to game the system, per se. We are talking about couples that have been together just like a hetero couple - just being together in a committed relationship - that want the same recognition and rights that the hetero couple is given by default.

 

Your argument doesn't hold water basically because it disrespects the fact that we are talking about adults in a committed relationship. Not just some jokers off the street.

 

I am on the fence emotionally, but rationally don't see an argument that keeps gays from getting legally married and recognized as such. Loosen up that rigid thinking so you stop, as polly said, comparing apples to oranges.

[amerikajin]

I played basketball growing up. I was the only female on the court most of the time. But when I reached high school' date=' I joined the team. Most of the women on the team were gay. Most had horrible stories of rape by stepfathers and other men and thus they vowed to never trust men again. For them, gay was a choice.[/quote']

 

I think the term "choice" is inaccurate and misleading. Not trusting men is not a choice; that's their feeling based on their own experiences. People don't choose to be afraid of spiders or snakes. People don't really choose to be attracted to hard-bodied, well-toned, tan-skinned women and they can't help it if they're not attracted to overweight women. Probably in all of the examples I mentioned, there is an environmental component which has played a significant role in the psycho-social development of an individual. I don't think these are totally useful analogies to elucidate sexual orientation but there are some parallels, I think.

[nittygritty]

and okaying gay marriages is going to keep the divorce rate down?

 

not sure what your experience is, but I can think of one gay couple that I've known in my lifetime that has upheld the kind of bond that would be considered a "true marriage" in sense of the word. My single friends want to be in committed relationships, but I've noticed that among the gay ones, it's much, much harder to successfully attain that. As if engaging in a gay lifestyle is a kind of living out a forbidden fantasy, and therefore short-lived and/or disposable.

 

The great decline in the number of heterosexual marriages is keeping the divorce rate down. However, the birth rate has significantly increased. A record number of births occurred in 2007 and 40 percent of those babies were born out-of-wedlock.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/18/national/main4873969.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4873969

 

One of my friends got divorced because she found out her husband was gay. So perhaps fewer closeted homosexuals would marry heterosexuals if marriage wasn't "forbidden" to gays.

[pollywag]

Pollywag,

 

How do you feel about platonic friends marrying each other of the same sex?

 

For example, 2 divorced women collecting child support, but they are not sexually attracted to females.They just have boy toys. Or 2 guys who marry each other, but have lots of no strings sex with women?

 

Or must they be getting eating each other/having anal sex to be married?

 

Would platonic friends marrying of the same sex, lower the meaning of marriage?

 

Yes I understood your point earlier and I meant to respond to it because a lot of people did not understand what you meant, of course people marry "friends" but that was not your question. Your questions was for example I like my best friend and want to spend the rest of my life with them and so I whimsically decide I want to marry her/him because the law now allows for bffs to marry.

 

That's a good point.

 

I suppose the idea for me is that I don't see the point in that, because first of all if I hapen to believe in marriage, why would I want to use up my chance at marrying a man by marrying my best friend? That would produce a lot of problems for my dating life and cause problems in terms of what I would want to achieve romantically. Also if I don't believe in marriage but do want to date a man then how would that work if I am already married to my best friend? So I don't see the point in that.

 

Now if two people decide "I give up on love, and I want to marry my best friend" even though we are not going to form a romantic partnership we do want to live together in companionship, well I think people must be doing that already anyway so why not? Marriage means different things to different people. And you don't need me to tell you that.

 

When was the last time you spoke to a couple who got married in a Christian wedding and they both kept their virginity until their honeymoon night? i mean that alone tells you the types of concessions we have made along the way to accommodate our "needs" as we socially became more

self-serving and autonomous in our personal life goals.

 

So the message is, let me make sure I am understanding it:

 

So long as the social changes we make benefit ME as an individual then I am all for reform. If it doesn't, then we need to stick to tradition?

[pollywag]

And your point is?

 

 

Oh I'm sorry I didn't realize you don't read English.

[boxing123]

Look..

 

When a man puts his penis into a woman, it creates life.

 

That is basically why the concept of marriage was created. It is not perfect and does not always work,(similar to democracy) but it is the best we have to form a functioning society. It is there to protect women, protect children, and also to stop men from straying, as it is basically illegal to cheat.

 

If a man puts his penis into a grapefruit,a sheep, or another guys anus the result is the same. No life is created. Except in some cases diseases are spread without the chance of ever creating a life.

 

Now some say "But not all married people can have kids or want kids"

 

This is true. But WITHOUT children in the equation at all, (as an example if people spontaneously reproduced somehow) marriage would be 100% unneeded, and would not exist. It was not constructed with the idea of men marrying men, or friends of the same sex marrying each other.

[RecordProducer]

Traditional marriage reasons are set up to protect family, children, and usually women whom are vulnerable during child birth. And yes, people who will never have kids also get married, but to be honest there really is not much of a need for people such as 2 senior citizens to marry, etc.

I understand what you're saying, Boxing. However, your reasoning is "Why would they get married?"

Why wouldn't they?

 

Heterosexual marriages also face limitations: you cannot marry if you're already married, if you're a child, if you're coerced into marriage, if you're mentally incapabale to make a decision, etc. These statutes were written to protect the civil rights of those individuals.

 

When a heterosexual couple wants to get married, nobody is asking them WHY they want to get married. So, instead of focusing on the question why gays should marry, focus on the "Why shouldn't they get married?"

Your assertion that "there is no need for that" - is neither in accordance with civil rights and freedom of choice nor any of your f*cking business.

[burning 4 revenge]

Look..

 

When a man puts his penis into a woman, it creates life.

 

That is basically why the concept of marriage was created. It is not perfect and does not always work,(similar to democracy) but it is the best we have to form a functioning society. It is there to protect women, protect children, and also to stop men from straying, as it is basically illegal to cheat.

 

If a man puts his penis into a grapefruit,a sheep, or another guys anus the result is the same. No life is created. Except in some cases diseases are spread without the chance of ever creating a life.

 

Now some say "But not all married people can have kids or want kids"

 

This is true. But WITHOUT children in the equation at all, (as an example if people spontaneously reproduced somehow) marriage would be 100% unneeded, and would not exist. It was not constructed with the idea of men marrying men, or friends of the same sex marrying each other.

whats that expression?

 

"theyve become so openminded their brains fell out"

 

this comes to mind

[IrishCarBomb]

When a man puts his penis into a woman, it creates life.

 

God I hope not... If this is true, I'm going to owe a ridiculous amount of child support to my exes.