How exactly does gay marriage negatively affect traditional marriage?

[angie2443]

I answered it pretty direct. I don't really think about it. If society expected me to be gay, I am sure that I would be pushed in that direction. I can't say that I would do it.... because I didn't grow up in NY or Hollywood, so I've never experienced pressure to be gay.

 

You honestly think there is pressure to be gay in NY and Holloywood???

 

Your ignorance is just disturbing.

[angie2443]

Here. This says it all.

 

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd10/Kairiste/gaymarriage.gif

 

This pretty much sums it up. Really, homosexual people make up a relatively small percentage of the population anyways. The idea that the institution of marriage is going to fall apart if they are allowed to married makes no sense.

[Untouchable_Fire]

One last thing - gays are fighting for the right to get married, because people has yet to come up with a title for something that affords them the same exact rights as any married couple. Civil unions - fine, but they are still not legally the same as married.

From the gay people I know, they don't care what it's called, so long as they have the EXACT SAME RIGHTS as a married couple. So instead of pussyfooting around and coming up with some name for something that is the same damn thing as marriage, how about they just be allowed to get "MARRIED"?

 

If they didn't care about what it is called, then we wouldn't be fighting over this.

 

It isn't a marriage, so why call it that. It's clearly something different and should have it's own name. That would protect the legal rights of those who object to it.

 

Isn't that what this is really about though? People who hate religion and the church are trying to get the right to sue it. They want to force their own code of morality on the citizens of this country at the point of a legal sword.

[reservoirdog1]

Many people, myself included, accept that certain people are indeed born homosexual and can't help it. We still believe that it is quite possibly better for those people to try to restrain their sexual activity as much as possible, and for those who are bisexual to try as much as possible to make heterosexual pairings. I look at this the same as encouraging a person who does not exercise to take up walking. It may be a little more difficult but it is better for them over all.

 

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'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.

 

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.

 

No evidence has been presented to indicate that being gay is, in and of itself, a contributing actor to diminished emotional health. The only risk factor that does contribute to such problems is having to deal with the hatred gay people get from homophobes, whether their parents, schoolmates, or strangers.

 

So, I guess we could say that, if gay people could force themselves to "stop being gay", it would be "better for them overall"... because they wouldn't have to deal with the struggle to get bigots and homophobes to leave them the fyck alone, let them be who they are without trying to "change" them, or preventing them from having the same rights straight people take for granted. But why sould they have to "stop being gay"?

 

That's a whole different topic, about which I understand many people disagree. The point is that social conservatives have strong reservations about giving society's stamp of approval to activity that we consider harmful and unhealthy. Consider that male homosexual activity on average reduces life expectancy at least as much as smoking.

 

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.

[KikiW]

If they didn't care about what it is called, then we wouldn't be fighting over this.

 

It isn't a marriage, so why call it that. It's clearly something different and should have it's own name. That would protect the legal rights of those who object to it.

 

Isn't that what this is really about though? People who hate religion and the church are trying to get the right to sue it. They want to force their own code of morality on the citizens of this country at the point of a legal sword.

 

I'm sure there are plenty of gay people who DO care what it's called, but what is the point of calling it something else (such as "civil union") if that's what it is!

 

Nowhere does it legally state that marriage is for the perpetuation of the human species (unless we are discussing religious definitions, and considering how many different religious beliefs there are in the world, we cannot just "pick one" and go with that, so let's leave religious beliefs out of this). Nor is there legal requirement for a woman and a man who are married to have children. There are plenty of married couples who never have children. Therefor the argument that marriage should be only between a man and a woman so they can have babies has to be tossed out. This does not take into consideration that many gay women can and DO become pregnant in order to have children, or that gay couples have the option to adopt.

 

So, taking out the baby argument, what reason do people get married for?

 

They get married for the reasons of love, happiness. They also get married for the financial reasons - tax breaks, etc. They also get married for legal reasons such as power of attorney and wills and estates.

 

Why should gay couples not be afforded the same rights and benefits of a married man and woman? There is no reason, therefor they should be allowed to marry.

[39388]

You did marginalize the experience of African Americans. That's why I objected to your analogy in the first place. Gay people have had a hard time of it in the past, but it's not even in the same ballpark as a people held in bondage and persecuted at every level for their skin color. You can't hide your skin.

 

As to the rest. I will take your silence as an apology.

Wrong again. The accusation you make against me is so far off base it isn't even funny. You marginalize what gay people go through. I have seen it (years ago) and it is sick. They include complete rejection by their families and loss of friends. There were even threats against them and they also got beaten up.

 

If you want to call me not having the time to respond to the rest of your nonsensical positions an apology, then I won't stop you from living in your dream world.

[Untouchable_Fire]

I'm sorry, I am unaware that growing up in those areas meant you were pressured to be gay. Can you please explain where you get that information, particularly since you say you didn't grow up there?

I've lived all my life in northern NJ, know many people from the NY area, so I am confused as to where all this pressure is since I have not witnessed it.

 

I was exaggerating. I apologize if I made it seem like that was fact. It's just a perception for some who live outside those communities.

 

You honestly think there is pressure to be gay in NY and Holloywood???

Your ignorance is just disturbing.

 

You can't even spell it correctly and you want to call me ignorant?

 

Clearly I was not being serious, or I would have said prison.

 

I haven't seen the answer either. It's not impossible to answer, at least for ME, but my sexuality is absolutely hetero, so there's no question. I can sit here and think to myself, "Hmmm... what would it be like to kiss another woman?" and picture myself trying, and it turns my stomach.

 

Is that your point? That you don't have a choice?

 

Read what Pollywag wrote. That is how it works. Chances are that you and I are just naturally farther up the Hetero scale than others. Does that mean we could not change...

[39388]

Yup. Gays are beaten up ALL THE TIME and even murdered simply for being gay.

 

Dream world? Nightmare world is more like it.

I do want to say that most of my observations of this hate were from about 15 years ago. A gay person in my dorm was about the most hated person just for being gay. I didn't know him well, but I know he went through he** living there. The anti gay slurs were continual and I got into some nasty exchanges with some of these anti gay students over their gay bashing. Only a few other students were on my side. Around campus, there was a lot of anti gay hate from the conservative majority at the school. In addition a gay friend had to hide it from his parents because he knew he would be disowned if they found out. Nightmare indeed.

 

Where I live now in a liberal big city, there seems to be much more acceptance. There's still some homophobia though.

 

The nation is going in the right direction as a whole on this issue, but it is much too slow for many gay people. Especially those who live in areas where the hate is still white hot.

[Untouchable_Fire]

Wrong again. The accusation you make against me is so far off base it isn't even funny. You marginalize what gay people go through. I have seen it (years ago) and it is sick. They include complete rejection by their families and loss of friends. There were even threats against them and they also got beaten up.

If you want to call me not having the time to respond to the rest of your nonsensical positions an apology, then I won't stop you from living in your dream world.

 

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.

[Untouchable_Fire]

NOW we're getting somewhere!

I did. She agrees with me.

I know I can't. But the question remains unanswered. How about you?

 

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.

[amerikajin]

I think it mildly amusing to read some of the posts in apparent opposition to gayness or gay marriage. I can understand it if someone is against gay marriage, even when I disagree with their viewpoints. I think some people see gay marriage as something that greatly redefines marriage according to our own cultural norms and traditions, and I would agree with that: it does change the definition for sure. I guess what I disagree with is that changing that definition is necessarily harmful to our society -- I can think of a lot of other things we ought to be spending our time and energy debating.

 

But I also generally agree with some of the observations made earlier: I think the overwhelming majority of people -- not all, but the overwhelming majority -- who are anti gay marriage are also probably to a large degree anti-gay. Maybe not in a strong sense, and maybe they're not even aware of it. But I see people bringing up the supposed reasons why we shouldn't allow gay marriage, such as that it's bad for public health and that it's psychologically disturbing and what not, and I am left to conclude that indeed these people are really anti-gay, not just anti-gay marriage.

 

I think people who are anti-gay actually share a lot in common with other types of bigots. In my experience, bigots can actually be generally nice and decent people in a lot of ways; they're just intolerant of people who don't fit within their immediate community. I've met racists and anti-semites who are basically nice people, but they're still racist and anti-semitic, and I don't care for their attitudes. I think the same applies to a lot of homophobes -- they're often nice people and decent in many ways. But their intolerance is still offensive.

 

I think people who are anti-gay aren't necessarily confused or insecure about their own sexuality. I'd say probably 98 percent of them are straight and they know they're straight. However, I think that they're very concerned about they're sexual identity, which is different entirely from one's sexuality. What I mean is that while someone might be confident about their sexuality and know that they are indeed straight, someone can simultaneously be lacking in confidence about their sexual identity, which is the image they project about their sexuality. I think people who lack confidence about their sexual identity are worried about what other people around them think about their sexuality. I would be willing to wager that people who have strong biases against gays were probably influenced by other people around them (friends and family) who are also anti-gay. As humans are social animals, we are always worried about fitting in with the rest of the group. If we spend time trying to gain acceptance and maintain our status in a community of people who are concerned about the impact of gays on the community, then it shouldn't be surprising that being anti-gay is going to be one of the key criteria (among many) that will determine the strength of these social bonds within this community. In my opinion, people who are anti-gay are worried that some of the more important people in their lives are going to shun them from the group if they appear to be less than masculine, less than macho, or God forbid, less than straight. That's why many of these people will sometimes go to great lengths to prove to others that they aren't a "fag". They'll crack a gay joke. They'll make fun of gays. More moderate voices will probably just clearly disassociate with gays and voice opinions about their opposition to gay conduct.

 

I don't know, but to me the word "fag" is just a word that describes someone (basically a male) who is a male but doesn't have a lot of manly courage. I know straight people who are stand-up guys, and by that some token, I know straight guys who are fags.

[KikiW]

I was exaggerating. I apologize if I made it seem like that was fact. It's just a perception for some who live outside those communities.

 

I think we may have just nailed part of the problem here then. Some people have a PERCEPTION of what it's like inside those communities. Where do they get that perception? Obviously not from people who actually live there, so where is it coming from?

 

How easy would it be for someone who does not agree with homosexuals to say to their friends and family "oh well of COURSE you have more gay characters on TV, all those f-ggots are running the place now." So subconsciously people think gays are not only bad, but are running the entertainment industry.

 

Let me give you an example of how someone can be given a false perception... My boyfriend's parents lost their home during Katrina. One day we were talking about it and he made a very nasty comment about Governor Blanco being a stupid b*tch for not declaring a state of emergency until well after the storm hit. Having followed the situation carefully, I was pretty sure that was untrue, and sure enough, after researching it, the fact was that she declared it DAYS before it hit. So I asked him where he got his information... friends and family. I asked what news outlet they followed. Would it be a shock if I told you they mostly watch FOX?

 

So somewhere along the way someone gave you the impression that's how things are on the east and west coasts. Your statement is suggesting that there is some sort of "recruitment drive" or something, except that you don't actually know this. Someone else comes along in these forums, reads your statement, and perpetuates the "perception" - a perception that has no basis.

 

I'm not trying to pick at you, except to point out that gay people have had to push back against being discriminated against in almost every area of life, when I have yet to see any reasonable explanation that it should be acceptable. Arguments given seem to be based on personal opinion, opinion which may have been influenced by false perceptions.

[Untouchable_Fire]

Perhaps under the right circumstances YOU could be attracted to a donkey, since you're so hell bent on believing that sexual attraction is a choice, but not me.

You still never answered the question. That means one of two things:

1) We're right. Gayness is NOT a choice, or;

2) You're not sure of your sexual identity.

Which is it?

 

Do you really think it just comes down to those two options? That conclusion isn't rational. Do you really cling to the assumption that anyone who doesn't back gay marriage has sexual identity issues?

 

I was born with a preference for women, and I have chosen to follow that preference.

 

We are simply not going to agree on this.

[Untouchable_Fire]

I think we may have just nailed part of the problem here then. Some people have a PERCEPTION of what it's like inside those communities. Where do they get that perception? Obviously not from people who actually live there, so where is it coming from?

 

I'm not trying to pick at you, except to point out that gay people have had to push back against being discriminated against in almost every area of life, when I have yet to see any reasonable explanation that it should be acceptable. Arguments given seem to be based on personal opinion, opinion which may have been influenced by false perceptions.

 

That perception problem exists both ways!

 

The issue at hand has nothing to do with discrimination. I have yet to hear anyone say that gays don't deserve all the rights of straight people.

 

The issue IS about Pro-gay people pushing their world view onto everyone else. I get a strong feeling that this is backed mostly by hatemongers and bigots who want to restrict religious rights.

[Untouchable_Fire]

No, it means JUST what I said. Either you're not sure whether you're sexually attracted to men or women, or gay people are just born the way they are.

 

Thank you for proving my point by continuing to refuse to REALLY answer my question.

 

You don't have a real question. Your just trying to loudly making a false statement.

 

No matter how many times you repeat it... it will never be true outside of your own personal fantasy world.

[Untouchable_Fire]

I'm sure there are plenty of gay people who DO care what it's called, but what is the point of calling it something else (such as "civil union") if that's what it is!

Nowhere does it legally state that marriage is for the perpetuation of the human species (unless we are discussing religious definitions, and considering how many different religious beliefs there are in the world, we cannot just "pick one" and go with that, so let's leave religious beliefs out of this). Nor is there legal requirement for a woman and a man who are married to have children. There are plenty of married couples who never have children. Therefor the argument that marriage should be only between a man and a woman so they can have babies has to be tossed out. This does not take into consideration that many gay women can and DO become pregnant in order to have children, or that gay couples have the option to adopt.

So, taking out the baby argument, what reason do people get married for?

They get married for the reasons of love, happiness. They also get married for the financial reasons - tax breaks, etc. They also get married for legal reasons such as power of attorney and wills and estates.

Why should gay couples not be afforded the same rights and benefits of a married man and woman? There is no reason, therefor they should be allowed to marry.

 

Oh, I missed this one. Kiki, I agree with you one most of this.

 

However the difference in a court of law is VERY important. If my church refuses to do a "marriage" ceremony for a gay couple... we can be sued in a court of law. If my church refuses a "civil union" it isn't legally liable.

 

So, you may think that the terms are meaningless, but in fact they can have huge consequences. The people who are fighting for this know that, and they want to take away our freedom.

 

If you call it a civil union, everybody gains freedom. Call it a marriage, and you remove people's rights and begin imposing thoughts on them. There are some situations where that needs to happen. This is not one of them.

[KikiW]

That perception problem exists both ways!

 

The issue at hand has nothing to do with discrimination. I have yet to hear anyone say that gays don't deserve all the rights of straight people.

 

The issue IS about Pro-gay people pushing their world view onto everyone else. I get a strong feeling that this is backed mostly by hatemongers and bigots who want to restrict religious rights.

 

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.

[Island Girl]

Untouchable Fire

 

You say you can choose whom you are attracted to.

 

That is to say a gay male can choose not to be attracted to men and can choose to be attracted to women.

 

If that is in fact the case, then according to your theory, it works in reverse as well correct?

 

That said, Can you summon feelings, romantic or sexual feelings for another man?

[IrishCarBomb]

If my church refuses to do a "marriage" ceremony for a gay couple... we can be sued in a court of law. If my church refuses a "civil union" it isn't legally liable.

 

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.

 

"These principles require that the state recognize both opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriage. Religious doctrine and views contrary to this principle of law are unaffected, and people can continue to associate with the religion that best reflects their views. A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman..."

[KikiW]

Oh, I missed this one. Kiki, I agree with you one most of this.

 

However the difference in a court of law is VERY important. If my church refuses to do a "marriage" ceremony for a gay couple... we can be sued in a court of law. If my church refuses a "civil union" it isn't legally liable.

 

So, you may think that the terms are meaningless, but in fact they can have huge consequences. The people who are fighting for this know that, and they want to take away our freedom.

 

If you call it a civil union, everybody gains freedom. Call it a marriage, and you remove people's rights and begin imposing thoughts on them. There are some situations where that needs to happen. This is not one of them.

 

Okay, first thing is - can you cite me where the church is opened up to lawsuits based on the terminology? I was unable to find that online and would like to review the information.

 

Secondly, I was not married in a church, but was married to a man. Can only people who are married in a church be called "married"? Or would I have to call myself "civil unioned"?

[Island Girl]

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.

 

I thought so.

 

Thanks for clarifying IrishCarBomb.

[IrishCarBomb]

You CAN choose to not be gay.

 

I think that if it was a choice, there is no way Ted Haggard would have chosen to be gay.

[Island Girl]

I think that if it was a choice, there is no way Ted Haggard would have chosen to be gay.

 

That is a fact.

 

I don't know who would choose to set themselves up for discrimination and the possible loss of the family they have known their entire lives - their only source of support.

 

Besides the issue with MAKING yourself be attracted to people that you really aren't.

 

I see beautiful people all over the place. I can appreciate a beautiful woman. But when I try to imagine any types of romantic gestures I just am shut down.

I just am not in any way attracted or stimulated by the thought of a woman.

 

I can't force it to change. It just isn't there.

 

So of course I can understand and accept without question what it is when someone says it is what they are attracted to and they can't change it.

[Tired03]

Isn't that what this is really about though? People who hate religion and the church are trying to get the right to sue it. They want to force their own code of morality on the citizens of this country at the point of a legal sword.

 

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.

[serial muse]

Best parody I've seen of that silly "Gathering Storm" anti-gay-marriage ad: