How exactly will Gay Marriage harm Marriage as an Institution?

What is the benefit to society as a whole from any marriage? Marriage, in general, is a lifestyle choice, sexuality is not. Homosexuals being denied the right to legally marry is not the same as enslaving a whole race of people. No civil rights movement can be viewed against another. Each one has unique struggles and difficulties to overcome. What is the benefit to society by denying homosexuals the right to marry? Gay marriage is a civil rights issue, though, just as interracial marrigae was not so long ago.

 

HuckFinn:
I am surprised by your highly juvenile and innapropriate title for this post. It seems out of character, or so I thought. What is this post inferring?

Aside from this post, can you look at this or any issue separately from religion. I am not interested in what the Bible or Jesus "said" about anything. Arguments should be based in fact and reason, and should never imply that something is true because a very old fairy tale said so. Religion does not provide basis for a cogent argument.

 

I was simply reveling the slap in the face this election gave to those who've sought to judicially impose a radical redefinition of marriage on an unwilling populace.

I've provided plenty of "secular" support for my position here. Of course, family structure is ultimately an issue of morality, which is hard to separate from one's worldview. However, Christians are hardly the only people concerned about nuclear family dissolution.

 

I'm sorry, but sexuality may be an inherent aspect of being a living creature, but how humans express their sexuality is very much a choice. Granted there are a few exceptions as genetically something can go wrong, but humans possess the capability of making choices, of differentiating between right and wrong. Sorry, but there clearly is a right and wrong in this issue, but I guess that's hard for many to accept since we live in a society where values are routinely stomped on in the media.

As for how marriage benefits society "as a whole"--well, there's much evidence to suggest that children who are raised in a traditional nuclear family tend to be better people. Marriage is not really a "lifestyle choice" as you would have it, but rather a natural outgrowth of natural human behaviour; namely, that humans have found that the most appropriate manner by which a man and a woman can have children and raise them is to do so together; the fundamental basis for the union is the fact that the man and women biologically produce the child, something that homosexuals are incapable of doing.

So no, gay marriage is not a civil rights issue, just like my being denied entry into a jazz band because I don't know how to play an instrument is not a civil rights issue.

 

Well put! See http://www.cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader$1178.

 

That's interesting that you should claim that "arguments should be based in fact and reason" because that's clearly something that doesn't bode well for proponents of same-sex marriage. Which is why proponents of same-sex marriage try to appeal to peoples emotions through esotiric arguments, or, even less fact and reason-based, resort to intimidation and insults in order to force their agenda on people.

 

Should infertile couples, or couples who simply do not want children be allowed to marry? Homosexual parenting is not very commonplace, so what exactly is the risk to children? Most children from troubled homes have heterosexual parents. It is a civil rights issue. Joining a jazz band, or being excluded from one, does not provide or preclude you from any rights that the population at large enjoys. Being permitted or prohibited from marrying does. What is the "right and wrong" answer regarding homosexuality? Where is a good argument against same-sex marriage, outside of religion? How on earth could it effect anothers marriage? Is it the traditional definition of marriage that you want to preserve? This is a very weak argument, as language constantly evolves, but I will concede. Call it something else, if that helps you sleep at night. This argument is based solely on semantics. Same-sex marriage benefits the state in many of the same ways traditional marriage does, such as: reduced medicaid recipients, reduced welfare recipients, reduced disenfranchised persons, reduced transmission of STD's, etc. I just don't see how, from a legal perspective, same-sex marriage should be prohibited. I can understand religious, or even personal arguments against it. I just do not understand the basis of this extreme form of institutional discrimination.

 

I figured you'd bring up infertile couples. Being infertile is not a lifestyle choice, nor is it always known whether the couple is incapable of having children. But regardless of whether they are capable of having children, the fact remains that this inability to have children does not stem from the fact both are from the same sex.

Nothing about my argument has anything to do with semantics. And my analogy, which you obviously can't understand, underscores that. In order to have a right to something, you have to be qualified to have that right. If I can't play an instrument, then there's no reason for me to have the "right" to play on a jazz band. Hence my exclusion is not a civil rights issue. If I was capable of playing an instrument very well, and I was excluded from the band because of my skin colour, that's a civil rights issue. The fact of the matter is that there are several prerequisites to being permitted to marry, and being gay is not one of them.

I find it very interesting how you claim that my argument is "weak" and then go on to state that gay marriage is beneficial because: "reduced medicaid recipients, reduced welfare recipients, reduced disenfranchised persons, reduced transmission of STD's, etc." Moreover, you state that most gay marriages are not about wanting children. Oh really? That's far from the case. Many gay couples want children, and pro-gay organizations stress the fact that gay couples make excellent parents, and that having gay parents in no way is detrimental to the children, ie. makes it more likely that the child will also be gay. I find this hard to believe.

Actually, from a legal persepctive, there's really no way that gay marriage can be permitted, since, like incest, just about every culture has a taboo against homosexuality. And there are good reasons why these two sexual preferences are considered taboo--because they do ultimately undermine society. I also find it interesting how people such as yourself will strongly argue in favour of gay marriage, but should suggest that logically this should mean that you support incest as well, you become morally outraged.

Or maybe you don't: in your opinion, is it okay for a brother and sister or a father and his daughter to engage in a sexual relationship, or even get married? If they really love each other more than, certainly you won't argue against their "right" to get married, will you?

 

LIke I had stated before (with my 4 times divorced step-father as an example), the sanctity of marriage has long been corrupted by heterosexual couples. Divorce, abuse, adultery, etc. Allow two men to marry each other or two women to marry each other affects other's lives in no way what so ever. Get over yourselves.

 

I see, so because some people are incapable of maintaining their marriages, I have no right to suggest that homosexuals shouldn't be permitted to marry? I don't think so.

I never said anything about the "sanctity" of marriage, nor did I say that all marriages are perfect and ideal. This all has to do with what is right and wrong.

Interesting how you don't address the issue of incest. I take it that because you are silent on the issue that you either 1) realize that by expressing condemnation for the practice you're a complete hypocrite, or 2) that you find it perfectly normal.

 

Incest, with the exception of the occasional Jerry Springer guest, is a relationship based in dominance/power, and is not a relationship based on consensual love. The state has a very compelling interest in protecting daughters from sexual abuse from their fathers/brothers. What is the states compelling interest in prohibiting same-sex marriage (or unions, partnerships, etc)?

Many gay partnerships do want children, but it is far from most. Even if most do want children, prohibiting same-sex unions will not stop them from having children, just as heterosexuals are not required to marry in order to reproduce. If your argument is based on the best interest of children, this is a weak argument again. The amount of offspring produced by homosexuals would be such a small percent of all children, your crusade for the children would be much more productive if you focused on heterosexual families. If I understand you correctly, gay parents have a higher probability of producing gay offspring? This is absurd. I have never met a gay person who was not the product of heterosexual parents. Furthermore, I cannot locate ANY study done on children raised by gay men, but studies done on lesbian families have suggested that they raise children who are very well adjusted, even more so than their peers.

How about couples who choose not to procreate? Isn't that a "lifestyle choice?"

 

Interacial marriage was also taboo. In some cultures, it was taboo to engage in sexual relations with women except for the sole purpose of procreation. Sexual relations for pleasure were homosexual. Do you believe that a democracy is a majority wins, mob mentality type of society?

As for the jazz band, you don't have to have any special qualifications in order to get married, only specific genitalia. Genitalia should not entitle one to preffered rights and status in the legal realm.

 

PS, Blackie, no closet case here...just a child recruiting queer, undermining society, destroying families, spreading HIV, and coordinating window treatments; coming to a town near you...

 

The moral majority in this country sickens me. All this talk about the nuclear family suffering, blah blah blah.... you do know that this exact same argument was made against women during the 60's? Oh, how the family will suffer if they leave the kitchen!

This issue is simply about civil rights. All arguments suggesting otherwise are moral delusions, imo, of course. "Treat others the way you want to be treated" ... yeah, right...

 

If the situation exists where a parent has forced their child into a sexual relationship, that's abuse, not incest; incest is a sexual relationship between say first cousins or a brother and a sister. My question is, if a brother and sister "love" each other so much that they want to have sexual relations or get married, do you think that they have the "right" to do so. They are consenting adults, right? And they are capable of loving any off-spring that they may produce, right?

You are very naive. One of the key factors in a child's development is the example and impression that they receive from their parents. If children are raised in a household where the father beats the mother repeatedly, studies have shown that the children when they grow up are more likely to be abusive if they're boys, more likely to seek such abusive relationships if they're girls. You can't honestly suggest that this can be the case, yet children who are raised by homosexual parents will somehow be able to make an objective determination as to their sexuality. That's utterly ludicrous. Homosexuals know that if they have children then they can influence them into believing their deviant lifestyle choice as normal. This is how all groups who have attempted to effect social change have gone about it; be it Christians with Sunday School, the Nazis with the Hitler Youth, or corporate America with its ad campaigns directed toward the youth demographic.

Studies have shown that the most stable and adjusted children are those who have been raise in traditional nuclear families in which the parents have a healthy and stable relationship.

How about couples who choose not to procreate? Isn't that a "lifestyle choice?"

No, not really. This is a perfectly natural occurence; it's happened all throught history as a means of regulating population, and has nothing to do with being a "lifestyle choice".
[/QUOTE]

 

No, I don't think that interracial marriage was a taboo as was the case with incest and homosexuality. Certain societies and cultures have developed strong beliefs about interracial marriage, but it's not really a widespread taboo. If you look at the Inuit or Native Americans, for instance, they readily accepted other races into their societies. There's really no comparison between interracial marriage and homosexuality.

 

I could listen to excuses all my life for why homosexual couples don't deserve the same rights as straight couples and never hear a good one.

 

I'm going to say something very unpopular here, but gay's should not be allowed to get married. What's next a farmer marrying his animals. A person marrying one of their materialistic items they own. We have to draw the line somewhere. Marriage is the covenant between a man and a woman. Marriage is based on religion, despite whether people want to admit it or not. God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

 

The American Psychology Association, who's link is right here: http://www.apa.org/pi/l&gbib.html
has conducted a whole ton of studies on this subject and found your statement above to be incorrect.

 

Then please follow-up with a seperation of church and state and remove the 1,440 economic advantages that married couples receive.