How exactly will Gay Marriage harm Marriage as an Institution?

Ok so let's not let them get married, but give them the economic advantages. I agree with that.

 

You are making an underlying assumption here that is totally false. Just because same-sex couples are denied the legal benefits of marriage does not mean that they are any less likely to raise children. What you have to ask yourself, then, is the following: Are these children better off if their parents have the legal benefits of marriage (e.g. health insurance) or not? I think this is a no brainer, they are obviously better off.

Alex

 

Yes, here it comes now. If the government allows gays to marry, then man and animal will follow. Well they should! If a farmer gets attached to an animal and decides to marry it instead of sending it to slaughter, I say God bless! It would, arguably, be better for the animal than death.

Do we really need to demonstrate the difference between to consenting adults and situations where one partner cannot give consent?

Tell me folks, do we actually need the government to tell us that we can't marry a farm animal?

 

As explained in the articles I cited at the beginning of this thread, legalizing gay "marriage" in other countries has invariably increased the prevalence of children being raised in dysfunctional families. Gay activists have been quite candid in their contempt for both the nuclear family model and for marriage itself.

I've also addressed the issue of health insurance in previous posts.

 

Um, when i see that the first synopsis states: "They taught children feminist principles and organized their families accordingly--each person treated as a unique individual. Lesbian feminist communities provided support and a social context in which the families felt at home." I can only shake my head in dismay. You would happen to have read anything that has been written by lesbian feminists, would you. I have, and it's quite militant and bigoted. So when I read that these children are being taught "feminist principles" what in actuality is happening is that they're being indoctrinated to hate men. I don't consider this to be beneficial at all. In particular, I have to wonder what detrimental effects will be experienced by the poor boys who are subjected to this, and who are taught to loathe themselves because of who they are.

Also, if I had the time, and researched all of the researchers of these studies, I'm sure I would be surprised to find that most are 1) feminists; 2) homosexuals; 3) sympathetic to homosexuals. Needless to say, the "findings" really can't be trusted; it would be akin to trusting the "findings" of a tobacco industry funded study on the relationship between smoking and cancer.

 

I have to say that I work for a hospital for kids in crisis. At least have of the children who are admitted there, are from homes of families that have same sex parents. So I don't think it is all that good for children to be around same sex parents.

 

The studies purporting the allegedly benign effect of gay parents on children don't bear close scrutiny:

http://www.marriagewatch.org/publications/nobasis.pdf

 

All I hear are excuses that justify being a bigot.

 

Have you looked at Lerner's and Nagai's past studies? He's been nominated by Bush, he's contested minority scholarships, and he's produced this study. That, in and of itself, doesn't mean it's flawed; but someone who appears to be a biased, ideologic conservative should definitely be questioned. More so, he was hired by an anti-gay group to write the book "No Basis: What the Studies Don't Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting".

Even if it turns out that Lerner is correct, look what a great response I got:

That's just sad.

 

http://www.lesbian.org/amy/essays/lesfem-qtheory.html

And I quote:

"Lesbian feminist activists in the seventies claimed not only that lesbianism had nothing to do with a medical, or biologically "essential" condition, but that it was, in fact, a choice available to all women, and a choice that any woman aware of the oppressive nature of heteropatriarchy would make. While lesbian feminism at first sought to "liberate the 'lesbian' in every woman" (38), the movement soon found itself faced with the dilemma of identity politics. In order to gain political ground, lesbian feminists felt the need to fix lesbian identity as somewhat stable and coherent, in order to classify lesbians as a "minority" deserving of protection against discrimination, but the boundaries of this identity were fairly narrow, and excluded those whose experience of being lesbian didn't measure up to the feminist "ideal" (45). The tension produced by this move, away from recognizing lesbianism as a personal and political choice and towards a more essentialist understanding of lesbian identity (ironically not too far removed from the medical models), sowed the seeds for the demise of lesbian feminism as a powerful political force in the eighties, although it also opened up the possibility for more specifically lesbian varieties of political analysis, such as those taken up by the sex-radicals of the early eighties (48). ( 4 )"

 

In America, the definition of incest varies from state to state. I am not sure which state limits incest to siblings, but it may be true. A modern, sociological, working definition of incest is:" a sexual relationship that may continue for years or be expressed overtly by nothing more than a single act, that takes place between a young person who has a close family tie, which is either a blood tie as with father/daughter/son, mother/daughter/son, brother/sister, or is a substitute for such relationships, as with step-parent or parent's lover where the substitute has effectively taken over the role of the missing parent. The sexual act/acts can vary from exhibitionism to full intercourse. The only essential is that they shall be perceived either contemporaneously or later by the young person to be of a sexual nature and of sufficient intensity to cause disturbance in that younger person." (Renvoize 24)
After a quick review of the literature, I have not been able to locate one study that suggests incestuous relationships can occur between psychologically healthy, consenting adults. I am surprised that you made a distinction between incest and sexual abuse. According to the research I have encountered, and according to my own personal feelings, incest most certainly is sexual abuse. If you are aware of a valid study suggesting otherwise, please point it out to me. Again, according to research and definition, incest involves power and psychological disturbance, not love and consent

This is a great example of a cogent argument. iiaajmn says it, it must be true...!(?) I can only wish I were naive. Throwing mindless insults when faced with conflicting views should get you far in life.

What is utterly ludicrous is that you state here that people make an objective determination as to their sexuality. In a previous post, you stated sexuality was inborn. What evidence is backing up your claim? How many homosexuals were reared by homosexual parents? Every homosexual that I know (and I know quite a few) was raised by straight parents. The DSM-IV has removed homosexuality from its list of deviancy. See the link at the bottom of this post. There would be little use in trying to influence children that that a homosexual lifestyle is normal, since most of the educated world already believes it to be true.

I can't argue with this. All things being equal, this is true. However, things are not equal. Children with health insurance are better off than those without. Should we require couples to purchase health insurance before getting married? Children whose parents earn an income above the poverty threshold are better off. Should there be an income requirement for marriage?

You already said that sexuality was inborn, doesn't that make homosexual activity a "natural occurence" by default? How is not having children not a lifestyle choice? It is a means of regulating population? According to who? I find it hard to believe that most childless couples decide to not have children because of concern for the earths population.
Click here for DSM-IV critera regarding homosexuality as deviant.

 

There can be many parallels drawn between the struggle for interracial marriage in America, and the current struggle for gay marriage. I suggest you look up the court case: Loving v Virginia. Also, many cultures did not have a taboo against incest. In fact, wealthy ancient egyptians encouraged incest so that the family could maintain its wealth, for one example.

Again, the state has a very real & compelling interest in prohibiting incestuous relationships. The common belief is that genetic mutations will occur in offspring produced by an incestuous relationship. While this is possible, it is far from probable. The family is strengthened by social ties outside of itself. It provides additional resources for teamwork and networking. Also, & more importantly, incest breaks up the natural construction of a family by bringing jealousy and strife into a relationship, by making control of rebellious children difficult, and by changing the natural protective relationship between parents and child. In short, incest, by default, is directly harmful to children, which justifies any ban on incest. I have only been shown weak, anecdotal evidence that child rearing by homosexual parents may be harmful. I would, however, be very willing to review a scholarly journal with research suggesting otherwise. Please do not provide me with links to research that is fufilling religious or personal agendas. As I have stated earlier, I have no problem with individuals or with religion not approving of gay marriage, only with government.

 

Are you being serious? Do you really believe that beastiality is next? Marriage was based in religon, but now provides many social, legal, and financial benefits. Again, I am only arguing for legal recognition of gay marriage (civil unions, domestic partners, whatever you want to call it) and not religious recognition.

Just for clarity, beastiality or marriage of objects should remain illegal, in my opinion, because the animal/object cannot consent to a sexual relationship with a human, and a psychologically healthy individual would not want to pursue a lifetime commitment with an animal/object. An animal/object is not capable of offering love or support for a spouse, nor is it able to assume any of the resposibility of a relationship, be it housework (although a goat could chew the grass and eat the trash!), earning money on its own, etc.

 

How do we provide the economic advantages of marriage without some sort of a marriage contract?

 

The articles cited at the beginning of this post are from The Weekly Standard. Stanley Kurtz has published extensively on religion, and in fact majored in comparative religion. Neither are probably a good, objective, scholarly review of empirical data.
That being said, here is a quote from Stanley Kurtz: "I would rather accept some disruption in family stability than go back to the days when homosexuality itself was deeply tabooed. The increase in freedom and fairness is worth it. Yet there has been a terrible social cost for the changes of the sixties. We need to mitigate those costs."

 

For an alternate perspective, see http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/1995papers/johnson.html.

 

This is an interesting article. I will have to read it again and do some research. However, Leadership U is a multi-disciplinary vehicle to help reach professors, students and other thinkers with the best in Christian thought on a variety of compelling issues, according to the site. Any scholarly journal sources? Any objective sources? Again, I am not debating religious opposition, or personal opposition. Only government opposition. While this article is not in itself religious, the source of the article is, bringing the motive of the author and publisher into question.

 

That's actually a really good article, Huck. What I don't like, though, is an anti-gay group using it to invalidate one position (in this case, the APA's) while replacing it with another opinion just as biased, as well as intolerant.

Studies aside, if a homosexual feels that their lifestyle is immoral and wants to seek treatment; fine. However, if they want to live their life as they are, they should be able to, and have every last right that heterosexuals have, free from persecution.

This whole argument is about homosexuals wanting the same rights that other couples receive. Give them the opportunity to have those rights in some way/shape/form. It's that simple.

 

Marriage = legal protection? From what? Marriage = extra legal hassle if you ever split. I truly think the United States government is going at this from a purely financial stance, but using the other arguments as smoke screens. Not that I am for, or against, gay marriage, but may I ask why you feel the need to be "legally" married other than the financial advantages that can occur?


Edit* Anybody can go to a willing chapel and establish a "union", but the only differenec is whether or not the government recognizes it. My mom married her cousin in TN where it's appearantly legal, but here in Indiana it is not. So for 5 yrs they've been married in their eyes and the eyes of those who know them, but not in the nations and they have no problem with it.

 

I don't think there can be a morally (or religiously) neutral definition of what constitutes "psychologically healthy" desires or behavior.