How exactly will Gay Marriage harm Marriage as an Institution?

Woah! Are you serious? "Many cultures did not have a taboo against incest," you say? Very, very, very, WRONG. Well, given you skewed understanding of incest, it's not surprising that you would make such a statement.

I find this statement to be quite odd:

"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."

What is a "natural construction of a family" and who are you to say what it is when you have been arguing that there really is no such thing? Don't you think that much strife occurs in the family because of the authority that parents wield; aren't relationships that are loving, caring, and nurturing, attributes that are fostered through an intimate understanding of the partners, more stable?

I don't think there's a comparison between homosexuality and inter-racial marriage. I can't think of any society aside from our own that has permitted homosexual marriage; inter-racial marriage has always occured. Just because a few societies didn't permit it doesn't mean that there has been considered a taboo.

Well, you haven't really shown me any evidence that there's a benefit to homosexual marriage. Just synopses of articles, many of which were apparently written by feminists, that fit your agenda.

Incidently, I'm not religious at all.

 

Well, I don't recall using the term "inborn," what I'm saying is that human's are biologically predisposed to heterosexuality, because biologically the purpose of sex is to reproduce, and the only way by which one can reproduce it heterosexually. People who engage in homosexual sex cannot reproduce. That's basically all there is to it.

So basically what you're saying is that homosexual parents have no influence on the behaviour of their children. Now that's ludicrous. For starters, you may want to read the "lesbian feminism" article that I posted a link for. It clearly states that their intent has been to convert women to lesbianism and to rear children as lesbians/feminists (ie. misandrists).

What I stated was that societies have often delayed or reduced child birth depending on economic/population factors. Common misconception is that people used to churn out babies on a regular basis; this may have been the case sometimes, but often when a family could not support children, ie. because harvests were poor, they didn't have them.

 

I don't feel the need to be married, whatsoever. I am in favor, however, of gay marriage mostly because of the financial advantages and responsibilities, and for the principle of equality.

 

I think that pscychology, sociology, and anthropology provide empirical data to make reasonable assumptions. That is not to say conclusive assumptions, but reasonable, nonetheless.

 

I admit that "many" was a poor word choice. I was speaking relatively. "Some" would have been a better choice. Incest is not a universal taboo. It is prevailing, and rightfully so, but not universal.

To be very clear, I am not in any way advocating or promoting incest.

I have a very good understanding of incest, and have cited respectable resources. Where does your definition of incest, that differentiates it from sexual abuse, come from?

 

You used the word "inherent," not inborn. My mistake and apologies. Homosexual parents do have an influence on the behavior of their children, a huge influence. The same influence that any parents have on their children. I am afraid I don't see the logic in your argument here. The article "lesbian feminism" only clearly states the objectives of one small sect of lesbians. Many heterosexuals also teach their children unsavory views. I am afraid, again, that I don't see the logic.

This may have been what you intended, or intended to imply, but I don't think it was stated. Have you heard of Sally Struthers, Ethiopia, the Christian Children's Fund, etc? I don't think this is necessarily true. Furthermore, it doesn't relate at all to childless couples in modern America.

 

As for the argument that gay people shouldn't marry because "many" societies have "Taboos" against gay sex: "Many" societies have "taboos" against oral sex, or having sex during menstruation.

Should we have an amendment prohibiting oral or menstrual sex?

Or would the better question be: No matter how abhorant some may find it, does someone else having oral or menstrual sex (or, god, oral sex during menstruation!) effect the lives of people who do not engage in it?

 

Um. and the answer is NO!

And gay people marrying has NO effect on hetero marriages, either.

 

Well, perhaps oral sex during menstruation should be prohibited! (LOL)

Maggie, this is obviously just more femenist propaganda. (wink)

 

I still only see correlation in those articles, not causation. What you are saying is same-sex marriage creates disfunctional families. How? Many things could also be correlated in such a study, such as increased education of the population. Also, only some gay activist have contempt for both the nuclear family model and for marriage itself. These are not gay activists, but gay activist extremists. According to this logic, I can dislike all christians because extremists such as Jerry Falwell exist.

 

Oh, my, you've got me figured out. ROTFLMAO

Love your title, "heterophobe"!

 

I said this on another thread and I'll say it again here. We should allow everyone to have "Civil Union" and have whether or not it is a "marriage" defined by the person and their particular church, and just be done with it. People can just keep their religious semantics to themselves.

 

Apparently San Francisco is having a larger effect on the rest of the country than was previously believed...