How does gay marriage damage 'marriage'?

crosswalk ^ | April 13, 2004 | Mary Rettig and Jenni Parker

[RichardEdward]

In Scandinavia, illegitimate birth rates exceed 50 percent. The majority of Swedish and Norwegian children are born out of wedlock, and 60 percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Meanwhile, marriage rates subtly decline while, in some countries, divorce rates have skyrocketed to nearly 80 percent

[RichardEdward]

I am looking for additional information on how gay marriage hurts/destroys marriage.. I am specifically looking for non-religious based reasons

[Vision]

I believe it legitimizes a lifestyle that is not productive to raising children. This is turn has a negative effect on society.

[TheBattman]

I would cover your head - I smell electricity in the air - and hear the distant sounds of kitty cats - with a Nordic accent.....

You may get lucky and get an answer to your question before the ZOT!, but I wouldnt' hold your breath.

[FormerLib]

Quite simply, it uses the force of government to coerce us into recognizing deviant relationships in violation of our personal morals.

[stylin19a]

Take the worst case scenario.....everybody is homosexual. everybody. The human race becomes extinct. That would hurt marriage

[Vision]

Also, kids don't receive a mother and father role, which is unfair to their development. They don't get to live a healthy childhood. A time where they can familiarize themselves and grow into mankinds greatest gift- the lifestyle of love between a man and woman.

[Kirkwood]

Look to history. A number of societies became so immersed in homosexuality and pedophilia that they basically rotted away.

[xrp]

I am looking for additional information on how gay marriage hurts/destroys marriage.. I am specifically looking for non-religious based reasons

I have no idea, but I tell you what, heterosexuals would do a lot better good to "the institution of marriage" if they'd stay married after they GET married and have children, that's for sure.

[Rockitz]

I'm guessing there are numerous laws on the books that mention marriage specifically and suspect that they pertain to things like adoption, taxes, property, insurance, etc. Calling a gay relationship a marriage would open the door on all of those laws. While I don't have a problem with those in civil unions having some basic rights with regard to property, taxes, etc., I do have problems when children are involved such as in adoption. Additionally, homosexuals generally have much poorer health than straight individuals and I suspect that they would love to be in the same group as heterosexual couples when it comes to health and life insurance premiums. That's just not fair to heterosexual couples.

[xrp]

Quite simply, it uses the force of government to coerce us into recognizing deviant relationships in violation of our personal morals.

More simply put; government shouldn't enforce morality.

Society got along just fine before governments recognized marriages, when it was just the church that recognized it.

[GreatOne]

Go here for a list of threads on this website which should help you.

[TheEaglehasLanded]

Let's see, since marriage is a sacriment to every major religion and to God, does desecretating it not make it weaker as an institution.

How about taking a favorite collectable of yours, leave it out for me to sh!t on and I'll tell you it hasn't hurt the value of your item.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME

[chance33_98]

(please note I am trying to be secular in this post as best I can) Marriage is a societal construct with a general purpose of pro-creation of the species. Over time we have found it beneficial that those who created a child are the best ones suited to raising it. Marriage as a social contract allows those who undertake such an endeavor to benefit from such a job as society itself is benefitting from the outcome (ie tax breaks and such for those who keep the population moving forward).

While the idea is for people to become married and have offspring not all such couples produce, and while some would argue that this denegrates the idea of marriage there is no practical way to determine if such an outcome is going to occur. Over time it is accepted that some will no add to the population and hence the future of the country but such does not detract from the general idea that they, being man and woman, can create such life.

Re-defining this role of marriage to be inclusive to man-man, woman-woman, destroys the intent and definition of what marriage is to society. No one is stopping people from living with whom they choose, but by giving tax breaks and such to those, in marriage, can add to society puts a burden of taxation on the whole for the desire of those who wish to give nothing back to said society.

Civil unions may well, in fact, be a good idea for those gay and those who are not gay who wish to share a life where they do not wish to pro-create or cannot. Marriage from a general stand point revolves around the committment of two people who wish take on the burden (and joys) of raising children, whereas those not wanting to do so have more time and money to spend on themselves alone. Watering down marriage to something as simple as sex takes away from the intent of it.

Not all marriages work, are perfect, or produce children. In a world of marital dissaray (or so it sometimes seems) redefining marriage to be solely about two people without the capacity to create weakens the institution further for the selfish desires of those who simply want to legitimize their desires to have something which was never intended.

Marriage is an idea with a purpose, it is a creation of a time tested and proven idea. Marriage of a man and a woman has a potential for greater benefit to all, gay marriage does not. It is not a freedom issue, it a financial one - we give benefits to those who marry which come from our hard earned income because we believe it benefits us in the long run - we invest in it. Investing in something which will never produce is a losing proposition, investing in something that usually does produce, but not always, is more prudent.

Etc, blah, blah, blah.

[MississippiMan]

Look to history. A number of societies became so immersed in homosexuality and pedophilia that they basically rotted away.

Exactly. As modern and "progressive" as this moral decay is portrayed to be today, it's not new; it has certainly happened before, and not once with a good outcome. If you have an infected sore on your body, and you don't treat it, the rot spreads to the healthy flesh around it, eventually consuming it.

It is a horribly destructive lifestyle, and it's staggering that so many people today could be so ignorant/stupid as to embrace it.

MM

[Warlord David]

I would look up the deviant behavior more common associated with homosexual sex relationship, to children. As another reason not to have homosexual marriges or civil unions

Though you specific did not ask for it. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah also comes to mind.

[xrp]

How about taking a favorite collectable of yours, leave it out for me to sh!t on and I'll tell you it hasn't hurt the value of your item.

Poor comparison.

More accurately, you and someone else would own replicas of the same collectable. He poops on his, while you do nothing with yours except keep it in a pristine location in your home and show it off with pride whenever company visits. The value of his collectable, in your eyes, is that it is trash. The value of his collectable, in his eyes, well...is that really any of your business? The value of your collectable, still in its pristine location in your home, that should be up to you, shouldn't it? The value of your collectable, still in its pristine location in your home, in his eyes...well, he probably doesn't care.

[Grig]

I'm against gay marriage, but I'm very dissapointed with the type of arguments used against it by most.

Rising illegitimate birth and divorce rates, falling marriage rates and all the social ills and burdens that go with them do follow from legalized gay marriage, but those arguments (valid as they are) will not be very convincing to those not already opposed to it. For most the argument seems like a desperate grasping at straws or a flimsy attempt to cover over homophobia.


There is no direct link where the existance of gay marriages forces a person to choose something they otherwise would not have, and evey one of those negative statistics is the result of individual choices.

What gay marriage does directly effect is freedom of religion. Marriage is a sacred institution, and legalizing gay marriage is a desecration of it in the eyes of nearly all people of faith. By what right does government desecrate religous institutions? None. That is the point we need to make LOUD and clear. If done well, it is an argument that should sway even the non-religous (as long as they are not anti-religous).

The main obstacle will be building respect for freedom of religion among people who feel no personal need for it. We take freedom of religion so much for granted that we forget to even bring it up in debates like this. If we do not assert our rights to worship without government interference, we will lose them altogether I fear.

[No Truce With Kings]

Main reason I can think of is that "gay" marriage would either bring the government into our bedrooms or lead to the government eliminating the privileges of marriage.

There is no such thing as "gay" marriage. That is because there is no bar to straights taking advantage of same-sex marriage. Only 2% of the population is gay, and probably less than 30% want to get "married." Thus fewer than 0.15% of the population will participate in a true "gay" marriage.

However, I think it safe to say that at least 5% of the straight population are greedy enough -- or desperate enough -- to use the benefits of marriage without a true "partner." Marriage gets you some real good tax breaks (especially with the elimination of the marriage penalty). Marriage also has the state treat two individuals as one. This is the basis for spousal privilege and inheritance. So, two straights that trust each other enough have strong monetary -- and non-sexual reasons -- to get "married."

Classic reasons:

(a) Two men unmarried men own a business, and want to simplify inheritance and taxes. A "spouse" automatically inherits the property of the other spouse upon decease, and "marriage" simplifies a partnership.

(b) Two gang bangers that want to be debarred from testifying against each other. They get "married" and claim spousal privilege.

(c) Two young, unmarried men (or women), who are close friends, but not yet married. They may even be sharing an apartment or house. "Marriage" significantly lowers taxes, and with no-fault divorce laws, when one of the pair finds their soul-mate, they divorce, dissolving the partnership.

Note that in this last case, the pair taking advantage of this will likely be siblings. (Who else are you going to trust this way -- and after all, they have been sharing a bedroom forever.)

Let's say that 2% of the straights are "crazy" enough to do this. (Crazy like a fox.) That's 1% in this type of marriage. In other words, for every "gay" marriage, there are six "straight" marriages done for money and other dodges.

That gives the government two choices:

1. Get into people's bedroom and define the sexual activity required to "validate" marriage (ick). Make sure that the rules do not end up biting couples with one spouse absent for long periods (servicemen or women overseas), or legitimately married couples that have health problems. (Good luck -- one size fits all rarely works.)

2. Eliminate the benefits of marriage. This means the only reasons to get married are religious or "to make a statement."

The latter is what will probably be done. It is simpler. But by doing so, the government discourages straights from marrying. After all, why buy a cow when milk is cheap. What is likely to happen if marriage's benefits are eliminated is that more straights will shack-up rather than marry. Marriage will then have all the liabilities of legal commitment with none of the financial or legal benefits that went with marriage previously. So, people being rational, will stop getting married.

And people are rational and do respond to government stimuli. When the government provided short-term rewards for irresponsible behavior and out-of-wedlock babies (pre-welfare reform) the total number of welfare recipients went up. When the government ceased providing such incentives and instead began rewarding responsible behavior (post-welfare reform), the total number of welfare recipients went down.

[chance33_98]

A little more information:

Does Illinois restrict some marriages? Certain marriages are prohibited in Illinois. These include marriages entered into prior to the dissolution of an earlier marriage of one of the parties; those between an ancestor and a descendant or between a brother and sister, whether the relationship is by the half or the whole blood or by adoption; and those between an uncle and a niece or between an aunt and a nephew. Generally, marriages between cousins of the first degree are prohibited; however, first cousins may marry if --

both parties are 50 years of age or older; or either party, at the time the couple applies for a marriage license, presents to the county clerk of the county in which the marriage is to take place a certificate signed by a licensed physician stating that the party to the proposed marriage is permanently and irreversibly sterile.

End quote.

This goes back to the idea of marriage and having children. Notice the scientific reasons behind the first cousins rule. The general idea is that marriage will produce offspring. They don't have a marriage license for first cousins if they simply say they won't have kids - the potential is evident. Potential outcome, which is also the expected outcome (and often the reason people marry in the first place), is that the seed planted by committment will bear fruit.

If they dropped this rule because first cousins, et al, thought they were being discriminated against the created institution would weaken due to idea that the outcome was no longer important, only the act itself. A perpuation of this across time would have a net negative effect on ideas and hence the institution of marriage.

[texgal]

I have no idea, but I tell you what, heterosexuals would do a lot better good to "the institution of marriage" if they'd stay married after they GET married and have children, that's for sure.

In order to do that we're going to have to find a way to get rid of no-fault laws to stop the ever growing number of divorces. As a married person in Texas I cannot defend my marriage against the intrusion by at 3rd party, adultery is legal and while Texas is one of only two remaining states where you can still demand a jury trial in a divorce, they always get you on the living apart statutes. As long a the state encourages people to treat their vows as though they mean nothing, they will continue to do so.

No-fault divorce laws are unconstitutional by their very application because the person being sued is denied due process and equal protection under the law. The state put its considerable force behind the person filing even if they are guilty. They most often can't file under "grounds" because they're usually the one committing the offense (i.e. adultery). We've got to end no-fault to protect exisiting marriages.