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

[xrp]

So, people being rational, will stop getting married.

Nah, I doubt it. Rather, they will continue to get married, but mainly because they are truly in love and want to have children together (fancy that!). Marriage for tax breaks will end yes, which arguably does its own thing for weakening the "sanctity of marriage". So the people who should get married will still get married and those that shouldn't get married will not get married.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

A little history!

Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality

[Age of Reason]

First ask why should the state still be marrying anyone.

[Askel5]

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


Birth control, which rendered children "rightful option" so to speak, of conjugal union is what damaged marriage.

Having dumbed-down marriage to a mutually beneficial economic contractual relationship between lovers (dissolvable at will on terms often planned-for in advance with pre-nups), homosexuals are within their rights to demand parity where the privileges of marriage (if not the responsibilities) have been dispensed only to hetero sex partners.

[scripter]

Questions and Answers: What's Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples "Marry?"

[Always Right]

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

??? Why would this be zotted?

[No Truce With Kings]

"Nah, I doubt it. Rather, they will continue to get married, but mainly because they are truly in love and want to have children together (fancy that!). Marriage for tax breaks will end yes, which arguably does its own thing for weakening the "sanctity of marriage". So the people who should get married will still get married and those that shouldn't get married will not get married."

Nope. A fertile man and a woman that live together, and do not get married "should" be married -- at least from a societal standpoint. Why? Because they *might* have kids. And kids in a shack-up situation always suffer when compared to kids whose parents are married -- even if the parents remain married "for the sake of the children."

A man in a shack-up situation has both less legal obligation towards the kids and less incentive to stick around. Within marriage kids are presumed to be the responsibility of the man. Outside of marriage the state must prove that the man is responsible -- a potentially tedious process. Further, men not married to the mothers of their children simply have less invested emotionally. They made not promise to stand by their family, and can more easily walk away (and do).

The most common fallacy that most people make is to assume that state grants the privileges to benefit the adults. Rather the privileges of marriage have been historically granted because of the benefits to the children of the marriage. Two parents -- the same two parents -- working together over the long haul lead to the best outcome for the kids. Even when the two adults would rather be in Philadephia.

Yes, there are individual exceptions, but in the aggregate kids are better off in a stable, two-parent family. And societal norms work in the aggregate.

So anything that discourages individuals from marrying before having children weakens the family. Eliminating the privileges of marriage discourages individuals from marrying before having children (because it is all responsibility, no benefit). Since marriage after having children has immediate drawbacks (and no benefits) for men, some will opt not to marry after children -- and be more likely to walk.

Love is a weak reed upon which to base a marriage. Trust and friendship get a couple a lot further. So encouraging romantic fools to get married while discouraging pragmatic types (who are more likely to work out the type of compromises a marriage requires long-term) is an excellent, excellent formula for weakening the sanctity of marriage.

[Lancey Howard]

The question makes no sense.
How does milk damage sunspots?
How does whale dung damage three o'clock?

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
There is no such thing as "gay marriage".

Regards,
LH

[Askel5]

=== Ughh.....Look what's back.

I didn't figure you -- or any of the usual suspects -- would have any substantive defenses of why hetero sex partners should be entitled to privileges that homosexual sex partners are not.

[expatguy]

Im constantly amazed as I get older at how people never learn their mistakes from history.

THE SATIRES OF JUVENAL

History always repeats itself.

[A Citizen Reporter]

Darlin', you set the table for your agenda. You don't have to drag anybody else into the argument!

[Askel5]

My "agenda" is the defense of the institution of marriage as BASIS FOR FAMILY rather than reserving for heteros the word "marriage" while respecting whatever "civil unions" any state wishes to confect for homosexuals to enjoy the privileges of marriage ... including the procuring of children.

Physician, heal thyself.

No hetero who holds onto the "Right" of birth control has standing to decry homosexual marriage. It's THEY who've already ruined the institution such that homosexuals COULD claim parity.

[A Citizen Reporter]

"No hetero who holds onto the "Right" of birth control has standing to decry homosexual marriage. It's THEY who've already ruined the institution such that homosexuals COULD claim parity."

Right, that's not a big 'agenda'. Carry on.......you always do LOL!

[scripter]

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

What an excellent collection of links! J

[Askel5]

Homos fall in love and Plan their children.

So do heteros.

Why should homos be bashed for wanting to escape the legal fees and associated drawing of contracts for the recognition heteros get with a wedding ceremony ... 500 guests at St. Pat's or fifteen minutes in Vegas?

What's the difference between homos and heteros once the heteros have adopted the homosexual model of sexual relations ... to the point of demanding their "right" to have children even when conjugal union doesn't work.

Used to be it was "God's will" whether or not one had a child. Now that Heteros have subverted God's will with artificial reproduction, what's the DIF between homos and heteros?

I say "heteros" for two reasons, btw. One is sentimental and involves a story too long to tell tonight. The other is because most heterosexuals have indeed adopted the homo lifestyle and -- talking themselves in terms of "gender" and other utter bs -- and it has a nice ring to it as a result.

Why should all the bashing be reserved for homosexuals who rebel against reality and God's will? Why should heterosexuals who likewise subvert and pervert his will be called something suitable for bashing like "hetero"?

[Texasforever]

No hetero who holds onto the "Right" of birth control has standing to decry homosexual marriage

LOL You have just dug a hole for yourself with that little nugget. The hetero-couple can "control" procreation whereas the Homo-couple can't procreate at all without heroic intervention. Why do you think the gay community call heterosexuals "breeders". Maybe next time you will be a bit more careful in your logic.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Maybe next time you will be a bit more careful in your logic.

Now that's funny! ; )

[Texasforever]

Yeah logic and askel in the same sentence is laughable.

[Askel5]

=== The hetero-couple can "control" procreation whereas the Homo-couple can't procreate at all without heroic intervention. Why do you think the gay community call heterosexuals "breeders".



I am perfectly aware of the disdain in which "breeders" are held by killer queens -- mostly the 35 or younger Gay Pride sorts.

It's much the same as that centuries- and decades-old contempt evidenced by Protestants and earth-conscious New Agers, respectively where Catholics or others with the audacity to have more than two children are concerned.

If you're NOT aware of how critical the issue of "breeding' and controlling breeders is, I can link you to the GOP's 1970 report from their "Earth Resources and POpulation" task force. It's not like the more hateful little queens got their talking points on over-population and crowding out of thin air, you know.

That in no way changes the fact that homosexuals who can "control" their breeding even more effortlessly than heteros (their sex being naturally non-procreative and their incomes more suited to purchasing children to spec with the donation of materials from self or others) see no essential difference between hetero "marriage" and homo "marriage".

Heteros have the "Right" to enjoy a perfectly non-procreative marriage and the "right" to artifically conceive enough children than one or more may be actually birthed. So do homos.

What's the dif?