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

[little jeremiah]

If you are looking for information on homosexuality from every angle, you should get on the Homosexual Agenda Ping list (just tell me and I will add you). Check scripter's Categorical Index of articles - it's a veritable library of articles on the topic. On just about every article I ping people to links are posted.

I will try to ping you to a couple of links to recent articles that provide non-religion based arguments against homosexuality and its promotion in society.

[hunter112]

We've got to end no-fault to protect exisiting marriages.

Would you exclude childless marriages from that mandate "to end no-fault"? If you wouldn't, then would you expect to see people who have no intention of producing offspring from a relationship just resort to living together without ever getting legally married? What would that do to the institution of marriage? How do you go after the folks living together?

[hunter112]

The Scandinavian example is probably more telling about what happens when the state sanctions childbearing without marriage, by subsidizing it with welfare. I personally believe that the welfare system in this country has caused a lot of unwed parenthood.

[Askel5]

The State may not have the right to "marry" anyone, I agree.

But the State remains obligated to recognize the sovereignty of the family as seated in the marriage pledge wherein the two spouses not only obligate themselves to each other but to full responsibility for the children a Natural product of the conjugal union one assumes is part and parcel of marriage.

[thefactor]

who do you mean when you say "our personal morals"? certainly you don't mean the homosexual population and the others who support gay marriage. and by the same token, i would say that there are some people in this country who don't support interracial marriage. should that not be allowed as well because it goes against some peoples personal morals?

[Texasforever]

What's the dif?

The "diff" is simple. Marriage is not a civil right. Homosexuals can say their vows to a fence post and consider themselves "married" and I don't care. However, there is enough pressure on the INSTITUTION of marriage without adding a completely alien form into the mix. Once we start down that road then other alien forms will demand entrance. I saw an article the other night saying there are now 20+ "sexual preferences and gender identities" now are being used within the "gay and lesbian community". Tell me where do you draw the line on who can or cannot be afforded all the privileges of marriage?

[scripter]

I gave 'em a link in post 25 that should help.

[Askel5]

=== Tell me where do you draw the line on who can or cannot be afforded all the privileges of marriage?


The privileges of marriage should be reserved for those who commit themselves 100% to the marriage. If you wish to pin your argument on the "natural" machinations by which heteros reproduce, you must then admit that a line must be drawn at artificial contraception and at artificial procreation.

Had this line been drawn, had we afforded marital privileges only to those who freely obligated themselves to the responsibilities (namely, Children) naturally a part of that union, we wouldn't be in this mess right now.

But heteros wish to have their cake and eat it too.

Unfortunately, that's not going to be the case. Having etched in stone the "right" not to procreate and having etched in stone the "right" to manufacture children, we are now committed to an Artificial Reality already blessed by specific State-Sanction wherein there are no grounds on which to distinguish between the "marriage" of heterosexuals (packing birth control, penning pre-nups and banking embryos) and homosexuals who also have the "option" of confecting their own progeny.

[Texasforever]

Well "bith control" is just that control. Now it is largely used to time the birth of kids and NOT just to "have their cake and eat it too". I think you are looking at this from your particular religious view that proscribes birth control under any circumstance. When two men can conceive and deliver a child without a 3rd party surrogate THEN you may have a case.

[William Terrell]

I kind of like the explanation from another thread.

---

Marriage-San Francisco style

A scene at City Hall in San Francisco . . .

"Next."
"Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."
"Names?"
"Tim and Jim Jones."
"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."
"Yes, we're brothers."
"Brothers? You can't get married."
"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"
"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"
"Incest?" No, we are not gay."
"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"
"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects."
"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman."
"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."
"And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?"

"All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."

"Hi. We are here to get married."
"Names?"
"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."
"Who wants to marry whom?"
"We all want to marry each other."
"But there are four of you!"
"That's right. You see, we're all bi-sexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship." "But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."
"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"
"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples."
"Since when are you standing on tradition?"
"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere." "Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!"

"All right, all right. Next."

"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."
"In what names?"
"David Deets."
"And the other man?"
"That's all. I want to marry myself."
"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"
"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."

"That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!"

[Askel5]

=== When two men can conceive and deliver a child without a 3rd party surrogate THEN you may have a case.


Heteros do this all the time. Why shouldn't homos?



=== Well "bith control" is just that control. Now it is largely used to time the birth of kids and NOT just to "have their cake and eat it too".

Birth Control is used so that heteros may -- like homosexuals -- enjoy strictly recreational and/or unitive sexual relations.

The cessation of birth control is still no guarantee one will have children so folks that think to "time" their pregnancies often end up very unhappy people for whom sex is increasingly a chore ... there being no natural refraining from sex in order to avoid or delay pregnancy and the pressure to conceive often turning sex into a mechanical duty.

And again, it cannot be emphasized often enough that NO couple contracting the services of a fertility clinic offering artificial conception is reproducting sans a "third party" ... a strictly for-profit party, no less.

Once that line was crossed, there was no "moral" grounds on which to deny homosexuals the same privilege of Overcoming that Reality they sought to deny. If infertile couples can have children, why shouldn't homosexuals?

[Texasforever]

If infertile couples can have children, why shouldn't homosexuals?

Because, chances are high that the couple didn't know they were "infertile without intervention" going into the marriage. A homosexual couple is 100% "infertile without intervention" going into the relationship.

[Eastbound]

"How does gay marriage damage 'marriage'?"

It doesn't 'damage' marriage -- it destroys it. Simple enough. If the word, marriage, is RE-defined to include same sex couples, does that not destroy the meaning of the word, marriage, which is defined legally and socially as a union between a man and a woman?

I propose the creation of an alternative word to define legal contractual 'unions' between same-sex couples. Try 'SMERGE.'

So if same-sex couples want to get smerged in order to gain financial benefit, let them make the proposal and get an amendment passed.

But even if they did get their own word and amendment passed which protects and recognizes their civil rights as a 'union', I think if same-sex couples were granted the same tax benefit and other government benefits reserved for married folks it would be a form of fraud and theft.

Why? Because government benefits today -- and even the cost of running government today, will be paid out of the pockets of the next generation when they enter the labor pool. That's how the system has been working for a long time.

Without a future labor pool, government would have to shut down today because the projected earnings of children (a product of married folks) is what the ongoing national debt is based on and SECURED by. No future labor pool, no security for FRN's, no more borrowing by government.

That is something the government should take a close look at if it is going to encourage same-sex unions and equal benefits. So same-sex couples would have to consider the ethics of demanding government or tax benefits similar to those married folks receive, as they are not and cannot be vested in the next generation's labor pool simply because they can't or won't produce children.

They would also have to consider the ethics of attempting to destroy an institution that preceded them on the planet, an institution without which, civilization would not have evolved -- if ethics be a thing of value to them.

So there you have it, RichardEdward. But only in part.

[Texasforever]

Why? Because government benefits today -- and even the cost of running government today, will be paid out of the pockets of the next generation when they enter the labor pool. That's how the system has been working for a long time.

Dang that is a great point.

[jennyp]

Why? Because government benefits today -- and even the cost of running government today, will be paid out of the pockets of the next generation when they enter the labor pool. That's how the system has been working for a long time.

Dang that is a great point.

So... gay marriages should only be recognized during the years that the federal budget is balanced! That's a novel argument!

Why? Because government benefits today -- and even the cost of running government today, will be paid out of the pockets of the next generation when they enter the labor pool. That's how the system has been working for a long time.

Dang that is a great point.

[jennyp]

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.

Ah, but I'm sure the raw number of hetero couples who marry without any desire to ever raise children will always be higher than the numbers of gays who want to marry, children or no.

Anyway, I disagree that we can't police childless marriages: Make the marriage license a conditional contract. If, after 4 years, the married couple hasn't produced or adopted a child, then their marriage is voided. Plus they have to pay back any benefits they had received from their marriage.

We can play with the initial grace period, and there are many ways to structure enforcement so that a childless married couple still have options after the grace period ends. No need to be draconian about it. But the essential framework should be quite enforceable.

I'm not sure that I would oppose such a framework, but I doubt very much if you could ever get such a law passed in America. But to anyone who wouldn't stand for such a system that required a married couple to actually produce children like they implicitly promised to do when they married, then it's hard to see how they could turn around and oppose gay marriage.

[Eastbound]

"So... gay marriages should only be recognized during the years that the federal budget is balanced! That's a novel argument!"

Well, it would be if that was my argument. But that isn't what I said. I was not referring to 'gay marriages' (an oxy-moron), I was referring to same-sex smerges Was also not referring to just the budget, but the interest and principle on the debt. We'll be lucky to be able to meet the interest if we're not already bankrupt again. No, I don't think the gummint will not have need of the next 10 generations of labor forces they way things look today.

If the day ever came that the government didn't need 'voluntary servitude' citizens (to pay the debt in the future) it would have no need to offer tax breaks or other bennies to married folks, IMO. So that would preclude the possibility of smerged folks getting a break in any case.

[texgal]

Would you exclude childless marriages from that mandate "to end no-fault"? If you wouldn't, then would you expect to see people who have no intention of producing offspring from a relationship just resort to living together without ever getting legally married? What would that do to the institution of marriage? How do you go after the folks living together?

I would have no intention of "going after" folks who want to live together. They most certainly should have the right to do so, if that is what they want. The state and the law should treat all parties who come before them equally and impartially. That is not the case with no-fault divorce.

There are literally thousands of people who each day have their constitutional rights violated and no one cares because it is not seen as a rights issue, but as a divorce issue. Three decades since the divorce revolution took hold, the legal requirement for divorce has devolved into a mere claim of "incompatibility" by a dissatisfied spouse. This standard for the response of government when petitioned is faulty for several reasons. First, there is another spouse who presumably has equal rights in the marriage. Two persons willfully entered into marriage. To forbid one from asserting the viability and prognosis of the marriage is grossly partial and even merits constitutional challenge. The present emotion of the petitioner should not trump the interests and well-being of the other spouse and children. The responding spouse should have the right to present the history and overall quality of the marriage, and its value to him/her and to the children and have that considered in court.

Second, government should never have authority to rule in favor of one party to a lawsuit based only on petition. Imagine the outcry if government stamped a guilty verdict in every prosecution. Yet that occurs in every divorce case in most states. A cause of action based on emotion rather than facts results in over one million divorces in the United States every year. They appear to be mutually consented because attorneys don't advise clients to deny the allegation that incompatibility exists to the level of irreconcilableness.

Third, a claim of incompatibility is more likely to be opportunistic than to seek protection from real harm.

For many, divorce is the most heart-rending event in their lives, with personal losses of a valued spouse, children's time and affections, and a decreased standard of living. So is divorce a problem or a solution? After experiencing a generation of misery, many are rethinking this and other questions. Whose lives are improved and whose are worse off? Is one spouse's unhappiness enough reason for divorce? Do children really believe parents will continue to love them when they can stop loving each other?

Recent social research has some answers. Children with married parents do better on all measures of well-being than kids in other structures including stepfamilies. Men, women, and children are all poorer after divorce. Although men recover more quickly financially, they lose time or contact with their children. But mothers also lose time with kids, because they're at dad's or mom works more. Men are more likely to remarry, and choose younger second wives. Divorced women are freer to make career choices, but their prospects for remarriage drop after age 30, and plummet after 40.

Furthermore, eighty percent of divorces are unilateral decisions, with one spouse considering reconciliation. Seventy percent are low conflict situations without abuse or constant fighting. Of the thirty percent regarded as high conflict divorces, less than 15% cite domestic violence or substance abuse. Adultery crosses the spectrum. Almost half of first marriages, 60% of second marriages, and 80% of third ones fail.

So what is the benefit for most of the players in divorce? Losses and gains vary, but to which side have the scales tilted? Overall, for most persons and society at large, divorce is a losing proposition. And with taxpayers absorbing the fallout, why is government so unconcerned about family breakup? Under current law, the state unabashedly sides with every divorce petitioner. This defies American principles of contracts, due process, and burden of proof. But, the old argument goes, government can't force people to stay married. Yet for thirty years it has forced divisions upon spouses who thought their vows had meaning under the law. It has forced countless children to live the yo-yo lifestyle when only one parent approves. Divorce forces unwanted consequences on someone. The question is, where should government apply its force?

It's time government moved to the side of preserving marriages where reasonable and feasible. Perhaps it's time for government to expect a little more from divorce petitioners when violence is not present. If their spouse declines the divorce, petitioners would still have choices: (1) with appropriate intervention, to put their hearts into rebuilding their marriage, (2) to prove one of the other three grounds in the statutes (adultery, abandonment, and cruelty), or (3) convince their spouse to consent to divorce by negotiating a better settlement. Presently, respondents have no choice but to adjust to a forced divorce.

Government can't change hearts. But there should be a cultural ethic whereby it would be considered irresponsible to end a marriage without two people first getting serious help. Ideally, counseling helps the couple assess marital strengths and weaknesses, finds interventions to improve satisfaction, and helps them rebuild. Many counselors, both secular and faith-based, are armed with new approaches to healing marriages. Proven and new relationship skills courses and mentoring programs are becoming more available. Much more is available than most judges, attorneys, pastors, or even counselors are aware of.

Divorce court must not serve as a morgue when one spouse still feels a pulse. One size does not fit all, and it's time that the law, through its judges and attorneys, started recognizing the value of marriages when one spouse does.

Our country is being destroyed one family at a time because the family unit has been all but obliterated due to no-fault divorce. Without both biological parents in the home, children are at risk to predators within the home - a place where they should be the safest. Children suffer mental, physical and sexual abuse at the hands of step-parents and mom or dad's live-in significant others. The natural, God-given protection of the family is no longer there. The Heritage Foundation has studies that show the safest place for a child is in the home of BOTH biological parents. The least safe situation is in the home of the mother and a live-in boyfriend.

[texgal]

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

You might want to check out the Heritage Foundation's website. They have a wealth of research on issues related to marriage and the family. www.heritage.org