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

[mbraynard]

You don't need evidence, just reason.

Marraige exists because of a fundamental differences between the sexes. Marriage is a contract meant to balance those differences (namely, they equalize the man who has a natural advantage with the woman who doesn't.) Marriage is very pro-woman in man-woman relationships. Because of this, society/employers/etc have given benefits to those who are married in accordance with the balance that marriage is meant to establish (health care, death benefits, social secutiry for a surviving spouse, etc.) Because in 'gay marriage' there is no 'partner' needing equalizing, benefits that were premised on that equalization loose their competitive advantage and society/employers will have less reason to offer them. I forsee that if 'gay marriage' becomes state recognized and benefits made for unequal man-woman unions are mandated for equal unions, people who are not 'gay' but of the same sex will go ahead and get a 'gay marriage' just to take advantage of these benefits. Since everyone can be entitled to those benefits, they will be scaled back and/or the cost of them will sky rocket. All employers offering healthcare is the same as no employer offering healthcare *if* everyone is entitled to it if it does exist. So that is precisly how 'gay marriage' is damaging to 'real marriage': it reduces the incentive for society to encourage marriage. However, the most importnat reason is that children need to have heterosexual, married parents.

[FormerLib]

...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.

So how would cheapening the definition to include members of the same sex, groups larger than two, and pairings of blood relatives in a sexual relationship help achieve that?

Yes, the institution of marriage has been hurt by leftist policies such as "no-fault" divorce in pursuit of their personal happiness regardless of the societal cost. Hurting it more by dumbing-down the definition to include homosexual pairings would only increase the harm done.

[biblewonk]

How does gay marriage damage 'marriage'? crosswalk ^ | April 13, 2004 | Mary Rettig and Jenni Parker

Posted on 04/18/2004 8:21:22 PM PDT by 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

And these countries are how far from gay marriage? Don't you see a pattern here. There are many many ways to ruin the whole biblical institution of marriage. The first step is to throw away the bible.

[FormerLib]

who do you mean when you say "our personal morals"?

Decent folks, which would exclude sexual deviants and racists, among others.

[Eastbound]

Excellent! I'd laugh, but I won't out of fear the derision might prompt some borderline 'Norman Bates' type to drag the object of his 'affliction' over to the courthouse for a quick ceremony out of spite.

[steve-b]

By what right does government desecrate religous institutions? None.

However, religious institutions do not get to simply declare any government action that offends them to be a forbidden "desecration". The Wahabiwackos regarded the various steps taken to punish the 9-11 Massacre and prevent an encore performance as a "desecration" -- TDB.

[thefactor]

i love how we preach freedom and tolerance and then try to limit the private lives of people who do not hold the same values as we do. this is a relatively small issue given the number of people it affects.

the definition of the term "decent people" is changing and i believe it is America's duty to, once again, change with it as she has so wonderfully done before. if the chuch doesn't wish to recognize gay marriage, fine. but that is not the issue here. this is about "the state". i know too many hardworking, god-fearing, CONSERVATIVE, DECENT, gay people who just want the same courtesies the rest of us get.

there was a time when interracial marriages weren't allowed. we have come to our senses. i believe we will in this case too.

[KC_for_Freedom]

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

And furthermore, it is using the force of government to implement a morality subscribed to by one political party. Who did not implement the polity in a constitutional way.

[FormerLib]

i love how we preach freedom and tolerance and then try to limit the private lives of people...

And I love how people who want their private lives free from examination make them public at every possible turn.

the definition of the term "decent people" is changing...

Actually, it isn't. It's just that indecent folks are attempting to claim the title but aren't fooling anyone but themselves.

If anything, history shows us that we must maintain the moral foundations of our nation if our nation is to survive.

[HostileTerritory]

Sharp comment. You would think that Kurtz would learn the distinction between causation and correlation before embarrassing himself with that article.

[Remole]

It may not hurt MY marriage; or any marriages RIGHT NOW; but will certainly hurt marriages in the future, by sanctioning the raising of children by same-sex couples, which will create personalities of males and females who may have difficulty developing the character traits that make marriage successful.

[Dimensio]

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)

This argument would imply that the government should get out of the business of recognizing marriage altogether, because doing so is excessive religious entanglement.

[Dimensio]

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

I'm curious, are you trying to be silly to make gay marriage opponents look stupid? This argument makes you appear to be doing that.

[Dimensio]

The problem with your argument is that two people of the opposite gender can already enter into a "sham" marriage, done just for the benefits. Allowing same-sex marriage would open up the door for same-sex couples to engage in the same type of sham marriage, but it's not like such things can't and don't happen already between people of the opposite gender.

[Eastbound]

"the definition of the term "decent people" is changing and i believe it is America's duty to, once again, change with it as she has so wonderfully done before."

America's duty, huh? "Wonderfully done before," huh? Horse pucky. Do you know how many black people would dearly love to kick yer butt for placing them on par with those having a deviant and dangerous predeliction? Think sackcloth and ashes instead.

[Dimensio]

Decent folks, which would exclude sexual deviants and racists, among others.

In other words, "Only people who believe exactly as I do."

[FormerLib]

Decent folks, which would exclude sexual deviants and racists, among others.

In other words, "Only people who believe exactly as I do."

I'm sorry, did my excluding racists step on your toes? Or was it the exclusion of the other group?

[stylin19a]

Silly ?...Did you even read the article ?

[AnalogReigns]

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

Please name for me when exactly that time was?

Governing authority has ALWAYS recognized marriages, from the dawn of recorded history. There has never been a time, anywhere where it has not been involved with marriage.

In medieval Europe, the Church (in the form of the Roman church) was in charge of marital issues...and family courts, and inhertance cases, and sexual crime, etc. with the POWER (and backing) of the government. Hence the church at that time WAS a governing authority. In Protestantism, as in early colonial America, a similar argangement was found.

Later, slowly but surely, secular governing authorities assumed what church (governing authorities) formerly had administered.

Since marriage involves issues of: private and government benefits, insurance, inheritance, children, custody, adoption, abuse, enforceable divorce, etc., etc., government, in one way or another always has, and should, be involved.

That's why the gay "marriage" issue is so important--and can't be avoided by libertarian fantasies.

[Askel5]

==== 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.



But that's not the point ... as you said, the point is the ability to "control" fertility.

Thanks to birth control, a heterosexual couple may enter the marriage contract with the specific intent to have sex but remain childless ... just like homosexuals.

And thanks to predominantly objectively immoral methods of artificial conception a couple who knows or finds out they are infertile may contract with other parties (clinic, donors, surrogate etc.) to confect children at will using whatever combination of their own DNA or that of others with "desirable" traits ... just like homosexuals.

Again, it's a little late to be blaming homosexuals for the fact the premises of their marriages are not at all different where Children are concerned.

And, as noted above, it's because children are the NATURAL result of marriage and Family enjoys a special sovereignty and claim on any individual which is superior to that of the State that the State is obligated to recognize and protect that institution.

In a moral society -- one which doesn't plow under about a million of its unborn each year -- children, even and especially the "potential persons" of marital conjugal union, have certain rights and protections.

Let me assure you that it's NOT the homosexuals who've aborted over 40 million humans a year as part of that "failsafe" birth control which allows them to "control" their reproduction.