Same-Sex Marriage - A Threat To Whom?

12-23-04 | Ernie1241

[Ernie.cal]

I have read many messages which object to same-sex marriage but I am still waiting to learn what specific adverse consequences opponents of gay marriage anticipate to result from its legalization.

In other words, suppose same-sex marriage becomes law during 2005. By 2010 or 2015 what specific indisputable adverse consequences to society do opponents predict to occur?

With respect to those critics of same-sex marriage who refer to "God's law" and "procreation" --- do they believe that heterosexual couples who cannot have children, or who do not wish to have children, should also NOT be allowed to marry?

The essence of a free society is choice---including the option of choosing private behavior that does not cause harm to another person. The alternative is coercion, i.e. using the coercive (and punitive) power of government through laws, bureaucrats, and police to dictate what choices are permissible.

Do opponents of same-sex marriage propose that our society should begin identifying areas where choices involving human intimacy should be regulated by government entities and thus dilute our commitment to the values inherent in a free society?

[mrsmith]

I think all marriages should be between poeople who have the same sex!

Imagine that the husband is having one type of sex while the wife is having another type of sex.

That would be so frustrating for them...

[Jibaholic]

I would certainly end the no-fault divorce. Divorce rates have doubled since they were instituted in 1960.

[ken5050]

It demeans the institution of marriage..

[Yonkers Finest]

Do you believe that homosexuality is a choice?? If young children are exposed to gay lifestyles they will be more prone to becoming gay themselves??

[Who dat?]

Now it is typical for a lot of companies to cover the employee only.

And I’m not opposed to that BTW. In fact, I’m all for it if the choice is between doing that and providing a “freebie” for the domestic partners.

[Valpal1]

Actually, yes. It is time to end the no fault divorce farce.

Divorce should be difficult to get and should cost the offending partner substantial assets to obtain.

Further, I have no doubt that once the homosexual movement acheives the goal of legal marriage they will then demand greater access to children and demand reproductive "rights" in that they will want laws changed to make baby buying/womb renting legal and of course force adoption agencies to consider their households appropriate placements, thus denying available children to loving and NORMAL households.

[thejokker]

radical feminists are waging a culture war on america. we can witness their attempts to rewrite american history, ban traditonal american values, and increase their political influence over traditional americans.

western civilization has evolved over thousands of years. why should america give in to a radical experiment by a fringe group with dubious moral values?

[trebb]

what specific indisputable adverse consequences to society do opponents predict to occur

Of course, if you cite other examples of allowing the foundation of society to be weakened, and point out the cesspool we are living in because of it, they will claim that there is no "undisputable" eveidence that their latest sickness will fester and cause more harm. The slippery-slope theory has panned out time and again, but those who profit from it will not concede - it is up to the righteous to stop this nonsense.

[the invisib1e hand]

same sex marriages are a mockery of "the laws of Nature and Nature's God," upon which our legal system is based. It's an attempt to overthrow our founding documents, disguised as a civil rights issue (as most such coup attempts are).

Sorry, but someone's not going to get their Christmas wish, if this country is to survive. Of all the issues facing us, this is the most destructive.

Memo to homos: Just go somewhere where you can get what you want, instead of trying to change a whole country for your own whims.

Pity that the freaks seem to understand the process of self government better than the people who really deserve it.

[Snagglepuss]

Have the majority assent to a major paradigm shift that alters our moral fabric just to accomodate the squeaky wheel minority? ... I don't think so.

/snag

[AppyPappy]

Since you don't care, ignore the arguments against it.

[JRochelle]

I am all for "gay marriage" as in gay men marrying lesbians. hehe


Well I thought it was funny..........

[ultima ratio]

The behavior is morally harmful. Homosexuality should be tolerated, not condoned. What gays are demanding is really a change in what is morally acceptable--and most people of faith simply cannot concede this point.

[ultima ratio]

It shouldn't be made easy.

[AppyPappy]

Do you also oppose laws against polygamy?

[wmichgrad]

Here are a couple of good article that may help you understand some of the issues. I am not for a U.S. Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. But I am happty that I live in a state where the people have enough sense not to allow it.

Answering Advocates of Gay Marriage

So how could marriage be harmed by adding a few gay couples? A good question, especially when you consider the deplorable state of marriage right now, which has been caused by hedonistic and irresponsible straight people.

Marriage is a complex institution. It must do several things (and, from an anthropological and historical perspective, fostering the emotional gratification of two adults is the least important). It must foster the bonds between men and women for at least three reasons: to encourage the birth and rearing of children (at least to the extent necessary for preserving and fostering society); to provide an appropriate setting for children growing to maturity; and — something usually forgotten — to ensure the co-operation of men and women for the common good. Moreover, it must foster the bonds between men and children, otherwise men would have little incentive to become active participants in family life. Finally, it helps provide men with a healthy masculine identity based on a distinctive, necessary, and publicly valued contribution to society — fatherhood — especially when no other contribution is considered acceptable.

Without public cultural support for a durable relationship binding men, women, and children, marriage would initially be reduced to nothing more than one "lifestyle choice" among many — that is, it could no longer be encouraged in the public square (which is necessary in a secular society). In fact, doing so would be denounced and even challenged in court as discrimination — the undue "privilege" of a "dominant" class, which is a breach of equality as defined by Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But discrimination in this case should be allowed — and could be under the Charter — in view of the fact that marriage, as a universal institution and the essential cultural complement to biology, is prior to all concepts of law.

In short, redefining marriage would amount to a massive human experiment. Some experiments work, it's true, but others don't. Remember that an earlier experiment, changing the divorce laws, set in motion social forces that would not be evident for forty years. This new experiment would be unprecedented in human history, and yet we haven't taken the time to think carefully about possible consequences. Instead, we've allowed emotion to sweep aside all other considerations.

A Defining Moment: Marriage, the Courts, and the Constitution

For thousands of years, on the basis of experience, tradition, and legal precedent, every society and every major religious faith have upheld marriage as a unique relationship by which a man and a woman are joined together for the primary purpose of forming and maintaining a family. This overwhelming consensus results from the fact that the union of man and woman is apparent and manifest in the most basic and evident truths of human nature.

Marriage is the formal recognition of this relationship by society and its laws. While individual marriages are recognized by government, the institution of marriage pre-exists and is antecedent to the institution of government, which in turn presupposes and depends on the institution of marriage. Society's interest in uniquely elevating the status of marriage among human relationships is that marriage is the necessary foundation of the family, and thus necessary for societal existence and well-being.

The basic building block of society is the family, which is the primary institution through which children are raised, nurtured, and educated, and develop into adults. Marriage is the cornerstone of the family: It produces children, provides them with mothers and fathers, and is the framework through which relationships among mothers, fathers, and children are established and maintained. Only in the context of family built on the foundation of marriage can the sometimes competing needs and interests of men, women, and children be harmonized.

Because of its characteristic relationship with the family, marriage is uniquely beneficial to society. Based on existing studies comparing two-parent and single-parent households, social science overwhelmingly demonstrates that children do far better when they are raised by two married parents in a stable family relationship and that children raised in other household structures are subject to significantly increased risk of harm.

Evidence further suggests that one reason children do better in a married household is not just the stability of having two parents, but the fact that a male and a female parent each bring distinctive strengths, perspectives, and characteristics to the family unit that benefit both children and the parents. Although we have little information concerning children raised in households with same-sex parents, what we do know is that marriage between a man and a woman provides unique social, economic, and health benefits for children, adults, and society in general.

Moreover, because of the shared obligations and generational relationships that accrue with marriage, the institution brings significant stability, continuity, and meaning to human relationships and plays an important role in transferring basic cultural knowledge and civilization to future generations.

In the end, despite all the changes that law and cultural trends have wrought concerning marriage — despite the laws concerning prenuptial agreements, divorce, tax, and property that treat marriage as a contract — it has never before been, nor is it now completely, the case that marriage is a mere contract. Society has changed the form, but never the substance, of marriage; and it is the substance of marriage — its very nature, definition, and purpose — that creates and justifies its unique position as a social institution and continues to give lawmakers strong and reasonable arguments for upholding traditional marriage and protecting it in law.

[Sarastro]

Marriage qualifies a heterosexual couple for specific religious, economic, and legal benefits from society — for the purpose of motivating heterosexual couples to form stable, childrearing families.

If society confers the same benefits on homosexual couples, it ipso facto eliminates such motivations to form stable, childrearing families. In that case, it might as well eliminate the benefits for all couples, since there is no longer the desired motivational effect. Thus, in the long run, legitimate married couples could be deprived of such benefits.

[Ernie.cal]

Your message (below) is absurd.

(1) First, very few companies provide benefits to "domestic partners".
(2) Second, in those companies which do provide benefits, the gay enrollee pays the same increased premium for 2-party coverage that a straight couple pays.
(3) Third, the primary reason why companies reduce health care benefits has nothing whatsoever to do with "domestic partners" -- Instead, it simply a mathematical computation, i.e. people are living longer, they use ever-more-expensive drugs and treatments, and the cost of health care is simply rising so fast that it is not affordable, especially to a smaller company.

"It wasn’t that long ago that companies would provide things like health coverage for their employees and it also covered their spouse and children. That is increasingly uncommon today, in part due to being forced to provide benefits to “domestic partners” and others if you provide them for a married employee. Now it is typical for a lot of companies to cover the employee only. If you want to cover a spouse or a child you will pay extra out of pocket to cover them."

If you appreciate things like that, find the nearest proponent of domestic-partnership and thank them.

[Natty Boh]

I'm with you. If two adults want to marry each other, why should I care? Laws against gay marriage just give the state more power to interfere in the lives of free citizens.

[truthandlogic]

What next, multiple marriage partners, pedophilia, bestiality? Who can say that other forms of marriage are not worth valid consideration. If gay marriage is accepted as “normal” it opens the door to other lust driven perverted lifestyles to become “normal.
How about the health aspects of gay sex? No one should wish this type of destructive behavior on society as “normal”

There is no reason to redefine marriage to include anything other than one man and one woman.

Let me ask this: How would gay marriage benefit society?