How exactly will Gay Marriage harm Marriage as an Institution?

i think surely freakyjoeman was being facetious.


if a straight couple are able to marry and divorce anyone whom they think they love, why can't homosexuals? huck's comment about homosexuals having the same right to marry anyone of the opposite sex that they want sorta sidesteps the point. straight people get to marry anyone they wish to bed and live with. that they just so happen to be members of opposite sexes makes it easy for them.

after all, homosexuals pay all the same taxes and shit that the rest of us do. why shouldn't they receive the benefits? like social security from their dead spouse, legal authority and rights that only marriage can bring? if it bothers you to call it marriage, get over it. most of the marriages i see are a ridiculous farce and end in a couple years anyway. THERE IS NO SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE AS AN INSTITUTION. only your individual marriage can be sanctified and treated respectfully by yourself and your partner. if my neighbor's marriage sucks, it's got nothing to do with my marriage.

and i'll go further to state the homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt. look at all these poor kids who are being shuffled around from abusive foster parent to abusive foster parent. what, being adopted by a stable homosexual couple is worse than that? give me a freaking break.

 

My point is that their is no law preventing adulterers, philanders, orgyists, etc. from being denied employment or housing. I don't see why homosexuality should be singled out for special protection.

This would mean that a single person with dead parents and no siblings couldn't be visited by a best friend. I have trouble believing that this is a common occurrence. If it is, then laws should be crafted to protect all such individuals, not just gays.

I said that employees should be able to purchase coverage (i.e. pay the premiums) for roommates. They often have to do this for spouses; employers don't always pick up the tab.

You want to legally redefine marriage in androgynous terms, such that the sexual complementarity of the spouses is irrelevant.

Many gay activists and social scientists (quoted at length in the articles) disagree with you.

 

In a book, then it grows into your mind, and then it takes over your heart. Still got one of those don'tcha?

Definately need to read something. Nietzsche is a good start, but certainly not the end all of progressive thought.

Pointless is as pointless does. I see a lot of good in teh idea of expanding your mind...

Ask yourself.

Probably.

That'd be pretty lame, no?

You go girl! Work it. Own it!

 

Of course it's irresponsible and wrong, but everyone else was handlin the serious stuff.......Goddamn, ya don't actually think that that was my real opinion, did ya? Damn, man! I totally think that the govt. should let people get married. And what is the institution of marrige anyway? The union of two people bound by love! Love, that's they key word! (If that's what makes a marrige a valid one, than prolly more than a third of hetro marriges are a farce.) But that's not the case. Marrige is the system trying to maintain the legal fiction of the nuclear family. The perfect, dad-goes-to-work-mom-houscleans-two-kids-are-perfect-white picket fence shit that's been indoctrinated into the national psyche. And gay marrige being illegal is jus the maintained attitude that kids will be less-fucked up if there parents are a dude an a chick. As John Stewart said: "Straight parents are better than a single parent which is better than gay parents, which is equal to a dude screwing a box-turtle?"

 

upon reading this entire thread i have concluded that huck is right in some regards. also bachus, while i really respect you as a poster, it should have been pretty obvious freaky joe man was kidding.

unfortunatley huck the news sources you quoted are a far stretch from being able to be considered 'fair and balanced'. i did a lil lookin into the other articles written by those publishers and they're all very right wing. i also found a lot more opinion and very loosely tied corelations than fact in your articles. its my dinner but i will return to post more

 

Unfortunately, sarcasm is DAMN hard to read. You kinda gotta hear it.

Had I been familiar with FJM's previous opinions, it might have been obvious, but I just started posting here a week ago, and haven't figured everyone out yet.

 

no matter how long you've been here it is still hard to read sarcasm. i've been here for years and people still don't get me sometimes. fuck it.

 

yeah. i still get my ass jumped sometimes over nothing because people don't really have any idea what i'm about. it's why i stick to certain forums.

 

What are you saying...?

First, I disagree, second, I don't see the logic. The FDA has extensive guidelines and policies set in place to protect the consumer from unsafe drugs. These policies and procedures greatly "exacerbate" the rising cost of prescription drugs. Should we do away with the FDA?

Religion has "exacerbated" foreign conflicts throughout history. In fact, religion has contributed to the death of more people than any disease in history, if you count all of the "religious" wars, including the one against terror. Should we forbid religion, to protect indiviual lives?

Why do I have to sacrifice personal liberties and rights so you can maintain your comfort level, status quo, and the historical definition of marraige, which has historically discriminated against me. Historically, african-americans were slaves, then second class citizens. Should we have not changed it? This is a civil rights issue! I am NOT a second class citizen!

 

Sorry for getting so defensive. I typically like and/or agree with your posts, so I should have known better. I am just accustomed to having the Adam and Steve line used as a real defense, in my redneck little corner of the world.
I LOVE the Jon Stewart quote. I saw that episode, VERY funny!

 

having an orgy is not against the law. How could you be denied housing/employment for having an orgy? Adultery is against the law, but I have never heard of anyone getting fired, denied housing, etc, for commiting adultery.

 

Common, probably not. It is something I have to think abouth though. Could this happen to you and your wife? With no proof whatsoever, she could declare herself your wife and the nurse would take her straight back to your room.
I do NOT want special protection. I want equal protection under the law. You have to see that I am not treated as an equal citizen by the government, and I pay a HIGHER TAX rate than most heterosexual couples do or will pay, because I haven't created a child.

 

I contend that society has an interest in promoting heterosexual marriage. I see no public benefit (and great potential for harm) from redefining "marriage" to include homosexual "partnerships." (I think that "same-sex union" is an oxymoron.)

I doubt that it's very common for homosexuals, either. My point is that none of these sexual fetishes have special legally protected status. Landlords are equally free to refuse to rent to either unmarried heterosexual couples or homosexuals.

My point is that visitation rights for all unmarried people (gay or straight) should be protected.

Lots of unmarried heterosexuals are in the same position. Again, I believe that heterosexual marriage deserves special treatment. Maybe this will help explain the point I'm trying to make:

http://www.esa-online.org/crossroads/monographs/coolidge.html

 

"SEES" this is one person's OPINION of what she SEES! I have every right to disagree with what she "sees." So what? One person who is for gay marriage, "Sees" motherhood (which YOU know I have strong opinions about) as oppressive. Most do not agree. Has nothing to do with Gay Marriage. What happens in Denmark is not my concern. You can't extrapolate some OPINION from an uberRighty website into what is actually happening here.

respone to photo's comment about higher tax rates for unmarried people

YES, but they have the RIGHT to get married, if they like. Gays, at the moment do not have that right. (OMG, please do not say they are free to marry someone of the opposite sex.....that is about as offensive to them as the government saying to YOU, you have to pick and stay with a GAY partner, just to get rights. Are YOU comfortable and would YOU be happy in a Gay relationship? No, then don't suggest to Gay people that they join a hetero one.)

 

Huck,
I'm still confused on what you are trying to say. Are you attempting to claim that being gay is a fetish such as having your toes sucked on? I just want to make sure we are all on the same page. Because using that logic, then of course people don't deserve special treatment. However, being gay is not a fetish. When you choose to be a swinger, that is something you decide, knowing that your actions have consequences good or bad. People don't choose to be gay. Did you wake up one day when you were 13 and say, I think I will be a straight man? I highly doubt it. People who are gay haven't got any control over it. Just like people who are black (except Michael Jackson) haven't got any control over that. You are what you are. And since they are all human everyone deserves the same rights. I really don't understand how you can read so much more into this. If you believe that humans have rights, then that extends to all humans, even if you disagree with whom they fall in love with.

*sigh* I feel like I'm wasting my breath (or typing) anyway, because you will never understand what we are saying and we will never understand what you are saying. Eventually though the laws will change and gays will have equal rights. Hopefully sooner than later, because for all I know my future child could be gay. And in hindsight, everyone will be like "what the hell were people thinking back then in 2004". Just like people say today about non land owners, women and blacks having equal rights.

 

i think idiots who attack a couple who wants to commit to each other, love each other, and support each other simply because of something that is NONE of their business (sexual orientation & gender) are a bigger threat to the institution of marriage (gay or straight) than those couples who want that commitment and happen to be the same gender. indeed, a lot of gay couples i've known have been more committed to preserving their vows to one another than many legally married straight couples, and so have a lot to offer towards the enrichment, preservation, and protection of marriage.

i'm on my second divorce, and i say, if a gay couple can do a better job staying together than me & my former spouses, for gods' sakes, let them wed!

 

Huck - I sent you a PM, but to be redundant, and to ask for EVERYONES HELP:

I have to write a 15+ research paper this semester. I have not yet formulated a research question, but I have decided it will be something under the broad, umbrella topic of gay marriage, sanctity of marriage, gov't/religion roles in marriage, etc. If anyone has any sources they can point me to, I would appreciate it. I will appreciate any response, but I am especially looking for responsed that disagree with me, because I want this to be a very objective paper. In return, I will link the final paper to my homepage when it is finished, in December, for anyone who would want to read it.

Thanks in advance for any help, and for the info I have already received!

 

cutelildeadbear,

See:

http://www.messiah.edu/hpages/facstaff/chase/h/articles/schmidt/index.htm

http://www.cornerstonemag.com/pages/show_page.asp?422

http://www.cornerstonemag.com/pages/show_page.asp?440

 

Huck,
The man writing this is a Christian, therefore regardless of what nature has intended he has been brainwashed (or taught if you prefer) to believe otherwise. How can I argue with one's religion? If you believe something, I can't regardless of the scientific evidence that I may or may not have change your mind. Just like Christians believe in creation. I can't make them not believe in it. So, while I did read the links that you posted, that does not prove to me that gay people choose to be gay. Sure when you have sex you are making a decision to do so assuming you are not being raped which isn't sex anyway. I'm not arguing that point. However, I am arguing that you have control over who you are attracted to. Whether it be someone's physical attractiveness that first draws you in, or something else. I can't tell, but is this first article suggesting that you can feel naturally inclined to prefer someone from the same sex, ie it is a natural feeling, but you are supposed to suppress this feeling and not have sex because sex is a choice. Does that really make logical sense to anyone?

Let me ask you this: is your wife bald? Would you be attracted to a bald woman walking down the street? You can't help who you fall in love with. I guess perhaps you've never been in love for real since you believe that marriage has nothing to do with love, but rather with procreation and doing what you consider "natural" according to the Bible.

Like I said I'm tired of wasting my breath. You know we are right, you just want to keep arguing and like I said I can't nor have I any desire to change someone's religous beliefs, however, your religion is not what everyone believes and it is not necessarily truth. It is true for you, but not for everyone else. This is why I don't debate abortion. I guess this is something else I will have to put on my list to not debate with people here anymore. I am not sure why everything has to be religious, but that is the problem with this country... no the world.

On a positive note, my boyfriend's mother was completely on the fence about this issue. She too felt that it was not natural and that gays should not get married. I asked her, did she decide who she was going to fall in love with and have children with (because he was an asshole back then) and she said no. I asked her then did she wake up when she was a teen and say I have decided that I like boys. She said no. Then I asked her, what if one of your children came home tonight and at dinner said Mom, Dad, I'm gay, and I'm head over heals in love with someone quite special and I want to marry them and spend the rest of my life with them. Would you tell them that they don't have the right to marry? Would you not be happy for your own child. At that point, she changed her mind. She said that more than anything in this world she would want for her children to be happy and healthy. She came to the conclusion that gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Like I keep saying it is not a difficult concept to grasp. That is if you have an open enough mind and if you care enough.

 

You apparently didn't read them very carefully. No one said that they chose their homosexual desires, but they did choose how to respond to them. Moreover, the first article was not religious in nature. It carefully reviewed the scientific evidence on the origins of homosexual inclinations, and it included a link to a well-documented set of footnotes. Try actually dealing with its contents.