How exactly does gay marriage negatively affect traditional marriage?

[boxing123]

Ok, so you seem to be saying there is nothing wrong with platonic friends of the same sex just marrying each other? I marry a buddy, pool resources, adopt kids, and we sleep with lots of women.. No problem?

[marlena]

No Marlena, I mean friends of the same sex.. You and a girlfriend. Just marrying for benefits, but attracted to men.

 

 

I wouldn't marry anyone for benefits..male or female..

[boxing123]

Ok, not specifically you..

 

But just overall 2 platonic friends of the same sex marrying without any sort of romantic love(you claim people do not marry for love and that is a silly notion), would not lower the institution of marriage either?

[marlena]

I marry a buddy, pool resources, adopt kids, and we sleep with lots of women.. No problem?

 

Sleeping around is something that is not restricted to same-gender marriages for heaven's sake.

 

Sorry but I have difficulty following your train of thought/logic sometimes. I think it has something to do with your uncanny ability to twist people's words to fit your agenda.

[The Collector]

'Gee Honey, I love being married to you, but the fact that two men also got married really devalues our marriage doesn't it? And I am finding the concepts of mail order brides, childless couples and non-religious marriages are also really negatively impacting on our blesssed union. Waaa, and indeed, waaaa.'

[boxing123]

Simple question Marlena..

 

Is it ok for 2 platonic friends of the same sex to marry simply for benefits?

 

As you say heteros cheat and just marry for benefits anyway.

 

So must the 2 people of the same sex that are getting married engage in gay sex to make it a legitimate marriage?

 

Silly logic collector..I suppose nothing on Earth others do would really affect your marriage.. Even if people married sheep or 20 people..We are talking about society as a whole..

[marlena]

As you say heteros cheat and just marry for benefits anyway.

 

 

No, I didn't say this. This is what I mean about twisting people's words. I said people in general marry for a variety of reasons.

 

Is it ok for 2 platonic friends of the same sex to marry simply for benefits?

 

I could care less why anyone marries.

 

So must the 2 people of the same sex that are getting married engage in gay sex to make it a legitimate marriage?

 

Again, I could care less whether two people do or do not engage in sex in or out of a marriage.

 

Lastly, I am not crazy about the institution of marriage to begin with.

[grogster]

So for all of you who believe so fervently that gays should not marry....how exactly would gay marriage negatively impact traditional marriage?

 

 

There's absolutely no evidence that it does.It's the idea of Gay marriage that affects the ideal of Straight marriage. This makes some people cringe--although I suspect that hard core opposition is shrinking over time.

 

In 10 years this debate will be over in most places in the United States and the developed World.

[boxing123]

Grog, will 2 platonic friends getting married affect traditional marriage? Or do they have to have gay sex? And of course, I am meaning if this grows in numbers.. A society in which one day friends just marry friends of the same sex. and have casual sex with the opposite sex?

 

And yes, heteros cheat, especially noticeable on a site like this. But millions do not. On a long enough time line ZERO gays are monogamous. Usually a very short time line.

 

Marlena, the question is what is good for society/children. Technically if a guy down the street marries his dog it does not affect me. Or if he has 40 wives. Or if he commits suicide tomorrow.That really is not the point.

[The Collector]

Marlena, the question is what is good for society/children.

 

Gay people are part of society. It is good for children to see we recognise and accept homosexuals, and allow them to marry like everyone else. You may not agree, but that's the shift that has happened over the last few decades and will continue.

[marlena]

Gay people are part of society. It is good for children to see we recognise and accept homosexuals,

 

You can not hide things from children. And you can not underestimate their keen perception of things. From the minute they wander beyond the family hearth and start interacting with people other than their immediate family, they will notice a great deal of things about the world that surrounds them. This will spark their natural curiosity and lead them to ask many,many questions, some of them difficult to answer. That is why, in my opinion, it is best to prepeare them for the realities of the world outside even before they are let loose to fend for themselves.

 

Homosexuality is a reality, whether some like it or not, so preparing one's children for their encounters with homosexuals is a positive thing. It is preferable to hear the truth presented in an appropriate manner from their parents rather than from outsiders.

 

I would much rather my children hear from me that there are people in this world who choose to mate with the same gender. I would tell them that it is a choice that needs to be respected as much as respecting another person's creed or skin colour is. I would much rather they view homosexuality as something natural than as a disease or profanity or human aberration. Anyone who tries to instill the attitude that homosexuality is a sick anamoly into a child's malleable mind is as sick as the words he utters.

 

Fostering a healthy, positive attitude in a child's mind about homosexuality is much more beneficial to the child's emotional development than poisoning it with thoughts of perversion.

 

And no, it does not push them in that direction just as warning them about the disastrous effects of drug use doesn't push them into using drugs. If it so turns out that the child has homosexual leanings, nothing and no one can change that.

[Onwards]

Grog, will 2 platonic friends getting married affect traditional marriage? Or do they have to have gay sex? And of course, I am meaning if this grows in numbers.. A society in which one day friends just marry friends of the same sex. and have casual sex with the opposite sex?

 

Why are you focussing on what *might* happen with same sex platonic friends?

Platonic friends of the opposite sex can and do get married now.

 

Are you outraged?

[Woggle]

Maybe people would have better marriages if they concentrated on that instead of worrying about what other people do. We have become a society full of church ladies who worry about things that are none of our business. If a person wants to marry their gay lover that is their business.

[amerikajin]

well see, its sort of complex. i'll try to summarize and of course this is just me opinion...

 

"traditional" marriage is an institution where a hetero couple unites with teh primary goal of procreation and therefore raising the kids in a good and stable home. without "traditional" marriage many homosexual people would not exist, innit?

 

"gay" marriage is an instituiton where two people of the same sex can unite but not have their own kids, ergo they cannot procreate and therefore keep the human race going.

 

so basically, the two are not fully equal. one does not impinge on the other except for the ability to have offspring part. and that is an important piece of the puzzle.

 

its ironic that gay people owe their lives to heteros

 

The flaw in this reasoning is that there are heterosexual couples who either cannot or will not procreate. So if procreation is the premise upon which protecting "traditional" marriage from encroachment by gay marriage rests, then logically, that could be used to prohibit anyone who doesn't procreate from being marriage. Who knows...we might actually have to have pre-marital sex to determine who's fit for marriage. What a cruel irony that would be to religious conservatives, some of whom themselves would be disqualified from marriage. Maybe that's not such a bad idea, after all. Maybe the best way to give opponents of gay marriage the perspective they need is to give them a dose of their own medicine. It's easy to discriminate...when it affects other people. If procreation itself became the sole standard or qualification for marriage, some heterosexual opponents would finally be forced to answer the question, "Who's the f@ggot now?"

[IrishCarBomb]

Gay marriage impacts heterosexual marriage because now "the gay disease" is out in the open. It is only a matter of time before it infects the entire human population, and humanity is wiped out. If only we knew that religion was the cure of homosexuality... if only we didn't recognize godless sodomites... if only we didn't have separation of church and state... if only...

 

I think it also impacts heterosexual marriage because insurance premiums are going to go WAY up! Now, when a homosexual is beaten to death, his or her marriage partner is going to get a death benefit!!! WTF!?!?! Expect life insurance to fail entirely, health insurance to be eliminated, and auto insurance to be more expensive than the cars themselves. Society as we know it is over.

[a4a]

The flaw in this reasoning is that there are heterosexual couples who either cannot or will not procreate. So if procreation is the premise upon which protecting "traditional" marriage from encroachment by gay marriage rests, then logically, that could be used to prohibit anyone who doesn't procreate from being marriage. Who knows...we might actually have to have pre-marital sex to determine who's fit for marriage. What a cruel irony that would be to religious conservatives, some of whom themselves would be disqualified from marriage. Maybe that's not such a bad idea, after all. Maybe the best way to give opponents of gay marriage the perspective they need is to give them a dose of their own medicine. It's easy to discriminate...when it affects other people. If procreation itself became the sole standard or qualification for marriage, some heterosexual opponents would finally be forced to answer the question, "Who's the f@ggot now?"

 

Yes indeed.

Hetros should be fertility tested before a M lic. is issued..... if one no longer can perform sexually the M should be disolved at once. If Hetro M couples are not trying to procreate the state should disolve their M and the rights that go with a legal M.

 

Perhaps a reprieve for Hetro M couples willing to adopt. Nah. Obviously if you cannot naturally reproduce you are not M material. And your bond with another human is meaningless.

 

And what about those arranged M's that still do exist and happen in the US.

Should be Legal or Illegal?..... it is not for love.

 

I truly believe people that are so anti gay marriage have their own issues with their closeted homosexuality. They feel threatened on a personal level because they fear they may one day be in a gay marriage.

[quankanne]

Similar to my friends marrying example. They are not marrying out of "love" like you silly heteros think, as you put your hetero way of thinking onto them.

 

THANK YOU! Finally someone who *gets* that there's more to a committed homosexual (hell, even heterosexual) relationship than just doing what the straight population feels is proper and correct. Until people understand that there are ways of addressing legal issues that arise in a gay domestic partnership that are beneficial to those couples, they really shouldn't just give a pat answer and say "it MUST be marriage, or you're being discriminatory"

[reservoirdog1]

'Gee Honey, I love being married to you, but the fact that two men also got married really devalues our marriage doesn't it? And I am finding the concepts of mail order brides, childless couples and non-religious marriages are also really negatively impacting on our blesssed union. Waaa, and indeed, waaaa.'

BEAUTIFULLY said.

 

Seriously, homophobes... stop worrying so much about everybody else's marriages -- gay or straight -- and start focusing on your own. That's the only one you have any control over anyway. Whether it fails or succeeds, the only people who will deserve the blame or credit will be you and your spouse. Nobody else. Especially not a married gay couple down the street, in another city or in another state.

 

If only more heterosexual couples put 110% into their marriages and actually took their vows seriously, the divorce rate would be a fraction of what it is today. Regardless of whether or not two gay people can legally marry each other.

[quankanne]

and okaying gay marriages is going to keep the divorce rate down?

 

not sure what your experience is, but I can think of one gay couple that I've known in my lifetime that has upheld the kind of bond that would be considered a "true marriage" in sense of the word. My single friends want to be in committed relationships, but I've noticed that among the gay ones, it's much, much harder to successfully attain that. As if engaging in a gay lifestyle is a kind of living out a forbidden fantasy, and therefore short-lived and/or disposable.

[amerikajin]

and okaying gay marriages is going to keep the divorce rate down?

 

People are saying that gay marriage won't have an affect on heterosexual marriage one way or the other.

 

not sure what your experience is, but I can think of one gay couple that I've known in my lifetime that has upheld the kind of bond that would be considered a "true marriage" in sense of the word. My single friends want to be in committed relationships, but I've noticed that among the gay ones, it's much, much harder to successfully attain that. As if engaging in a gay lifestyle is a kind of living out a forbidden fantasy, and therefore short-lived and/or disposable.

 

Don't you think it's possible that gays don't stay married entirely because there is nothing that encourages them to stay together? How many unmarried heterosexual couples stay together indefinitely as unmarried couples? I know that some do end up in common law marriages, but it seems to me that the vast majority unmarried hetero couples don't stay together more than five years, either. Even fewer make it to ten years. Coincidentally, the few long-term unmarried hetero couples I have met were from Canada and Northern California, both of which seem to be more relaxed about gay marriage.

[amerikajin]

BEAUTIFULLY said.

 

Seriously, homophobes... stop worrying so much about everybody else's marriages -- gay or straight -- and start focusing on your own. That's the only one you have any control over anyway. Whether it fails or succeeds, the only people who will deserve the blame or credit will be you and your spouse. Nobody else. Especially not a married gay couple down the street, in another city or in another state.

 

If only more heterosexual couples put 110% into their marriages and actually took their vows seriously, the divorce rate would be a fraction of what it is today. Regardless of whether or not two gay people can legally marry each other.

 

I think there is within all of us a need to compare ourselves to other people, a need to be nosy. We need to find out what our neighbors are doing in their bedrooms. We need to know how f*cked up our neighbors' finances are, how their relationships are going. We're curious. I'm convinced that people who worry about this stuff are just not very confident about themselves in some respects. People who try to keep a lid on homosexuality are probably worried about their own sexuality, or worried about the sexuality of people around them, and they're worried about how their sexuality supports (or fails to support) their egos or sense of face. I think people who are truly confident about either their sexual identity, or people who are confident about themselves as people regardless of the sexual identity of those close to them, such people don't really have the need to police the sex lives of other. Such people don't live in perpetual fear of being converted to this supposedly 'perverted' gay cult that is waiting to drag them into a dark underworld.

[Lizzie60]

Gay marriages... straight marriages.. this is solely a religious BS thing...

[burning 4 revenge]

I think there is within all of us a need to compare ourselves to other people, a need to be nosy. We need to find out what our neighbors are doing in their bedrooms. We need to know how f*cked up our neighbors' finances are, how their relationships are going. We're curious. I'm convinced that people who worry about this stuff are just not very confident about themselves in some respects. People who try to keep a lid on homosexuality are probably worried about their own sexuality, or worried about the sexuality of people around them, and they're worried about how their sexuality supports (or fails to support) their egos or sense of face. I think people who are truly confident about either their sexual identity, or people who are confident about themselves as people regardless of the sexual identity of those close to them, such people don't really have the need to police the sex lives of other. Such people don't live in perpetual fear of being converted to this supposedly 'perverted' gay cult that is waiting to drag them into a dark underworld.

Oh how profound Amerikajin

 

Nobody is talking about policing anything, you guys want to change society in a fundamental way, you guys are the ones pushing an agenda, not vice versa

[amerikajin]

I'll preface this by saying that even though we might disagree, I appreciate the more moderate tone of your post (as well as Quankanne's).

 

Marriage is a celebration of the American family. It acknowledges the seminal contribution made by the union of a man and a woman to usher in the future of our great country - our children.

 

I get what you're saying, but I also think that the intent or purpose behind marriage has always changed over time. Some married couples don't have children and don't intend to have children. Some do intend to have children but can't produce them naturally, and some can't produce them despite repeated artificial attempts to do so. I won't deny that for a majority of people, yes, a marriage means a man and a woman, and that for a lot of these people marriage symbolizes all of the very things that you and others on this thread have identified. But I reject that marriage necessarily excludes anyone who does not necessarily fall within the common description of a married couple. Obviously, we can and should take a look to see who may not qualify for matrimony, but I guess what we're debating here is, should sexual preference necessarily and always be an essential criterion or bar for marriage. I say no - precisely because there really are no compelling factual or logical arguments that justify such bars for gays to marry. I leave open the possibility that such a reason might possibly exist and I just haven't seen it.

 

Destroying the concept of marriage seems to be the pet project of the "do gooders" these days. The political correctness movement is relentlessly pursuing an erosion of American family values. They say we must ignore the contribution that American families have made to shape our cultural values' date=' and nurture our children.[/quote']

 

Some of the terms you used require definition, but I think I know what you're getting at here. I think you're saying that if we, as a society, stand for nothing that we will fall for anything. I reject that argument. I don't think everything in life is a slippery slope. White supremacists, once in the majority here and elsewhere, warned for years that miscegenation and even befriending blacks and other minorities would lead to all kinds of social chaos -- I don't think it has. I don't think sanctioning gay marriage is going to inspire children to have sex with farm animals a generation from now.

[amerikajin]

Oh how profound Amerikajin

 

Nobody is talking about policing anything, you guys want to change society in a fundamental way, you guys are the ones pushing an agenda, not vice versa

 

And that change threatens you how? People seem to be worried about the collapse of society, but I don't get why. I think they're insecure about their own sexuality. I think people project on gays because they're afraid that gays are going to make an advance on them, and if they do, then they'll be left to wonder "OMG, could I be a fag/dike?" Or in some cases maybe they're worried about their children being gay "OMG, is my child gay? Did I miss the signs? Am I a failed parent" People are afraid of being excluded from others in their own circles. People who have a problem with gays usually spend a lot of time with other people who have a problem with gays. People who are confident about who they are and have a truly good moral compass don't waste their time worrying about the "fall of society."