How exactly does gay marriage negatively affect traditional marriage?

[sally4sara]

Hilarious, s4s, do you really feel you haven't attacked Silk? You said: "stupid remains unchanged by exposure to knowledge". LOL. Too funny. You called her stupid, in so many words. That's an attack.

 

Then you said: "You read and draw your own conclusion of how your argument comes across to others". Let's see, her opinion seems to only have upset you, donna, IG, and Chariot.

 

And you are putting words into her mouth. All she wants to keep is a word. She has said over and over again that she supports unions. Its you that has made an illogical leap to her "denying the use of a word" to mean "denying them their rights".

 

Hilarious. How her argument comes across to others? LOL. Kettle, anyone?

 

How can someone keep something, even a word, when it never belonged to them? I've given her proof that it didn't mean what she thinks it means. So how is she or anyone else going to "keep" it?

 

What is making her feel stupid is her. She experienced an emotion due to having her logic shown to have no basis. If I am shown that I have been incorrect, I may be slightly embarrassed, but I am glad to learn the correction.

I am sarcastic. I use humor. Sometimes it is biting, but I did not call her stupid. I'm sure she is capable of learning and I hope she finds her way.

[clv0116]

The benefits to society and gay society have already been discussed at length.

 

I think it's incumbent on those wishing to effect change to state what precisely they want, what issues it addresses and how. I've not seen that stated and agreed upon yet.

[Woggle]

For the life of me I can understand what the big deal is. Gay marriage in no way affects my marriage or my life so why should I care? People in this society seriously need to get a life and get their priorities straight if gay people getting married is their biggest concern. With all the problems going on gay marriage is what gets people riled up. It's a just a new way of people scapegoating instead of pointing the finger at themselves.

[blowingthetrout]

You'll be waiting for a long time if you are expecting me to read through this thread before responding. LOL.

 

Island Girl. I can call you that, right? "Tons" is a figure of speech, but I suspect you already knew that and that's why you put it in quotes.

 

I do have a problem with the question, though. Why is it that the "benefits" of gay marriage were applied to "society" and not to traditional marriage? Is it possible that there are no benefits of gay marriage on traditional marriage as you are attempting to assert that there are no negatives on traditional marriage either? This whole thing is about society at large - not just traditional marriage, no?

 

FWIW, I don't care much about the benefits to gay society as I am not a part of it. Just being honest.

 

NID you have a wonderful way of talking sideways, impressive.

 

look the post which you are responding to she is waiting for you to post the 'tons' of negative examples not waiting for you to read through this thread. naturally 'ton' is a figure of speech however I'm sure you must realize it's figure is used in terms of 'plenty' or 'alot' don't you? does ignoring this fact just let you off the hook for giving some real examples?

 

you basically bastardized her question in order not to answer it, then go into something about the original question. seriously if you have no idea what your talking about then what was the point in posting in this thread in the first place?

 

I'm not trying to critique you but I to would absolutely love to hear of these 'tons' of negative effects..so please enlighten us all would you.

[Island Girl]

I think it's incumbent on those wishing to effect change to state what precisely they want, what issues it addresses and how. I've not seen that stated and agreed upon yet.

 

The thread topic dictates the conversation.

 

The original question in the topic of the thread has yet to be addressed.

 

Those in favor of gay marriage have already posted numerous ways allowing homosexuals marriage rights would aid society on multiple threads including this one. They needn't be agreed upon since they are off topic in the first place.

 

The topic of the thread is "how exactly does gay marriage negatively affect traditional marriage".

 

Care to post on topic and answer that question?

[clv0116]

Care to post on topic and answer that question?

 

"It's immaterial because there is no reason for gays to marry"

[Island Girl]

"It's immaterial because there is no reason for gays to marry"

 

Thanks again for avoiding the topic of the thread and ducking the question.

[NoIDidn't]

NID you have a wonderful way of talking sideways, impressive.

 

look the post which you are responding to she is waiting for you to post the 'tons' of negative examples not waiting for you to read through this thread. naturally 'ton' is a figure of speech however I'm sure you must realize it's figure is used in terms of 'plenty' or 'alot' don't you? does ignoring this fact just let you off the hook for giving some real examples?

 

you basically bastardized her question in order not to answer it, then go into something about the original question. seriously if you have no idea what your talking about then what was the point in posting in this thread in the first place?

 

I'm not trying to critique you but I to would absolutely love to hear of these 'tons' of negative effects..so please enlighten us all would you.

 

Wow, I managed to offend someone. Wow, who'd have thunk it?

 

No I didn't (hey, that's my name, LOL) bastardize "her" question. I simply asked the opposite question. Surely there must be some benefits to "traditional marriage" that would automatically negate any negatives. The answer was given to concerning "society" but not "traditional marriage".

 

I posted on this thread because I find it interesting. I do not think that "gay" marriage benefits traditional marriage or society. But I do feel it will benefit the gays that desire it. And isn't that the whole point?

[Island Girl]

Wow, I managed to offend someone. Wow, who'd have thunk it?

 

No I didn't (hey, that's my name, LOL) bastardize "her" question. I simply asked the opposite question. Surely there must be some benefits to "traditional marriage" that would automatically negate any negatives. The answer was given to concerning "society" but not "traditional marriage".

 

I posted on this thread because I find it interesting. I do not think that "gay" marriage benefits traditional marriage or society. But I do feel it will benefit the gays that desire it. And isn't that the whole point?

 

Again you post but never address the thread topic and did not even answer the direct question that has been asked directly to you SEVERAL times.

 

You have stated "tons" of examples regarding how gay marriage would negatively affect traditional marriage.

 

Apparently I am not the only one waiting for some or a least a few of these "tons" to appear here.

[NoIDidn't]

NoIDidn't,

 

this is simply a reflection of how successful the brainwashing proposed by gay propagandists in After the Ball, and other gay propoganda publications, has been.

 

There is not much point in discussing anything with those who have become unwitting pawns to a propaganda campaign, because when you provide an answer they will either read it and pretend it is incomprehensible, or read it and not comprehend it because they have been conditioned to reject anything which doesn't match their own views.

 

According to many who follow the gay propaganda school of thought, if one has a different opinion to theirs, then that opinion must be "wrong" , "bigoted", "stupid", "discriminatory", or "backward" - this is textbook "After the Ball" lingo, and they are just unwittingly doing as they are brainwashed to do. They will never be able to see others' viewpoint, nor others' rights to hold any view not 100% in line with their own. Indeed, the sort of propaganda we receive from the gay activitsts are backward in the true sense of the word - anything but forward thinking. They are things which have to an extent been tried and tested in some ancient civilisations (e.g Greek and Roman), but to detrimental effects on society.

 

In trying to contribute to this discussion, I started out trying to use objective terms and remain open but then you get abusive responses which mostly reflect a preposterous combination of arrogance and ignorance, with a tinge of total intolerance for good measure! Hence my use of the Ignore function! "Against stupidity even the gods themselves struggle in vain". Who am I a mere mortal to even bother!?

 

Indeed, I have said that gay couples should have the same legal rights as straight couples.

 

I am no historian, but I think that societies tinker with alternative lifestyles in the "cities" while the traditionalists live out in the "country" and eventually the "country" life wins over when the cities run out of resources (food and supplies).

 

I read parts of the book at my local library and was just shocked with how well their strategy has worked. Its so sad that they felt they needed to brainwash society to get what they want. I believe that Gays should be allowed to marry if they want to and because they pay taxes in a secular country. I have no qualms about the word they use to describe it. Traditionalists have done enough damage to marriage without blaming it on potential gay marriages, IMO. But to use psychology against an unknowing public is criminal, IMHO. Its wrong when governments use it, so I see no difference in this case. Good thing "you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time".

 

Gays have been trying to link their fight for "rights" to the "Civil Rights Movement" for decades. Most Blacks don't feel that its applicable for many of the reasons that I gave. And I still don't either. The day that the Gay Rights Movement is given an audience at the United Nations, then it might come close. But even then, its an issue of pressure, not actual denial of human rights. Blacks were denied basic human rights. Basic stuff like being able to trust the police to come to their side of town should they need them. I find it insulting to attempt to equate gay rights to civil rights. And many of the Black (and other minority) gays that I am friends with, feel the same way. They get double discrimination, and even within the gay community. So its not a civil rights issue as someone came up with hoping to pull on people's heart strings.

 

The many cases that you brought up will be dismissed by many as just religious propaganda. To some extent, that may be true, but I do see an erosion of others' rights just so this group can get what they want.

[NoIDidn't]

Again you post but never address the thread topic and did not even answer the direct question that has been asked directly to you SEVERAL times.

 

You have stated "tons" of examples regarding how gay marriage would negatively affect traditional marriage.

 

Apparently I am not the only one waiting for some or a least a few of these "tons" to appear here.

 

Don't hold your breath then, as I won't be answering this question only to have my answers decoded down to the dots on my I's.

 

You aren't interested in my answers in the name of discussion. You are just looking for something else to argue with. And you know it. So please, just skip my answer and jump straight to calling me stupid and bigotted please. Thanks.

[clv0116]

Thanks again for avoiding the topic of the thread and ducking the question.

 

Gay marriage has no impact if it doesn't exist. If it solves no issues it shouldn't be created.

[Moai]

Gay marriage has no impact if it doesn't exist. If it solves no issues it shouldn't be created.

 

It solves a great many issues, not least among them giving gays equal protection under the law.

[Moai]

I can name several ways gay marriage would harm society:

 

1. It makes God angry. If you thought Katrina was bad, just wait! And he won't just take out gay married people, he'll take out EVERYONE--except for maybe one guy, his wife and daughters, if history is any guide. Self-preservation dictates we deny gays marriage.

 

2. It will throw off the man-woman ratio at swinger's parties. Swingers, married people who have sex with other partners, uphold the sanctity of marriage, and at their parties married couples and single women are welcome. Now, if two men are married they can show up, and there will be to many men and not enough women. This directly impacts the lifestyle of married couples--legally married couples, by the way.

 

3. It devalues the meaning of the vows heterosexuals give each other. If we let gays marry, the vows people like Newt Gingrich gave his third wife will have no meaning. The sanctity of Mickey Rooney's ninth marriage will be thrown in the garbage.

 

4. If gays marry, our children will have a greater likelihood of being gay. If our children never heard of homosexuality, there would be no more gay people. When a child sees two same-sex people holding hands, he or she may find that more attractive than heterosexuality. Most kids watch their parents fight all the time, so seeing a happy gay couple is dangerous.

 

5. There is a finite amount of suitable marriage venues. If we allow gays to marry, it will be harder to book the best wedding venues, get a good cake in time, or hire a decent caterer. Not to mention having to mine more gold for wedding rings--consider the environment!

[annieo]

I can name several ways gay marriage would harm society:

 

1. It makes God angry. If you thought Katrina was bad, just wait! And he won't just take out gay married people, he'll take out EVERYONE--except for maybe one guy, his wife and daughters, if history is any guide. Self-preservation dictates we deny gays marriage.

 

2. It will throw off the man-woman ratio at swinger's parties. Swingers, married people who have sex with other partners, uphold the sanctity of marriage, and at their parties married couples and single women are welcome. Now, if two men are married they can show up, and there will be to many men and not enough women. This directly impacts the lifestyle of married couples--legally married couples, by the way.

 

3. It devalues the meaning of the vows heterosexuals give each other. If we let gays marry, the vows people like Newt Gingrich gave his third wife will have no meaning. The sanctity of Mickey Rooney's ninth marriage will be thrown in the garbage.

 

4. If gays marry, our children will have a greater likelihood of being gay. If our children never heard of homosexuality, there would be no more gay people. When a child sees two same-sex people holding hands, he or she may find that more attractive than heterosexuality. Most kids watch their parents fight all the time, so seeing a happy gay couple is dangerous.

 

5. There is a finite amount of suitable marriage venues. If we allow gays to marry, it will be harder to book the best wedding venues, get a good cake in time, or hire a decent caterer. Not to mention having to mine more gold for wedding rings--consider the environment!

 

:lmao:

absolutely right, especially about making god angry. wait a minute, didn't god make the gay people in the first place

[clv0116]

It solves a great many issues, not least among them giving gays equal protection under the law.

 

Great!

 

Now you can address this: "I think it's incumbent on those wishing to effect change to state what precisely they want, what issues it addresses and how. I've not seen that stated and agreed upon yet."

 

Please enumerate the legal issues that are not currently addressed by existing legal instruments.

[noreply110]

Oh oh my turn!

Marriage is a church institution. The state should have nothing to do with it. We should all (gay, straight, whatever) all have to apply for a civil union license. If you want to be "married" at the church of your choice, do so as long as you fulfill the requirements set by that organization. But the license that comes from the state would be a civil union license. We separated Church and State a long time ago. Not really sure why it is allowed back together for this issue.

 

Four other points-

1. Pretty sure God said in his big book somewhere that HE would judge the living and the dead. And that it was not for us to judge each other. So stop judging.

2. All of this focusing on who complete strangers choose to sleep with is weird.

3. If we are going to decide as a society that letting same sex marriage happen will destroy marriage, then no one should be allowed to marry before 25, and should be forced to go to a year of premarital counseling. Because I know for a fact us "opposite" married couples are screwing up marriage WAY faster then homosexual people ever possibly could.

4. If you don't want to marry someone of the same sex, then don't. There. Problem solved.

[clv0116]

Oh oh my turn!

Marriage is a church institution. The state should have nothing to do with it. We should all (gay, straight, whatever) all have to apply for a civil union license. If you want to be "married" at the church of your choice, do so as long as you fulfill the requirements set by that organization. But the license that comes from the state would be a civil union license. We separated Church and State a long time ago. Not really sure why it is allowed back together for this issue.

 

This I completely agree with. Your other 4 'points' seem to run counter to this however and I'm not tracking with you there.

[clv0116]

So simple, isn't it? At least for the socially enlightened.

 

It's an almost endless source of amusement to me that when someone who doesn't agree with your agenda proposes this, they are deemed socially retarded but when someone who appears to agree with the agenda proposes the precise same solution he is implied to be 'socially enlightened'.

 

Says something about the IQ of the poster more than anything.

[Moai]

Great!

 

Now you can address this: "I think it's incumbent on those wishing to effect change to state what precisely they want, what issues it addresses and how. I've not seen that stated and agreed upon yet."

 

Please enumerate the legal issues that are not currently addressed by existing legal instruments.

 

Certainly.

 

1. Gays cannot make medical decisions for their partners in case of emergency.

 

2. Upon death, even very carefully drawn out wills have proven not enough if a family wishes to challenge it, and can even get custody decisions reversed, and have the partner forbidden to visit the hospital bed or grave.

 

3. If a partner is arrested, the other can be compelled to testify against them. This is not possible under marriage. Under positive testimony, a judge can rule it as irrelevant hearsay, and also deny visitation to a partner who is incarcerated.

 

ANy one of those should be enough, I would think.

[clv0116]

1. Gays cannot make medical decisions for their partners in case of emergency.

 

There is a legal instrument to provide this in America.

 

 

 

2. Upon death, even very carefully drawn out wills have proven not enough if a family wishes to challenge it, and can even get custody decisions reversed, and have the partner forbidden to visit the hospital bed or grave.

 

Anyone can contest a will. This is not the sole providence of homosexuals.

 

 

 

3. If a partner is arrested, the other can be compelled to testify against them. This is not possible under marriage. Under positive testimony, a judge can rule it as irrelevant hearsay, and also deny visitation to a partner who is incarcerated.

 

This is a rare edge case and is possibly the only valid point I've ever heard raised, but I've not researched it. I know very little about the latitude afforded judges in this matter simply because I don't care. In my opinion, while this seems a potentially valid case it's not one I care about and so I'm not convinced by it.

 

 

Is that the best reason there is?

[NoIDidn't]

Under positive testimony, a judge can rule it as irrelevant hearsay, and also deny visitation to a partner who is incarcerated.

 

Can't the same be said of a heterosexual spouse that doesn't want to see their spouse convicted?

 

The fact that they can be compelled to testify against a partner is one I hadn't heard before, though.

 

I think those in favor of gay marriage should stick to the legal stuff instead of insulting people's religious beliefs (whether they share them or not).

 

I'm in favor of it in the legal sense. America is a secular country. Everyone that pays taxes should have the same rights, IMO.

 

There is no legal reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.

[Moai]

Can't the same be said of a heterosexual spouse that doesn't want to see their spouse convicted?

 

No, current interpretation says that a spouse is intimate enough to "know" the mind of their spouse. ALso, conversations between spouses are assumed to be valid, as opposed to conversations between to other people--even brother and sister, etc.

 

The fact that they can be compelled to testify against a partner is one I hadn't heard before, though.

 

I think those in favor of gay marriage should stick to the legal stuff instead of insulting people's religious beliefs (whether they share them or not).

 

I think they should use whatever works. I also think that religious beliefs get way too much of a free pass, but that's me.

 

I'm in favor of it in the legal sense. America is a secular country. Everyone that pays taxes should have the same rights, IMO.

 

There is no legal reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.

You are absolutely, 100% correct.

[Moai]

There is a legal instrument to provide this in America.

 

And that legality has been easily challenged by the family of the sick or injured. But why should gay people have to take an extra step? Right now if my wife were in the hospital, I make the call. I didn't have to make an extra trip to a law office, or anything else. And the chances of my rights being overturned are near zero.

 

Anyone can contest a will. This is not the sole providence of homosexuals.

 

True, but a homosexual relationship is not seen the same as a heterosexual one. A man who leaves his estate to his lover is seen in much the same way as a rich woman who leaves her estate to her cat. The family or any children can get such overturned much more easily than if those involved are married.

 

Look at how intense the battle was over the will that left Anna Nicole Smith a ton of money. She was only married a year, and to a man 60 years older.

 

This is a rare edge case and is possibly the only valid point I've ever heard raised, but I've not researched it. I know very little about the latitude afforded judges in this matter simply because I don't care. In my opinion, while this seems a potentially valid case it's not one I care about and so I'm not convinced by it.

 

Is that the best reason there is?

 

Which is the best reason is up to you. I found those in five minutes on a Google search. Anyone interested in the legal reasons why gays should be allowed to marry can just type "legal reasons for gay marriage" in a search and read away.

[clv0116]

Look at how intense the battle was over the will that left Anna Nicole Smith a ton of money. She was only married a year, and to a man 60 years older.

 

 

Thanks for making my point.

 

 

 

 

 

Which is the best reason is up to you.

 

I see nothing reasonable that can't (1) already be solved and (2) can't be simply solved with a Civil Union. Why insist on marriage? Any reason for that?