HOW Gay Marriage ( as far as civil union ) is a dangerous threat to traditional family , and man and womens ?

Answer 1

Nonsense. Why could it be a threat to anybody???
I'm a traditional woman living in a traditional marriage with a kid, making it a very traditional family, amd I don't feel threatened at all.
I appreciate true love, be it in a man and a woman, two men or two women. Love is love, and love is wonderful. If two persons want to make their love official, want to make a commitment - fine. I'll celebrate with them.

Answer 2

I'm actually an advocate of civil unions, not sure about gay marriage (though one day I'd like something like that myself). I'll just speak from the conservative aspect I was brought up with... It's a threat because somehow it teaches children that two men, can be a couple. Two women together is acceptable. Much like children who hear about weddings today sing "here comes the bride" and they know there is a bride and a groom that would change. Children would not go through those feelings that, "one day I will get married to [someone of the opposite sex]" there will already be a possibility for homosexuality. People will not accept that homosexuality just happens, thinking that it can be taught. If it's made okay, somehow their children are already corrupted and susceptible to some kind of alternative lifestyle. It's a bunch of bull, but my brother is praying for me, and prayed that federal marriage ammendment would pass so I'd never have that chance.

Answer 3

Here are several arguments I've heard: 1. Marriage needs to be protected: Historically communities considered marriage as the cornerstone of their society. They sought to establish strong, stable marriages so that a new generation would come that would preserve their culture and values. Today marriage is under threat by the high divorce rate, domestic violence, casual sex, and girls having babies outside of marriage. So we need to take steps to preserve and strengthen marriage. All gay marriage does is change the definition to accommodate a special interest group. 2. Wisdom of the ancients: Every culture throughout all of history has always regarded marriage as an institution between a man and a woman. Even cultures that accepted homosexual relationships, never regarded it as the same thing as marriage. Gay marriage is a contradiction in terms. If we accept gay marriage then we are saying that every culture from all of history got it wrong. We are saying that we know better than everyone that preceded us. That's a big risk. 3. Why not polygamy? If we accept gay marriage then why not accept polygamy. While gay marriage has no historical support, polygamy has a long history. Polygamy is still accepted in many societies including Muslims. Anthropologists tell us that there are more cultures that practice polygamy than monogamy. So while we are changing the definitions to accommodate one special interest group, then why not open it up to other special interest groups? 4. The uniqueness of the heterosexual union: All humans are to be treated with dignity and respect, not because they are rich or popular, but just because they are human beings. If we believe that human life is special then we have to accept that the origin of human life is also special. All human life has its origin in the heterosexual union. No human life is associated with the homosexual union. It is not the same thing. The heterosexual union is unique. 5. Marriage is about life: Gay proponent like to say that marriage is about love, not gender. Love is nice, real nice, but marriage has a long history of being arranged. Arranged marriages are still being done in some cultures and they are valid marriage. Love does not make marriage a civil right. Marriage is an institution which celebrates life, and the hope of having children (life again). Of course not all marriages result in progeny but they are still a member of the institution nonetheless. Gay marriage removes the association of progeny from marriage and reduces its meaning. Gays have the right to live in peace without fear of harassment or discrimination in the job market, but they do not have the right to change the definition of marriage for all of us.

Answer 4

It has been said (not by me) that gay marriage threatens traditional marriage because it threatens monogamy. It is argued that this is because homosexual couples tend to see monogamy as nonessential.

What the source of that information on homosexuals is, I'm not certain, or why gay men or lesbians having sex outside of a committed relationship threatens heterosexual monogoamy. Or, for that matter, why the desire to have a more formalized relationship (bringing with it benefits now not possible) would be a problem.

Heterosexual monogamy is already tenuous. Janet Reibstein and Martin Richards extimate that "between 50 and 75 per cent of men, and only a slightly smaller proportion of women, have had or are having affairs while married."

But... somehow... gay marriage would be to blame.

More of this circular and nonsensical reasoning can be found at the link.

Answer 5

i do not think that it would be a threat at all. today, people are making wedding all about rules, regulations, laws, and religion. what happened to love? the union between two people should be about love, nothing else like the sex of the individuals getting married. a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, can and HAVE loved each each other as deeply as a man and woman.

Answer 6

It's not a threat at all. This is just being used to divide the country even further politically.

Answer 7

I respectfully invoke my 5th amendment rights as my answer may tend to incriminate myself