In what way is gay marriage attacking the "american family"?

Question

Why do people believe that allowing queers to get married takes something away from their family?

I am really seeking to understand the mindframe of people opposed to gay marriage, which is most of the US apparently. I understand all the reasons to support it.
I also agree that being gay is a genetic.. um.. mutation(?)... but all other people with genetic mutations are allowed to marry as long as they are able to make their own decisions and are a man and a woman.
I would really, really like to hear the other side of the argument.

Answer 1

it's not that homosexual marriage takes away from a family, but it corrupts the ideals of marriage. I would have no problem if marriage in the US didn't require a church and/or a Bible. I can't answer for everybody, so all I'm going to say is that the traditional marriage is supposed to be between a man and woman. anything else is destined to fail. Plus, to have a child, a homosexual couple would have to either have sex out of wedlock, visit the sperm bank or recruit another child. I'm opposed to all of the above, which is why I'm not for homosexual marriage.

PS: it has been said that the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. This is very true. If we have homosexual couples calling themselves a "family", then the ideals of the next generation becomes corrupt. The same is true for adulterers. To say that an adulterer inherited the "adulterer trait" from his or her parents is a false claim. The adulterer did not inherit such a trait, but learned that it is okay to be unfaithful. Those little ones looking up to his or her parents do as the parents say when they are young, but do as the parents did once they get older.

Answer 2

Yeah, like since the gay couple moved in across the hall, my man just can't meet his family or marital responsibilities. How could he, knowing that those perverts are over there being HAPPY? He's so busy praying for God to strike them down with divine lighting, that he doesn't even time to read his Landover Baptist Newsletter anymore, much less consumate our marriage like a maniac.

To darkpheonix: (1) No, marriage hasn't always been between a man and a women. There are have been several societies in which the primary unit was a same sex couple or the mother and daughters group. In these societies, intimate contact between the sexes was for procreation, and sometimes ritualized. (2) It's not just "a piece of paper", it's the right to choose who is going to be legally considered you next of kin, a very powerful position to occupy.

To chief eagle: One simply says "My parents, William and Thomas."

To cybahdawg: (1) Are you saying that government should take steps to prevent the Unity Church from conferring the religious sacrament of marriage (not the legal rights, just the blessing) on same sex couples? (2) Since we have never HAD same sex unions, how can we KNOW that they will be either more or less enduring than opposite sex unions? The man-woman unions seem to be awfully transient. (3) How do you propose we deal with man-woman couples who have sex out of wedlock or visit a sperm bank? (4) "Recruit" ... what an unusual way to speak of adoption! What's up with that? Are you perpetuating the myth that homosexuals "recruit" children? Dude, that's about as far-fetched as saying there will be no left-handed people unless we "recruit" new ones. You are a silly twit.

To psych0bug: If it's a religious thing, then shouldn't government be leaving it alone? Since when is it a function of our government to tell our nation's churches what God's will is?

Answer 3

Well, its not. With the "average" american marriage at a 50% divorce rate. With I'd say 30% of the remaining marriages at least one of the spouses being cheated on at some point in the marriage, it doesn't sound to Holy to me.

Besides, do you have any idea how many Gay men get married to women and Gay women get married to men just to please their families and not let out "their secret" to society? LOTS. I'd say a good 5-7% of "normal" marriagies. Wow, marriage is starting so sound a lot less fun. :/

And if women have always been so equal in a marriage throughout history, why do the men always buy them with a dowry. The women weren't allowed to contribute their wisdom to the marriage in raising the children or anything. Also, for most of history, once a woman was widowed (through no fault of her own) she had to get permission (a letter of approval) through the Mayor or local Bishop/Cardinals/etc just to be able to move, so yeah, I guess women were so important in marriages too. Sadly not.

UM, Marriage in the US happens in Courthouses DAILY. Churches do not officiate. Captains on a Boat, Heck, Mayors, Justice of the Peace, a ton of people can officate a wedding.

Answer 4

I am all for gay marriage. By the way I am hetro and married. I have asked this questions to others and found it is most delicate in the churchy crowds. It has to do with the bible. This is a bad question to bring up at dinner parties. I found out the hard way.

Answer 5

I don't see how gay marriage would affect my marriage in any way. How could allowing two people to marry when they are in love be wrong?

Answer 6

People have this illusion that being gay is something to be proud of.
If your gay your genetically messed up.
It's like a retard being proud of being retarded!
Marriage is a religious thing, not a government thing.

Answer 7

Those people are just afraid that gays will have better marriages and make the straight marriages look bad!!

Answer 8

Because they want to use any reason they can grasp to stop it from happening.

My personal favorite is the "same-sex marriage will lead to people marrying their pets!" rant.

Answer 9

1) marraie has always been between man and woman

2)its just a titile recongnized by either the church or state, and either way its just a peice of paper, and more legal red tape crap.

Answer 10

They feel that broadening the definition of marriage to include people whom they believe to inherently be "sinners" "cheapens" marriage. (I don't agree with them, BTW--I'm just stating their rationale.)