What REAL effects do you think gay marriage would have on our society?

Question

and slippery slope to marriage with animals is not a legitimate answer

(animals can't consent is the reason why this argument is nonsense in case you aren't bright enough to figure it out)

Answer 1

First off, I'm against all marriage. Marriage isn't an institution, nor is it natural. It is not natural for a man, who can literally impregnate thousands of women in his lifetime to settle down with one woman. Nor is it natural, from an evolutionary perspective, for two men, or two women to stay in a monogamous relationship for their lifetime. Marriage is the stumbling block to true unfettered population expansion, and should be banned. That is of course if our sole purpose on this planet is to procreate.

Hyperbole aside, marriage isn't a sacred institution as some in this forum would like us to believe. Our modern conception of marriage, one between a man and a woman who maintain a monogamous relationship and procreate, is a wholly and completely modern invention. It was very rare for families to remain as a nuclear unit mainly because death rates were so high. It was quite common for children to have several fathers and/or mothers throughout their lifetime. There was no held belief in the sanctity of marriage, and women, for the most part, were seen as chattel or property of men.

Allowing same sex marriage will have a few sure effects: a higher divorce rate, and a lower birth rate. While the latter is a positive effect, the former is a trend that has been increasing since the 1960's, and no amount of gay marriage or increased heterosexual marriage will likely change the current trend of increasing divorce rates. Although, it is interesting to point out that the state with the lowest divorce rate, Massachusetts, is in fact the only state in the Union that recognizes same sex marriage. Even more ironic is that the state whose citizens are likely the most against same sex marriage, Texas, has the nations highest divorce rate. Oops. So much for family values eh there Texas.

Answer 2

It would have no effect at all. Most of the population would not even be aware that anything had changed. The attempts to amend the Constitution are nothing but a desperate political ploy to distract voters from all of the things the Republican party is doing wrong and pick up a few more votes. Amending the Constitution solely for political and personal gain should be a crime.

I haven't seen a single rational argument against gay marriage. All are based on emotion and wild speculation. Most are barely even literate (and I'm talking about the politicians as well as the yahoos posting here).

Hate crimes are unconstitutional and I wouldn't want to live in a country that would actually permit a hate crime to become a part of the Constitution.

Answer 3

a tolerant community based upon love can take many different shapes and forms.
The freedom for individuals to express themselves without predjudice or fear of ignorance.

Two concenting adults should have the equal rights as any other human being.

Sexual Diversity is nothing to be ashamed of.

I see no real effect beyond the legitimizing homosexual unions by realizing that any individual, straight or gay, have the basic desire to love and to share their lives with another individual through sickness and in health. However, it is now not only earning this understanding within the community, it is earning the same protection and recognization under the legal guise of the government. Protection for their spouses and potentially their family.

I could see people having a problem if we made gay marriage mandatory.

By the same token, we could ask, what sort of impact would removing heterosexual's right to get married have on society?

Answer 4

Not just economic changes will occur, or money in the pockets of lawyers but the emotional dynamics of the whole country would change. The emotional/spiritual union between those of the same sex is a whole different union than that of a man/woman. Not to negate the union, that is all fine and dandy, but the whole picture would change. Kind of like going from the Mona Lisa to a Picaso. Not necessarilly all bad changes but just extremely different. Some things would get alot better in society such as society ability to process and accept people/situations different than them. Some things would get worse like hidden ridicule and a heightened paranoia within the alternative families. There are so many changes that would occur it is asstounding. Whether you believe in gay marriage or not, ....one thing must be agreed upon. Where there is real and true LOVE, there is good. That is not all it takes, but I also have to say that within the gay/lesbian community, that real and true LOVE is very rare.

Answer 5

No negative effects...On the positive side, maybe to make gay men more responsible about their sexuality, provide steady homes for children who are wanted by them, more economic stability since they could become two income families and some basic human rights, like having their lover make decisions for them when they are incapacitated. The so-called economic arguments against them are already being proved to be illusory, they are not straining insurance funds where they have domestic benefits for their life partners. The only reason why this is an in issue is because certain religious types make it so and they are really shovelling against the tide since we have separation of state and religion in this country. The change is happening already and these laws being pushed to ban gay marriage are just the signs of desperation and the death throws of the oppposition...in time gays will win. Now all you fundies can jump on this for my amusement....

Answer 6

The effect that an adult homosexual individual would be able, like his or her heterosexual counterpart, to legally enter into a reciprocal agreement to be next-of-kin with the consenting adult of choice. It may also to lead to some contortions of speech as some attempt to emphasize that marriage is a religious sacrament defined and confered in various ways by various sects, while the legal union formed at the courthouse has not religious signifigance. However, most people will tend to refer to both the religious and the legal construct as "marriage" for the same reason we do now -- it's handier to say and it sounds polite.

Answer 7

<> Marriage will grow to be redefined as a civil settlement between 2 consenting adults. <> that is what's continuously reported. It in all likelihood received't impression you. i do not see the way it ought to - in the couple of minutes period. yet babies ought to advance up in a house with a dedicated moms and fathers. A SSM couple matches the definition of "civil settlement between 2 consenting adults" to a T. So does "no-fault" divorce. The "civil settlement" difficulty has been toyed round with too a lot. evaluate this - in 1960, 80 5% of yank households were relations households (seventy 5% were headed by a married couple). In 2000, that's now sixty 8%, and fifty 2% are headed by married couples. human beings are literally not marrying, and individuals are literally not staying married. talk about redefinition! Yup, with the way issues have headed over the previous 50 years, i wager it makes ideal experience why "any 2 consenting adults" should be blanketed. <> ok. So issues have not grow to be anarchic. That hasn't surpassed off in Canada, both. i do not keep in techniques all people making that prediction...

Answer 8

Best argument I've heard (and from a conservative):

"I am in favor of full legal recognition of gay marriage. Religions can choose to recognize it or not at their option. I would not presume to interfere in matters of faith. But we wisely have a division between church and state in the U.S.

Marriage is good for individuals and for society. On average, married people are healthier, better off financially and more emotionally secure. They commit fewer crimes, are institutionalized less often and less likely to need public assistance. Who would not want to encourage this improved behavior among both gay and heterosexual couples?

The original overriding purpose of marriage was procreation and protection of children. Wanting to establish a family is still the best reason for two people to get married. But clearly many heterosexual couples never have children and don't want to have them. Having children together was the significant difference between gay and hetero couple. When that is taken out of the equation, there is no reason to treat loving gay couples any differently than childless hetero couples.

Conservatives should embrace family values for gay people. Even on the lifestyle front, gay marriage makes sense for conservatives. Marriage discourages many of the aspects of gay life that conservatives find most objectionable, and married lifestyles are much safer. A monogamous couple, gay or straight, has almost zero chance of contracting AIDS or any other sexually transmitted disease.

Politically, gay marriage is also a conservative win. Married people are much more likely to vote Republican. In the last election, only 35% of single women voted for George Bush. But among married women, Bush won 54%. The percentage was even higher among men and among married women with children."

In addition, statistics from the Netherlands (who have legalized same sex marriages) has shown that legalizing gay marriages has had no impact on straight marriages. The divorce rate for straight couples and gay couples is about the same.

Answer 9

While I personally do not agree that gay marriage is a good idea, I do see their point on the legal end of it. I think Marriage should be done in a church under the sanction of god. I do not think that it is morally correct for to people of the same sex to share a bond with god. I think it is about names and if it was just called a civil union with all of the legal rights of marriage I do not see a problem with that. I feel the same about people of differant sexes that do not believe in god. if they want to be Married they should do it in front of judge and call it a civil union and have no reference to god in the ceremony.

Answer 10

Why isn't it? If you're going to change the millennia-old definition of marriage for one special-interest group, why not others? But in any case, I have a compromise solution. It's not a perfect solution, of course, but it's a starting point for constructive debate on the subject. It preserves the institution of marriage as it's supposed to be, involves the will of the people, and still allows states that choose to recognize gay unions to confer benefits on them as they see fit. I'm not going to cram it all in here, but I might post a question on it.

Answer 11

What concerns me isn't that gays want to have a service, say vows, and announce themselves as a monogamous couple (common useage of the word, not exact term). However, I believe the real reason they want marriage rights is for the benefits. And that concerns me. We already have a system in place that discriminates in favor of married couples. I am against all tax breaks, loop holes, write offs, etc. I am in favor of a flat tax and similar thing with insurance. By extending marriage rights to gays we are saying that the current practice of discrimination by marriage is legit and is also being extended to same sexed special interest type couples with unorthodox sexual practices. For example, 4 years ago I lived with my son and his fiancee. He was the main breadwinner for the family. But he was unable to claim us as dependants or add us to his insurance because the IRS and insurance companies didn't consider us to be a family. Yet, people want to extend family rights to people with strange sexual practices. It isn't right. There is no reason to extend rights to them and not to us. If they want to get married they should do it common law style or in their church. In fact, I think that should be the same for everyone. And there should be a flat tax. However, if there isn't going to be a flat tax, then real family members who are actual dependants should be claimable on the tax forms (like me and my son). We need to do that before we even talk about whether gay couples are a family.
In summary I am saying the effects on society would be reinforcement of the current moral and financial trend of favoring the extremes of wealth and coupling and ignoring the rest of us in the middle. Extremism is a bad trend.