What about gay marriage?

Question

My wife and I cannot figure out how it is that some gay couple in Massachusets getting married harms our marriage. Can someone explain exactly how gay marriage threatens the institution of marriage?

Answer 1

BetitoDetroit... wow. I hope you never have a failed relationship, because then.. all your horrible reasons for opposing gay marriage will be gone. Just like your partner.

Answer 2

Originally, marriage was a contract that conveyed property. Along the way to today, marriage became a religious sacrement. Society, for a variety of good reasons has co-opted that sacrement into a secualr social institution.

All of that said, when you get down to the basics in the secular form, it is simply a contract between two people. From that perspective, it really does not affect *anyone* outside of the two people who enter that contract (aside from perhaps minor children).

but - marriage continues to be intertwined with its historic religious signifcance and nothing that you say or do can change that. *Some* (not all) religious folks see that as a threat or an "offense" to their faith. and *some* (again, not all) people see any diversion away from a nuclear family (man, woman, kids) as a "bad thing" for society. These are the "whys" as I see them.

From this point, you can debate many things:

1. how secure those people are in their faith....
2. why you can't have a dual civil / religious system that each carry different meanings...
3. if gay folks could (or should) find another means to gain the same end set of rights...
4. if the studies that have been used to show positive benefits of traditional (man, woman, kids) families actually show any effects that can be traced specifically to traditional family structures or if they are showing something else, entirely.


but hey, that's four new questions :)

Answer 3

It probably won't effect you. It's the future that concerns me. It's the children. Not just my children, but everyone's children.

Understand that the institution of marriage was established for the benefit of the wife and children. Such sacred covenants were made in church before God and all present to help insure that children are legitimate and that they are provided for. Gay people do not have children. Thus, there is no need for a marriage covenant.

If there is some kind of special relationship outside of marriage, contracts and wills can be drawn up to secure the future of loved ones, friends, siblings, etc. A marriage is for a different kind of relationship that secures the family in an intended bond until death for the benefit of the spouse and children.

Allowing a new definition of marriage opens the door for a variety of new problems. I warn you that some of these may seem extreme, but frankly, 50 years ago, this conversation might have gotten one of us shot.

1. If we recognize marriage between a two men or two women, we must allow adoption by these individuals, which robs a child of either a Mom or a Dad.

2. We must teach children in the public schools that having 2 moms or 2 dads is acceptable, must be tolerated, not laughed at, and that it is okay to experiment sexually with either or both sexes, despite the religious values of the parents.

3. We must allow a female prom king and a male prom queen.

4. We must ban Mother's Day and Father's Day, because some kids may not have one.

5. We must change our vocabulary from husband and wife to just spouse to avoid offending married gays.

6. If we cannot discriminate with regard to the sex of the individual with regard to marriage, how can we deny multiple partners from getting married in a polygamous marriage?

7. Can you deny your children the right to marry each other?

8. Can you deny your father the right to marry your son?

9. Can you deny your neighbor the right to marry his orangutan? Even if he's gay, too?

10. A Gay spouse may gain preference in the workplace because he/she is perceived as less likely to have children to interrupt his/her performance on the job.

11. Changing the definition of marriage will give the Islamic terrorists or some wacko cult one more reason to commit another 9/11 or OK City bombing.

Aside from the threat against traditional marriage, most people just feel like it's over the top. It's too much. It cuts against the grain. It's sinful. It's not needed. Gays already have enough rights. They don't need any more.

Answer 4

I don't believe that gay marriages can and will ever threaten the institution of marraige. If two people are in love and would like to take their relationship to the next step, I don't see why anyone should object to that. However, I can't help but wonder maybe one of the reasons why some people oppose gay marraige is because they are afraid of changes. Those people want to keep everything exactly the same and anything different can make them feel like they're outside of their comfort zone. Therefore, they would try to oppose and resist anything they aren't familiar with, instead of trying to have an open mind and try to understand it.

Answer 5

That is very true. In fact it wouldn't harm anyone. I'm a firm believer in God's idea of free will. While I'm a Christian and believe that homosexuality is morally wrong--I do however realize with their God given right they should be able to do what they will. They will determine if they go to Heaven or Hell--that's not up for us to decide.

Personally, I feel that is the only reason people are afraid of legalizing gay marriage. What people don't realize is you cannot focus and judge others--it's a personal choice. It's that person's decision to go against God--we are not here to judge. I cannot think of any other reason a person would be against gay marriage except for the Bible saying it is wrong.

Religion and politics do not mix!

Answer 6

Maybe some straight couples are afraid that 2 people can actually have allot in common N relate 2 1-another N B together in the same relationship in better harmony than themselves ;D I myself don't care if 2 people R committed 2 each other Y can't society stick it's nose out N let them B after all who's any1 2 judge,god?

Answer 7

What a Great Question!! I don't feel any gay couple who want to form a union together threatens the institution of marriage. I truly feel they should have a means to get the same benefits as a married couple. (Call it what you like.....) My husband and I feel the same way you and your wife do.

Answer 8

The issue is not how homosexual "marriage" would harm my own personal marriage, but how it harms the entire familial institution called marriage. Marriage always has been, still is, and always should be, by definition, the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of founding another family unit within our society. Since homosexuals can never constitute the foundation of a family, there is no such thing as functioning hermaphrodites in humanity, then to call their union marriage is to make a mockery of what marriage really is.
The other reason, and the actual main reason at that, is based upon religious principles. In order to accept the ban against homosexuals, you have to first acknowledge the reality of God and His teachings to mankind. God created mankind and gave us rules to live by while here on earth. If we adhere to His teachings, and follow them faithfully throughout our lives, then we are able to return to His presence for eternity. Accepting that concept leads us to realize that we have to live clean lives according to His dictates and that does not include homosexuality. No matter how much rationalizing people may try to concoct, it will not change the clear language against homosexuality contained in the scriptures. So for us to acknowledge marriage between homosexual individuals, we are mocking God and His laws.
Lastly, many make the reasonable argument that heterosexuals make a mockery of marriage as well by their promiscuous behavior. They are correct. Immorality is rampant in humanity today. Adultery and fornication are just as bad as homosexuality. In order to protect marriage as the beloved institution that it was intended to be, we must not only ban homosexuality, but also all forms of sexual intercourse outside of the confines of marriage. That is not likely to happen in my lifetime. However, that doesn't mean that I need to accept any expansion of the definition of marriage just because many around me are already mocking the institution. I will continue to hold the line, even when all around me let go.
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman and we should not redifine it for anybody.

Answer 9

It's all based on religion. People think that homosexuality is wrong because their religion "says so." Thus they don't believe that marriage should be legalized for same-sex couples, especially since marriage is supposed to be the "union of a man and a woman."

Answer 10

The only valid arguments against same-sex marriage are religious ones, based on religious disapproval of homosexuals.

See the link below for detailed analysis. But the bottom line is, there are no valid non-religious grounds, and religious grounds should not form the basis for secular laws.

Answer 11

Before that, I'd like to see someone explain why more than half of heterosexual marriages ending in divorce doesn't threaten the "institution of marriage.: