I live in Massachusetts. We have gay marriage and civilization seems to be doing fine. Kids are back in school. Straight folks still get married and divorced at about the same rate. And the government is still collecting taxes. Notice any big changes where you live?
2006-11-23 01:05:52 · 13 answers · asked by Isis 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
considering the high divorce rate you've already mentioned, there's also the infidelity, the abuse, the children born out of wedlock and the blase' attitude some people have towards marriage (i.e., Britney Spears' drunken 55 hour Vegas marriage, and now, big surprise!, she's getting divorced from K-Fed), how could us getting married do any more damage than straight people have already done?
Missouri, where I live, was, shamefully the 1st state to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage...even though there were already laws on the books to prevent it. Thankfully, I do live in one of the large cities, St. Louis, where I have at least been able to register for domestic partnership with my partner. We've also had a commitment ceremony.
2006-11-23 03:00:06 · answer #1 · answered by redcatt63 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
'the purely purpose of marriage (from a social attitude) is to regulate the household initiatives and duties of human beings to their organic and organic offspring.' unfaithful. there are countless married couples who lack organic and organic offspring simply by infertility or because they choose now to not. 'it really is a actuality in spite of the actuality that persons that the purpose of marriage is to "convey their love".' i do not comprehend what you basically suggested. '2 men or 2 females can't reproduce' definite they could, absolutely. gay men can get a surrogate mom, and women can get a sperm donor. 'If the definition of marriage is changed to contain 2 females and a pair of men there'll be no rational rationalization why it can't also be widened to contain poligamy.' Then flow ahead and widen it! 'gay marriage has never been area of any society interior the historic previous of human civilisation.' So? 'gay marriage will substitute the definition of marriage so thoroughly with a view to render it meaningless.' Whats the large deal? If it variations the definition of marriage, enable it. '2 men or 2 females can't provide a baby the balanced upbringing a guy and a lady can' What do you advise, stability? >.> edit: 'the actuality that someone is infertile is a human being functionality.' So is being gay 'once you regulate marriage once there is not any rational argument why you are able to't do it back.' so? circumstances are replacing and so are words. 'it is going to grow to be meaningless if its basically as a lot because the fellow to outline it' No it received't. it is going to continually be in reality a similar theory. different human beings having a criminal union. Do you imagine human beings will finally morph it into something loopy and stupid that's no longer even concerning to that theory? 'similar sex coupling in historic Greece and China - definite. Marriage? No.' So why shouldn't it initiate?
2016-10-16 10:11:52 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it is ridiculous. In Canada, things are going along nicely, and in other countries where gay marriages are recognized. The sky has not fallen yet. The country has not plunged into the ocean. People are getting along.
The only problem is when homophobes and religious people try to incite more intolerance, bigotry and discrimination. But, at least, they are showing their true colours and hypocrisy when they try to validate their excuses with hatred.
And before anybody goes off about gay divorces, check out the stats on the very high number of divorces within the evangelical, born-again community!
2006-11-23 03:22:10 · answer #3 · answered by SB 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course not, it's a facetious argument by people who are frankly too ignorant to understand the hyperbole they are spouting. For their dire prediction to occur, the entire population would not only have to turn gay, but the same gay population would have to wilfully stop any form of procreation (either by invirto, donor, etc). Now I don't know about you, but that sounds just a tad far fetched.
But then again, we are talking about people who are probably more the Drama Queens then gays. Their histrionics are beginning to grate on the nerves of many, who now see the truth of it.
If that isn't enough, consider, these same "christian" types once said the same thing regarding interracial marriage.
2006-11-23 01:35:47 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Back in the 1950's they said the same thing about rock & roll music. There will always be people who are terrified of anything new or different. Middle America only seems comfortable with cookie cutter mentality. I may add that straight marriages have a 60% failure rate. Aren't they the matrimony experts. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2006-11-23 01:21:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well... Those arguments do have some valid points. Our current society's based very much on the traditional man-woman-families, and this will change a lot if homosexuals can marry too.
Of course, the civilization won't be destroyed, but it will change. For example, if two women adopt a child, he/she won't have a real-life man-figure, like the father. Thus the child personality will be different from those who have moms and dads. This isn't bad, but it's definitely different from the traditional.
EDIT:
Ronin: Thanks for not bashing me. I am for gay marriage, and I think it doesn't matter if heteros or homos bring up the child. I just tried to answer the question, because I don't think the argument is completely ridiculous.
2006-11-23 01:12:27 · answer #6 · answered by Ego 1 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Ego, I appreciate your eagerness to have an open mind, but there are so many children raised in single mother homes that the idea that 2 lesbians will "deny" them a man intheir life is ridiculous. I know you didn't use the word deny, but most people mean that when they use that argument.
2006-11-23 01:30:07 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Don't you see, once a JUSTICE OF THE PEACE gets involved something changes in GAY relationships and they become powerful beings who control the universe and set out to destroy heterosexual families...duh!!!!!!
Yeah, its bloody lame. I'd have more respect for the people who say "I just hate gays", THAT makes sense, the whole destroy civilization does not...like being gay is a new thing such as fertility drugs.
2006-11-23 01:40:43 · answer #8 · answered by Lotus Phoenix 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
they are giving the wrong idea to all the children. WE americans mostly go by the bible and because of that we don't support gay marriage. If i were aloud to, i would kill each one of those gays because they go against my religion and my beliefs. Also if there are a certian number of gays it can slow down population growth.
2006-11-23 03:28:29 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
yes it is \, gays bisex lesbo and transgendered pplz should be able to have a union. i agree that this argument is null and void.
im reporting the it all good on the Kansas front.
2006-11-23 05:14:47 · answer #10 · answered by ghandi_sucks_ass 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋