What threat does gays getting married pose the rest of the population?

Answer 1

With the divorce rate as high as it is, it's clear that marriage between heterosexual couples is not taken very seriously. Obviously the conservatives are just blowing smoke on this issue, trying to attract a target voting population by claiming that marriage between heterosexual couples is somehow important. By the actions of everyone, including conservatives, marriage is in no way an integral component of society.

Divorce is. The conservative spokesperson for that is Rush Limbaugh, the crusading right-winger who is now on his third marriage. Gingrich is another example of a conservative taking the moral high road for "family values" while committing adultery, and later getting a divorce.

Thus, the voters who take heterosxual marriage and "family values" seriously are being duped. They're being led around by the nose, programmed to vote for people who actually don't care about any family institutions.

Obviously the "moral crisis" supposedly occurring in this country is being perpetrated by both liberals AND conservatives. Anyone who seriously believes that liberals alone are responsible for this alleged crisis is either hopelessly naive or ignorant.

Therefore, gays should be allowed to marry. Why not? The very small percentage of gays in our society - and it IS small - who then get married can't possibly damage the institution of the heterosexual family any more than the heterosexuals themselves have done.

And, as someone else pointed out, the gays have every right to participate in the chaos and emotional upheavals that over half of the heterosexual married couples now endure.

Let them eat cake, and give some overtime to the divorce lawyers who are now handling all those heterosexual failures. It'll stimulate the economy by putting even more money in circulation. That's what conservatives believe, anyway.

Hail Eris! Hail Dischordia!

Big Al Mintaka

Answer 2

No threat is posed to the rest of the population if gay people are allowed to marry.
I would also like to add in response to missingora - Marriage was around long before Christianity. To say that marriage is a sacrament of Christianity is wrong and totally disrespectful to every married couple who are not Christian, past and present.

Answer 3

Zero.

With the moral decay that our country is in today it really has little impact. The problem extends to those that still believe in the original definition of Marriage.

Marriage - the social institution under which a man and a woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious cerimonies, etc.

I firmly believe that if a gay couple wants to enter into the same marriage rights as the straight couple, then let them. Where I have the issue is when homosexuality is normalized to the children in grade school.

Answer 4

In all honesty it poses no direct threat. However, I am against it. This is not religious position, as I am not religious. This is not a homophobic position, because I don't care what someone does in their bedroom with other consenting adults. In fact my position is not really based on anything rational. I just believe that marriage should be defined as being between a man and a woman. I do however believe that Gay people should be allowed a civil union in all states so that they might take advantage of benefits afforded to married male/female couples.

Answer 5

Marriage is not a "legal" issue. It is a religious ceremony. If there is a religion out there that wants to approve of it then by all means go for it. As far as I know there are no religions that accept unions between same sex couples, therefore there can be no marriage. If the government wants to allow for civil unions then thats fine, but make sure the rights are fair. For example, why do 21 year olds get kicked off of parents insurance policies? Shouldn't parent-child unions get the same rights as civil unions? The threat therin lies that "civil unions" will be used to gain priviledges and benefits that noone pays for and they become a burden on our society. (2 (heterosexual) buddies decide to join a civil union just so one can have health benefits from the other)

Answer 6

It would be a boom for divorce lawyers, as gays wouldn't have a better success rate at marriage than anybody else. If gays want to take part in the "joys" of marriage--snicker--let them. Misery loves company, I always say.

Answer 7

Absolutely none IMO. Besides when you really think about it...isn't the 50 percent adultery rate MORE of a threat to marriage?

Answer 8

None....It just rallies the conservative base and therefore becomes an issue around election time. That comment about children being pressured into being gay is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. What about gay adults that come from straight families or straight adults that have gay parents? That theory has a few holes in it.

Answer 9

None, except to the integrity of the language. If one uses or hears the word "marriage", one considers the subject to be a heterosexual relationship. I support the notion of civil unions for homosexuals who wish to undertake the legal and contractual relations of marriage.

Answer 10

there are several reasons why. religion is often blamed, but that's only one.

i'm against it because i smell the stench a mile away. the whole gay marriage thing is just another tactic the radical left is using to wipe out all traces of christianity from our culture. in order to turn us into the totalitarian marxist communist nation they want us to be, they first have to secularize us. christianity and communism don't mix. why else do you think they are so dead set against christianity?

also, the gay community is pushing to be another "victim" group that gets to enjoy all the perks and goodies that go with that title. and as we've learned over the past 40 years, the more we give to the "oppressed" groups, the more demanding they become and the price to pacify them increases.