how exactly would gay marriage destroy/undermine or whatever you want to call it the institution of marriage?

Question

this is a common argument I hear, but I don't understand it. I don't see how letting homosexuals marry would destroy the institution of marriage. Will someone please explain it to me?

let me rephrase. I mean, what exactly are the consequences supposed to be? Considering .01% of the population is truly 100% homosexual, we are not talking extinction here. So other than extinction, which will not happen, what are the consequences? I don't understand how the whole institution will crumble into bits. It is the how, not the why. I am truly asking, not trying to argue or step on toes. This is something that has always confused me.

Answer 1

If government can destroy marriage, I think it already has.

I actually agree with the Christians on this point, to an extent. But I would like to go further than them. If they are afraid of government destroying or redefining marriage, they should just remove it from government completely.

Just let the government call everything a "civil union". This way, it keeps government limited to its proper involvement in a marriage, just the contractual obligations. It leaves everybody free to define marriage however they feel fit. Government would just enforce the responsibilities that a long-term formal relationship requires. This would include just the division of assets if the relationship dissolves, and the responsibilities of the parents to the children, if any.

All of the other superstitious nonsense that religions foist on marriage can be left to the individual religions. People who are not part of that religion would be free to ignore any such nonsense.

Answer 2

Marriage per se can be a frivolous occasion (ie. Britney Spears' 40 hour Vegas nuptial) or it can be grounded in heritage and ceremony, a large formal wedding with the exchanging of vows following a lengthy courtship. Typically the institution of marriage infers the partnership of a man and a woman, and, namely procreation and the establishment of family and roots. Homosexuals can't procreate. It may seem stodgy and prudish and biased, but that's the plain fact.
Granted, divorce is as commonplace as marriage, but that doesn't mean marriage isn't supposed to be meaningful. I'm not saying two individuals of the same gender can't feel love for one another, but culture and society fundamentally recognizes the unique potential of the male-female dynamic, as it has since the dawn of humankind.

Answer 3

The idea that gays are a anomaly in nature is actually false.

Last year, there was a story of two gay penguins in a New York zoo which helped father a penguin egg. The idea of gays, at least in the animal kingdom, may be that the inability to reproduce may actually help animals living in groups or herds, mainly as a form of population control, and also to help look after offspring fathered by their hetereosexual counterparts.

As for gay marriages eroding the constitution of marriage, I find that marriage itself is more of a farce than anything else. You can live together with your spouse, reproduce and do all the things that married spouses do even if you are not married.

The idea of marriage is neither divine or sacred, at least in the secular sense. Its no more than a tripartite contract between you, your spouse and the state, and if you are a male, signing a marriage contract may lead to serious financial consequences should you ever seek a divorce. Women are entitled to alimonies from their enstrangle husbands to look after kids and all that, so you get the drift.

As for gays "destroying", or undermining this seemingly sacred institution of marriage, I think it is bogus. Anyone who wants to marry should be allowed to marry. Who gives a real damn anyway.

Answer 4

I am a Christian and to tell you the truth, I could care less about the issue... I know that's taboo, right? My only concern with people living different from myself and my family is how today's society will affect my child. It just did not seem to be so open when I was a child, so now we are a new generation of parents having to explain issues that were not necessarily explained to us. I am sure that homosexuality was out there, it just did not affect me or my life.To each his own, I guess.

Answer 5

Uh, the choose equality, which incorporates the superb to marry that straights have. it is, marriage equality is ONE component of equality. i are not getting what it rather is you do not understand; it is incredibly elementary. it is not authentic that no gays have ever been allowed to marry, traditionally. it is likewise not authentic that each and every physique marriages have something to do with anybody faith, or any faith in any respect. the subject with the superb isn't that they are puzzled approximately what gays choose, it is that they think of being gay is evil. so as that they make up a team of lies, as they are dropping the combat. sure it DOES could be noted as marriage -- that's what rapidly individuals are allowed to do; not allowing gays to marry is loss of equality.

Answer 6

In a religionists point of view, the bible states that being homosexual is an abomination. Therefore, allowing an abomination would destroy the institution of marriage. Since God apparently only condones marriage between a man and a woman.

Answer 7

You got it exactly right. Allowing same sex civil marriage would do nothing to the sanctity of religious marriage.

And when a divorce rate of 50% for first marriages, any argument of the religious reich does not hold any water at all.

Answer 8

That question is like asking how putting a basketball goal behind home plate on a baseball field destroys or undermines the game of baseball! Marriage is designed SPECIFICALLY for a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation and the start of the family arrangement. Gays need to come up with something else for whatever type of arrangement they like to have. Marriage is for heteros, period.

Answer 9

Hello Mountain,
I am a Christian. GOD Instituted Marriage, NOT man. GOD is against homosexuality and marriage is between a man and a woman. If you want to instiutionalize homosexuaql unions then call them something else. They do not have to be called "marriages". I do n ot believe that this w2eakens or undermines marriage except that it certainly does NOT have to be called a marriage since it is not approved by our FATHER. Have a great week.
Thanks,
Eds

Answer 10

My Friend,

There is nothing to explain for in my opinion this opinion is just poopie!

They want to confuse you and they do not ever want you to understand the basic principle of Freedom for All or Rights for All.

They think that they can confuse the ignorant masses in believing the control dominated beliefs.

Love and Peace
Sam
FYI - A Married Heterosexual Christian who is PROUD to have a Same Sex Married Lesbian Sister!