Will someone explain to me how SOMEONE ELSE'S marriage can undermine YOUR vows?

Question

I hear this argument used to prohibit homosexuals from getting married. I don't understand how someone else's marriage 49 states away has any impact whatsoever on one's personal vows. Wouldn't really the only things that would undermine YOUR vows be infidelity and divorce?

Answer 1

Well, Neenie, to directly answer your question, someone else's marriage can undermine my marriage by redefining what marriage means.

What is marriage, anyway? Well, when humans first found it adventageous to live in organized societies there was no such thing, obviously. One can assume there were homosexuals people then as well as bi-sexual and hetrosexual people. It is only logical that there must have been many different unions then, as well. There was probably men-men, women-women, several women with one man, several men with one woman or any combination one can conceive of.

But someting remarkable happened pretty much in every part of the planet. The more organized and civilized a society became the more one thing became apparent. The ideal combination was one man and one woman, bound to each other and responsible for the resulting offspring of that exclusive union.

Once it was established that this was the best scenario, those in authority began to hold those who agreed to live this way in the highest esteem. To do so, they were ceremoniously decreed to be married. Often using only one family name from that point on.

So, what does that mean today? It means that no one has to get married. People can live together in any style they choose, no one will stop them. They can produce by whatever means they wish as many offspring by as many sperm or egg doners whey wish. No law against it.

However, none of those particular combinations will ever be the ideal combination. There can only be a single ideal. The best or ideal situation is the traditional nuclear family: one Dad, one Mom and all of the children being the result of the exclusive union of those two.

We are not discussing what else may or may not work or how good of a parent any particular couple is. We are discussing what the ideal is. Therefore, marriage either means what it has always meant in our culture or it means nothing special. That is how OUR vows would be undermined.


.

Answer 2

Most of he arguments to ban gay marriage are the same that were being used at that time to ban interracial marriage.They were wrong then and they are wrong today.
Then you have the marriage is for making kids argument.Apart from the obvious disrespect for women who are reduced to baby making machines by people who spout these idea's it's also very rude to straight people who are married and can't have or don't want children.
Last they indeed have the sanctity of marriage but if that was their true concern they should better do something about the divorce rate.

Truth is gay marriage is a civil rights issue.Equal protection under the law.Gay people can't marry today and that's discrimination.
A lot not all but a lot of those who oppose gay marriage do so because they are still not ready to accept gay people as their fellow human beings

Answer 3

No one truly can.

The fundamentalist Christians do not have a leg to stand on regarding this issue. Their argument about gay marriage affecting the supposed "sanctity" of marriage overall lacks any basis. In pre-Judeo/Christian societies, marriage was solely about securing property rights and fostering an environment to expand the population. Love, intimacy, and "sanctity" were never considered when setting up unions. In fact, pologamy in those days was normal and, in some cases, preferable for a male to further his genes into future generations. Only in our modern contemporary society has love been the motivating drive to marry.

By the fundamentalist Christian logic, older heterosexual couples would not be allowed to marry as they cannot rear any children. These are also the same people who were once adamantly opposed to interracial coupling using the same arguements they now apply to fight against gay marriage rights. Simply put, there's nothing "sanctified" about a union. It's a matter of personal choice.

Answer 4

Well it can't Of all the reasons to prohibit gay marriage this is the one that always throws me. A more honest approach would be to simply explain that the definition of the word marriage is a union between a man and a women. Changing the definition of a word just to make people feel good about themselves is not in the best interests of a culture.

Answer 5

That's not a good argument...I think the best argument is that the government has no right to force independent churches to allow gay marriage. If a church is wholly against gay marriage, they absolutely should not be forced to allow it. If they are fine with it, then sure, let them...Where's the problem here?

Answer 6

It'll only affect your own marriage if you allow it to.

People need to stop worrying about everyone elses' relationships, and start worrying about their own.

Maybe THEN we'll start seeing a return to family values and a lower divorce rate.

EDIT:

CommonSense: It's not even a valid argument. The Bible, the Torah, the Koran, etc., all state that a "marriage" is between a man and a woman. Unless the gay rights advocacy groups can convince all religious authorities to change God's word. And I don't see that happening AT ALL.
However, if they want civil unions or whatever the hell the want to call it, LET THEM HAVE IT.
It's not going to affect MY relationship in any way, because I don't give a damn who lives and sleeps with who.

Answer 7

It's not a 'marriage'

It's a union between two members of the same sex.

I support legalized 'civil unions' for homosexuals, with ALL of the benefits and privileges of a marriage.

But, can straight people keep the term 'marriage'?

Answer 8

Gay and Marriage are two words that don't work together. You see, man and woman work together as a matter of fit and function.
Man and man....hmmmmm. I don't think men were designed to play "pitcher and catcher".
Woman and woman.... There wont be any babies from a strap on.
Allowing legal marriage between men and men, or women and women makes a farce of hetero marriage.

Live your lives together all you want, but keep it low key, and have your own little private exchange of vows.
Stop trying to put homosexuality into the mainstream. It doesn't belong there.

Answer 9

The third reason marriage between homosexuals will destroy traditional marriage is that this is the ultimate goal of activists, and they will not stop until they achieve it. The history of the gay and lesbian movement has been that its adherents quickly move the goal line as soon as the previous one has been breached, revealing even more shocking and outrageous objectives. In the present instance, homosexual activists, heady with power and exhilaration, feel the political climate is right to tell us what they have wanted all along. This is the real deal: Most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to create an entirely different legal structure.

Answer 10

They want it to be some exclusive club between them and their fundie friends.

To be honest, I'm not a fan of marriage in general. I think it creates more problems than it's worth, but I would never want to try to ban it or stop anyone from engaging in it. This is mostly because I don't give a damn what other people do with their personal lives. It doesn't affect me in any way, so why would I?