In a question I asked here http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AoELRPfUH42RNv_IKWhO89bd7BR.;_ylv=3?qid=20071023125156AAygsCx
Some were very condemnatory of the fact I am a married mother of three kids and I am not against gay marriage. Someone asked me if I am not concerned about the welfare of my kids.
But gay people have been having civil unions or marriage for over a decade now in places like Denmark and Netherlands and extensive research has been done on gay families by the American Pediatric Association among many international organizations and there is NO conclusive evidence that they pose ANY threat to other families or society, let along MINE. In fact research from the Netherlands shows that lesbian mothers were more committed to the task of parenting than most straight fathers.
Can anyone present some conclusive evidence by a respected source that proves gay people being given equal civil and legal protections will damage MY family and harm my kids?
2007-10-23
09:36:38
·
12 answers
·
asked by
pixie_pagan
4
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality
Catholic Crusader, where are your sources for your claims?
Was this based on any research and does it hold true of ALL gay people or only those who are part of a certain gay sub culture?
You need to be a lot more clear and accurate in your claims please.
2007-10-23
09:46:45 ·
update #1
Catholic Crusader I also do not understand how my two lesbian neighbors getting civil recognition of their partnership will demean the romantic, emotional, spiritual and physical relationship I have with MY husband?
To me seeing straight people treat marriage like a joke with quickie divorces, marriage game shows, marrying for gold digging or Green Cards etc. is more of an insult than two people who truly love each other wanting to committ seriously and build a home together.
2007-10-23
09:51:48 ·
update #2
Of course nobody can give you evidence like that. It doesn't exist.
2007-10-23 09:41:34
·
answer #1
·
answered by John K 3
·
3⤊
1⤋
It makes me hungry . . . Hungry for love! lol . . . The whole notion of adverse effects on heterosexual marriage is bogus. If they were really concerned about protecting marriage, they'd do something to prevent divorce. As it is now, anyone can get married, divorced, and married to someone else all in one day. What's up with that? And complete strangers can get married while driving through an Elvis marriage shop in Nevada. And polygamy is not only popular in Utah, it's also widely practiced by the Kings of Israel in the Bible. And the Hebrew tribal leaders. So if polygamy is ok by God and the Bible, then it stands to reason that the leftover unmarried guys have to do something, right? And if 2 guys like each other and don't want a Mormon polygamous marriage, then by all means -- give 'em a license in any of the other 49 states and let 'em get married by anyone who will marry them.
2016-04-10 00:20:44
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Legalized gay marriage would only reduce real marriage to the status of "just another lifestyle choice."
So far, real marriage has occupied a special place in every society. Legalized gay marriage will only cheapen it, and drag it down to the level of "just another life alternative."
That wouldn't be good for anybody, especially for kids.
We already see in countries like Holland that the divorce rates have risen since the legalization of gay marriage. That's not a coincidence.
..
2007-10-23 10:07:39
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I guess I will answer your question with another "what if" that has played out and we can see the consequenses of.
Divorces.
Many moons ago, it was said that divorce did not harm the community as a whole and that even if it happened in other families that so what, it wouldnt have any effect on my own family or that of my children.
Fast forward. We now live in a society that is so divorce prone that we dont even notice another divorce or three. Our parents and our grandparents stayed married, but as more and more divorced, we saw that give birth to more and more divorces. Now it seems that not one marriage can stand the test of time and divorce is an option before accepting a marriage proposal.
Our children no longer view marriage as life long, it is simply something to enjoy until its no longer fun. Humans have lost long term commitments and no longer have something solid and long lasting to fall back on.
No, I do not need a think tank or media to tell me what is going on around me, I need simply to look around and see reality. There is no longer a solid rock for our younger generation to fall back on and to look forward to having one day. It is gone along with all the benefits that came along with it.
2007-10-23 09:56:49
·
answer #4
·
answered by cindy 6
·
0⤊
3⤋
ummm the only issue that may come and will come up reguardless if the marrage is legal or not!
and that is
"Mommy my friend has 2 dads why don't I have 2 dads how was the baby born"
so you may have to give some time to explain that to your child!
like you were never going to mention it anyway gay is more sociallly accepted these days so even if they put away with marrage you could still get
Mommy my friend says his dad number 1 is gay
your going to have to explain that is the only way i see it effecting onther human!
as for HARM
there is none!
NONE AT ALL
and never will be!
unless they get married in your bedroom!
2007-10-23 09:43:51
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
No, no one can provide any conclusive evidence gathered by a respected source that suggests or proves that gay people are are going to "damage your family" or "harm your children" by being able to get married.
2007-10-23 10:01:06
·
answer #6
·
answered by ZER0 C00L ••AM••VT•• 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
The first person to answer your other question got me riled up. She said it was democracy... BUT the purpose of democracy is not to have the majority rule, but to protect the minority from unfair laws.
I cannot imagine why letting people commit themselves to the people they love will do any but good for our society.
EDIT:
CC, I must answer you:
Extending recognition and benefits to homosexual unions would NOT encourage them. Can you seriously say that, even with the highly enticing things like insurance and next-of-kin rights waves before you, you would or could fall in love with a man? If you are straight, no amount of "incentivizing" will make you gay.
The lifespan of homosexuals is shorter than that of heterosexuals (and it was so even before the advent of AIDS). Gay bashing and the societal abuse such individuals must bear, up to and iuncluding rejection by their own parents results in more substance abuse, more psychological problems, more suicides, and more general misery than in heterosexuals. Increasing social acceptance of homosexuality is the only way to make these people feel that they are not alone and hated by the world.
Further, since homosexual unions are "notoriously unstable", it might not be a bad thing to give them the legal option of committing themselves to each other.
Actual marriages are already devalued. One need only to look as far as Britney Spoears and that kid she married for 2 days to show that this argument is foolish. The institution of marriage has been devalued in our culture, creating a wave of single-parent families, unwed mothers, economic hardships, abortions, divorces, juvenile delinquency, and misery for many. But since homosexuals have not HAD marriages, the heteros get to take all of the credit for this. At least the homosexuals won't have to worry about unwed motherhood or abortion. As for "non-productive" homosexual unions, should we ban marriage among the infertile as well?
For a society to be successful and function smoothly, its social policy needs to be in line with reality, and treating homosexual unions as something they are not will defeat that goal. Since homosexual unions are made up of two adults who have fallen in love, can't we just treat them as such in the interest of a smoothly running society?
2007-10-23 09:44:35
·
answer #7
·
answered by ZombieTrix 2012 6
·
3⤊
1⤋
It wouldn't. The family unit looks different from family to family. Kids need stability and protection- it doesn't matter what form that takes- aunt/uncle, grandma, mother/mother, whatever.
2007-10-23 09:40:36
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
Assuming you have no morals, and wish to raise you children in the same way there would not be much short term issues. I would ask do you draw the line anywhere? If a middle age man or women decides to marry one of your teen age children, that should not pose a issue either, is that correct? In the long term as our society collapses in to the filth that so many of you desire, when you see everything falling apart, perhaps you will remember your question, what is so bad? then you will know.
2007-10-23 09:54:02
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
6⤋
Here are some great sources.
2007-10-23 11:35:14
·
answer #10
·
answered by lundstroms2004 6
·
0⤊
0⤋