How does legalising gay marriage actually damage... anything?

Question

And please explain. Don't just say: "it damages marriage" or "it damages society" without saying how.

And I'm NOT asking about gay adoption here. That's an entirely different issue.

Lady Louisa: But HOW does it damage those things?

Answer 1

Nothing, Nada etc.
It damages nothing but an idea that some people have that is all
(same goes for gay adoption)

Answer 2

It damages nothing. All of the arguments against same sex marriage are illogical poo.

The nuts who claim that marriage is a religious institution need to examine their claim. If marriage is so damned religious then what's the government doing in the middle of it? Either legally permit consenting adults to marry whomever they want (and however many they want) or take the government completely out of marriage altogether. That's MY opinion.

Let's see.... What about the issue of reproduction? Sorry, but this is one of the most nonsensical arguments against same marriage that I've ever heard. How in hell does same sex marriage discourage procreation? Homosexuals aren't going to "turn straight" and make a bunch of babies simply because they're denied the right to marry. Additionally, with regards to the family unit, homosexuals consist of two types of people:
1) Those who have resolved themselves to never having children and 2) Those who will, at some point in time, attempt to have children by alternative means (such as adoption or surrogacy). This isn't going to change whether or not homosexuals are permitted to marry. Furthermore, there are many heterosexuals who have no desire to have children. What's the difference?

And, of course, there's the BS claim that homosexuality increases the spread of STDs. Ummm, WHAT?!?! Firstly, prejudiced jack a*ses have been trying to prove this for years with absolutely no luck. Secondly, contrary to the fact that infidelity is a problem in many marriages, promiscuity is more prevalent among the unmarried than the married. There's no evidence to suggest that the same wouldn't/doesn't apply to homosexuals.

And as for morality- Morality is highly subjective. What John sees as immoral may not be seen as immoral by Jane. Morality has no place in the law. "Mixing" the two is no better than allowing religion to dictate or influence the law. After all, to do as such is to encroach upon the rights of others to live according to their own beliefs and ideals.

Many people argue that same sex marriage has a negative impact on children. HOW? PROVE IT! Oh, that's right, YOU CAN'T PROVE IT! There isn't a shred of proof to show that children are harmed in any way by same sex marriage. I've heard some people claim that exposure to homosexuals can influence children to become homosexuals. Alright, for the sake of debate, let's assume that this is a valid point... Logic dictates that if children can be influenced to the point of becoming homosexual then children can also be influenced to become heterosexual. Aren't BOTH equally "bad"? If influencing the sexualities of impressionable little children is a negative thing then the ideal family unit consists of a single parent household in which the children are given absolutely no indications as to the sexuality of the parent. So, until society is prepared to encourage single parenting, homosexuals having children should be a non-issue.

In my opinion, unless people are against marriage (or rather against government involvement in marriage), opposing same sex marriage is totally asinine.

Answer 3

It probably does not do any harm other than to insult the religious beliefs of millions of people. It does no good either. There are domestic partnership laws that provided all the same benefits as marriage. Why then do so many "gays" want it? I think it is to try to force everyone else into pretending that their relationships are as mainstream as those of "straight" people, which just isn't true.

In that regard, many people feel that it would make a homosexual lifestyle seem an acceptable alternative whilst they believe that it is not. They see this as a devolution of our culture to satisfy the whims of a few. And that is where they see it causing damage to society. I have to see an argument explaining why this generally accepted view is wrong before deciding that it is. Therefor the burden of proof is still on the "gay" community to prove that marriege will benefit society.

The jury is still out as th whether homosexuality is a choice or determined by genetics. I bet it will turn out to be both in part depending on individual cases. It does seem to be related to population density. If it is wholly a matter of genetics, then trying to make a civil rights issue out of it might have some merit. Otherwise not. A group of people wanting something does not make it automatically the duty of the majority to give it to them. That sort of childish behavior has harmed society on many fronts already.

Answer 4

Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for many years now and there is no record anywhere in the state that indicates that it has destroyed or even lessened the value one single straight marriage.

It has been proven though to strengthen the family unit, as homosexuals are members of everyones family, and not only that but it has proven to be an excellent stimulus for all sorts of businesses and related businesses to the wedding ceremony.

Best thing to ever happen to Massachusetts since the Tea Party in Boston Harbor.

Answer 5

Oh No...your not getting away with saying gay adoption is a entirely different issue.
I couldn't care less about gay marriage because it doesn't damage anything except.......being legally married makes it easier to adopt.
So you see.......they are very similar issues.
I feel a child should have a Mom and a Dad....so for that reason and that reason alone....I am forced to be against gay marriage.

Answer 6

I don't believe it damages anything.

Marriage is a promise made between two people before their friends and loved ones as witness. I don't know how that can be considered a bad thing regardless of gender preference.

There's a lot of good stuff in the Bible, but it has weaknesses and this is one of them. And for the record, I'm a happily married (22 years) heterosexual woman. Gay people don't threaten me, but people who have to have their noses in everyone else's bedroom do!

Answer 7

i think it damages their own lives.not the lives of others.you see the best thing that they had about their lifestyle is they didn't have to get married they could go through life without feeling that one has to legally bind themselves to another human being.you see I'm from mass. and the world hasn't ended here.

Answer 8

I dont believe it damages anything,
People have there own opinions on who they like what religion there about, and all sorts of things, like going to church is one, but gay marriage and legalising it isnt damaging anything besides the people who have belifes that they are better than others.

Answer 9

I dont see how it damages anything. Two income couples earn more, pay more in taxes and are less of a drain on public health care.

Until very recently, marriage was not about love, but about a contract between two families, in the attempt to increase family wealth. Since when is amassing money and property so moral?

Answer 10

In no way, shape or form does gay marriage damage anything. I mean it may damage my chance of finding a good looking guy who isn't a jerk cause you gay guys get all the good looking ones. lol