Gay marriage question

[Nerm]

I was discussing this issue with someone over the Christmas break and I was wondering about something. I was unable to come up with an answer to the question “Who gets hurt by gay marriage?”

I hear the argument that marriage needs to be defended. But I’m not sure what it is being defended from. I was wondering if anyone on this board were personally affected by gay people getting married in Cali and Mass. Is there anyone whose marriage suffered because of these gay marriages? Did anyone consider divorce over the issue or feel that their marriage did not matter as much anymore? Was your relationship with your spouse altered in any way?

I’m trying to get an understanding of how people might be negatively impacted by gay marriage at an individual level.

Thanks

[Mr. S]

Nerm, I feel the same. The argument that I feel has the most substance in affecting peoples decisions against gay marriages is that it is morally wrong according to them or whatever they go by and believe in. They also feel the best household for children to grow up in are a male/female union household. I know there may be more arguments, but those are the 2 that seem to be the most vocal.

Whether morally wrong or not, which I believe cannot be fully certain, but I will not go against peoples beliefs. However, they only affect the state in that the state recognizes them, and I guess there are some tax implications as well. Other than that, I feel if 2 same sex couples can provide just as much love and growth for a child, then more power to them. Also, I heard a statistic that most children raised in a same sex household tend to be straight still.

Those are my basic thoughts of your question.

[Ignatius J.]

When your child sees to gays out in public they are more likely to choose a homosexual lifestyle.

Repressing gay marriage keeps gays from feeling comfortable out in the open and makes it easier to hide homosexuality from children.

[TheDoyler23]

Nobody gets hurt from gay marriage.

[Art]

Gay marriage harms hetrosexual marriage.

It does this in a simple way. As a society we have placed an immense value on marriage as we all know it to mean, which is to say a union between a man and a woman. We have socially engineered such unions to be the ideal.

In the process we have excluded a number of sexual perversions and deviant behaviors from the ideal. We have determined as a society that men (or women) can not be wed to multiple partners. We've decided adult family members can't be married. We've decided a farmer who loves his sheep can't marry them. We've placed age limits on marriage as well, so adults can not marry what we define as underage children.

Society has always, and should always, define the ideal. We believe ownership of a home is important, as an example. So, as we do with all things we wish to socially engineer, we write advantages in for this type of behavior within the tax code.

Beyond the tax advantages, there's a societal value at play here that is harmed immensely by opening marriage to one deviancy. First, you lessen the ideal of marriage by making it include more types of relationships. You make my marriage less meaningful when you allow state sponsorship of same sex marriages because you are granting normalcy to a naturally and societally unnormal behavior.

Marriage IS what it is. Ultimately given the path we're on we will wind up allowing gay unions under a different name, which, itself is unfortunate, but, does little to diminish the value of what marriage is. The unfortunate aspect to this type of allowance is we then must address the next sexual deviancy we must adopt to make normal to include.

We can't discriminate against bigamists, obviously if we can't against gays. We must examine how we define the age of consent. I mean, Canada is a country where 14 is that age. Here, an adult with a 14-year-old is national news. We must allow ourselves to recognize that the ONLY fashion by which you can allow yourself to support state-sponsored gay relationships is if you believe gay people are BORN gay.

And if you are so foolish as to believe anyone is born straight or gay you then have to believe that people are born with a desire to screw animals, marry their sisters, and, yes, bang children. We must inevitably determine any behavior outside the norms society has set is somehow genetic predisposition.

We must do this under the same grounds used by those (gay or straight) who want you to believe gays are born so. That they don't recall a conscious choice in the matter. That they wouldn't have chosen to be the way they are given the discrimination they face in public. That, therefore, they are being treated unequally because they are a distinct race of people, just as blacks are. Etc., etc., etc.

Now, no intelligent person actually can or could believe sexual urges directed in any particular way actually exists. But, to support "equal" rights among gays you must mouth the belief that gays are a race of people with genetic traits different from the rest of the species.

And once you do that, you automatically include any other deviancy you can think of, because, after all, why would a man chose to want to screw children knowing the societal discrimination he will face?

This is how people are impacted on an individual level. When you break down societal values to include one particular group you have sympathy for, you harm all of us.

And, let's not forget, gay people can marry. They have all the rights all other people have. They can receive state sponsorship of their marriage by being married to a person of the opposite sex or they can simply get married and receive no state recognition.

They just don't want that. They want you to adopt their deviant behavior as "normal". And when you've done this, you then get to adopt your next one. My guess is in 50 years we'll copy enlightened nations like Holland and Canada and lower the age of consent to 14 or so because we've artifically made it higher in this country for no good reason than we value our children and we should not preclude relationships between those who are born yearning to teach desiring children the true meaning of love.

Once you create a separate race of people based on sexual activity, this country is in gave danger.

[Prosperity]

Art you seem to argue that being gay is what harms society and not the actual gay marriage issue. Gay people are already accepted into society somewhat. If they are allowed to legally marry there won't be more or fewer gay people. Even if it does change society, so what? In a free country individuals should be free to they want including banging animals or your own sister. as long as it doesn't directly harm others

BTW Whether they were born that way or not is irrelevant, I don't know why you keep bringing that up.

[twa]

I am sure you will get blasted by the PC crowd ART,but I agree you cannot grant special status to a group because of sexual desires or lifestyle. IMO this push for marriage rights is about legislating public acceptance.

[Art]

Originally posted by Liberty

Art you seem to argue that being gay is what harms society and not the actual gay marriage issue. Gay people are already accepted into society somewhat. If they are allowed to legally marry there won't be more or fewer gay people. Even if it does change society, so what? In a free country individuals should be free to they want including banging animals or your own sister. as long as it doesn't directly harm others

BTW Whether they were born that way or not is irrelevant, I don't know why you keep bringing that up.

I keep bringing it up, Liberty, because the argument you and those who support the gay agenda continually use the equal rights argument as a way to achieve a foothold in the debate. When you guys stop using that as your argument, though, I still won't stop pointing out the incredible relevance of whether you are born a way or not.

The fact is, we should not be catering to the choices people make in terms of who they wish to be with sexually. And when you propose breaking down societal norms for such catering you cause direct harm to others. All others.

Here's a simple fact that you should not be able to miss though. For the most part the issue in the debate over gay marriage doesn't happen if those who support gay marriage would simply have targeted unions instead. Had they said they wanted to have unions available for their relationship that gave them the state sanctioned rights available those in marriage, this would already have been accomplished.

But, that's NOT what they want. They WANT gay marriage, not unions. Why? Because THEY know the value of the term marriage. For all those on the left who would say marriage isn't really important and gays being married doesn't really impact on you, all you have to do is LOOK within the gay community and how strongly they WANT "marriage" and not "unions" to know the power and potency and relevance of marriage.

The gay community itself would not be satisfied simply being unionized and enjoying the rights afforded those who are married. They want marriage so they can be like everyone else and have the state say they are. Even when they are not. The danger is not simply being gay, Liberty. The danger is being gay and not at least mildly tipping your hat to the fact that you are not like everyone else. The danger is forcing your behavior on others so that no one can deny you are just like everyone else.

That's the danger to society.

That's the harm to each of us individually.

[jpillian]

Damn, Art -- you sure are an eloquent SOB

Couldn't agree with you more.

Your sequence of events is spot on.

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by Art

I keep bringing it up, Liberty, because the argument you and those who support the gay agenda continually use the equal rights argument as a way to achieve a foothold in the debate. When you guys stop using that as your argument, though, I still won't stop pointing out the incredible relevance of whether you are born a way or not.

The fact is, we should not be catering to the choices people make in terms of who they wish to be with sexually. And when you propose breaking down societal norms for such catering you cause direct harm to others. All others.

Here's a simple fact that you should not be able to miss though. For the most part the issue in the debate over gay marriage doesn't happen if those who support gay marriage would simply have targeted unions instead. Had they said they wanted to have unions available for their relationship that gave them the state sanctioned rights available those in marriage, this would already have been accomplished.

But, that's NOT what they want. They WANT gay marriage, not unions. Why? Because THEY know the value of the term marriage. For all those on the left who would say marriage isn't really important and gays being married doesn't really impact on you, all you have to do is LOOK within the gay community and how strongly they WANT "marriage" and not "unions" to know the power and potency and relevance of marriage.

The gay community itself would not be satisfied simply being unionized and enjoying the rights afforded those who are married. They want marriage so they can be like everyone else and have the state say they are. Even when they are not. The danger is not simply being gay, Liberty. The danger is being gay and not at least mildly tipping your hat to the fact that you are not like everyone else. The danger is forcing your behavior on others so that no one can deny you are just like everyone else.

That's the danger to society.

That's the harm to each of us individually.

First of all I have never said gays are born gay, mainly because I have no idea one way or another, not that it would matter much one way or another.

Well society is made of individuals, and I still don't know why you think what gay people do will affect you as an individual, you will still keep your morals and you can still do the same things with the same people.

[Coach Williams]

Art do you agree with the following:

"Everyone in the world has a predisposition to millions of things, including homosexuality. It is up to the individuals enviroment to actualize these attributes. If mal adaptive predispositions are not actualized then the person will effectively adapt to societies norms."

[codeorama]

To me, it makes a heck of alot more sense that most gays are born that way, I for one can't imagine making a choice to, well, you get the picture.

Secondly, there are already a few churches that have no problem marrying gays, so the religious argument is pretty much out the window.

All that's left is that people just don't want gays to be married because it bothers them personally.

[mookie0720]

Honestly, who cares. It's not going to effect me, they can do as they please.

[skinsfanjoe]

Originally posted by codeorama

Secondly, there are already a few churches that have no problem marrying gays, so the religious argument is pretty much out the window.

Just because a few Apostate churches marry gays doesn't mean the "religious" argument is out the window. There is that whole "Bible" thing.

[skinsfanjoe]

Originally posted by mookie0720

Honestly, who cares. It's not going to effect me, they can do as they please.

That's the Spirit! Do you plan on having children? Yes? Than it's going to effect you.

[Mr. S]

Originally posted by skinsfanjoe

That's the Spirit! Do you plan on having children? Yes? Than it's going to effect you.

umm, please back up your statements if you make them. How does gay marriage affect me wanting to have children. I want to have children, but Im probably not going to date and marry a gay or lesbian, cause well, they arent straight. If they are already gay, nature or nurture, whatever, you cant do anything about it, they're gonna do what they wanna do still. At least write some support so I can try and write my thoughts down better based on what you said.

Art, whether gays are gay from nature or nurture, I am not caring of. However, you made a point of how "marriage" is an ideal in our society, and that gay civil unions would be allowed, but not "marriage". You also said that society should not cater to people's will on what they want, or that will essentially bring down our morals in society or something along those lines.

However, the nature/nurture issue is at hand, so there may be some physical configuration, there may not be, I stand in the middle on that issue. Throughout history however, governments have catered to the wants of the people. Constantine made Christianity as the official religion of Rome, mainly cause it was on the rise and more people were accepting it. Shays's rebellion after the American Revolution prompted the founding fathers to ge together and write the Constitution, even throwing in the Bill of Rights. Some rebellions occurred as the wants of the people grew and the government was unwilling to move, so a new person stepped in. I guess Russia becoming Communist is a huge example, granted the people there just were tired and poverty striken.

Whether these worked or not, they still happened due to 'wants' of the people.

You also discussed marriage as a sacred and high ideal, which I agree, it really is. I feel gay marriage does not really affect this ideal so long as the child is raised in a loving home that encourages good educational growth. Also, with divorce as crazy as it is in the US, you really have to question how much some people really care for the ideal of "marriage".

Anyways, those are my thoughts for now.

[skinsfanjoe]

Originally posted by Mr. S

umm, please back up your statements if you make them. How does gay marriage affect me wanting to have children. I want to have children, but Im probably not going to date and marry a gay or lesbian, cause well, they arent straight. If they are already gay, nature or nurture, whatever, you cant do anything about it, they're gonna do what they wanna do still. At least write some support so I can try and write my thoughts down better based on what you said.

Art, whether gays are gay from nature or nurture, I am not caring of. However, you made a point of how "marriage" is an ideal in our society, and that gay civil unions would be allowed, but not "marriage". You also said that society should not cater to people's will on what they want, or that will essentially bring down our morals in society or something along those lines.

However, the nature/nurture issue is at hand, so there may be some physical configuration, there may not be, I stand in the middle on that issue. Throughout history however, governments have catered to the wants of the people. Constantine made Christianity as the official religion of Rome, mainly cause it was on the rise and more people were accepting it. Shays's rebellion after the American Revolution prompted the founding fathers to ge together and write the Constitution, even throwing in the Bill of Rights. Some rebellions occurred as the wants of the people grew and the government was unwilling to move, so a new person stepped in. I guess Russia becoming Communist is a huge example, granted the people there just were tired and poverty striken.

Whether these worked or not, they still happened due to 'wants' of the people.

You also discussed marriage as a sacred and high ideal, which I agree, it really is. I feel gay marriage does not really affect this ideal so long as the child is raised in a loving home that encourages good educational growth. Also, with divorce as crazy as it is in the US, you really have to question how much some people really care for the ideal of "marriage".

Anyways, those are my thoughts for now.

:stop:Go look back at what I said. I wasn't commenting on anything you said. I was responding to something that another poster said.

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by skinsfanjoe

:stop:Go look back at what I said. I wasn't commenting on anything you said. I was responding to something that another poster said.

you still gave no supporting evidence

[skinsfanjoe]

Originally posted by Liberty

you still gave no supporting evidence

Supporting evidence for what? Mr. S took what I said to another poster out of context. Go back and look at what I said and then tell me what I'm supposed to give evidence for. I didn't say anything about him having children or marrying gays. I don't know what the heck he was talking about.:doh:

Now I told that other poster that if he planned on having children then the gay marriage debate would affect him.

Is that what you want me to give supporting evidence for?

~Confused~

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by skinsfanjoe

Supporting evidence for what? Mr. S took what I said to another poster out of context. Go back and look at what I said and then tell me what I'm supposed to give evidence for. I didn't say anything about him having children or marrying gays. I don't know what the heck he was talking about.:doh:

Now I told that other poster that if he planned on having children then the gay marriage debate would affect him.

Is that what you want me to give supporting evidence for?

~Confused~

yes

[codeorama]

Originally posted by skinsfanjoe

Just because a few Apostate churches marry gays doesn't mean the "religious" argument is out the window. There is that whole "Bible" thing.

There's lots of "bible" stuff that's ignored selectively...

Who decides what to ignore?

[Nerm]

Art,

I was wondering if anyone had a specific example of how their marriage was harmed. You started your post with "Gay marriage harms hetrosexual marriage"(sic). I seem to remember that you have said you are married (correct me if I am wrong). Could you explain what changed in your marriage when gay people in Cali and Boston got married? I have heard your arguments before, but I'm looking for stories of how specific heterosexual married people were harmed. I'm not looking for discussions of why it is bad for people to have sex with sheep and children. I agree that throughout the world, society has almost universally described marriage as a union of a man and a woman. That isn’t what I am looking to understand. I’m also not interested in debates on genetics/biology (although your position is somewhat contrary to the scientific evidence. Nature, nurture, and individual choice all play a role).

Did your relationship with your wife change? It is a yes or no question. I didn't ask if it hurts society. I want to know if anyone has a specific example of how it has hurt their marriage. How it has harmed their day-to-day relationship with their spouse.

You could answer the question in less than 20 words. You could say no. Or you could give a specific example of how your marriage/personal life suffered in response to the occurrence of gay marriages.

I’m not looking to debate whether gay marriage is a good idea. I agree with you (to some degree) about the civil union vs marriage debate. I’m looking for individual stories.

Thanks

[Huly]

You need to decide on your own feelings. I for one am against it. I am a christian and a republican and yes I voted for Bush as he supports my values. Bash me if you want but if you do not stand up for your own beliefs who else will. To me marriage is a sanction between two people in the eyes of God. Gays getting married does not hurt me as a person but I feel it lessens the meaning of marriage and in turn disrespects my marriage. People always say seperate Church and State, well to me Marriage is the Church and State should be seperated.

[twa]

I think the question should be 'Why should gays be allowed to marry".In what way are they being hurt? All of the rights that go along with marriage are for the benefit of familly units. the added burden of the courts in deciding inheritence,divorce,child custody and spousal support is a nightmare.

[skinsfanjoe]

Originally posted by codeorama

There's lots of "bible" stuff that's ignored selectively...

Who decides what to ignore?

I guess every individual believer decides what to ignore. That still doesn't make it ok.

You said that because a few churches ok'd gay marriage and performed ceremonies for gay weddings that you could throw the whole religious argument out the window.

I said you can't for the simple fact that God's word is still God's word. Homosexuality is a sin. Plain and simple. I'm not picking on gays it's just God's word. If there was an issue in our country with extra marital sex or beastiality becoming legalized than I would be saying the same thing. It's wrong, it's a sin and we can and should not call something right when God says it wrong. :2cents: That is why gay marriage is a threat to the future of our nation. We can't expect to continue to live as we see fit and not expect God to judge. I believe that's true for myself as well as every individual.

"For the time has come for judgement to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?" 1 Peter 4:17