Gay Marriage?

[Louise]

i was talking to someone about this the other day, i dont see any problems myself, but she was very passionate about the subject, to the exstent that she had just sent me this.......................................

 

sorry its long just wanted to know how you feel on the subject as iv been accused of helping the devil with his work because i have an open mind

 

PLEASE NOTE AGAIN THAT THIS IS NOT ME.........IM IN AGREEMENT WITH SAME SEX MARRIAGE (just before the abuse starts)

 

Speaking Out: Why Gay Marriage Would Be Harmful

Institutionalizing homosexual marriage would be bad for marriage, bad for children, and bad for society.

By Robert Benne and Gerald McDermott | posted 02/19/2004

 

 

Now that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that marriage be open to gays and lesbians, it is time to consider the question that pops up more than mushrooms after a spring rain. How would the legalization of gay marriage harm current and future heterosexual marriages?

 

The answer at first glance is that it wouldn't, at least not in individual cases in the short run. But what about the longer run for everyone?

 

It is a superficial kind of individualism that does not recognize the power of emerging social trends that often start with only a few individuals bucking conventional patterns of behavior. Negative social trends start with only a few aberrations. Gradually, however, social sanctions weaken and individual aberrations became a torrent.

 

Think back to the 1960s, when illegitimacy and cohabitation were relatively rare. At that time many asked how one young woman having a baby out of wedlock or living with an unmarried man could hurt their neighbors. Now we know the negative social effects these two living arrangements have spawned: lower marriage rates, more instability in the marriages that are enacted, more fatherless children, increased rates of domestic violence and poverty, and a vast expansion of welfare state expenses.

 

But even so, why would a new social trend of gays marrying have negative effects? We believe there are compelling reasons why the institutionalization of gay marriage would be 1) bad for marriage, 2) bad for children, and 3) bad for society.

 

1. The first casualty of the acceptance of gay marriage would be the very definition of marriage itself. For thousands of years and in every Western society marriage has meant the life-long union of a man and a woman. Such a statement about marriage is what philosophers call an analytic proposition. The concept of marriage necessarily includes the idea of a man and woman committing themselves to each other. Any other arrangement contradicts the basic definition. Advocates of gay marriage recognize this contradiction by proposing "gay unions" instead, but this distinction is, we believe, a strategic one. The ultimate goal for them is the societal acceptance of gay marriage.

 

Scrambling the definition of marriage will be a shock to our fundamental understanding of human social relations and institutions. One effect will be that sexual fidelity will be detached from the commitment of marriage. The advocates of gay marriage themselves admit as much. "Among gay male relationships, the openness of the contract makes it more likely to survive than many heterosexual bonds," Andrew Sullivan, the most eloquent proponent of gay marriage, wrote in his 1996 book, Virtually Normal. "There is more likely to be a greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman. … Something of the gay relationship's necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds."

 

The former moderator of the Metropolitan Community Church, a largely homosexual denomination, made the same point. "Monogamy is not a word the gay community uses," Troy Perry told The Dallas Morning News. "We talk about fidelity. That means you live in a loving, caring, honest relationship with your partner. Because we can't marry, we have people with widely varying opinions as to what that means. Some would say that committed couples could have multiple sexual partners as long as there's no deception."

 

A recent study from the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legal, suggests that the moderator is correct. Researchers found that even among stable homosexual partnerships, men have an average of eight partners per year outside their "monogamous" relationship.

 

In short, gay marriage will change marriage more than it will change gays.

 

Further, if we scramble our definition of marriage, it will soon embrace relationships that will involve more than two persons. Prominent advocates hope to use gay marriage as a wedge to abolish governmental support for traditional marriage altogether. Law Professor Martha Ertman of the University of Utah, for example, wants to render the distinction between traditional marriage and "polyamory" (group marriage) "morally neutral." She argues that greater openness to gay partnerships will help us establish this moral neutrality (Her main article on this topic, in the Winter 2001 Harvard Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review, is not available online, but she made a similar case in the Spring/Summer 2001 Duke Journal Of Gender Law & Policy). University of Michigan law professor David Chambers wrote in a widely cited 1996 Michigan Law Review piece that he expects gay marriage will lead government to be "more receptive to [marital] units of three or more" (1996 Michigan Law Review).

 

2. Gay marriage would be bad for children. According to a recent article in Child Trends, "Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage." While gay marriage would encourage adoption of children by homosexual couples, which may be preferable to foster care, some lesbian couples want to have children through anonymous sperm donations, which means some children will be created purposely without knowledge of one of their biological parents. Research has also shown that children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with their own gender, suffer a greater rate of molestation within the family, and have homosexual experiences more often.

 

Gay marriage will also encourage teens who are unsure of their sexuality to embrace a lifestyle that suffers high rates of suicide, depression, HIV, drug abuse, STDs, and other pathogens. This is particularly alarming because, according to a 1991 scientific survey among 12-year-old boys, more than 25 percent feel uncertain about their sexual orientations. We have already seen that lesbianism is "chic" in certain elite social sectors.

 

Finally, acceptance of gay marriage will strengthen the notion that marriage is primarily about adult yearnings for intimacy and is not essentially connected to raising children. Children will be hurt by those who will too easily bail out of a marriage because it is not "fulfilling" to them.

 

3. Gay marriage would be bad for society. The effects we have described above will have strong repercussions on a society that is already having trouble maintaining wholesome stability in marriage and family life. If marriage and families are the foundation for a healthy society, introducing more uncertainty and instability in them will be bad for society.

 

In addition, we believe that gay marriage can only be imposed by activist judges, not by the democratic will of the people. The vast majority of people define marriage as the life-long union of a man and a woman. They will strongly resist redefinition. Like the 1973 judicial activism regarding abortion, the imposition of gay marriage would bring contempt for the law and our courts in the eyes of many Americans. It would exacerbate social conflict and division in our nation, a division that is already bitter and possibly dangerous.

 

In summary, we believe that the introduction of gay marriage will seriously harm Americans—including those in heterosexual marriages—over the long run. Strong political measures may be necessary to maintain the traditional definition of marriage, possibly even a constitutional amendment.

 

Some legal entitlements sought by gays and lesbians might be addressed by recognizing non-sexually defined domestic partnerships. But as for marriage, let us keep the definition as it is, and strengthen our capacity to live up to its ideals.

Edited February 24, 2004 by Louise

[Daredevil Tony]

I dont like the idea.

I see no problems with two people of the same sex living together and acting like partners but this will totally make a mockery of the sacrament of marriage.

[Maria]

Im all for.

[Rascal]

For it.

 

Why shouldn't two people be allowed to show their love and commitment for each other simply because they have a different preference.

[Lisa]

QUOTE (Tony @ Feb 24 2004, 16:48)

I dont like the idea. I see no problems with two people of the same sex living together and acting like partners but this will totally make a mockery of the sacrament of marriage.

& a male & a female dont make a mockery then eh!! FFS!!!

 

I can not see a problem myself, if it makes two people that love each other happy & bond there love thru marriage, then why not!!

[Daredevil Tony]

QUOTE (miss_diddy @ Feb 24 2004, 17:08)

& a male & a female dont make a mockery then eh!! FFS!!!

True but they should no better as well.

[Guest Shenlong]

that is such a pile of wank that i'm don't even know where to start with it. maybe later when i'm bored and have more time. if that isn't the most flagrant bit of propaganda i ahve read then i dunno what is.

 

"the vast majority of people define marriage as the life-long union of a man and a woman. They will strongly resist redefinition."

 

the vast majority of people also usedto condone and quite wholeheartedly agree that the world was flat and that slavery was actually quite a nice/accepted idea.

 

"Like the 1973 judicial activism regarding abortion, the imposition of gay marriage would bring contempt for the law and our courts in the eyes of many Americans. It would exacerbate social conflict and division in our nation, a division that is already bitter and possibly dangerous."

 

The vast majority of americans and people around the world in general ahev contempt for the law because it is poorly and unevenly enforced, sometimes amkes no common sense, etc. gah, i give up for now. will write more laters methinks.

[Lisa]

QUOTE (Tony @ Feb 24 2004, 17:13)

QUOTE (miss_diddy @ Feb 24 2004, 17:08)     & a male & a female dont make a mockery then eh!!  FFS!!! True but they should no better as well. so why should it be a mockery if two gay or lesbian people, who love each other & want to devote themselves for life to each other???

[Louise]

QUOTE (Tony @ Feb 24 2004, 16:48)

I dont like the idea. I see no problems with two people of the same sex living together and acting like partners but this will totally make a mockery of the sacrament of marriage.

i take it im a bad example

 

i made a mockery of it........whos to say that 2 men couldnt last longer than the pathetic 3 years i lasted

[Guest Shenlong]

QUOTE (Tony @ Feb 24 2004, 17:13)

QUOTE (miss_diddy @ Feb 24 2004, 17:08)     & a male & a female dont make a mockery then eh!!  FFS!!! True but they should no better as well. it's nto gay marriages that make a mockery of the idea of the vows made it's the people whether they be hetero/bi/homosexual.   if not an actual marriage as such then other thinsg suggested such as in the UK is a ceromony such as people ahev in registry offices which amount to the saw thing in legal terms. marriage is not necessarily about religious beliefs but making a commitment to the person that you wanna be with.

[Lisa]

exactly what I said Shen, it is about to people commiting to each nother out of an act of love!!

[alasdairm]

QUOTE (Tony @ Feb 24 2004, 08:48)

this will totally make a mockery of the sacrament of marriage.

why?

 

also, not sure what you mean by sacrament - do you mean sanctity?

 

alasdair

[Jimmy]

why not

[Phil rr]

QUOTE (Shenlong @ Feb 24 2004, 17:23)

The vast majority of americans and people around the world in general ahev contempt for the law because it is poorly and unevenly enforced, sometimes amkes no common sense

like drug laws.