Same Sex Marriage -- Help Me Understand How It Hurts Me

[tdeveson]

I just read an article on New Hampshire being the fifth state that allows gay marriage. While discussing it with a friend this morning, she came up again with the argument that same sex marriage will hurt our own marriages. She was unable to articulate exactly how this will happen, but it's not the first time I've heard this.

 

Can someone explain this theory to me? Please, no Biblical quotes. I really, honestly want to understand how gay marriage hurts my marriage, not what the Judeo-Christian God has to say about it. This is the third time I have had this conversation with someone that can't quite pin-point how it will hurt traditional marriage, but they're convinced it will. (Frankly, this smells of indoctrination. When one has a strong opinion, one can usually articulate why.)

 

No flames, please. I don't want to discuss whether it's right or wrong. I just want to understand what is behind this theory.

 

Thanks.

Edited January 2, 2010 by tdeveson

[momto2Cs]

I am not sure either how gay marriage can hurt traditional marriage. Frankly, without using Biblical references, I am not sure how someone could say it would. Also, I think love is very precious, and people should be able to celebrate finding it with any other person, regardless of gender.

[forty-two]

Well, I don't see how it will hurt my personal marriage either - most arguments I've heard posit that expanding the definition of marriage to include gay marriage will weaken the institution of marriage itself, and, as marriage is the foundation of the family, which is the foundation of society, gay marriage will ultimately weaken our society, perhaps fatally.

 

As for the belief that gay marriage will weaken the institution of marriage, that is largely a religious belief, and really can't be explained without bringing in the Bible.

[tdeveson]

Considering that many Judeo-Christian traditions place their entire definition of marriage on their holy texts, someone with a Judeo-Christian background cannot answer your question given the limitations you have imposed.

 

So what you are saying is that there is no factual basis for this theory other than what it says in the Bible, yes? I'll consider what it says in the Bible. What does it say about the threat of gay marriage to traditional marriage? Again, not whether it's right or wrong. I just want to know how it affects me, a straight suburban housewife.

Edited January 2, 2010 by tdeveson

[jujsky]

:lurk5:

[Harriet Vane]

Treading carefully here . . .

 

My understanding is that it opens up a slippery slope that allows marriage to be defined in other ways. There is a concern about polygamy gaining acceptance through this slippery slope, for example.

[tdeveson]

Treading carefully here . . .

 

My understanding is that it opens up a slippery slope that allows marriage to be defined in other ways. There is a concern about polygamy gaining acceptance through this slippery slope, for example.

 

I can see this. It seems reasonable that if one type of non-traditional marriage is allowed, other types might follow. They said this about interracial marriage which was considered unnatural and sinful just a few decades ago. We allowed that, and now some states are actually allowing people of the same gender to do it. I absolutely agree that it is a slippery slope when you start giving everyone equal rights.

 

Still, even if polygamy were allowed, how does it hurt my marriage? That's all I'm looking for. How does it affect me.

[Doran]

Treading carefully here . . .

 

My understanding is that it opens up a slippery slope that allows marriage to be defined in other ways. There is a concern about polygamy gaining acceptance through this slippery slope, for example.

 

 

...another premise is that in redefining marriage to include same sex unions, thereby potentially opening up the slippery slope to which Strider refers, it is believed that we erode the institution of family. The result is negative impacts on our children, all our future generations, and ultimately society. Thus, you are affected by the long term fallout.

 

You may find this link helpful.

[Impish]

I can see this. It seems reasonable that if one type of non-traditional marriage is allowed, other types might follow. They said this about interracial marriage which was considered unnatural and sinful just a few decades ago. We allowed that, and now some states are actually allowing people of the same gender to do it. I absolutely agree that it is a slippery slope when you start giving everyone equal rights.

 

Still, even if polygamy were allowed, how does it hurt my marriage? That's all I'm looking for. How does it affect me.

It may not affect you directly...but what about your children? Would you be ok with them having a polygamous marriage?

[asta]

I think, what threatens people (though they don't realize this - not consciously thinking about this) actually has nothing to do with "marriage" at all. Not as it is modernly defined, anyway.

 

I think what is threatening to people is a deeply rooted evolutionary response to perpetuate the species. Male/Female sexual pairings lead to the perpetuation of the species. Male/Male and Female/Female sexual pairings do not. (remember: we're talking evolution, not modern constructs such as IVF, adoption, etc. - simply standard sexual pairings on an evolutionary basis).

 

Marriage is an ancient social construct used for conveyance of property, perpetuation of paternity and myriad other reasons. It has been independent of religion and part of religion, involved in affairs of state and independent of them.

 

I think it is the fear that humanity (as they know it) will cease to exist.

 

I also think this is absurd.

 

 

asta

[tdeveson]

...another premise is that in redefining marriage to include same sex unions, thereby potentially opening up the slippery slope to which Strider refers, it is believed that we erode the institution of family.

 

Divorce rates among conservative Christians are already bad. Their marriages crumble with the same or more frequency than the rest of the population. Withholding equal rights from another segment of that population doesn't seem like the right way to address this.

 

See http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

[dragons in the flower bed]

It may not affect you directly...but what about your children? Would you be ok with them having a polygamous marriage?

 

Yes. I wish my children any and every sort of love, because love is a good thing.

[tdeveson]

Well, in your day-to-day existence, it may not affect you at all. You'll still have more laundry than motivation, still argue with your husband, still eat more than you should, still laugh at silly Seinfeld quotes, still enjoy a walk at sunset . . . oh, wait. That's me.

 

 

Ack! You caught me! :D

[MotherMayI]

Have you seen this "PSA" yet? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YpePLcvasE

[forty-two]

So what you are saying is that there is no factual basis for this theory other than what it says in the Bible, yes? I'll consider what it says in the Bible. What does it say about the threat of gay marriage to traditional marriage? Again, not whether it's right or wrong. I just want to know how it affects me, a straight suburban housewife.

The basic reasoning goes like this: God instituted marriage - which is a reflection of the image of God - between one man and one woman in Genesis, during creation, and before the fall. It is what marriage, by the very nature of things, is meant to be. It just *is*, the way that gravity just *is*. And just as you can say whatever you like about the existence of gravity, but it still exists and you will still be subject to it, whether you believe in it or not, marriage is what it is - the union of one man and one woman - no matter how any of us may try to redefine it.

 

So, if marriage is what it is - no matter what we say - then why are Christians so adamant about protecting it? God hardly needs our help, right? Well, just as a bridge built under the assumption that gravity was 4.9 m/s^2 instead of 9.8m/s^2 would probably fail - you ignore the laws of physics to your detriment - a society that ignores the natural moral law will also fail.

 

As for a factual basis outside the Bible, the way to go would be to examine past societies that accepted homosexual behavior as morally legit, and see what happened to them. If the Biblical view - of homosexual behavior violating natural law, and societies that flagrantly violate natural law reaping the negative consequences - is correct, it should be apparent in the fate of said societies.

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

Yes. I wish my children any and every sort of love, because love is a good thing.

 

:iagree:

[tdeveson]

Yes. I wish my children any and every sort of love, because love is a good thing.

 

I have to agree. I don't see how two moms and a dad or any other combination of parents that love and cherish a child can be harmful. The child could only be harmed by the people who tell him that his parents are all going to burn in hell. In this case, I only see a threat from outside, not inside the home.

[Tidbits of Learning]

I don't believe it can hurt our marriages in any way. I have relatives that are gay and in a lifelong relationship. I felt for him when his first partner passed and our family (strong Christian hetero family) buried his partner in the family plot. It was poignant and moving and really taught me a lot about right and wrong no matter your personal beliefs. It helped to shape my beliefs and level of tolerance.

Recently, when his mother passed, I met his new "friend". It has been probably 10 years since his lifelong "friend" passed. He mourned like any other widower that I have known. He was truly happy for the first time in years. His "friend" called his father Dad just like any son-in-law would.

They are great with the nieces and nephews and cousins. They are great family members that will be there when you need them. If their love and lifestyle will hurt my marriage, then I can't see it in any way. I would say their love and lifestyle has taught me a lot about life and my own prejudices. They, without realizing it ,taught me to be a better human being and friend to all people no matter what my personal beliefs are about controversial subjects.

If you want to say that their relationship will degrade the term family as I know it, then I want some up front proof. I want some personal accounts of how a gay relationship caused you to doubt your family and your perception of marriage. Until then, I believe that people believe these fabrications because they don't know any better.

For me, I will remember my cousin's lifelong partner talking to me all the way to my Grandfather's funeral in the limo. He was a good person who made a difficult time a little easier for me.

There are plenty of dysfunctional hetero relationships that I can allude to show how I feel marriage can degrade family. It is the same with homo and hetero. They will both have good relationships and bad relationships. Not everyone that gets married stays married and not all marriages will be healthy for the partners or family. It has nothing to do with whether the people involved are hetero or homo.

[pqr]

Yes. I wish my children any and every sort of love, because love is a good thing.

 

 

...but you must accept that yours is a very small minority view and even those who support special rights for homosexuals (i.e. letting their wishes lead to a redefinition of marriage) would find the idea of polygamy and giving it a legal sanction an anathema.

[Impish]

Well, I'm a freak then.

 

I want my daughters to be the only wife of her husband. To know he cherishes her as his one and only...not to be 2nd, 3rd, 4th...

 

And I want the same for my sons.

 

I would not want a polygamous marriage for any of my children.

[creekmom]

I copied this from a website about defending marriage.....

 

 

 

 

Try this analogy. Suppose you decided to become a doctor and you qualify and are awarded a license to practice medicine. Then suppose a special interest group of beauticians cry discrimination and pressure lawmakers to allow them to receive a medical license upon completion of beauty school. Would a simple medical license qualify a beautician to practice medicine? Would you want to receive medical treatment from such a beautician? I certainly wouldn't. A license alone, though necessary, does not qualify someone to competently practice medicine. It is their capacity to be a doctor that does. Simply issuing a license without demanding that the applicants meet the basic qualifications does not make for quality medical care.

So it is with marriage.

Your sex has everything to do with your role in marriage including your ability to produce children and your ability to be a mother or a father to the children that you produce. The license, though necessary, does not equip you with the ability to carry out the required functions of marriage. Discrimination is justified in my hypothetical example because beauticians are not doctors even if a new law were to declare it to be so in order to make beauticians feel better about themselves or so they could have the same benefits as doctors.

Even if granting medical licenses to beauticians allowed more patients to be treated (or more children to be cared for in the instance of same-sex relationships) it would not behoove society to do so. Would that increase the level of quality medical care and truly benefit more individuals? And once the beauticians gain this right, you can bet that other special interest groups such as police officers, taxi drivers, or school teachers will want this privilege as well. Then what would a medical license stand for? What will a marriage license stand for if we legalize same-sex marriage? The value of my marriage license would be substantially decreased as it would no longer stand for the same thing it did when I was married.

Not only will legalizing same-sex marriage grossly denigrate the marriage contract I have entered into by changing the definition of the marriage institution itself, it will also undermine my ability to teach the meaning and importance of marriage to my children. I teach my children that marriage is a sacred relationship between a man and woman sanctioned by society as the best way to organize families and rear children. They will be told by society that this is not so. Our laws, and thus our schools, will undermine my teachings to my children telling them that there is nothing special about my marriage to their father and that the sex of my husband is irrelevant to the role he plays as my husband and their father. My husband, Greg, could have just as easily been Sue, with no negative consequences to my children. (Let's just forget the fact that they would not exist.)

In addition, if same-sex marriage is legalized in my state, my prerogative as a parent to oppose materials used in school curricula like "Heather Has Two Mommies" will be destroyed overnight.

Congressman Pearce, in the debate said, "There is a question of who gets harmed from same-sex marriage? When we approve same-sex marriage, we are going to be required to teach that it is okay. In fact, it is going to be wrong to teach against it. If we think that that is not going to happen, look at what has happened to the Boy Scouts of America who dared to take a stance. The all-out assault on the institution of the Boy Scouts of America has been unending, trying to get them to change their stance, simply saying, we want to teach our values."

It is disingenuous for same-sex marriage proponents to say we have to prove that legalizing marriage between people who have sex with their same-gender partner will cause my husband and me to divorce or destroy our marriage. Nobody ever claimed it would. What it would do is hurt the institution of marriage with a myriad of negative effects to children and society that we can only begin to fathom.

[Tidbits of Learning]

...but you must accept that yours is a very small minority view and even those who support special rights for homosexuals (i.e. letting their wishes lead to a redefinition of marriage) would find the idea of polygamy and giving it a legal sanction an anathema.

 

The idea that polygamy will result from giving the legal rights is way off base. My homosexual family members both have been loyal to partners and were in my eyes married family members.

Having had first hand life experience where 2 gay couples were accepted by a family and loved no matter our own personal beliefs, I can say that I totally don't believe that one will elude to another.

Gay marriage does not equal the downfall of society as we know it. And if you are current on the status quo, there are already plenty of people practicing polygamy without our "permission".

My gay relatives didn't need anyone's permission to live like a married couple. There are already gay "marriages" whether they have a piece of paper saying it is legal or not.

[tdeveson]

...but you must accept that yours is a very small minority view and even those who support special rights for homosexuals (i.e. letting their wishes lead to a redefinition of marriage) would find the idea of polygamy and giving it a legal sanction an anathema.

 

People who support gay marriage are not a very small minority. The citizens of five states have already unequivocally said yes to gay marriage. Each year more states will allow it. It is inevitable because it is right and it is just.

 

As to polygamy, the only problem I have with it is the way it is practiced in Utah -- middle aged men with pre-pubescent girls. But that's not polygamy. That's child abuse and not to be confused. If three people of adult age decide they want to throw in their lot together and raise a family, I could care less.

[momto2Cs]

I don't believe it can hurt our marriages in any way. I have relatives that are gay and in a lifelong relationship. I felt for him when his first partner passed and our family (strong Christian hetero family) buried his partner in the family plot. It was poignant and moving and really taught me a lot about right and wrong no matter your personal beliefs. It helped to shape my beliefs and level of tolerance.

Recently, when his mother passed, I met his new "friend". It has been probably 10 years since his lifelong "friend" passed. He mourned like any other widower that I have known. He was truly happy for the first time in years. His "friend" called his father Dad just like any son-in-law would.

They are great with the nieces and nephews and cousins. They are great family members that will be there when you need them. If their love and lifestyle will hurt my marriage, then I can't see it in any way. I would say their love and lifestyle has taught me a lot about life and my own prejudices. They, without realizing it ,taught me to be a better human being and friend to all people no matter what my personal beliefs are about controversial subjects.

If you want to say that their relationship will degrade the term family as I know it, then I want some up front proof. I want some personal accounts of how a gay relationship caused you to doubt your family and your perception of marriage. Until then, I believe that people believe these fabrications because they don't know any better.

For me, I will remember my cousin's lifelong partner talking to me all the way to my Grandfather's funeral in the limo. He was a good person who made a difficult time a little easier for me.

There are plenty of dysfunctional hetero relationships that I can allude to show how I feel marriage can degrade family. It is the same with homo and hetero. They will both have good relationships and bad relationships. Not everyone that gets married stays married and not all marriages will be healthy for the partners or family. It has nothing to do with whether the people involved are hetero or homo.

 

:iagree:

 

As to polygamy, the only problem I have with it is the way it is practiced in Utah -- middle aged men with pre-pubescent girls. But that's not polygamy. That's child abuse and not to be confused. If three people of adult age decide they want to throw in their lot together and raise a family, I could care less.

 

:iagree:

[creekmom]

Some very specific reasons...

 

 

 

Cons of Same Sex Marriage - It hurts Heterosexuals

 

Homosexual activists ask, “How would government-backed same-sex marriage hurt you?†Most conservatives have failed to answer this question, but it is not hard to foresee the following negative consequences on all Americans:

1. Income taxes will be increased to make up for the marriage tax benefits given to homosexual couples and to pay for the social costs resulting from the increase in illegitimacy. We provide financial benefits to married couples because they produce and care for children. Why should homosexual couples get the same benefits as men and women raising children? Moreover, providing financial incentives for homosexual unions would be doubly counterproductive. First, taxpayers would be subsidizing, and thus encouraging destructive behavior. Second, we then would pay for the results of that behavior in the form of increased medical and social costs.
   
2. Social security taxes will be increased (or benefits decreased) in order to pay survivor support benefits to homosexual “widows†and “widowers.â€
   
3. Medical insurance premiums will rise to offset the higher health care costs associated with homosexual behavior (i.e., AIDS, colon cancer, hepatitis and other diseases) which will likely increase if we approve same-sex marriage. Medical premiums would rise further if insurance companies are mandated to cover fertility treatments for lesbian couples (there’s sure to be some judge somewhere to order that!).
   
4. Employee benefits will be reduced as employers are mandated to spread their limited benefit dollars to include homosexual partners. Limited benefit dollars given to homosexuals must come from somewhere; indeed, they are taken away from everyone else—married couples raising children.
   
5. Homosexual couples will be given legal preference to adopt due to their inability to procreate. In other words, homosexuals will not be granted equal rights but super rights—rights that will supersede your rights as a citizen. Tragically, children will be treated as trophies that, in effect, validate homosexual relationships.
   
6. Your children will be indoctrinated, with or without your consent, to accept homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage as the moral and social equivalent of heterosexual behavior and marriage (we are seeing this in our public schools already, especially in California and Massachusetts).
   
7. Your workplace will attempt to indoctrinate you to the same ends—and if you refuse, you will either lose your job or not be considered a “team player.†(This is already happening through “diversity†training in many companies; it will become universal if same-sex marriage becomes law.)
   
8. Your place of worship will be forced to hire homosexuals and play by new draconian rules that impose homosexuality. A Catholic adoption charity recently closed its doors in Massachusetts rather than offer children to homosexual couples as the state mandated. This new rule was the direct result of government-backed same-sex marriage. Tolerance will become a one-way street—you need to tolerate and even advance homosexuality, but homosexual activists don’t need to tolerate your views.
   
9. Free speech and religion rights will be curtailed as opposition to homosexuality is criminalized as “hate speech†(as is now the case in Canada and Sweden). This should wake up religious people who erroneously believe they ought not to be involved in politics. Politics affects your ability to practice your religion! Once same-sex marriage is approved, it will not be long before you will be fined or imprisoned for expressing any opposition to homosexuality. People with religious moral convictions will be considered worse than racists.
   
10. Your government and its intrusive ways will grow as a result of the changes we have just reviewed. That’s another reason why liberals love same-sex marriage—it means more big government. They will call for more government programs to fix the mess caused by the destruction of the family and more government regulation to ensure that their new morality of political correctness is imposed on you, your children, and your place of worship.
    

[Tidbits of Learning]

It is disingenuous for same-sex marriage proponents to say we have to prove that legalizing marriage between people who have sex with their same-gender partner will cause my husband and me to divorce or destroy our marriage. Nobody ever claimed it would. What it would do is hurt the institution of marriage with a myriad of negative effects to children and society that we can only begin to fathom.

 

These moral issues have been tackled before when a group was ostracized for just existing. Take african-americans for example. In the 50's, it was believed that by simply associating in a school setting with an African-American that the little white girls would want to marry one. Was it wrong? Yes.

The same belief was held about interracial marriage. That if we accepted it we would have to say it was alright and there would be a sudden spike in interracial relationships. The interracial relationships were there anyway.

The same goes for homosexual relationships. They are still having relationships in the same manner as marriage. They don't have a pretty piece of paper saying that everyone else believes they are married. Yet, in their hearts and in the eyes of the friends and family that know them, they are married.

[Tidbits of Learning]

I would just like one person to write that has known first hand a homosexual "lifelong" couple that it hurt them or their family or degraded their perception of family.

That is what I want. A physical human being to say that their whole world was crushed and their viewpoint of marriage and family was destroyed by knowing a couple was homosexual.

[pqr]

People who support gay marriage are not a very small minority. The citizens of five states have already unequivocally said yes to gay marriage.

 

As to polygamy...if three people of adult age decide they want to throw in their lot together and raise a family, I could care less.

 

I was speaking of support for polygamy, nevertheless even in California it has been shown that those who support special rights for homosexuals are a minority.

 

In which 5 states did the citizens vote unequivocally for homosexual "marriage"?

 

As I stated in the first post your comment on polygamy puts you very much in a tiny minority. Just out of interest do you feel the same way about incestuous relationships? Should we redefine marriage to include these?

[tdeveson]

I would just like one person to write that has known first hand a homosexual "lifelong" couple that it hurt them or their family or degraded their perception of family.

That is what I want. A physical human being to say that their whole world was crushed and their viewpoint of marriage and family was destroyed by knowing a couple was homosexual.

 

Don't hold your breath.

[Doran]

Divorce rates among conservative Christians are already bad. Their marriages crumble with the same or more frequency than the rest of the population. Withholding equal rights from another segment of that population doesn't seem like the right way to address this.

 

See http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

 

 

I don't disagree with you at all. But, in order to try to answer your OP, I chose to not take a particular stance. What I offered were the explanation(s) I believe those opposed to same sex marriage would give, not my personal opinions.

[tdeveson]

Just out of interest do you feel the same way about incestuous relationships? Should we redefine marriage to include these?

 

Why would you even go there? My question has to do with whether gay marriage will or will not hurt my marriage.

[tdeveson]

I don't disagree with you at all. But, in order to try to answer your OP, I chose to not take a particular stance. What I offered were the explanation(s) I believe those opposed to same sex marriage would give, not my personal opinions.

 

Thanks for the link. I appreciate it.

[pqr]

Why would you even go there? My question has to do with whether gay marriage will or will not hurt my marriage.

 

You support redefining marriage, I asked a simple question.....now if you find it difficult to argue that we should redefine marriage for one group but not for others then....

Edited January 2, 2010 by pqr

[tdeveson]

You support redefining marriage, I asked a simple question.....now if you find it difficult to argue that we should redefine marriage for one group but not for others then....

 

Go open another thread for that. This thread is about how gay marriage hurts straight marriage. I'm sure a thread on incest would be lively.

[Spy Car]

I think living in a society that doesn't deny people basic human rights only enhances my happiness, and my wife's happiness.

 

We are very happy for the few same-sex couples who were legally married here in California while it was briefly legal, and despair that a majority vote overrode the California constitution. It's painful to see bigotry prevail at the ballot box and have peoples rights voted away.

 

In the end, the struggle for full human rights is a battle that will be won. It's just a shame how many times we've had to fight the battles against intolerance without learning the lesson that freedom belongs to all, or all our freedoms are threatened.

 

Talk about infringing human freedom. Those who would do so are treating their fellow citizens as second-class citizens, if not slaves, and such a situation is intolerable to me.

 

Let freedom ring!!!

 

Bill

[hornblower]

I live in a jurisdiction where we've had legal same sex marriage for almost 5 years.

 

It's a wonderful place to live. It hasn't affected my marriage at all. It hasn't led to an erosion of family or society. It hasn't really changed anything - except for the couples concerned. :D

 

Polygamy doesn't concern me - as long as it applies evenly to both genders :)

[pqr]

Go open another thread for that. This thread is about how gay marriage hurts straight marriage. I'm sure a thread on incest would be lively.

 

But it is part of this thread. Granting special rights to a group by allowing them to redefine marriage hurts the institution of marriage. The issue is bigger than simply recognizing homosexual "marriage" it does extend into other types.

 

I still would like to know the 5 states you mentioned where the citizens (not politicians) unequivocally supported homosexual "marriage." You may be right but I can not figure which ones they are and if your statement was incorrect then you should retract it.

[Impish]

But it is part of this thread. Granting special rights to a group by allowing them to redefine marriage hurts the institution of marriage. The issue is bigger than simply recognizing homosexual "marriage" it does extend into other types.

 

I still would like to know the 5 states you mentioned where the citizens (not politicians) unequivocally supported homosexual "marriage." You may be right but I can not figure which ones they are and if your statement was incorrect then you should retract it.

Same sex marriage is legal in Canada...But I don't remember getting to vote on the issue.

[Daisy]

Whether or not society has a responsibility to come together and determine appropriate codes of conduct is probably the root of your question. Does a secular society have any business expecting a specific code of conduct from it's citizens and if so what is the basis for that code? For many years in this country that code has been founded on generally accepted principles. That is now changing.

 

From what I can gather, you suggest that the basis for that code should be simply, "Does the behavior affect me negatively?" If that becomes the basis then what is to stop someone from fighting to outlaw various religions or cars or any number of other things that folks "feel" negatively impact them? For others that code of conduct has been based on basic Judeo-Christian principles. So we are at a major crossroads in this country. Interesting to watch what happens.

 

Personally my definition of right or wrong is not based on what affects me. It is based on Scripture. Scripture says we are suffering from a terminal illness called sin. That illness shows up in millions of different symptoms of which homosexuality is only one. If I'm going to offend someone I would rather it be because we disagreed on the illness and the cure, rather then that we disagreed over the symptoms.

[Philothea]

Because it allows evil unprecendented public license to corrupt as it pleases.

 

It changes the meaning of a word that is the building block of decent society against the will of most people. If two people want of the same sex are "married", then I am not married by the same defintion.

 

These same acts try to force me, my children and society into accepting something that, in better times, was an unspeakable perversion. Now that is being changed, and rewarded, not to mention--rewarded with my tax dollars.

[pqr]

Same sex marriage is legal in Canada...But I don't remember getting to vote on the issue.

 

 

You probably did not, but the OPs statement was that "The citizens of five states have already unequivocally said yes to gay marriage".

 

In every case that I can think of where the citizens were asked (not the politicians of the judges) they said NO. I may be wrong, but if not then the OPs statement was misleading.

[Spy Car]

Whether or not society has a responsibility to come together and determine appropriate codes of conduct is probably the root of your question. Does a secular society have any business expecting a specific code of conduct from it's citizens and if so what is the basis for that code? For many years in this country that code has been founded on generally accepted principles. That is now changing.

 

From what I can gather, you suggest that the basis for that code should be simply, "Does the behavior affect me negatively?" If that becomes the basis then what is to stop someone from fighting to outlaw various religions or cars or any number of other things that folks "feel" negatively impact them? For others that code of conduct has been based on basic Judeo-Christian principles. So we are at a major crossroads in this country. Interesting to watch what happens.

 

Personally my definition of right or wrong is not based on what affects me. It is based on Scripture. Scripture says we are suffering from a terminal illness called sin. That illness shows up in millions of different symptoms of which homosexuality is only one. If I'm going to offend someone I would rather it be because we disagreed on the illness and the cure, rather then that we disagreed over the symptoms.

 

The scriptures have many examples of polygamy, yet polygamy has never been the law of the land.

 

Our nation is based on foundations that include equality under the law. Goodness knows we have not always lived up to our ideals, but the generally accepted principle if one of equality and human freedom.

 

I'd suggest stone-throwers who want to condemn other peoples "sins" ought to get the mote out of their own eyes first. I remember reading that somewhere.

 

Bill

[MamaSheep]

EDITED:

 

This post originally began:

I hesitate to get involved in this conversation because it seems dangerous ground to tread here, and I am not interested in arguing about this. But I'll try one post, since I always appreciate when someone tries to see the other side's perspective, and see how it goes.

 

 

There was more, but in the time it took me to type the rest of it and post, the thread went where I was afraid it would--to arguing over is right and who is evil, soapbox preaching and banner waving rather than respectfully trying to see one another's perspectives. So I think I'll just withdraw my comments and bow out of the conversation, and wish you all a happy day.

Edited January 2, 2010 by MamaSheep

[Tidbits of Learning]

But it is part of this thread. Granting special rights to a group by allowing them to redefine marriage hurts the institution of marriage. The issue is bigger than simply recognizing homosexual "marriage" it does extend into other types.

 

 

 

I bolded the word group b/c I feel it is important that they are lumped into the word group. I don't believe they are a group. They are individual human beings with feelings the same as you and I. By the way, I believe we are redefining the institution of school and people similarly oppose our viewpoints and our rights to do so.

So I beg of you to argue it from the other side. Don't look at it from your perspective. Look at it from the perspective that a member of your family suddenly comes out. Do you want them to not have the same rights and chance at lifelong happiness as you would if they were straight?

This is a humanity issue about a specific topic. To bring a far off topic in as the, "If we legalize same sex marriage, we will be no better than those that agree with polygamy or promote incest" is meant to distract from the original topic. It is grasping at straws.

Truthfully, look up some statements of the KKK and high office politicians from the 50's and 60's. You won't find their arguments are very far off from eachother.

No one is saying, let children marry old men or let brother and sisters marry. It is specifically about how a homosexual marriage will errode the sanctity and institution of marriage.

[lovemyboys]

Each year more states will allow it. It is inevitable because it is right and it is just.

 

 

 

I thought we weren't going here in this thread.

 

No flames, please. I don't want to discuss whether it's right or wrong. I just want to understand what is behind this theory.

 

 

[Mama Bear]

It's directly related to this thread. Can you not see how un-defining marriage opens it up for polygamous marriage, incestuous marriage, under-age marriage, beastiality marriage... anything goes.

 

Respectfully, all but polygamy are not related when discussing consenting adults. The premise of the thread does not include those topics. One may make an interesting argument for correlation/causative relationship, but according to the original question this is not the place.

Edited January 2, 2010 by Mama Bear
Clarity

[Tidbits of Learning]

It's directly related to this thread. Can you not see how un-defining marriage opens it up for polygamous marriage, incestuous marriage, under-age marriage, beastiality marriage... anything goes.

 

Can I just say that you just lumped my very dear relatives that just so happen to be homosexual into a category assimilar to someone that would hump an animal?

Think about that.

[Daisy]

The scriptures have many examples of polygamy, yet polygamy has never been the law of the land.

 

Our nation is based on foundations that include equality under the law. Goodness knows we have not always lived up to our ideals, but the generally accepted principle if one of equality and human freedom.

 

I'd suggest stone-throwers who want to condemn other peoples "sins" ought to get the mote out of their own eyes first. I remember reading that somewhere.

 

Bill

 

I don't believe I threw any stones, Bill.

 

I was simply trying to say to the op that using homosexuality in this particular thread doesn't get to the heart of the issue. It is bigger than homosexuality.

 

I was trying to actually prevent the stone-throwing since I sincerely believe that homosexuality is no worse a sin than any sin I have ever committed and will commit in the future. But you will not ever convince me not to call it sin. Rest assured though, I call my own failings sin also.

 

So we are back to the beginning. Which behaviors does a society deem worth punishing and which ones does it allow? That is the real question in this thread. I think the answer is changing. It used to be a common set of ideals (ideals that reached across religions) but that is no longer necessarily the case. So what criteria do we use then? I think using the "no harm to me" criteria is a poor one since everyone's feelings in that regard are different.

[Tidbits of Learning]

I don't believe I threw any stones, Bill.

 

I was simply trying to say to the op that using homosexuality in this particular thread doesn't get to the heart of the issue. It is bigger than homosexuality.

 

I was trying to actually prevent the stone-throwing since I sincerely believe that homosexuality is no worse a sin than any sin I have ever committed and will commit in the future. But you will not ever convince me not to call it sin. Rest assured though, I call my own failings sin also.

 

So we are back to the beginning. Which behaviors does a society deem worth punishing and which ones does it allow? That is the real question in this thread. I think the answer is changing. It used to be a common set of ideals (ideals that reached across religions) but that is no longer necessarily the case. So what criteria do we use then? I think using the "no harm to me" criteria is a poor one since everyone's feelings in that regard are different.

 

This criteria,

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

[PineFarmMom]

Because it allows evil unprecendented public license to corrupt as it pleases.

 

It changes the meaning of a word that is the building block of decent society against the will of most people. If two people want of the same sex are "married", then I am not married by the same defintion.

 

These same acts try to force me, my children and society into accepting something that, in better times, was an unspeakable perversion. Now that is being changed, and rewarded, not to mention--rewarded with my tax dollars.

 

:iagree: I like yours & creekmom's list. I have a very close family member who is a pastor. If our govt. gets ahold of this, as intrusive as they are becoming, the slippery slope of that would lead to pastors being forced to perform the marriages. This particular family member would choose jail over disobedience to God's Word. That would definitely affect HIS family & mine as well because we care about them so. I'd be proud of his stand but still...

Edited January 2, 2010 by Texas T
spelling