For several months now, I’ve heard hand-wringing or brimstone-laden warnings that legal homosexual marriage will destroy traditional, heterosexual marriage. I’ve never heard exactly how this would happen, however, so I put the question to the teeming millions (or at least the teeming 40+K here). I’m not going to debate or counter an answer, so feel free to post your honest response. I’m truly curious as to how people perceive this threat.
Vlad/Igor
Exactly none at all. I can’t think of any reason it would, either.
I think the main issue is that we can’t be sure homosexuals will treat the institution of marriage with the same reverance that we straights do. Marriage is a sacred union between two people who may or may not have met on a Fox reality show. It’s not something to be taken lightly. As Britney Spears has shown us, if you get married it should be for the long haul, perhaps even a whole weekend.
Yes, only time will tell if gays can be entrusted with this holiest of commitments.
The Britney Spears thing was curious (and tacky), but what was curiouser was that there wasn’t much comment on it. To me, that was as much an affront to the Sacrament of Marriage (what?? Oh, that was just a joke! Just kidding, really!) as homosexual marriage would appear to be to others.
Vald/Igor
Well, I’ve sworn to never get hitched in a country that doesn’t permit gay marriage unless there’s no good way around it. Does that count?
In reality, I doubt many people—if any—who’re opposed to gay marriages really beleives that it’s more of a threat to the institution than, say, Who wants to Marry a Millionaire. It’s just a convenient justification for rallying against something that they don’t like. (Not an unheard of tactic, that.)
I don’t see how legalizing gay marriage would have any effect on straight marriages.
If gay marriage were legalized, it would have a positive effect on my marriage, in that my husband and I would be able to refer to our gay friends’ life partners as their “husbands” or “wives.” We could then use the time we save in not having to use wordier alternative descriptions for other worthwhile pursuits.
Oh my, the naivete. Don’t you people realize that all so-called heterosexual marriages are between lesbians and gay men who are too scared to come out of the closet because society frowns on gay marriage? If gay marriage is legalized, families all across America will be broken up as millions of men flock to marry their poker buddies.
Well, I usually just go on and use the term wife or girlfriend or whatever, just like I would straights who are shacking up long-term. It’s no skin off my ass if someone without the legalities wants to refer to themselves as someone’s wife.
I honestly don’t see how gay marriage would affect my marriage at all, assuming married gay people wouldn’t be sleeping with my husband or coming to our house and fighting with us about money and sex and our families.
Well, we’ve actually got it up here.
( Looks around corner into livingroom. Mr zoogirl’s snoring in the armchair with the TV babbling away. zoogirl herself is happily perusing the Dope, Kid, the Elder is out with his buddies and Kid, the Younger is in his room.)
Nope, hasn’t changed a thing! 
If I had a marriage for this to mess with, I wouldn’t care anyways.
Let people who care to partner up, do so with all the taxation and insurance benefits they want. Spending public money on the argument is a waste, given how many other issues there are to solve.
The legalisation of same-sex marriage in my home province of Ontario has not affected my marriage situation in the slightest.
[Extreme sarcasm]
Hey guys! I figured it out! I used to agree with people and think that gay marriage didn’t matter to heterosexual couples but then it just hit me like a bolt of lightning. Imagine this scenario for a moment:
You’re walking down the street and you see a guy wearing a wedding ring. For some reason you start talking to him and say “So how’s the wife?” and he replies “Uhh…husband…he’s my husband - I’m gay.”
Can you imagine how embarassing that would be?
[/Extreme sarcasm]
In all honesty, I think that not allowing homosexuals to legally call themselves married is a bunch of crap as well. Maybe it’s just a potshot. Those who would and do ban gay marriage can’t prevent people from being gay, which they find so offensive for some unknown, unexplained reason, but they can at least prevent them from getting married?
Vlad/Igor For several months now, I’ve heard hand-wringing or brimstone-laden warnings that legal homosexual marriage will destroy traditional, heterosexual marriage. I’ve never heard exactly how this would happen, however, so I put the question to the teeming millions (or at least the teeming 40+K here). I’m not going to debate or counter an answer, so feel free to post your honest response. I’m truly curious as to how people perceive this threat.
Why would a same-sex union need to be referred to as a marriage and why does the absence of this redefinition harm gay people?
Are you asking a semantic question about terminology or a legal definition that codifies rights and privileges?
What are your terms for a codifed relationship? 2 people, a polygamy, a harem, 2 lesbians and 1 gay man?
I really don’t have a dog in this fight, but I assume you’re referring to MA legalizing it? If so, here’s the problem. In MA 4 out of 7 on the state supreme court said it’s legal. That means the judicial branch has written law, when the legislative branch is to write law, and judicial interprets/upholds it.
It’s mor a US Constitution argument tnan morality.
Because it’s a double standard: you have to declare your sexuality to partake of the union but not of the marriage. It’s like being Mr, Miss or Mrs: the woman has to declare her marital status but the man doesn’t.
A court can’t issue a ruling until someone has brought a case before it under a specific point of law. The SC has interpreted the law regarding the case brought before it, no?
The USA Constitution is a moral document. Isn’t it the one that goes “We hold the following rights to be inalienable…”? That’s a moral consideration.
my own personal feeling is that the courts should not be normalizing aberrant behavior.
I do not think that Gays should in any way be persecuted, but that is a long way from feeling that they should be given recognition that is both inappropriate and justifies as a “life choice” an ideology that is at the least self-serving and a genetic dead-end, and at worst is a mental disorder and a moral failure.
I fail to see the difference between homosexuality, bestiality, pedophelia, and other deviant sexual behavior.
I do not doubt peoples very real lusts and inclinations. I also do not condone acting on those feelings that are deviant and detrimental to the well being of society in general.
Homosexuality is a disease to be treated not something to be encouraged as somehow “normal”.
Did someone get gay on you, Quint Essence?
Even China no longer recognises homosexuality as a disease. Don’t you feel somewhat ashamed that your own knowledge and clarity of thought lags even China?
Wow, where oh where do I begin? I’d tear you a new one, but this isn’t the Pit. So instead, I’ll use a recent example from my aberrant life.
The Province of Quebec includes same-sex couples in its definition of common-law spousal relationships. My deviant male partner and I, having maintained a highly inappropriate household for the prescribed period of time, recently became common-law spouses. Many, if not most, insurance companies extend benefits to common-law spouses, regardless of gender. I therefore added my twisted partner to my work medical/dental/life group insurance. I pay the same premium for family coverage that male/female couples - married or common-law - pay. (There’s no gay discount. Damn!)
This means that if I (the principal breadwinner of this disgusting household) were to die suddenly, my genetic dead-end of a spouse would be taken care of financially. He’d not only receive a payment of several times my annual salary, but costs for his retraining (so that he could find a job to support himself) would also be covered. (Among other things.)
Therefore, he wouldn’t have to go on welfare, and wouldn’t become a “drain on the system.”
Tell me how that’s detrimental to the rest of society.
Or maybe we should just use my insurance benefits to pay for a crack-quack team of psychologists and physicians to “cure” us. :rolleyes: