Exactly how has (proposed) gay marriage affected yours?

Great Debates
41

In a word: Children.

Marriage, at its core, isn’t about loving relationships between consenting adults. It’s a social construct for the efficient care and socialization of children. It’s a way to distribute responsibilities for the continued survival of our species. Marriage is about families. All this gobbledygook about loving, committed relationships is a red herring.

Who cares if you want to be in a “committed relationship?” Go ahead. But, marriage as an institution has been under assault for decades now. It can’t take much more and hope to survive. And, children are paying the price. More and more they are growing up in broken families. Such children are at a higher risk for all of society’s gravest ills: Poverty, crime, disease, abuse, illiteracy, depression and more. Children at risk put our entire society at risk.

I’m sure someone will raise the sad case of infertile married couples. Their plight doesn’t negate the fundamental purpose of marriage. Married couples with no intention of having children are an aberration. These exceptions are also burdens on the institution of marriage, but light and bearable.

Brittany Spears’ little stunt trivializes marriage. Rampant divorce trivializes marriage. Wide-spread births out of wedlock trivialize marriage. Likewise, so would gay marriage. It’s selfish. It’s all about “you.”

We’ve already seen to results from previous changes in the institution of marriage. Each time the focus is shifted to the adults’ freedom to do as they please. Each time the children are lost in the shuffle. Each time we create a new generation less committed to the notion that a man and woman, when they have children together, owe it to the children and the rest of society to put aside their personal desires for a while.

You see, marriage is unnatural. It makes us do things we don’t want to do – especially men. If the emphasis is on the romantic relationship and that falters, the couple has a reason to split. If the emphasis is on living up to responsibilities, a fickle romantic love is no excuse.

Will gay marriage cause me to divorce my wife? No. Will it make it harder to teach my children the responsibilities of raising a family? Yes. Will the increased difficulty have a cumulative affect on our society? Yes.

42

I have no problem with the idea of a civil union that would allow most if not all the legal benefits of marriage between any two or possibly even group of people maintaining a long-term household where such legal issues are important.
I do not however agree with “marriage” between gays. The issue of marriage vs civil union is one of simple legitimacy. You want society to validate homosexuality as being equal to heterosexuality. It isn’t, and the reasons it isn’t are more than obvious.
I do not (despite the tone of some of my postings) have any animosity towards gays and in fact my daughter has been in a homosexual relationship for close to 5 years and I am well aware of the legal issues that come up.
I do not expect her to find a “cure” or even to look, but I also expect her to show some semblence of discretion and not wear her “gayness” as a flag to fly in front of the faces of everyone to demand their acceptance.
You want to have homosexual sex? Great. I like Oral sex. But I have never attended a parade or insisted it be taught in school as a normal choice in lieu of so-called “traditional” sex.

You don’t need rights. You need common sense and a sense of public decency.

43

This is almost too easy.

First of all, your main contention is nonsense. Children may be a reason some people get married but that’s not the reason for marriage as an institution.

Should it be illegal for elderly couples to marry? Infertile couples? How about if a couple just doesn’t want kids? Are you going to mandate that they do?

How about a single gay person with kids? Would it be better for the kids if their lesbian mother joined forces with a loving spouse or if she raised them on her own.
Oh…and you haven’t actually stated a reason why gay marriage would hurt your marriage as the OP asked.

44

Heck, in the State of Illinois brother and sister can get married as long as one of the two is sterile. That hardly supports any conclusions that marriage is solely about kids. It’s a no-brainer in this case to NOT allow any attempts at procreation. Preventing same-sex marriages isn’t going to help the heterosexual divorce rate or convince people from having children out of wedlock. The wrong people are getting punished here.

45

The integrity of my marriage, as seen both by my wife and I and by the society whose recognition we requested and received when we married, could only be strengthened by allowing the same privileges to any couple as committed to each other as we are. The institution we cherish is degraded by all the other marriages whose partners see divorce rather than compromise as an easy way to solve the issues that always arise. It is degraded further not only by the Britney affair and Vegas quickie wedding chapels but by the TV listings for *The Bachelor, The Bachelorette, Married by America, Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire?, * and My Big, Fat Obnoxious Fiance.

Dammit, I wish I could find the Boston Globe article by a gay guy suggesting that straights’ real problem is jealousy over gays’ aptitude at throwing fabulous parties. Imagine how simply incredible a gay reception would be! How simply green with envy those breeders will be!

46

Oh, okay. I think I get it now. It’s okay for me to suck face with my husband, but not okay for scott evil to suck face with his husband?

:rolleyes:

Robin

47

So a heterosexual couple who decides from day one that they do not wish to ever have children (and makes the necessary surgical adjustments) should have never been allowed to marry? I know three such “aberrations” – long-time happily married childless couples – who would find that idea laughably pompous of you. I would not be inclined to argue.

You state that gay marriage is “selfish”, but could the same point not be made about your marriage? I mean, the be all and end all of your relationship appears to be children. But we all know the world as a whole certainly doesn’t need more children. Is there anything beyond your own selfish desire to keep your name and genetic string going behind your desire to continue to overpopulate the planet?

48

And two widowed seniors who find each other and want to be each other’s companions for their remaining years similarly should be denied the institution simply because it wouldn’t include procreation? Does my marriage become invalid in the state of Ohio after my kids leave the nest?

The striking thing to me is the number of times it’s been said that it is only necessary for a legislature to list the reasons why only straight couples should be marry, but when asked what those reasons are, the splutters about unnaturalness are the only ones articulated.

roxy, a nice post, and I agree that the topic has caused a careful examination of beliefs, perhaps for the first time for many. That alone is a Very Good Thing.

49

What I want to know is, how has my marriage affected gay people.

Because when I hear gay people complain about all of the slights and inconveniences thay have to endure because of being shut out of marriage, it occurs to me that most of the issues involved can be fixed by other means than by radically redefining marriage.

Visitation rights in the hospital? I don’t think any reasonable people oppose this.

Double taxation of property transfers? Simple legislative fix.

Health insurance? I support delinking it from jobs and making it more affordable and more portable, which would go a long way toward removing this as an issue in this debate.

In fact, if you wanted to package all this up into a big bundle, integrate it, and call it a domestic partnership, I would support it, provided it had protections for anybody who wanted to dissolve it and had no references to the sexual relationship of the people involved.

Marriage, though, is a different institution entirely. It exists as the foundation for family life. And a half-century of experimentation with family life in the form of no-fault divorce, “blended” families and single parenthood have left an epidemic of unhappy children, unhappy parents and a cottage industry explaining how everybody is really doing peachy keen.

Radically changing this further, by completely changing the definition of the word marriage, isn’t conducive toward stability in American society. Mark my words, there will be another generation of shell-shocked kids that result.

50

They aren’t obvious to me.

I think you’re saying that people who get married with no intention of having children are taking advantage of a system specifically set up by society to help people create a positive environment for their children.

Suppose the day they legalize gay marriage, one thousand gays get married. That’s five hundred more potential households to nurture and raise children in, right there.

Now, I’m sure your counter-argument will be “Yeah, but the really unselfish thing to do would be for that same thousand gay people to marry members of the opposite sex and raise children with them. That way, the children get the positive, nurturing family environment and I don’t have to explain anything to my kids.”

Well, imagine that you, being a good citizen, want to partner with someone and raise up children for the benefit of society, but the only people you were legally allowed to partner with were just very not your type.

Would you still do it? If not, then there’s one less household that will ever benefit any children.

If you would still do it, would you be happy doing it? Or would you be stressed about having a partner who you weren’t compatible with? Remember, the reason you’re not allowed to partner with someone you love is that certain people find it hard to explain to their children. Would that irritate you? Or would you take comfort in the fact that your self-denial is benefiting society, saving some parent from having to explain something to his kids?

If so, then congratulations. You have a superb ability to sacrifice for the (perceived) good of society with no regard for yourself or your own happiness. Or you’re a robot.

If not; if you spend every waking moment resenting the fact that you have to raise your child with someone you don’t love… how good a parent do you think you’ll be?

51

OK, then how about this: Everyone, straight or gay, enters into a “Civil Union.” Kind of a “marriage lite.” A couple isn’t actually “married”, however, until the first kid is popped out. Using your reasoning, you shouldn’t have any objections to that.

And I have yet to hear any argument about how letting two men marry each other is an “assault on marriage” or “trivializes marriage” (your words, Jack Ketch).

OK, one, if it’s “all about me,” then why do you care? Isn’t it my own business? And two, how is gay marriage like these other examples? The first example, marriage is treated as a joke. The second example, marriage is treated as unnecessary. The third example, marriage and commitment are treated as something to be desired by all, not simply for straight couples only. You’ve failed to convince me with that argument.

Next we have QuintEssence 's brilliant observations:

Other than the same-sex vs. opposite-sex thing, how is it “more than obvious”? And there are many state laws that would differ with you about equality. Are you saying that homosexuals are inferior to heterosexuals? Maybe we shouldn’t let them get jobs. Maybe we should imprison them. Maybe we should give 'em shock therapy until they’re straight.

And how is this relevant to the discussion? You disagree with the politics of a few people and you’re willing to deny (unrelated) rights to an entire sector of the population because of it. And if promiscuity is a big problem for you, don’t you think letting two men commit themselves to each other in marriage will make them less promiscuous, and send a message to the entire gay community that, hey, monogamy works?

In other words, gays are second class citizens who must conform to the arbitrary morality set by you. Or Jerry Falwell. Or John Ashcroft. Or someone.

I’m baffled how anyone can say a minority group “doesn’t need rights”.

52

Well, that settles it for me. There’s no way I would support no-fault divorce, “blended” families or single parenthood in the face of that logic, unless somebody could somehow prove there were unhappy children before 1954.

53

I’m neither married nor gay, so I don’t really have a dog in this fight either. But this is something I’ve discussed with my dad a couple of times. He is strongly against gay marriage. His reason is that he has a strong affiliation with the word “marriage” and doesn’t want it changed. Every now and then he will prattle on about Leviticus 18:22 as well.

The irony of him being twice divorced and engaged for a third time is not lost on me however.

54

Hmm, lets just try this… 100 years ago, some people honestly believed that black people were animals, not really human, and should not be allowed to integrate into white society. So let’s just change a word or two here, and see how it turns out:

"my own personal feeling is that the courts should not be normalizing aberrant behavior.
I do not think that BLACKS 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 MIXED RACE SEX, 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.
SEXUAL ATTRACTION TO BLACK PEOPLE is a disease to be treated not something to be encouraged as somehow “normal”."

All right, I’ll just come out and say it. The only people who oppose gay marriage are closed-minded bigots.

55

Given that gay couples in Massachusetts have essentially (not sure if they’re identical or not) the same adoption rights and responsibilities as straight couples, and gay individuals the same rights and responsibilities for adoption as straight ones, this is one of the primary arguments for marriage around here.

I saw the debates (I attended the open DOMA hearing when the bill was kicking around the Commonwealth’s legislature). There were people who got up and argued about marriage as being obviously, clearly, and primarily for the protection of children, and then the gay folks got up and said, “Okay. So why are you arguing that our children shouldn’t be protected?”
As to the OP, the effect gay marriage will have on my marriage is that I will no longer feel that my marriage’s acceptability is dependent on other people having prurient interest in my fertility and which set of reproductive organs I have. Since said people aren’t going to be marrying me, I don’t think they have any legitimate interest in what’s between my legs, and getting rid of situations in which people I’m neither intimate with nor asking for a medical opinion are concerned with the condition of my genitalia strikes me as reducing the level of disgusting perversion in the universe.

56

To summarize your argument:

Domestic partnership for gays = OK
Marriage for gays = destabilization of American society, shell-shocked kids, hence NOT OK

I never thought that the phrase “gay marriage” has this much power!!!

If it makes you happy, call it what you want. It is what it is. On the other hand, why should you put limitations on the definition of marriage?

I just bet that the real reason why some heterosexuals object to the term is they will lose another reason to feel superior. If it’s termed domestic partnership, they can still say:

“You’re not really married like we are!! You’re just partners!! Nya! Nya! Nya! Nya! Nya!”

57

I think it might actually marginally improve my life a little, even though I’m hetero and happily married; it might improve things for me by attenuating the background level of slight uptightness in some gay couples who wish to be married. Of course, it might significantly increase the level of uptightness in those that are opposed, but that’s entertainment.

58

As a single heterosexual male, here is my shout from left field.

Ban all “marriages” from being recognized by the law.

Leave the question of who can and can get married up to the churches, synagogues, temples and ship’s captions. Legally the government would only recognize domestic partnerships as being a legal relationship existing between two or more persons contractually associated, having specified and joint rights, ownership and responsibilities (similar to a business partnership).

The reason behind the law and the legal challenges is the concept of equality. If the government changed the legal statues of all marriages, gay or straight, to domestic partnerships and left the concept of marriage, sex and morality to individuals we would all be better off.

59

Since someone brought it up check out www.spreadingSantorum.com

60

I don’t feel superior to anyone. And I have seen many gay relationships that were long lasting and full of love. Please don’t think I don’t see a value in this.

This is why I favor measures to make American society fairer, not only for gay people but for people who feel happier in lifestyles outside of traditional marriage.

I still feel, though, that society should favor marriage as an ideal and encourage it as the basis of a healthy family lifestyle. And yes, I believe the institution should be reserved for one man and one woman, with divorce rules tightened.

Say what you will, cuauhtemoc, but children were far more likely to grow up in two-parent homes in 1954, and this has been shown to contribute greatly to their success and happiness.