How does gay marriage diminish hetro marriage?

In a secular society, which we’re supposed to be, how does the marriage of two women (or two men) diminish the rights of hetro couples? What effect does the right of one person to visit his/her partner in the hospital (just an example) have to do with another? If Jim wants to marry John, how does this lessen the marriage between Mike and Mary? What can someone elses union, if treated equally by law, possibly have to do with yours?
In one’s church, I (sorta) understand, but civilly, I see no effect. What happened to “No Harm, No Foul”?
I totally accept a church’s right to ban gay marriage within that church. It’s their loss IMO. But why should they be allowed to ban, by law, gay marriage outside their domain?
Peace,
mangeorge

Short answer: It doesn’t. In no way.

Longer answer: I think some people are just so ignorant that anything different from the life they’re used to is automatically bad or dangerous, and some people are just closed minded and refuse to consider anything as truthful or good if it doesn’t agree with their narrow religiously fueled idea of a proper life.

It doesn’t. If anything, I think it would reinforce it. The concept of binding yourself to one person for the rest of your life is the entire concept behind marriage. No more, no less. I think that banning same sex marriages in some way trivializes these peoples’ commitments to each other; as if they could not possibly have the same depth of feeling or have the same goals as heterosexual couples.

To say that this would forever change “the institution of marriage” is stupid and near sighted. There has ALWAYS been homosexuality. There more than likely always will be. What’s happening now is on the level of closing one’s eyes and covering one’s ears, singing at the top of your lungs “Lalalalalalalalaaa”. Time to grow up, people.

It hurts the image that people have in their minds of what marriage is supposed to be like.

It hurts the image they have of how people are supposed behave, what they’re supposed to think, and whether or not some of them are even supposed to exist. Saying that gay marriage is okay says that being gay is okay, and some people aren’t okay with that.

Scroom.

I am aware of, and have read, this similar thread. But it talks about a seperate status for gay couples. I’m asking about a more unifying status, where gender isn’t an issue. Where a couple goes to the courthouse, gets married, and leaves with the same standing as any other couple. Just as San Francisco attempted recently.
I thought it was kinda goofy in some ways, but beautiful none the less. And none of the rest of were harmed in any way! If ever there were an excuse for The Big One, that was it. :stuck_out_tongue:
Yay mayor Gavin Newsome.

True, but none of that has any effect on the institution of marriage, except for those who let it. Marriage isn’t diminished, those couples are. And by their own attitudes.
If anything, as Maureen says, the institution itself is strengthened by admitting those who want it so badly.

My conservative friends, when faced with this argument, just say that if gay marriage is permitted, it could open the door to other forms of “nontraditional” unions; cousins in West Virginia, polygamists in Utah, lonely farmers marrying sheep, rednecks marrying diesel engines, and so on.

My less-than-articulate argument back at them.

Prohibiting intrafamily marriages is justifiable because it prevents the inevitable birth defects and perpetuation heriditary diseases that normally come with such a union.

Polygamy involves more than two people. There will be conflicts when to comes to power of attorney if thereis an emergency. Let’s not forget the ttraditional employer benefit of health care coverage to immediate family members; they’re screwed if they have to cover the 20 or 30 wives of DeLemuel Smith.

Folks marrying animals: Unlike gay marriage one of the partners is not human. The union is also nonconsentual.

Folks marrying objects: again, the other partner is not human.

So, elmwood, what’s their reaction? About the sheep, that is, because I am really curious. How can marriage between two consensual adult human beings in any way be put on a par with some idiot sheep farmer who needs a little relief? Are they really under the impression that a same sex marriage would be about nothing more than sex? Is this the argument that “marriage is for producing children”? If so, I have a few surprises for them…

Usually, the argument ends, but they’re still not convinced that there’s nothing wrong with the concept of gay marriage. “Well, maybe you have a point, but I still think it just isn’t right.”

Yes, they bring up farmers marrying sheep, and people marrying non-living objects.

Like I said. It doesn’t make any real-world difference; all the change is in the minds of people whose minds need to be changed.

We actually have a good test case here in San Francisco: What documentable things happened because a bunch of same-sex marriages got performed?

What things happened because they got annulled?

It doesn’t. I think a lot of those who are against gay marriage are the type of people who, in most things, dwell on differences instead of similarities. They have created this safe set of rules that can live by and avoid the burdensome (at least to them) task of thinking. Makes sense that they couch most of their arguments against gay marriage in their religious beliefs because there they find that safety net of being told what to think.

Of course, some of them are just downright mean. :mad:

I was hoping the Court’s decision could be put off for a while so we could better see what, if anything, did happen.

I got interrupted mid-post and did not see a few of the posts before mine.

elmwood …say it ain’t so…people really make the farmer-sheep, redneck-diesel argument? I thought you said that in jest.

Please tell me you did!

Well, Ethilrist, several things happened. First, it brought the issue into very sharp focus. Yes, there was a contingent of the “Oh, it’s only California” crowd, but I think those people were in the minority. Because of Mayor Newsom’s overstepping the state law and demanding the attention of the State legislature, the nation was made more aware of the movement toward gay rights/civil unions/gay marriage.

Second, I think it has strengthened the resolve of gay rights activists . They saw that there ARE government officials who are willing to represent them. Which had never really happened before. Between the Massachusetts ruling and what happened in San Francisco on Valentine’s Day weekend (I was there, BTW) reinforced the validity of their argument. Namely, they are citizens, they should have the same rights that are afforded every other citizen.

What has happened since those licenses were declared null and void? Good things, I think. The mayor says he’ll keep fighting for this. The issue has become more mainstream. It’s obviously going to take time, but eventually, it’s going to happen.

The detractors for same sex marriage (yup, been lurking through GD & the Pit) have yet to give me a solid reason against it.
It doesn’t take away from my employee benefits any more than a new, heterosexual employee does.
The argument that it opens up to marriage with a relative is grasping at straws. There are obvious, medical reasons why brother/sister etc. unions are illegal; it doesn’t take a geneticist to understand them.
Marrying sheep? Are you high? We’re talking same sex, not interspecies. And, no, just because gay marriage is allowed does NOT mean those women so enamored of their horses are going to be allowed to marry them.
That leaves only the religious argument. Since this country says pretty much “Believe whatever you want, you can’t force other people to believe it, too,” that one is out the door.

From what I can tell, it’s all about fear and control.

If the anti-gay marriage folks were REALLY clever, what they’d do is allow two women to get married, but not two men. That’d cut the number of people complaining in half! Divide and conquer, folks, divide and conquer!

(Teehee…)

What about brother/brother unions? Not gonna get too many of those, but still…

:stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue:
Ethilrist, thank you. I’m not sure if you meant that as a joke or not, but I sat here and laughed for a few minutes after I read it.
I’m not sure that would actually ever happen; I hope the parties involved would end up getting some help. Either that, or on Jerry Springer.

I had a thread on this back in March, I think. The question I posed was “How, exactly, would gay marriage threaten yours?” This is a fairly liberal board, so I got a lot of “It won’t/hasn’t.” There are exceptions, though. :slight_smile: To amplify what ethilrist said, there are some who feel that a person is not whole unless they are both married and have children. These two things seem to be the basis for some opposition to gay marriage, another is that some have defined marriage as only between men and women; to suggest otherwise is to call into question the validity of the beliefs of the people who oppose gay marriage. There isn’t any other reason for opposition beyond personal conviction. Unfortunately, we tend to link the validity of our beliefs to their actual use in the real world.

Vlad/Igor

I think Anna Nicole’s 90-year-old man wedding, Nicholas Cage’s revolving-door weddings, and Britney Spears 6-minute wedding do far more to damage the institution than any gay couples could.

I guess these nitwits want a girl just like the girl that married dear old dad.