Forum Index
»
Off-Topic
Gay marriage -- explain the argument that it undermines heterosexual marriage
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| Gay marriage is here to stay, get used to it. I already have several gay friends and acquaintances who are legally married and SHOCKER, my hetero marriage is doing just a-ok. |
Anonymous
| You know the best way to reduce how much two people have sex is to have them get married. If the conservatives are so againt gay sex then they should be pushing for gay marriage! |
Anonymous
|
You do know that for every gay marriage performed, a heterosexual couple is forced to divorce, right? Because there are a finite number of marriages allowed at any time. Right?
Wait...no...that's absurd. Kind of like the idea that gay marriage harms heterosexual marriage. Utterly absurd. |
Anonymous
| if you're so smart you should know it's STI and not STD.... |
Anonymous
I just read the OP's post thinking "Great, I've always wanted to understand this too.". Guess I must be a troll too... |
Anonymous
|
1) I have read the thread in the polical forum in its entirety
2) It does not undermine hetero marriage 3) Even if you don't "condone" it, really its not your place to decide, right? And above all - I've been married for 9 years and with my husband for 12. My level of commitment and intimacy increased substantially in the nine years that I have been married. I believe that every relationship deserves the right to experience this level of physical, emotional, legal and financial commitment and benefits. |
Anonymous
Wow...I'm adopted since my parents weren't able to have children. I'm not truly their child because of DNA? What a terrible thing to say about anyone. |
Anonymous
|
You quoted me. BS
My mother is adopted, we're adopting and everybody who knows a little about genetics understands that if the sperm is not from your partner the child is offspring of someone else. It doesn't mean the child is less loved but we must be honest here and recognize gay couples (and infertile in this case) have to find a way around their issues to have children in their lives. And I say this as an infertile person. So no need for pity party here. Let's be honest, OK?
|
Anonymous
|
OP here,
I've read the posts and really appreciate those who tried to answer the question. I am thinking that the argument goes something like this: A permanent union between a man and a woman is desireable to stability in families/society. Social structures that encourage interdependence b/t the man and woman, improve the longevity of the union. Things such as the woman staying at home and the man working, or even things such as women not owning property or not having sex until marriage, or having children, all encourage the man and woman to get and stay married. Whenever society accepts or legitimizes an alternative to "traditional" interdependence of marriage, then it lessens the need for or functionality of marriage as a whole. So, to the extent that a certain portion of people would take the option to have a gay marriage rather than enter into heterosexual marriage, the legalization of gay marriage undermines the "necessity" for women to rely on men for marriage and men to rely on women for marriage. Thus, the traditional interdependence of women on men (for financial stability) and men on women (for sex and children) is up-ended, just like birth control and working outside the home undermined the "traditional" bargains that heterosexual marriage assumed. That's the best I can come up with for the rationale. Again, I thank those who tried to answer my question. |
Anonymous
| Here's what I think: there is marriage, a "sacred" union between two people governed in some way by religion, then there is marriage: a contract between two people, ensuring certain rights and tax privileges. I, for one, think separation of church and state should have long ago done away with governments role in anything apart from ensuring the aforementioned rights. If religious nutjobs want to argue that same sex unions undermine their religious ideas, fine. It's got nothing to do with two consenting adults choices and rights. And fwiw, I think non-sexual unions should fit in the same category. If I become an old widow and would like to select my next of kin to be a personal friend, who the f@*k is the government to tell me no. Just my 2 cents. |
Anonymous
|
The issue is not about marriage at all, for one's marriage is not affected by the marriage type or non-marriage of others. My one-wife marriage is not impacted by a Muslim three-wife marriage nor a (old Mormon) plural-wife marriage. This is because my marriage is a contract and a vow between me and another person, the contract being adjudicated by the state. Other people do not enter the arrangement.
The primary reason I am completely against homosexual marriage is because it sends a message to my children that homosexuality is ok, that it is one of many "wonderful" options to choose from, that it is normal, and if you want to be homosexual go right ahead. So the real issue here is about accepting homosexuality as normal. The thinking among queers seems to be "Perhaps if we marry we will appear normal like everyone else and then society will accept us for who we are." No, society will do no such thing because homosexuality is not normal. What loving mother and father upon the birth of their child exclaim "Oh I hope my child grows up to be queer! Wouldn't it be so lovely?" It doesn't happen among normal humans whose mental capabilities are not in question, no more than a mother or father hoping their child becomes a drug addict, a prostitute, a cripple, or mentally ill. Speaking of mental illness, homosexuality is a form of mental illness and it was rightfully classified as such until after the 1950's. It is a mental illness because a person who is designed to mate with a member of the opposite gender is mating with a member of the same gender. This is contrary to the design of their bodily function. It is the same with a man who "just believes" he is really a woman. His belief has no merit contrasted by the fact of his gender. He can think and believe and feel he is a woman all he wants but this does not contradict the facts of his anatomy. It's all in his head. It doesn't matter if the queer is "in love" with a same-gender individual or is not attracted to the opposite gender. The person's gender determines the purpose of their genitals: to mate with a member of the opposite gender to produce offspring. And do not give me this nonsense "homosexuality happens normally in nature." No it does not. Anyone not from the city knows mammals do not mate except the female is "in heat", and should a male copulate with a female and the hormones splatter on the male, other males will smell it and their mating instincts will be triggered. When obtaining bull semen it is a simple matter to smear the scent of a cow in estrus upon a fake cow and the unknowing bull will mate with it. But queers like to take these examples and twist them, running to the media and making presentations to try and prove they are normal because it is "normal" in nature. From what I have observed, homosexuals become that way due to 1) child molestation 2) picked on relentlessly by other children 3) taken advantage of while intoxicated 4) character/moral deficiency 5) just plain foolishness Personally, I see homosexuals as maggots thriving on the rot of society. They are not the cause of rot but a symptom. Salt must be applied quickly and the maggots washed out completely to staunch the rapid decomposition of the meat ere it becomes a putrid filthy mush. An apt quote I have heard: "There is a reason a man produces sperm and I assure you it isn't to fertilize turds" This is my thinking on the matter, not expressed by many but it needs to be said. |
Anonymous
| Oh my PP. |
Anonymous
| I'm not sure what funnier: the fact that the crazy PP thought it was ok to say those things or that he or she believes them. |
Anonymous
Wow, PP. If you want to talk about mental illness, you may want to look in a mirror. Sincerely, Married heterosexual woman and mother (who would have no problem if her DS is gay) |
Anonymous
|
To 15:22 (I refuse to quote and repost your HATEFUL response)-
Who the hell are you to define "normal"? Are you also against anal and oral sex between a man and a woman? It doesn't matter why someone defines themselves as gay. It's none of your business, it doesn't lessen them as a human being nor should it exclude them from the right to marry, fall in love, be in a relationship and have a family or anything else that you reserve for a hetero couple. I would wish that one of your children turns out gay, but sadly, I'm sure you would disown and scorn them. I feel sorry for them already that they have you as a parent. Your hated, vile OPINION sickens me. |