In Defense of Marriage

[tumbleweed41]

I have a very serious question to ask, but first, a little about me.

I am a 44 year old heterosexual male. I have been engaged twice, but married only once.
That marriage has lasted over 20 years, and I do not expect it to end anytime soon.

Now, to my question.

Recently, Fox Nation, Rush Limbaugh, the Christian Post, and others, have announced that President Obamas support of the right for same sex marriage amount to a "War on Marriage". And the Defense of Marriage Act insinuates that same sex marriage is an attack on "traditional" marriage.

How does the state sanctioned marriage of a same sex couple threaten my "traditional" marriage?

And on a related note, if you are married, how does the state sanctioned marriage of a same sex couple threaten your marriage?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I have a very serious question to ask, but first, a little about me.

I am a 44 year old heterosexual male. I have been engaged twice, but married only once.
That marriage has lasted over 20 years, and I do not expect it to end anytime soon.

Now, to my question.

Recently, Fox Nation, Rush Limbaugh, the Christian Post, and others, have announced that President Obamas support of the right for same sex marriage amount to a "War on Marriage". And the Defense of Marriage Act insinuates that same sex marriage is an attack on "traditional" marriage.

How does the state sanctioned marriage of a same sex couple threaten my "traditional" marriage?

And on a related note, if you are married, how does the state sanctioned marriage of a same sex couple threaten your marriage?

I've wondered the same thing. I'm a 39 year old bisexual non-theist Buddhist woman who is legally married to her agnostic heterosexual husband of nearly 10 years. State sanctioned marriage of a same sex couple would not threaten our marriage at all.

We do not define our union as a "civil union".

We do not attend any Abrahamic faith service nor identify ourselves as such.

We do not raise our children in any Abrahamic faith.

And yet, people tend not to have a problem calling us "married."

I see this not as a threat to traditional marriage. I see this as a direct attack on the rights of GLBTQ's.

 

[Sunstone]

All I know, Tumbleweed, is that the legalization of gay marriage in several states has destroyed -- utterly destroyed -- the sanctity of my two divorces.

Seriously, I have no idea why anyone would think marriage could be destroyed by the legalization of gay marriage. So far as I know, marriage is deeply rooted in genetically based instincts. Humans pair off and bond. That's something that our ancestors probably did for millions of years before us, and that we have inherited from them. The legalization of gay marriage is not going to stop heterosexuals from acting on their instinct to marry.

 

[Sleeppy]

It doesn't.. People need to chill out and let the U.S. be the U.S. - Democracy. Equal Rights. Etc.. Etc..

 

[Kerr]

I have a very serious question to ask, but first, a little about me.

I am a 44 year old heterosexual male. I have been engaged twice, but married only once.
That marriage has lasted over 20 years, and I do not expect it to end anytime soon.

Now, to my question.

Recently, Fox Nation, Rush Limbaugh, the Christian Post, and others, have announced that President Obamas support of the right for same sex marriage amount to a "War on Marriage". And the Defense of Marriage Act insinuates that same sex marriage is an attack on "traditional" marriage.

How does the state sanctioned marriage of a same sex couple threaten my "traditional" marriage?

And on a related note, if you are married, how does the state sanctioned marriage of a same sex couple threaten your marriage?

Obviously... everyone is a closet gay who would take first best opportunity to marry someone of the same sex and then let our entire species die. So we cannot allow same-sex marriage, for the survival of our specie!

To be serious, though, I am wondering the same thing. After all, no one is forcing anyone to marry someone of the same sex.

 

[Kathryn]

I do not give a rat's *** what two or more consenting adults do or how they decide to live as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

I don't see how this infringes on the rights of others. A state sanctioned marriage is nothing more than a legal contract, with legally enforceable parameters and rights.

In other words, the state can't determine the "sanctity" of a relationship - only the legality of it. The government needs to stay out of consenting adults' bedrooms - and living rooms.

 

[Kathryn]

As long as people who are morally opposed to gay marriage are free to explain to their children WHY they are opposed, and are allowed to hold those beliefs personally as long as they don't discriminate illegally - I don't see how legalizing gay marriage hurts anyone.

 

[Storm]

As long as people who are morally opposed to gay marriage are free to explain to their children WHY they are opposed, and are allowed to hold those beliefs personally as long as they don't discriminate illegally - I don't see how legalizing gay marriage hurts anyone.

People are free to explain all sorts of nonsense to their children - do you really see that as a risk?

 

[Kathryn]

People are free to explain all sorts of nonsense to their children - do you really see that as a risk?

Nope. I do not see it as a risk. I was simply making a point that people should still have the freedom to hold - and express - their own opinions about morality and marriage, on either end of the spectrum and everything in between.

 

[Storm]

OK then.

 

[Jainarayan]

How does the state sanctioned marriage of a same sex couple threaten my "traditional" marriage?

And on a related note, if you are married, how does the state sanctioned marriage of a same sex couple threaten your marriage?

Very simply...

Because if we can get married, we will sue for all hunky heterosexual men to divorce their wives and force the men to marry us. The wives can keep the ugly guys and metrosexuals. We have enough fussbudgets.

Sorry for the snarky humor; it is a valid question to which there is no logical answer. We have civil union in my state, which is tantamount to marriage, under a different name. I don't know of any heterosexual marriage that crumbled when the judge said to us "I now pronounce you legal spouses... you can... well, do whatever you do... " Really, he said that; he enjoyed doing the ceremony more than we did.

Wait, I think that was the day the dome of the Capitol building cracked.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think it's the exact opposite. Banning same-sex marriage is a threat to "traditional" marriage, since it implies that marriage is not a right, but a privilege that the state can grant or deny as it sees fit.

 

[Gomeza]

How does the state sanctioned marriage of a same sex couple threaten my "traditional" marriage?

And on a related note, if you are married, how does the state sanctioned marriage of a same sex couple threaten your marriage?

Simply put: It is an utterly baseless statement. I live in a country where it has been legal now for 6 years. Prior to the legalization of same sex marriage we listened to the same type of drivel and all of the slippery slope arguments coming from right wing religious groups. Of how pedophilia will spike in society, of how traditional marriage will cease to exist and my favorite: of how people will marry farm animals (a local pastor said that, it still cracks me up).

What has happened since the legalization of same sex marriage to the sanctity of traditional marriage is absolutely nothing, zippo, or sweet bupkis . . . take your pick. There has been one very minor affect on society however, a small uptick in domestic purchasing simply because married people buy more stuff than singles.

The really ironic part of the story is that those objecting the loudest are members of a social demographic that has had some of the highest divorce rates for years, while same sex partners are demonstrating a much lower divorce rate. I guess it depends on what is enveloped within the term "sanctity of marriage."

 

[Jainarayan]

I think it's the exact opposite. Banning same-sex marriage is a threat to "traditional" marriage, since it implies that marriage is not a right, but a privilege that the state can grant or deny as it sees fit.

Game, set, match! :clap

 

[waitasec]

banning marriage is a threat to marriage....

 

[Nakosis]

And on a related note, if you are married, how does the state sanctioned marriage of a same sex couple threaten your marriage?

They see it as a war on God. A war on the traditional religious view of marriage.

What it is doing is invalidating religious authority. They are fighting to keep Christian values relevant in American culture. The war as they see it is really on Christian values. Marriage holds a traditional Christian value for them.

They see it as a war on Christianity and are trying to promote it as such in order to motivate the Christian voter population against Obama.

If you are not Christian, probably not a lot of vested interest there.

 

[tumbleweed41]

They see it as a war on God. A war on the traditional religious view of marriage.

What it is doing is invalidating religious authority. They are fighting to keep Christian values relevant in American culture. The war as they see it is really on Christian values. Marriage holds a traditional Christian value for them.

They see it as a war on Christianity and are trying to promote it as such in order to motivate the Christian voter population against Obama.

If you are not Christian, probably not a lot of vested interest there.

What they don't seem to understand, and I am speaking of those who feel they must legislate their religious beliefs upon those who do not hold those beliefs, is that same sex marriage does not effect them personally at all.

 

[Penumbra]

I used to wonder, when looking in history books, how people ever possibly argued against things that are viewed today as common sense. Like, people who argued in favor of slavery, argued against giving women the right to vote, arguing against equal rights of races, etc.

But we're watching it now, I suppose. People are willing to tell two consenting adults who love each other that they cannot get married, and yet when people support them in their desire for marriage, they call this an "attack" on them and their values. :sarcastic

 

[Kathryn]

I used to wonder, when looking in history books, how people ever possibly argued against things that are viewed today as common sense. Like, people who argued in favor of slavery, argued against giving women the right to vote, arguing against equal rights of races, etc.

But we're watching it now, I suppose. People are willing to tell two consenting adults who love each other that they cannot get married, and yet when people support them in their desire for marriage, they call this an "attack" on them. :sarcastic

I know, it really is crazy, isn't it?

People need to chill out and stay out of other peoples' business! Do they honestly not understand that freedom works BOTH ways? Not just in their direction???

 

[HeatherAnn]

I hope "general religious debate" doesn't mean I can post only if it goes along with popular opinion.

It amazes me that people are so upset about some things that affect others, but don't give a rat's whatever about things like health consequences of homosexual sex & about the consequences for children of gay marriage. Do you realize there are health risks involved, not just statisically (STDs & AIDS) but also anal fissures, bacterial infection, anal cancer & colon rupture? If 2 people understand these real risks & want to do it anyway - fine - but when kids get involved (as in legalizing gay marriage) I have a problem with it. Why would you want children to be adopted by couples practicing unhealthy practices when children imitate their parents?

People think they're being nice to cater to the sexual deviations of others. But it's not really nice, in the long run. Laws are intended for the good of all, especially future society - CHILDREN.

Children have a RIGHT to be raised by the 2 opposite sexes that created them.
Gay marriage denies them either a mother or father, devaluing both parents, saying mothers or fathers are not really important. 2 dads or 2 moms are fine - when studies & common sense show that children need BOTH a mother & father...

"Children Need Both A Mother And A Father" Dr. A. Dean Byrd
Children Need Both A Mother And A Father

"Why Children need both Mother-Love and Father-Love" Glenn T. Stanton
http://www.jashow.org/Articles/_PDFArch ... I0804G.pdf

"Mothers' and Fathers' Socializing Behaviors in Three Contexts: Links with Children's Peer Competence"
Pettit, Gregory S.; Brown, Elizabeth Glyn; Mize, Jacquelyn; Lindsey, Eric
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/se ... o=EJ563106

"Why Children Need a Mother and a Father" Bill Muehlenberg
http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/10/ ... -a-father/


Gay couples already have rights under laws like common law marriage and cohabitation agreements...
Common-law marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cohabitation agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Even if no contract is written up, they have rights.
Yet even more rights are extended if a couple creates a contract when they begin living together.

There is no need to redefine marriage to include sexual deviations.
In fact, doing so will harm many - including homosexuals (& others who are persuaded to be homosexual) by condoning statistically harmful behavior and by not giving children what they need most: BOTH a mother and father.

Children have the right to not be taught homosexuality in school. Yet, in places where gay marriage has been enacted, these rights have been infringed upon...
*Freshmen were told not to tell their parents about a pro-gay seminar & were required to sign a confidentiality agreement (Derrfield, Illinois Mar. 2007).
*In March, 2007, a Massachusetts high school banned parents from attending a seminar for students on how they can know they are homosexual.
*In October, 2008, First graders (6 year-old students) were taken on a field trip to watch their lesbian teacher's wedding.
*In Oct 2008, a Hayward CA public elementary school celebrated "Coming Out Day."

Normalizing & even encouraging children to explore homosexuality obviously causes more to experiment with homosexuality.
"The Legal Liability Associated with Homosexuality Education in Schools... This report is part of an integrated strategy to inform and educate parents, students and school officials across the nation of its contents and of their respective rights and duties. It has documented the concern that the health of students in many schools across the country may have been compromised and their First Amendment rights may have been denied."
http://www.afamichigan.org/images/Legal ... 200504.pdf

Also, others' rights have been infringed upon in favor of supporting gay rights.
*In April 2008, an Albuquerque photographer was fined over $6,000 for refusing to be hired to photograph a lesbian couple's commitment ceremony.
*In May, 2008, a black administrator was fired from the U of Toledo, Ohio, for writing an editorial objecting to the comparison of black discrimination to same-sex marriage.
*An intolerant opponent of Proposition 8 even violently attacked & injured a Proposition supporter in Oct. 2008.
*On November 19, 2008, eHarmony, a Christian-based matching service was forced by New Jersey's Division on Civil Rights to provide website matching services for homosexuals.