Negative effects of same-sex marriage being legalized

Obviously for anyone to oppose SSM with so much as any degree of conviction, there has to be a belief that SSM will negatively impact society in some way. I was wondering if anyone cared to enlighten me as to what the perceived negative effects would be, seeing as none of the other topics have come anywhere close to an anti-SSM poster explaining what they are...

 

If we legalize same sex marriage then everyone will become gay and the very few straight people will refuse to get married causing the human population to end after 12 years!!!!

 

If we legalize SSM, gays will feel "accepted"... rather than "excepted".

 

If we let gays get married people will choose to become gay and everyone will want to marry their brother or the family dog or the picket fence, because you know that gay marriage will led to all those things. Plus, God will rage his wrath on us all and the sky will fall and we will all die a horrible death and end up in Hell with Satan who is the reason why gay people exist anyway.

Amazingly I was able to write all that with a straight face.

 

Don't you realize? Every time gays get the idea that they are "equal" citizens....they start recruiting.

Once they reach a certain number of gays...the world will end. Didn't you see that episode of south park...when they keep using the word S..h...i...(you know the last letter) over and over? And this triggers the release of an ancient cure. THATS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE REACH 50 MILLION GAY PEOPLE!!!!!!

It's the end I tell you.

 

OK, it seems that nobody took the bait so I'll go on the opposing side.

First, I'm sorry to say that you won't get gay bashing from me

I do not support "gay marriage" any more than I support "Miss Black America" or "the United Negro College Fund'

none of those things do anything to unite people. In fact, they serve a contradictory role by making it more divided.

IMHO, "gay marriage" is nothing more than going to the fed govt and asking them to make yet another special interest group and this time based upon a sexual act because it's not religion, gender or race.

That should immediately be a huge red flag and make you wonder how in the heck did we allow govt to get so involved in our personal lives?

We've had Miss Americas of various persuasions so is there a need for "miss black.." ?

We need to be moving more toward all of us being US citizens and that's it.

Let the church or your social group perform marriage or whatever you want to call it.

If the fed govt is going to move forward and grant some type of new label for around 3% of the US population then they had best just make it an across the board change and stop getting involved every time a slightly different special interest group comes along.

Any new ruling should also grant tax rates or legal position for single people, siblings who wish to marry etc etc etc

Or, just back the heck off and all this gay marriage, incest marriage etc goes away and everyone becomes equal. Kind of a unique concept isn't it; equality???

For some reason it appears that the govt has no interest in equality. They'd rather serve special interests

 

Thank you for your candidness and honesty regarding your views.

I understand the "sick of special interests" opinion, especially when it appears minorities are being favoured.

HOWEVER...

I don't see SSM as favouring gay people any more than marriage between two members of the opposite sex favours straight people. I also don't see how opening up marriage to same-sex couples would create further "divisions", since groups like the aforementioned Miss Black America exclude all other races. It's racist by its very nature because black people aren't denied entry to the regular Miss America.

Same-sex marriage doesn't exclude anyone technically. Anyone can have one...

 

but my point is that at first, special credits were given to married couples because it was assumed they would go forth and multiply and maybe even buy homes.

So, marriage ws defined as man and woman and understandle how they got to that point. They being the govt. But, what they did by doing that was to grant special legal benefits with respect to contracts. Forget the whole "we want to be accepted stuff" and look at it from the legalize perspective. Insurance companies also created "married" plans.

During all of this time, single people were tossed aside.

So, to say "hey, the govt screwed up so let's keep screwing up" concept just doesn't wash with me.

 

I agree, remove all tax breaks for marriage, the government has no right to say which groups can or cannot gain benefits by forming a union with another person.

The only tax break that should be given would be for the care of a dependent child.

But back to the OP, since we all know that the government will not relinquish its power, no one would really be harmed from ssm, just like no one was harmed from interracial marriage (which once was illegal) or from marriage across religions (which is prohibited in most holy books).

 

Haha. Just the thought of SSM makes me want to leave my wife for this quarter I found under my desk...

By the way, Richard Dean Anderson is AWESOME.

 

As a god-fearing, straight, super-heterosexual male, I'm afraid that if we legalize same-sex marriage, I'll want to have sex with the neighbor's goat and will ditch my wife of 13 years to have the gayest sex possible with my best male friend.

 

I disagree. I don't see it as a special group, I see it as allowing them to have the rights of everyone else. We created a special group by excluding them.

 

I don't disagree with you. . .so, maybe the government should make up their mind to EITHER give special treatment to people because they sign a commitment paper (marriage certificate), or they should stop giving special treatment to people for signing that commitment paper.

And it should be across the board! To people (of any sex) either get recognized for their desire to enter into a committed relationship in a legal sense, or they shouldn't.

The screw up is about making the difference between heterosexual and homosexual "commitment."

We shouldn't even be talking about "GAY" marriage. . .the discussion should be about "MARRIAGE," that's all!

 

You might want to avoid the military as well.

You know that's legal in the military now.

 

I am glad you agree, if you see him, give him my phone number.

 

Did you ever watch Stargate, or were you just a MacGyver fan?

 

Special rights for certain (not even legally defined) group is always bad for the society, since it violate equal protection under the law, less democracy. It is unfair to non-sexual couple that live in exactly similar situation but have less rights.

 

There is absolutely no way "equal protection" can be used as an argument against SSM, since the only other gender-based couple type (opposite sex couples) can already marry. There's no discrimination going on.

Democracy argument is moot because the courts are there to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. And in many places SSM is legal it HAS been the will of the majority.

Non-sexual/pair-bonding/life-bonding/committed "couples" are not unworthy of consideration, and probably will be considered if there is a child involved. Bearing in mind opposite sex non-sexual couples can already marry, whereas same sex non-sexual couples cannot.

 

The problem is that that self-invented minority has no legal definition, it is based on human behavior and has nothing to do with marriage.
Yes, I admire gay community for their ability brainwash population of whole world and making them to believe that people are divided by sexuality.
That is just a the same nonsense as dividing people by laziness.
Let's say we have lazy people and non-lazy people.
Lazy people should not go to work because they do not like working.
Let's give them a salary and tell everybody that they we have extended definition of work making it suitable for those who do not like to spend time at workplace.

 

Homosexuality exists as both an act and a state of "being". Acts alone do not define who a person is, since technically anyone can have sex with anyone. And technically someone is homosexual/heterosexual even though they may not have even had sex. Obviously what determines our desire to do those things is psychologically/physiologically based.

Not divided. If gay people wanted to be divided why would they want to be on a par with heterosexuals? You're forgetting that ALL people, including straight people, become a protected class when laws outlawing discrimination are introduced. "Gay" alone does not become a protected class, sexual orientation does. Obviously heterosexuals rarely if ever get discriminated against for being straight, but it's still equal.

If bigots and homophobes didn't spend so much time doing what you oddly accuse the LGBT rights movement of doing (creating divisions) there be no need to make sexual orientation a protected class. But there clearly is a need.

 

bull crap

a celibate monk is what?????

who the heck knows because they never freed willy

I put my pants on one leg at a time just like you

I can cast one vote per election just like you

a bullet can kill me just like you

I enjoy a good SEC football game with buddies (don't tell me you're not an SEC fan) just like you

I walk on my feet just like you

I pay my bills just like you

the difference is

I engage in sex with women. That is it. We have sex differently

 

I get the impression that the people who think that homosexuality is "invented" and a "special class" that has been "created" would rather return to the 1950's view of homosexuality simply being a fetish/deviation from the norm/one's natural urges, or an illness perhaps?

 

Is this another person insinuating I'm gay simply because I support SSM?... 53% of America support it and certainly aren't all gay

Anyway... It's not bullcrap that a person would have a good inclination of his or her sexuality before he or her has had sex. That's like saying every virgin is asexual and doesn't have thoughts/urges about ANYONE. All those teenaged boys wouldn't be fapping to magazines and pin ups...

You obviously knew you liked women before you had sex with one, otherwise you wouldn't have been inclined to do it.

 

If gays marry, they will destroy the American family, our American way of life, and apple pie.

Plain and simple.

 

but if I never act upon it then what?

It takes the sexual act

If tomorrow I decide that I want to receive instead of giving then I would be gay.