Negative effects of same-sex marriage being legalized

what's abnormal?

and monkeys can't consent, so stop using idiotic arguments you know are invalid.

 

It seems like you do not understand what free society means. It means that government do not interfere with people's lives.
Gays have zero effect on society so their relationship do not need to be regulated or licensed.
If you however insist on licensing gays, you have to find a reason for doing that.
So far NO reason has been presented, why gays need special rights.

 

How can yopu possibly declare that : 'Gays have zero effect on society so their relationship do not need to be regulated or licensed'.

It is well known, (and don't try to deny it), that in the Western world at least, by far the majority of HIV infections is due to homosexual behaviour, leading to a huge cost burden on the health systems around the world. let's not pretend otherwise

 

Personally, I don't see it as same-sex marriage, I see it as marriage.

I do have a way to solve all of this:

1) Marriage has always been a religious concept. Let's keep it that way and make marriages the domain of religious institutions. If your church has rules about who can marry who then so be it.

2) Everything else would be civil/domestic unions and this could be handled the same way it is today. One can go to city hall and file for a license just like the marriage license. There could not be any discimination based on sex or race. This would be the legal and binding paperwork one needs. If you want to get married in a religious sense, you would still need to do it legally also.

 

I'm interested in what "regulation", in your opinion, is applied to a married couple? How does the government use the institution to regulate goings-on between opposite-sex partners? The ONLY difference between an opposite sex couple and a same-sex couple is their ability to create life using only their own genes, but in practical terms SS couplings still produce kids - for lesbians this is very easily done, and obviously for a gay male couples a surrogate womb is required... but the end result is most assuredly the same - a child with two legal parents who happen to be of the same gender. Why wouldn't the state want a hand in regulating that? The child doesn't know any different, they're just his or her parents. Same circumstances as a child born to their two biological parents. Your argument from a regulation point of view makes no sense as far as I can see...

Gay people obviously have very many effects on society, and same-sex couplings produce kids that would not exist otherwise (sperm donation and surrogacy). Same-sex couplings therefore can and do effect society from a sheer "increasing numbers" perspective, and can and do raise the kids rejected by heterosexuals. I'm sure there's something in there to "regulate" going by your logic, but ever-more than that is the fact these kids deserve no less than their counterparts born to or having been adopted by opposite-sex couples.. ESPECIALLY the sterile opposite sex couples who are IDENTICALLY situated in EVERY way to same-sex couples - You have yet to address this blatant hypocrisy, and this blatant hypocrisy is why same-sex marriage will win all-over in a matter of time.

 

But it has nothing to do with marriage, it is related to male homosexual behavior.
Are you saying that we have regulate gays? Sure, may be but not with marriage license.

 

You listed something that has nothing to do with marriage.
The marriage is an attempt to organize man and woman to make them responsible for their actions, that is it. Unlike heterosexual couples, everything homosexual couples do is predictable and planned, so no marriage license is required.

"The ONLY difference between an opposite sex couple and a same-sex couple is their UNPLANNED ability to create life.

Licenses and regulations are created in attempt to alleviate unpredictable and unplanned events that might have adverse effect on the society.

 

Yet again this defeats your entire argument, there are thousands of couples that benefit from the protections of marriage yet are incapable of reproducing due to them being sterile or elderly.

Also, most pregnancies in marriages are planned, it is the ones that are not wed where they are usually unplanned yet there is no "regulation" on these people... Nice fallacy you have created in your mind.

Procreation is not a requirement for marriage. If it was then we would not be having this conversation.

 

Those thousands couples has no relevance to the purpose of regulation. Do you worry about people who has driver license but do not drive? I don't think so, otherwise you should demand licenses for blind people, because they are in similar situation with those who just do not drive.

No matter how many pregnancies are planned you can't force people to plan and predict anything. Unless you are proponent of totalitarian regime, you can't force women to take contraceptive, or demand fertility test every year.

Why you are repeating that fallacy about requirement to procreate, if it has nothing to do with marriage.
Do you require people to drive to get license?
Do you require retired people to be disabled and incapable to work to receive benefited?
The purpose of marriage regulation has nothing to do with procreation. It is attempt to alter human behavior for the benefits of the society.

 

You keep mentioning the Driver's license, but since the purpose of licensing is the regulation of road safety, then going by your procreation-regulation marriage argument, awarding marriage to sterile couples would be as counterproductive and pointless as awarding a Driver's license to a blind man.

 

Driver license = regulation of road safety i.e. all drivers.
Marriage license = regulation of safety of relationship of all heterosexual couples.
Driver license for blind man = unsafe condition.
Marriage license for sterile couple = 100% safe condition
Your analogy is incorrect.

 

You missed the point entirely. It still contradicts the stated goal of each license:

A blind driver contradicts and has nothing to do with furthering the aim of road safety (Driver's license)

A sterile couple contradicts and has nothing to do with furthering the goal of procreation (Marriage license).

The latter going by your logic of course.

 

Wow, reaching on that one arnt ya?
In one people are allowed to apply for something they may not use, in the other people are NOT allowed to apply for something they will use. Blind people cannot obtain a drivers license because they cannot see to drive, homosexual people have nothing preventing them from marrying besides people that can give no actual reason why they should not be allowed to, this is why they are losing the argument in the court of law across the county.

Marriage is not altering anyone's behavior, people have children out of wedlock, people live together out of wedlock, some people go their whole lives without getting married while other get married every other year.

Marriage is about the commitment between two people (usually)
It also comes with some significant benefits and protections that are automatically denied to two members of the same sex...

Blatant discrimination, how you cannot see this is unfathomable to me. Why can the statement not be: Marriage license = regulation of safety of relationship of couples, what makes heterosexual relationships so much more important if procreation has nothing to do with marriage (your words).

 

Gays should be more responsible. And if they inisist on this typ of sexual behaviour,they should take the necessary precautions. Haven't they learnt anything!

 

We have "learnt" that the argument against gay marriage are fabricated idiocy for the most part.

 

actually, the majority of aids cases worldwide are from heterosexuals.

 

Ok, since we're throwing things into the mix that have no relevancy to SSM, let's consider that gay people tend to be more academic and have higher paid jobs, thus contributing more to the economy and paying more in taxes, by and large?

HIV rates have nothing to do with marriage, and if you insist on a connection well I would suspect that the ultimate government stamp of legitimacy of their relationships would help by promoting monogamy.

 

Asking the wrong question.

Negative effects of same-sex marriage being legalized = none

Negative effects from opposition to same-sex marriage being legalized = many

The first non-satirical answer in the thread can be boiled down to "it's divisive". Trouble is, that's not an effect of same-sex couples marrying. The division is the result of people's prejudice against homosexuality more generally.

 

So you would deny atheists and agnostics the ability to be in a marriage, then.

Marriage is first and foremost a contractual arrangement. Overlaying that with religion or anything else doesn't change this.

It's not up to some church to tell us whether or not we're married. We don't require their blessing, nor the government's piece of paper.

 

Your orientation remains defined by which sex you're attracted to, whether or not you act upon it.

It does not. Sexual acts may provide an indication of the direction in which one's primary feelings of attraction are oriented, but they don't define it.

'Gayness' is not defined by whether one wants to "receive" or "give". What an utterly ridiculous notion.

 

Bravo and Amen!! You surely got it right!

 

As an Atheist, I could care less whether my marriage to my wife was called a marriage or a civil union/domestic partnership. As long as the legal protections are there, who cares. My wife feels the same way, too.

 

You're entitled to your opinion. Let us not construe your opinion as being representative of all who do not hold religious beliefs, however.

I consider myself married, whether or not that union receives any legal recognition (and it doesn't - none at the federal level, none at the state level, and recognition at the local level as a domestic partnership was overturned by my state's marriage amendment).

As to what government might call it if it were recognized, I wouldn't much care, so long as all similarly situated unions are governed by the same law, under the same title.

I do, however, care that anti-gay people are attempting to use the law to tell me I can't be married. I do care that the minute you call something by a different name in the law you're codifying an inequality in that law between people who are similarly situated to each other.