Opponents. How has gay marriage negatively effected your life?

Except marriage is not necessary for children.

 

1) Gay marriage is not natural, and as Americans, we always reject unatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and lyposuction.

2) Gay marriage will make people gay, in the same way that tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously, gay parents will only raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans...

 

Ok, how has gay marriage affected anyone negatively? All the examples you listed are cases were individuals are being harmed against their will and are nothing like gay marriage.

 

The systemic acceptance of immorality tears away at the social fabric. The federal sanction of gay marriage is a devaluation of our culture, which affects everyone countrywide, not to mention the fact that the decision is unconstitutional, undermining the Tenth Amendment. This should have been handled at the state level, not legislated in the Supreme Court.

 

How do you know it is immoral?

Specifically how is it tearing away at the social fabric?

Specifically how is it devaluing our culture? In what way specifically?

Specifically how has it hurt you personally?

 

Religion, no matter what you think about it, is a major component in our culture; and, religiously, homosexuality is immoral. Biologically, HIV is spread more predominantly by gay people due to behavior attributable to being gay; thus a fatal disease is disproportionately high within the so-called LGBTQ community directly due to the behavior therein (1). Furthermore, leftism identifies gay people as having membership within the LGBTQ community. The LGBTQ community is
now trying to change the definition of gender, which is, too, immoral.

Accepting immorality instead of defying it is an acceptance of lowering values, which tears away at the social fabric.

When the federal government systemically sanctions immorality, this devalues our culture. Furthermore, the way in which they did it devalues our culture, as it undermined the Tenth Amendment, which, too, devalued the cultural tenet, ingrained in the Constitution, that the people within their states have the right to determine what should and should not be allowed morally.

I am a part of the American culture that is being devalued; thus it hurts me.

1. https://www.hrc.org/resources/hrc-issue-brief-hiv-aids-and-the-lgbt-community?utm_source=GS&utm_medium=AD&utm_campaign=BPI-HRC-Grant&utm_content=441762699074&utm_term=gay aids&gclid=Cj0KCQjwlvT8BRDeARIsAACRFiVuPBtsHbwZPXFwWFSE95DeSBY2-UmSPRi7rkTxaaD_-3exHqADABkaAhGJEALw_wcB

 

The bible also says the American Revolution is wrong, check out Romans 13. Most Christians aren't so active and ignore the bad stuff in the bible, and many ignore the homophobic verses. We also have a lot of people with other spiritual beliefs who accept gay marriage, and a quarter of people, and a third of millennials are non-religious. We should make our decisions on marriage based on the evidence, not based on blind faith in a religion. And even if you still want to religiously oppose gay marriage, that doesn't mean the government should impose your religious values on the country.

The solution to this problem is safe sex and STD testing. People would rather take the risk of HIV than never be in a relationship with the sex they are attracted to.

Its the definition of a single word. A word is just a collection of sounds and I'm not going to freak out because somebody is using a word differently. We can argue about the dictionary definitions about words all day, but the real issue are the ideas behind them. There is biological sex/gender and then there is gender identity and you can be born into one biological gender/sex and identify with another. That is really all they are saying. Also, you can support gay marriage and also oppose the trans thing.

First off, the government giving the people freedom to do what they want and give them equal rights is what our country is all about. People are free to make their own choices and will be treated equally. The government doesn't tell people what culture they should be, and lets people decide for themselves. Only people in our culture devalue our culture, not the government allowing equal rights.

Also, the tenth Amendment was already being violated long before gay marriage. Our view of this amendment is more about how you see the role of the federal government. You can support the principle of gay marriage without believing it should be a federal law.

Can you give me a specific example of how you were hurt personally? How did the change in American culture hurt you? Any specific thing that happened to you?

 

You deserve quite a few 'likes' for that.

 

equal rights should be enforced at the federal level and the state level

 

Yes, that's called the amendment process, which is perfectly constitutional.

In this case, the amendment process was bypassed, and legislation was unconstitutionally short-circuited via the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's purpose is to interpret the law as written, not legislate based on how they feel the law should be, which is what happened in this case. It's a travesty of justice and simply the continuation of the trampling of our founding principles.

 

The fact that their behavior makes them more likely to die from it is the basis for the immorality of it. Finding ways, imperfect ways, to protect against the consequences of said behavior does not make it any less deadly. Furthermore, your proposed solutions--safe sex and STD testing--have been around, and yet HIV still remains highest in the homosexual community.

That is simply entertaining delusion.

Whatever is not explicitly in the Constitution is left at the state level. You want gay marriage in California? Fine. But don't impose it in Alabama.

Of the people, by the people, and for the people. The government is the people; it is a part of our culture. Thus, you just made my point, since you said, "Only people in our culture devalue our culture," the government being "of the people."

The argument of "well, we've already violated the Tenth Amendment, one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, so let's continue to just do so" is not a great argument.

As I've stated, I am of the American culture, which continues to devalue, due to such decision-making and the justification thereof by people like you; being in a culture that is continually devalued by whatever means negatively affects the people therein.

 

it's about more than that, it's about next of kin, visitation in a hospital, not getting taxed on your stuff when your partner dies, legally it has a purpose

there even used to be adultery laws that could be used to punish a cheating spouse - reason being, a spouse has a right to know if their partner is possibly exposing them to STD's - Melania had a right to know

 

There are very perfect ways of avoiding STDs. Both people can get tested before having sex. The real problem is that we have this culture of casual sex that spreads STDs and we need to fix the way we have sex. You fix that and you fix the gay STD problem and the STD problem in general.

I get that gay people have higher rates of HIV. But HIV is far more treatable and now your life expectancy with HIV is 77 years. Also, we make many choices that increase our chance of death but we do it anyway. For example, driving increases your chance of death but you are willing to do it because its worth the risk. Taking is risk isn't objective immoral.

You can favor gay marriage as a principle while disagreeing with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitution. The federal vs state power issue is a different issue here and your position on this can be unrelated to your view of gay marriage.

That refers to the government officials being elected. It doesn't refer to the government using law to try to enact the culture they want people to have, like not giving gay couples the same legal rights. It isn't the government's job to tell people what culture they should have. That decision is up to individual people.

You didn't answer my question. If the culture has been devalued and this is personally hurting you since you are a member of this culture, then surely you can point out specifically one time you have been hurt by the cultural consequences of gay marriage.

 

WELL DONE

 

As I said, my opposition was only about dispersing taxpayers funds on couples that can’t naturally produce children.
I never had a problem with extending the rest of the benefits to these couples.

 

what funds do you think a married couple gets?

if you do not think anyone should get it, that is one thing, but saying only one group should not is different

 

Survivor benefits.
The whole point of having such benefit is to make sure that a woman that raises kids and her husband dies won’t be left with absolutely no money.
Instead of expanding benefits to couples that can’t naturally produce kids because they love each other (as if anyone really gives a damn about whether couples love or hate each other), these benefits should be extended to those who raised or are raising kids and invested their time and resources into the process, which means that they ended up giving something up, like time, career, jobs, etc.

I have a bit of a personal brush with this issue - I have a career and am earning a 6 digit salary. My wife wanted to be a stay at home mom until kids go to school because she didn’t feel comfortable letting a non-relative watch our kids. Granted, I have a life insurance, but if I were to die, my wife would be able to find a job that pays at most $15/hour and would need to pay mortgage, other bills, and continue watching our kids or come up with a solution to have someone watch our kids.
So, my wife will end up giving up about 10 years of her life to raise our kids. That’s why survivor benefits exists - they are meant to be the society’s helping hand to women who sacrifice their time, something that you can never get back. Extending these benefits to couples who cannot reproduce naturally just doesn’t make sense and ends up draining our treasury.

PS: if one partner in gay marriage dies, does another partner need to find a job that will be OK with frequent schedule adjustments to accommodate school kids? Does that partner need a 3-4 bedroom house? Does that partner need to try to stay in the same school district to minimize psychological damage to kids?
The answer to all those questions is no, but for a widow or widower of a family with kids these are the absolute needs, not wants.

 

If they have kids then yes they NEED that

 

Me personally- it has not, but then I don't know anyone in that position. I do feel that by calling that union by the same name as a hetrosexual one, it has diminished the perception or the nature and importance of the marriage relationship. I believe that matters because a solid, well structured family relationship is a critical factor is raising children to adults, and there is enough confusion in life without doing that.Not speaking of the gay marriage with children, but any children, because we have changed the rules. I have no problem with there being a partnership or union between gay people, and the gays I know are good people. I'm a believer in the need for strong, healthy people and stable, consistent structure in our society; and the concept of family needs to be clear and valued. I think that when we muddy the water and start labeling things differently, it's like reducing the value- watering down the meaning of the original definition. No intend to offend anyone here; but I think we have diluted the concept of marriage considerably, and I think that hurts society at large.

 

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

 

It's certainly true that we already botch the job of marriage frequently. No need to make it worse.

 

Good thing gay marriage won't do that.

 

In my opinion, it will reduce the view of the importance and sanctity of marriage- and that will lower the feeling of commitment, of the importance of the institution, for a great many people. That will result in it being seen and treated more casually... and more marriages ending in failure. The most important aspect of that is the damage to the children and their future. They have seen the precedent, this is what you do- so nothing wrong with me doing it too. It WILL make it worse. It's not the only thing making it worse, but adds to the problem.

 

So what "sanctity" does the state infer on marriages?

It seems your argument is devoid of the fact that divorces topped out at 5.2% per 1000 in 1962. The divorce rate has been steadily going down since then, but the rate of marriage has also gone down too. So whatever you think you are implying, it just isn't so.

 

Don't know where you are getting your numbers, but statistically 40-50% of first marriages end in divorce, second and later ones have an even higher rate. Common data, any simple google search will verify it.
There were over 16% per thousand in 2017- (Wall Street Journal) that is a per-year number, not a full term one. At that rate, we would have 100% divorced in less than 7 years.

Of course there is another vital aspect here- in that a great many people just live together without marriage, so divorce among them comes down to walking out the door and doesn't make the statistics at all. Over the last 40 years, the number who make and break unions so casually is so high that the rate of marriages dropped 50% in the prime age bracket. There were unions failing, common-law marriages, just not recorded as legal marriages. Divorce drops by count does not mean we are improving, but that we have an even smaller number in the first place.
Our ability to form and support long-term healthy relationships is pretty poor, compared to that of our grandparents. We are paying a substantial price for our lack of maturity in that respect.