What harm does same sex marriage cause?

[Your Star]

Whenever I talk to someone who is against SSM they always talk about how it isn't natural, and how it can't produce children, and so on. But I never hear about what harm it would cause. Why we mustn't allow it, when there is clearly a demand for it. So people against SSM, please tell me, what harm would it cause? Please give me concrete provable examples, and if your gonna give me that, it will ruin heterosexual marriage crap, please tell me how.

 

[kerussll]

The closest thing to an argument I've ever heard from someone who opposes it, is that it might harm children who are raised by gay parents. I'm sure some people really believe that, but I have never seen any evidence. It's just a gut response to something they see as abnormal, to assume it is harmful. I feel like anyone who has to fight through extra barriers to adopt a child will be especially loving parents.

 

[tacomancer]

None as far as I can tell. While I would never do it or endorse it, it will have absolutely 0 affect on my marriage and family. Also, frankly, its none of my business.

 

[Redress]

Gays are icky and if they can marry, normal marriage will be icky by association.

 

[Coronado]

Buttsecks.

[/thread]

 

[molten_dragon]

None.

At all.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Marriage has costs. We extend benefits to married couples that do not apply to unmarried couples.

So, before we can vote to legalize gay marriage, the question we should answer is "what good does it do?" I have seen all sorts of argumentation over why we "must" allow gay marriage for one reason or another, and arguments that gays are denied equal rights in our society, but I have seen very few people attempt to answer that simple question. What good would it do society to allow same sex marriage?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Gays are icky and if they can marry, normal marriage will be icky by association.

Oh trust me - normal marriage and sex can be very icky without any outside help!

Just a little bit of this

Some of that.

OOOOH Yeeeeah

 

[tacomancer]

Marriage has costs. We extend benefits to married couples that do not apply to unmarried couples.

So, before we can vote to legalize gay marriage, the question we should answer is "what good does it do?" I have seen all sorts of argumentation over why we "must" allow gay marriage for one reason or another, and arguments that gays are denied equal rights in our society, but I have seen very few people attempt to answer that simple question. What good would it do society to allow same sex marriage?

I don't see where it would do any good or harm. I think its effect on society is essentially nil. Also, I think the better question is what harm does it do?

 

[Coronado]

Oh trust me - normal marriage and sex can be very icky without any outside help!

Just a little bit of this

Some of that.

OOOOH Yeeeeah

You want to have an example of icky hetero married sex? Imagine your grandparents bumping uglies. :shock:

 

[Redress]

I don't see where it would do any good or harm. I think its effect on society is essentially nil. Also, I think the better question is what harm does it do?

Marriage promotes more stable unions, which is a net benefit for society. This is especially the case when children are involved, which gay couples more and more are having.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I don't see where it would do any good or harm. I think its effect on society is essentially nil. Also, I think the better question is what harm does it do?

We don't change laws because it wouldn't hurt. We change laws because it improves things.

 

[roguenuke]

Marriage has costs. We extend benefits to married couples that do not apply to unmarried couples.

So, before we can vote to legalize gay marriage, the question we should answer is "what good does it do?" I have seen all sorts of argumentation over why we "must" allow gay marriage for one reason or another, and arguments that gays are denied equal rights in our society, but I have seen very few people attempt to answer that simple question. What good would it do society to allow same sex marriage?

The same good that is done by opposite sex marriages that will never produce children of their own. There is no other difference between other opposite sex marriages and same sex marriages. We must assume that there is some good reason why we encourage opposite sex marriage, even if the couple cannot have children, otherwise it would not be allowed either. I have seen the argument made often that marriage, with or without children, benefits society in creating a stable household. Married couples are generally more productive. And marriage provides a legal family member that has willingly assumed responsibility for their spouse, including their medical decisions, after-death decisions, and financial responsibilities.

This being said, I think that the question was asked specifically to get an answer, any answer, from those who are actually claiming that same sex marriage will do harm. If they truly believe that it will do harm, then they should show some evidence or at least some scenarios of what harm will be caused, preferably with some reasonable logic behind those scenarios.

 

[samsmart]

Whenever I talk to someone who is against SSM they always talk about how it isn't natural, and how it can't produce children, and so on. But I never hear about what harm it would cause. Why we mustn't allow it, when there is clearly a demand for it. So people against SSM, please tell me, what harm would it cause? Please give me concrete provable examples, and if your gonna give me that, it will ruin heterosexual marriage crap, please tell me how.

Well, considering the harms that heterosexual marriages does to people, I'm against the legalization of homosexual marriage. However, I also want to de-legalize heterosexual marriage.

Nobody, no matter what their sexual orientation is, should have to deal with all that crap, and people shouldn't be forced to expect it.

 

[roguenuke]

Well, considering the harms that heterosexual marriages does to people, I'm against the legalization of homosexual marriage. However, I also want to de-legalize heterosexual marriage.

Nobody, no matter what their sexual orientation is, should have to deal with all that crap, and people shouldn't be forced to expect it.

Marriages provide protection for people as well. They also provide a single legal document to take the place of many. Makes things a lot easier that many people would never even think they needed.

Marriages are also good for society in providing legal documentation that two people have agreed to take responsibility for each other, including medical decisions, afterdeath decisions, and financial responsibility (to an extent). Marriages also provide stable households and families. Being married helps in keeping families, especially ones with children, together during hard times. It isn't a guarantee that someone will stay just because their name is on a marriage license, but it certainly can make at least some people think twice about leaving just because life gets hard.

 

[tacomancer]

We don't change laws because it wouldn't hurt. We change laws because it improves things.

I guess you could say it improves things for gay people and has no effect on anyone else.

 

[molten_dragon]

We don't change laws because it wouldn't hurt. We change laws because it improves things.

Changing it would improve things because the current situation is blatantly discriminatory. Removing the discrimination, while having no other negative effects would be a net benefit to society.

 

[Deuce]

Marriage has costs. We extend benefits to married couples that do not apply to unmarried couples.

So, before we can vote to legalize gay marriage, the question we should answer is "what good does it do?" I have seen all sorts of argumentation over why we "must" allow gay marriage for one reason or another, and arguments that gays are denied equal rights in our society, but I have seen very few people attempt to answer that simple question. What good would it do society to allow same sex marriage?

What good would it do society to allow people to purchase Justin Bieber albums?

Personal ****ing liberty, that's what good it will do.

(also, as previously mentioned by others marriage stabilized a family unit. that's why our tax code loves married people, it benefits society so we want to encourage it)

 

[spud_meister]

Marriage has costs. We extend benefits to married couples that do not apply to unmarried couples.

So, before we can vote to legalize gay marriage, the question we should answer is "what good does it do?" I have seen all sorts of argumentation over why we "must" allow gay marriage for one reason or another, and arguments that gays are denied equal rights in our society, but I have seen very few people attempt to answer that simple question. What good would it do society to allow same sex marriage?

The most obvious one I can think of is a stable, two parent household for children that would otherwise be in state care, it could also lead to less discrimination against gays, if society followed the states lead of equality, then general respect and acceptance could lead to happier gays, thus lower suicide rates and mental illness rates, and also remove one source of division within society.

 

[ender1]

After reading all of the posts I have to admit that I am impressed with the everyones maturity. Maybe as a country we are finally growing up.

 

[TurtleDude]

It harms no one. I am secure enough in my marriage to my wife to not worry about Bruce and Ben being married. What I find interesting is listening to some complain about the massive amount of promiscuity among some gay males (like the guys who helped spread AIDS by being buggered by several hundred other men a month in the S F baths etc) yet they also complain about gays getting married which would tend to promote monogamy.

Straight but not narrow. I say let em marry.

 

[CriticalThought]

This thread is too mature and boring. Time to play devil's advocate.

1. In gay-marriage states, a large minority of people committed to traditional notions of marriage will feel afraid to speak up for their views, lest they be punished in some way.

2. Public schools will teach about gay marriage.

3. Parents in public schools who object to gay marriage being taught to their children will be told with increasing public firmness that they don't belong in public schools and their views will not be accommodated in any way.

4. Religious institutions will face new legal threats (especially soft litigation threats) that will cause some to close, or modify their missions, to avoid clashing with the government's official views of marriage (which will include the view that opponents are akin to racists for failing to see same-sex couples as married).

5. Support for the idea "the ideal for a child is a married mother and father" will decline. Marriage will be seen less and less as a child centered institution.

 

[TurtleDude]

This thread is too mature and boring. Time to play devil's advocate.

1. In gay-marriage states, a large minority of people committed to traditional notions of marriage will feel afraid to speak up for their views, lest they be punished in some way.

2. Public schools will teach about gay marriage.

3. Parents in public schools who object to gay marriage being taught to their children will be told with increasing public firmness that they don't belong in public schools and their views will not be accommodated in any way.

4. Religious institutions will face new legal threats (especially soft litigation threats) that will cause some to close, or modify their missions, to avoid clashing with the government's official views of marriage (which will include the view that opponents are akin to racists for failing to see same-sex couples as married).

5. Support for the idea "the ideal for a child is a married mother and father" will decline. Marriage will be seen less and less as a child centered institution.

given in some areas more than 70% of children aren't born to married couples or know their fathers, I sort of suspect gays cannot be any worse when it comes to providing a "child centered institution"

 

[CriticalThought]

given in some areas more than 70% of children aren't born to married couples or know their fathers, I sort of suspect gays cannot be any worse when it comes to providing a "child centered institution"

Due to no fault divorce, marriage has already become an institution of personal gratification. Extending the definition to include those who are not even capable of procreating on their own will simply further that decay. The reputation of marriage must be protected because it is the cornerstone of the fundamental unit of society, the family.

 

[TurtleDude]

Due to no fault divorce, marriage has already become an institution of personal gratification. Extending the definition to include those who are not even capable of procreating on their own will simply further that decay. The reputation of marriage must be protected because it is the cornerstone of the fundamental unit of society, the family.

really-and where do you get that. shall couples be required to sign a pledge to breed before being granted a marriage license?