Gays are icky and if they can marry, normal marriage will be icky by association.
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?
You want to have an example of icky hetero married sex? Imagine your grandparents bumping uglies. :shock: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
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?
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 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?
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.
We don't change laws because it wouldn't hurt. We change laws because it improves things.
We don't change laws because it wouldn't hurt. We change laws because it improves things.
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?
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?
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"
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?