Gay Marriage: A Threat To The Institution Of Marriage?

[Jilliann]

Marriage serves a variety of purposes, some of benefit to the direct participants and some of benefit to society at large.  Marriage is a social invention, and has had a variety of criteria in different societies and at different times.  But its primary social benefit has been quite uniform across all human societies, and to the degree that marriage customs in different times and places have reduced that benefit, those societies have suffered.   The primary social benefit of marriage is that it encourages an environment in which the next generation is most likely to develop optimally as net contributors to society.  The primary manner in which it accomplishes this is by encouraging men to support their biological children with their time, emotions and wealth.    Marriage accomplishes this in several ways.  It increases the likelihood that a woman?s biological children are actually the biological children of her husband(although not as much as one might think).  It provides financial incentives to the parents for getting and staying married.  It provides psychological/socialogical incentives as well, by treating marriage as a "special" relationship(some religions add support to this by treating it as a sacrament).   It is in these latter two areas where same sex marriage will have some marginal impact on reducing the social benefits of marriage.  Both the financial and socialogical incentives to getting and staying married are reduced when the benefits are shared with additional parties(this is why businesses have sales and offer "exclusive" options).     Of course, given the relatively small number of gay marriages that are likely to occur(the gay portion of the population being a small minority, and many in it not at all interested in marriage), the dilution effect is not likely to be strong.  But, since many of the incentives of marriage have already been seriousely erroded in our society currently, there may be legitimate concern for a "tipping point" .   Society is already suffering from the damage done to marriage as a social institution, so even a small addition to the degradation of its utility is reason for concern.    phenomenon  

[lifton]

You realize the Bible-thumpers are going to come at you with moralistic rantings about "The Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman," don't you?  Excuse me, but wasn't that 2000 years ago?  A lot has happened since then.  Times have changed.  People have changed.  Their attitudes have changed.  Oops - not everyone's attitude has changed.  Some people - led by such highly moralistic people as George W. Bush - will tell you that marriage is meant to be something only between a man and a woman.  With their mindset still in ancient times, they refuse to realize that the times have changed and that what was practical 2000 years ago isn't all that practical now. Personally, I see no harm in gay marriage or civil unions or whatever else they might choose to call it - if two people are committed to each other and love one another, if they wish to make the committment permanent by getting married, they should have that privilege.  Government has absolutely no right to legislate morality which is what its doing by banning gay marriages/civil unions.  And Bush's wanting a Constitutional Amendment stating that marriage could only be between a man and a woman was right near the top of stupid ideas that has come from the current administration.  We can all thank God that that never got very far.  However, the fact it was even brought up and considered says a lot about this country and what's going on in it - notably, that a large percentage of people still have their heads stuck in the sand and a mindset that is essentially 1st Century.  Then, of course you get the argument about children who grow up with gay parents turn out to be gay themselves - Gimme A Break!!  There is absolutely no proof of that whatsoever yet people fall for that argument hook, line and sinker.  Yet every time the topic of gay marriages comes up, that's one of the first arguments you hear - its bad for the children.  Such outdated thinking went out of style years ago - or at least it should have. Like many others, I have friends who are gay and very committed to one another.  I even know one couple who purchased a house and are extremely happy - much more so than many heterosexual couples I know.  Yet, neither can share in the benefits enjoyed by the other - such things as medical insurance are up to them individually and if you don't have it - too bad.  Your committment/love for each other makes no difference.  Outmoded laws say you can't be a couple and legalize your union.  What a crock!! By giving gays the right/privilege to be married or joined in a civil union, the so-called "sanctity of marriage" isn't being harmed.  It just so happens that the couple is of the same gender - so what?  I still can't see what one guy would see in another guy, so its an entirely moot point for me, but if that's who or what turns you on, you should have the right to make a committment to that person.  Ditto women, although I can see how one woman would be attracted to another!!!  If you have a gay couple, the whole perspective of the "family unit" does take on a bit of a different meaning, granted, but you still have a couple and as such if they are willing to commit to each other, they should be allowed to enjoy the same benefits as a heterosexual couple.  So what if a kid says "I have two daddies" or "two mommies?" Big Deal!! However, as long as we have people who are willing to legislate morals, this will be a problem and something which will never gain nationwide acceptance.  And what is ironic about the whole situation is that some of the people who are legislating morals and taking the so-called "high ground" are people who cheat on their wives, beat their wives, cheat on their taxes and on and on.  This is hardly moralistic behavior and in most instances goes beyond what you will see with gay couples.  There is no threat of any kind to heterosexual couples from gay couples, yet as long as we have the Bible-beaters who are brainwashing or attempting to brainwash the masses, the mindset will continue to be that anyone who is involved in a gay union/marriage is evil and a minion of the devil.  Obviously, what is needed is a massive educational campaign to show there is no difference and no harm done.  Maybe someday - but not in our lifetime.  And until that happens, gay couples will continue to be that awful, horrid threat to marriage and American morals. That is so sad.