How Would Gay Marriage Weaken The Institution Of Marriage?

[Oren]

Without passing judgment on gay marriage, or making direct comparisons that show it in an inferior light, the argument is similar to other political arguments, called "the slippery slope".  This is not MY argument, this is AN argument.  Agree or disagree, this argument exists, and both sides have valid points.  On to the argument. It used to be that marriage was always assumed to be 1 man and 1 woman.  Nothing else was even considered.  This formed a family, and families should be strengthened, and family bonds and rights became recognized in law and society.  The law and society recognized the value of marriage and everything that was based on it, and endeavored to encourage it. If you change the definition of marriage to 2 men or 2 women, that affects the families and rights that are based on marriage, right or wrong, good or bad.  There is an effect on society.  Two men demanding the same rights as a traditional marriage leads to society encouraging homosexual unions since society encourages marriage.  The rights and privileges become more important than the institution. Now lets take it further.  Why not let 3 men marry so that all 3 can have the rights enjoyed by married couples?  Why not 4?  Wouldn't that be discrimination against people whose love takes that form?  Why would their access to those rights be denied?  Should adults marry children?  If an adult cannot find another adult willing to marry them, would preventing marriage to a child be limiting the adult's access to the rights of married couples?  There are groups that promote the decreasing of the legal age of consent.  It could go on and on, farm animals, musical instruments, etc. Why not just give everybody the same rights that married couples now enjoy, so there is no hint of discrimination?  If everybody has the same rights, then the encouragement for families that society initially thought was so valuable is cancelled out.  Marriage becomes little more than an agreement between adults, with less permanence than a business contract.  There will be no point to getting married since it provides no benefits from the state. Yes, I realize that benefits from the state are not the only reason people get married, but the state is being asked to change the definition of marriage, and so looking at marriage from the state's point of view can be valuable. Hopefully no offense has been taken from reading this, because none is meant.  It is a simple, logical argument describing the effect of changing the definition of marriage will have on the "institution of marriage". I hope this is what you were looking for. 

[amdt57]

Why should we worry about the "institution?" It?s people and families that matter. The whole gay marriage issue is a red herring to distract us from government failures and to blame small segments of society for those failures. We should support each other rather than tear down. There are sick people of all persuasions. There are good people of all persuations. Let?s focus on strengthening families rather than feeding baseless fears.   Allowing all couples an opportunity to enjoy the privileges and protections of marriage is fair and worthwhile. Leave people?s private lives private. Children raised by or among gay people are not likely to be abused or influenced into choosing a particular sexual preference. Children raised in loving, caring homes are a strength to our nation and our future.   Institutionalizing hate and fear is not healthy for any of us, including those like myself who have chosen conservative lifestyle. America is about life liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all, not just for certain ones. Live and let live, as long as there is no abuse of law or person.