How Would Gay Marriage Weaken The Institution Of Marriage?

[bofind]

Opponents of gay marriage often say that it would "weaken the institution of marriage", but I have yet to hear any explanation of why that would be the case. If marriage is all about having kids, would letting a man or woman who is known to be sterile marry "weaken marriage"? If broadening the inclusiveness of marriage weakens it, did marriage get weaker when inter-racial couples were allowed to marry? Is this whole "weakening" argument just a way of saying "this doesn't fit in with my religious or social views of the way things ought to be"? Please tell me how this "weakening" would work.

[Adika]

The problem with gay marriage is that it makes it hard to justify getting the federal government involved in marriage at all. There is good reason to have a legal institution which recognizes that people often form pairs who depend on each other.  It is, for example, useful to recognize for tax purposes that a stay-at-home parent is an economic benefit to be encouraged.  A stay-at-home parent should get Social Security survivor benefits, for example, even though the actual direct contributions are zero.  It's extremely useful to have a legal structure that makes it easy to designate a medical guardian and decision maker.  And since children are usually best off in two-parent households, it's very useful to have a structure unifying their finances so that the children will be financially cared for in the event of a separation of the parents. These are all good cases for some sort of civil union, but they are not good cases for "marriage".  The notion of civil union and marriage have been conflated for centuries because that was the way things were done.  It is now the only time that a religious ceremony has a legal connotation.  The case for that conflation is shrinking.  Gay couples adopt children.  Close friends(or even siblings) may want to designate each other legally, just to have an obvious partner in an emergency.  The idea that one parent is a stay-at-home guardian is no longer mandatory; parents are often forced to find two incomes.   And when marriages are performed, they often done by a legal, rather than a religious, officiant. Thus, gay marriage represents a step towards separating out civil unions and religious marriage ceremonies.  Eventually, the notion of "marriage" as a legal act may disappear, to be replaced entirely with a civil union entirely independent of the religious ceremony which(this is the kicker) will no longer have any legal relevance.  Since the consequences of a civil union are practical, not spiritual, other religiously invalid unions(between siblings, between groups of more people) may even become legal. Ultimately, this does not weaken any marriages, but it does decrease the legal significance of the religious ceremony even further than it already has.  Right now the illegality of gay marriage has much to do with the fact that the major religious institutions do not want it to happen at all, for a variety of reasons, and recognizing gay marriages legally will represent a decrease in the power of those religious institutions to set policy. There is one other key point: by recognizing that homosexual sex is a valid practice, with a kind of legal stamp on it, it removes one tool that heterosexual people may use to encourage their children to also be heterosexual.  Right now they can claim that homosexual sex is simply wrong and point out that the government refuses to sanction the institution that justifies sex between married people.(Remember that such people are generally opposed to any non-married sex).  If this makes their children more likely to choose a homosexual lifestyle(or rather, to not force themselves into a heterosexual one against their inclinations), it decreases one of the reasons they themselves got married: to propagate a family, not just for children but unto the Nth generation. You can probably infer my own opinions and my refutations of these arguments, but you asked for their point: yes, gay marriage does weaken their marriages and the institution of marriage as they see it.

[chason58]

Beacuse it makes conflation of civil union and marriage seem silly The problem with gay marriage is that it makes it hard to justify getting the federal government involved in marriage at all. There is good reason to have a legal institution which recognizes that people often form pairs who depend on each other.  It is, for example, useful to recognize for tax purposes that a stay-at-home parent is an economic benefit to be encouraged.  A stay-at-home parent should get Social Security survivor benefits, for example, even though the actual direct contributions are zero.  It's extremely useful to have a legal structure that makes it easy to designate a medical guardian and decision maker.  And since children are usually best off in two-parent households, it's very useful to have a structure unifying their finances so that the children will be financially cared for in the event of a separation of the parents. These are all good cases for some sort of civil union, but they are not good cases for "marriage".  The notion of civil union and marriage have been conflated for centuries because that was the way things were done.  It is now the only time that a religious ceremony has a legal connotation.  The case for that conflation is shrinking.  Gay couples adopt children.  Close friends(or even siblings) may want to designate each other legally, just to have an obvious partner in an emergency.  The idea that one parent is a stay-at-home guardian is no longer mandatory; parents are often forced to find two incomes.   And when marriages are performed, they often done by a legal, rather than a religious, officiant. Thus, gay marriage represents a step towards separating out civil unions and religious marriage ceremonies.  Eventually, the notion of "marriage" as a legal act may disappear, to be replaced entirely with a civil union entirely independent of the religious ceremony which(this is the kicker) will no longer have any legal relevance.  Since the consequences of a civil union are practical, not spiritual, other religiously invalid unions(between siblings, between groups of more people) may even become legal. Ultimately, this does not weaken any marriages, but it does decrease the legal significance of the religious ceremony even further than it already has.  Right now the illegality of gay marriage has much to do with the fact that the major religious institutions do not want it to happen at all, for a variety of reasons, and recognizing gay marriages legally will represent a decrease in the power of those religious institutions to set policy. There is one other key point: by recognizing that homosexual sex is a valid practice, with a kind of legal stamp on it, it removes one tool that heterosexual people may use to encourage their children to also be heterosexual.  Right now they can claim that homosexual sex is simply wrong and point out that the government refuses to sanction the institution that justifies sex between married people.(Remember that such people are generally opposed to any non-married sex).  If this makes their children more likely to choose a homosexual lifestyle(or rather, to not force themselves into a heterosexual one against their inclinations), it decreases one of the reasons they themselves got married: to propagate a family, not just for children but unto the Nth generation. You can probably infer my own opinions and my refutations of these arguments, but you asked for their point: yes, gay marriage does weaken their marriages and the institution of marriage as they see it. PamPerdue 79 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.

[Foluke]

Not Possible There is no way gay marriage could weaken the institution of marriage. The "institution" if marriage is a religious aspect. Since religious organizations mostly do not accept the gay lifestyle anyway, a gay marriage would not be considered part of the "institution." To be married by contract(which is what a marriage license issued by a state really is) has no affect on the religious institution of marriage since this is simply a contract between two people agreeing to act as one entity.   I never have understood why this arguement hasn't been solved. Simply by using the Constitution, which demands the seperation of church and state, religious organizations do not have a leg to stand on. As far as amendments to laws, or new laws, prohibiting same sex marriages, I believe it would be illegal to discrimate in a contract using gender as a reason for either party.   People weaken the "institution" of marriage, no matter what sex they are, by not adhearing to the agreements they made to their partner when they decided to get married. It really doesn't matter what sex the two are. If one of the couple breaks the agreement and a divorce/separation develops, the "institution" of that marriage is destroyed. fr066er 79 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.

[Aisley]

You make good points, but if you read Parry Webster's Dictionary for the Actual Meaning of Words(or if such a book existed) you would realize the answer.  Marriage is not a sacred bond between two people that signifies commitment as well as societal and legal recognition, it is actually a term that denotes 1) "The ceremonial commitment of two people who can now betray each other, fight, get divorced with societal and legal recognition," and 2) "Good, holy, confirmed to be righteous." If we understand the actual definition of marriage,then certainly gay marriage would destroy such an institution.  Gay couples are bound to be more committed, stable and loving so they would effectively nullify the necessary treachery(and legal fees) inherent in marriage.  And because gay means 'wrong, unholy, something I am but won't admit to, etc.' in our society, then, of course, gay marriage would contravene a very important word. As crazy as this answer sounds, I think George Orwell would agree. (Thanks for your question; I think about this too.)

[Danon]

Live and let live, make your own choices and let others enjoy equal protection under the law 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. life-liberty-pursuit 79 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.

[Waite]

But you are misdefining marriage You make good points, but if you read Parry Webster's Dictionary for the Actual Meaning of Words(or if such a book existed) you would realize the answer.  Marriage is not a sacred bond between two people that signifies commitment as well as societal and legal recognition, it is actually a term that denotes 1) "The ceremonial commitment of two people who can now betray each other, fight, get divorced with societal and legal recognition," and 2) "Good, holy, confirmed to be righteous." If we understand the actual definition of marriage,then certainly gay marriage would destroy such an institution.  Gay couples are bound to be more committed, stable and loving so they would effectively nullify the necessary treachery(and legal fees) inherent in marriage.  And because gay means 'wrong, unholy, something I am but won't admit to, etc.' in our society, then, of course, gay marriage would contravene a very important word. As crazy as this answer sounds, I think George Orwell would agree. (Thanks for your question; I think about this too.) Callahan 79 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.

[Li]

There is no way gay marriage could weaken the institution of marriage. The "institution" if marriage is a religious aspect. Since religious organizations mostly do not accept the gay lifestyle anyway, a gay marriage would not be considered part of the "institution." To be married by contract(which is what a marriage license issued by a state really is) has no affect on the religious institution of marriage since this is simply a contract between two people agreeing to act as one entity.   I never have understood why this arguement hasn't been solved. Simply by using the Constitution, which demands the seperation of church and state, religious organizations do not have a leg to stand on. As far as amendments to laws, or new laws, prohibiting same sex marriages, I believe it would be illegal to discrimate in a contract using gender as a reason for either party.   People weaken the "institution" of marriage, no matter what sex they are, by not adhearing to the agreements they made to their partner when they decided to get married. It really doesn't matter what sex the two are. If one of the couple breaks the agreement and a divorce/separation develops, the "institution" of that marriage is destroyed.

[Apiatan]

It is a matter of definition, not the strength of any single union 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.  Manimal 79 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.

[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.