Is traditional marriage threatened by gay marriage?

[radical_logic]

Those who contend that traditional marriage is threatened by gay marriage need to address and refute the following argument.

(1). The existence of heterosexual marriages--for existing married heterosexual couples (henceforth HSC)--is not threatened by the existence of homosexual marriages.
(2). The existence of potential future heterosexual marriages--for unmarried HSC--is not threatened by the existence of homosexual marriages.
(3). The personal value of heterosexual marriages--for existing married HSC--is not threatened by the existence of homosexual marriages.
(4). The personal value of potential future heterosexual marriages--for unmarried HSC--is not threatened by the existence of homosexual marriages.
---------------------------
(5). Therefore, heterosexual marriages are not threatened by homosexual marriages.
(6). Therefore, traditional marriage is not threatened by gay marriage.

Those who declare (1) to be false must demonstrate that heterosexual marriages--for existing married HSC--could cease to exist simply because homosexual marriages exist. Who can make such an argument?

Those who declare (2) to be false must demonstrate that potential future heterosexual marriages--for unmarried HSC--might not exist simply because homosexual marriages exist. Who can make such an argument?

Those who declare (3) to be false must demonstrate that the personal value of heterosexual marriages--for existing married HSC--is threatened by homosexual marriages. Who can make such an argument?

Those who declare (4) to be false must demonstrate that the personal value of potential future heterosexual marriages--for unmarried HSC--would be threatened simply because homosexual marriages exist. Who can make such an argument?

Those who accept (1)-(4) but declare (5) to be false have a difficult task ahead of them: they must articulate the threat posed by heterosexual marriages to existing and potential heterosexual marriages--for existing married and unmarried HSC--not covered under (1)-(4). But what could that threat be? Who can articulate and demonstrate such a threat?

Those who accept (1)-(5) but declare (6) to be false need to articulate the distinction between the concept of heterosexual marriage and traditional marriage. Who can articulate and defend such a distinction?

[aarons914]

Theres an interesting video floating around about the effects of gay marriage in Massachusetts since its been legal for a few years now. They actually have some of the high ups in the church talking about the common myths associated with gay marriage. Basically none of the things have happened that the religious arguments have said. Big surprise, the religious right wing using scare tactics to make sure gays don't have the same rights we all share.

[OpenedUp]

Theres an interesting video floating around about the effects of gay marriage in Massachusetts since its been legal for a few years now. They actually have some of the high ups in the church talking about the common myths associated with gay marriage. Basically none of the things have happened that the religious arguments have said. Big surprise, the religious right wing using scare tactics to make sure gays don't have the same rights we all share.

You mean Massachusettes isn't getting read to legalize marriage between animals and humans? Little boys aren't going around the playground &$%@$#% each other off (an argument used by one of my more conservative friends)? Cracks of molten lava aren't opening from the ground, engulfing the state in fire and brimstone?

[jmac2112]

The whole "gay marriage" thing seems to me to be more of a symptom than cause of the debasement of marriage. Gays are not responsible for the fact that most people view marriage as a mere legal contract of indeterminate duration, primarily for the benefit of the married couple, which can be nullified by either party at any time for any reason. When "marriage" becomes just a formality that you go through to make your Mom happy, it's hard to argue against "gay marriage".

Most societies through the ages, and not just Christian ones, have thought that one of the main purposes of marriage is to (let's be frank) coerce a man and a woman to stay together even when they (almost inevitably)
"fall out of love" (assuming it wasn't an arranged marriage to begin with), so that there will be a stable environment for the nurturing of children. The reason that the government gets involved is that a) how kids are raised affects society at large, not just the family in question, and b) it's hard for individuals to enforce any contract, not just marriage. No society has ever come close to perfection in this regard, but the more success they have, the better off they are.

So, my beef is not primarily with "gay marriage" but with the modern understanding of "marriage". Wanna see the fruits of this understanding? Go down to your local high school. Wanna quibble about what you see? Take someone with you who went to high school before the sexual revolution.

[micatala]

Theres an interesting video floating around about the effects of gay marriage in Massachusetts since its been legal for a few years now. They actually have some of the high ups in the church talking about the common myths associated with gay marriage. Basically none of the things have happened that the religious arguments have said. Big surprise, the religious right wing using scare tactics to make sure gays don't have the same rights we all share.

You mean Massachusettes isn't getting read to legalize marriage between animals and humans? Little boys aren't going around the playground &$%@$#% each other off (an argument used by one of my more conservative friends)? Cracks of molten lava aren't opening from the ground, engulfing the state in fire and brimstone?

Don't worry. If none of these things happen it won't stop some anti-gay activists from simply inventing catastrophic consequences and purveying them as truth.

More likely, they will be able to find some actual isolated event or two they will then distort into the face of gay marriage. One gay couple who ends up abusing a kid and this will be all they talk about, ignoring the hundreds or thousands of other perfectly upstanding gay couples.


However, the more places legalize gay marriage and the more time elapses to form a track record, the harder it will be for anti-gay activists to make their case. A few statistical studies on the effects (or non-effects) of gay marriage will show the scare tactics for what they are, hyperbolic fantasies with little or no basis in fact.

[Zzyzx]

.

So, my beef is not primarily with "gay marriage" but with the modern understanding of "marriage". Wanna see the fruits of this understanding? Go down to your local high school. Wanna quibble about what you see? Take someone with you who went to high school before the sexual revolution.

I have not visited a high school for many years. Evidently you have, right? If you have not personally visited, where exactly do you get your information?

If I did go, what do you suggest I would see that relates to marriage?

I went to school long before the sexual revolution (1940s and 50s). Why would others benefit by having me along?

Z

[Scotracer]

As a LGBT individual the fact this is even being discussed just shows how backwards humanity actually is.

From clinging to bronze-age beliefs to promoting the subjugation of LGBT people - it really does make you wonder how we can call ourselves the most advanced species on this planet.

[Easyrider]

As a LGBT individual the fact this is even being discussed just shows how backwards humanity actually is.

From clinging to bronze-age beliefs to promoting the subjugation of LGBT people - it really does make you wonder how we can call ourselves the most advanced species on this planet.

IMO there's nothing new or enlightened about illicit gay sex sin. It's been going on since Sodom and Gomorrah ("Bronze Age"?).

[Scotracer]

Yes, I'm a sinner - I should burn

[OpenedUp]

I'm confused on what exactly is supposed to happen if we allow same-sex marriage.

There are SEVEN countires that allow same sex marriage- The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada [<---which I didn't know], South Africa, and Norway.

And guess what, all of the scare tactics and bad things that were supposed to happen if gay marriage was legalized haven't happened there either...


Anyway, Here is the point:

Divorce rates fell in Scandinavia after same-sex Unions were legalized

...
Will gay marriage undermine marriage? No. As proof, we look at the long history of same-sex marriage (as registered partnerships) in Scandinavia. Denmark has been registering same-sex partners since 1989, Norway since 1993 and Sweden since 1995. Marriage Protection Amendment supporters claim that marriage has eroded in these countries as a result of their experiment with same-sex marriage. Our book reports the actual evidence from these countries.

Before Denmark recognized same-sex couples in 1989, the Danish marriage rate was falling, and the divorce and non-marital childbirth rates soared. If the president was right that gay marriage harms the institution, one would expect these trends to accelerate after that country recognized lesbian and gay partnerships.

Yet the opposite occurred: After 1989, the marriage rate increased, the divorce rate fell and the rate of childbirths outside of marriage declined for the first time in decades. Similar but less dramatic trends occurred in the other Scandinavian countries.

State recognition of lesbian and gay unions does not harm the institution of marriage.

Moreover, allowing same-sex couples to marry has a number of positive benefits. We interviewed a wide variety of Danish couples who had registered as partners. They told us how their legal unions deepened their commitment to each other, helped legally protect the children they were raising, enriched their relationships with family members and co-workers, and helped educate the community. One couple even reported that their enthusiasm for marriage inspired their heterosexual friends to formalize their own union in marriage.

Our book documents the numerous social and community benefits from Scandinavian recognition of lesbian and gay partnerships. Because marriage and partnership serve private social welfare functions, legal recognition stands to save the state money. Recognition helps integrate lesbian and gay families into the larger society and helps attract productive workers to the country.

We also found that partnership recognition contributed to the success of Scandinavian programs to prevent AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases...

Soooo, marriage rates of Heterosexual couples went UP, and divorce rates went DOWN.


That's pretty damning for the "Gay marriage degrades traditional marriage" argument