what are the possible affects of gay marriage?

The family unit was modified when homosexuality became legal. In what way would homosexual marriage modify it further and, if this sort of modification is undesirable, what steps should be taken to counteract that which has already happened?

 

I really like the way you worded that! Frubals!

I think the longer it takes for gay couples to have the same status as hetero couples, the more slowly we advance towards acceptence of people as they are everywhere. Anything against that motion is going nowhere fast.

 

Besides the fact that we live in a society that can't any longer distinguish what is right and wrong , natural or unnatural, but only what is relative, it's just physiologically wrong in every aspect,including morally and psychologically.

Maybe not today,as behaviors and actions seldom are immediate in consequence, but another 20 yrs of these permissive practices and we will have many other sexually permitted practices,such as beastiality, incest, etc. openly practiced.
I mean who's to stop them from gaining rights of free sexual practice when many other's are permitted.
I mean who do we think we are opening such a pandora's box and then thinking we can exclude others who say what they want to practice is wrong.
Tha's just not the direction our society we live in today is going in.
This is the point, we say, ya to one practice, but nay to other's ,it won't be long before they petition for their rights just as gays have, pro abortionists,euthanasia etc

50 yrs ago this was a destestable practice in our society,it's always been that, but now we live in poltically correct culture where anything is permitted and when other's oppose it they are labelled intolerent,discriminatory and the like.

More importantly, it's the long term effect and influence it will have on children.
Of course I hear reports that ther is no proof of that ,yet there are reports that it is.
We just bury our heads in the sand and say, indulge in what makes you feel good, that's all that matters.
I think a homosexual enviroment promotes and influences a more bias and acceptable practice for most children growing up in such enviroment.

Hitler said it best ,"tell a lie often enough, long enough ,loud enough people will beleive it"
if people choose to to put their heads in the sand and live just in the feeling of the moment we are doomed,it's what's coming that will effect our society, it usually is the long term effects that

 

How do you figure?

Personally, I don't think there is such a thing as absolute or objective morality; relative morality is all we have. Who are you to want to impose your views on people who agree with me? Who are you to impose your views on people who do believe in an absolute morality, but also believe that morality allows same-sex marriage.

Also, it seems like you're approaching things from the standpoint of deciding between the option of having families with having married same-sex parents, or the option of having no families with same-sex parents at all. Those aren't the real choices. Here are your actual options:

- unmarried same-sex couples who live as couples, who raise families without the normal protections of law given to families
- married same-sex couples who live as couples, who raise families with the normal protections of law given to families

Regardless of your personal feelings on homosexuality, given that same-sex-parented families exist and will continue to exist whatever happens with the law, why would you be opposed to normal legal protections for what is most definitely a family unit?

IOW, your main objections to same-sex marriage aren't related to the immediate issue at hand, but what you think that same-sex marriage might lead to? If your mind could be eased that allowing same-sex couples to marry wouldn't "open a pandora's box", then would you consider it societally acceptable? Is that a fair assessment?

50 years ago, it was considered societally acceptable to have the "coloured" people drink out of a different water fountain. Is that society really the one you want to aspire to be like?

There's lots of evidence about the long-term effect of same-sex marriages on children: being raised in a loving home is good for kids, regardless of the orientation of the parents; being raised in a troubled home is bad for kids, regardless of the orientation of the parents.

Do you think that making life difficult for same-sex parents by denying them and their families the usual rights and benefits of law helps or hinders their ability their ability to provide a loving home for their children?

It is an acceptable practice, so why is this an issue?

How exactly do you think that creating a lifetime commitment through marriage is living "just in the feeling of the moment"?

 

I am an ordained clergy person in Spiritual Humanism and I stand up with all couples including gay and lesbian couples.Good for society and family values-- committing to another through thick and thin is a good thing- lends strength to a family.The idea of children in foster care vs perm homes is a no-brainer for me-- get them in homes with loving parents and never mind the plumbing of the parents- just my 2 cents on the topic--btw-- glad to be here! (and to hear from others and learn from different view points)

 

No they don't. My friend Nicole and her girlfriend do not have a dominant/passive relationship - they're equals. For that matter, my husband and I don't have a dominant/passive relationship, either, so it's not as "obviously natural" as you seem to think it is.

 

Start a thread explaining what it means to be an "ordained clergy person" in Spiritual Humanism. @ once. I want to know more.

BTW, by being a spiritual humanist, do I get my superpowers back?

 

There would be mass demonstrations of incredible ignorance and stupidity by those opposed.

It better.

No.

 

There's a difference between morality and law.

Even if his family means nothing to you, that doesn't change the fact that they are important to him and each of their lives is important to them. Whether it is inherently morally wrong or not, it would still be bad for everyone else involved.

Moral relativism aside, letting a gay couple marry is nothing like letting someone kill your family.

Not everyone would be gay.
Gay couples are still capable of having children.

 

In what way, specifically? Do you think more people will become homosexual if same-sex marriages are permitted, or that more homosexuals will choose not to be in a relationship at all, or that more homosexuals will pretend to be heterosexual, or what?

How, specifically, would allowing homosexual unions modify the family unit?

I'll be interested to know why you believe it.

 

It seems utterly implausible to me that allowing gay marriages will create more homosexuals. Sexual orientation seems to be fixed early on in development. It does not appear to have anything to do with the availability of marriage.

 

Did someone say it would?
That would be odd. That seems to imply that homosexuality is intrinsically appealing or desirable, and we need to design negative consequences to persuade people not to choose it.

 

Sometimes the purpose of sex is pleasure and not procreation. I do not know your individual beliefs, but if you believe oral sex and birth control are fine then you recognize sex can be for pleasure alone and it would be hypocritical to say anal sex is wrong. If you believe birth control and oral sex are wrong then please disregard this argument.

Who are you to say what is right or wrong? I would tell my kid I feel this is wrong regardless of what he feels. If you were in that same situation but your child said he felt God wanted him to kill the person what would you do?

This all depends on the purpose of sex. The people involved in anal intercourse are trying to have fun. Sure if they were trying to make a child they would be doing it wrong, but they are doing it for pleasure so they are doing it right.

If love and nurture are not present the child will not turn out right no matter what assortment of parents they have.

I don't necessarily get your sex with animals example... We are not talking about allowing anal sex, we are talking about rights for homosexual couples. The sex is already allowed. It is a very bad example.

I won't give you my view on incest because I imagine it would derail this thread

If society feels something is morally acceptable a democratic nation should see this and change its laws to allow it. When slavery was legal it was morally acceptable to own slaves. This changed and so did the slavery laws. Then it was morally acceptable to be racist. Society changed and so did the laws. Now we are coming out of the period where it was morally acceptable to be homophobic and the laws will change to show it.

It is unnatural to wait till marriage to have sex. It is hypocritical to say anal sex is wrong because it is unnatural when you practice unnatural things yourself. The natural way to go about things is to listen to our bodies, and let me tell you, our bodies do not say wait for marriage to have sex.

I'm not gay but I think two tops is physically impossible.

 

I hear it all the time down here in Colorado Springs -- home to Focus on the Family. Many people here actually seem to believe that homosexuality is so attractive we must erect sanctions against it to prevent straight people from adopting "the homosexual lifestyle".

 

I remember reading somewhere (I don't have the source and have no idea where, so this should be taken with a block of salt ) that there were some health benefits to anal sex, including increased blood flow and muscle strengthening...

But that's a little off-topic, isn't it? Anal sex is to gay marriage as oral sex is to straight marriage; it's an activity not exclusive to homosexuality, and is not necessarily done.

 

I assume you're also against surgery, since the skin is an organ apparently "designed" to keep out foreign matter. After surgeons breach this protective barrier, it takes considerable care and often strong medication to make sure that the patient doesn't get a life-threatening infection.

And again, what about people who either disagree with the idea that body parts have intended uses (which, IMO, implies a conscious intent on the part of some designer), or believe that they do, but disagree with your assessment? Why should your opinion dictate the law that affects everyone?

And also, whether or not homosexuality should be legal is not at issue here. Whether same-sex marriage is legal or not, anyone is free to engage in consensual (subject to the normal restrictions of age, relationship, etc.) sexual activity with a member of the same sex. The issue is the legal recognition of existing couples and families, not the existence of those couples and families.

But back to your original statement. You wrote that homosexuality is "just physiologically wrong in every aspect,including morally and psychologically." So... again, how so? What reason do you have to say that homosexuality is physiologically wrong (keeping in mind that the "design intent" doesn't hold water if you're willing to have surgery, wear glasses or do a hundred other things that go against the apparent "intent" of our purported "designer")? What reason do you have to say that homosexuality is morally wrong? What reason do you have to say that homosexuality is psychologically wrong?

I didn't say that there aren't societal and cultural conventions and norms of behaviour... of course there are. But if you look at various cultures over various times, you'll quickly see that what is considered "right and wrong" is very much dependent on where and when you look. Even if you want to argue that there is some objective standard that's the "best" moral system, I'd argue that it's clear that humanity has absolutely no idea what it is.

No, of course not. Just because I don't submit to your interpretation of the "rules" doesn't mean that I don't believe in rules at all. As it happens, I believe that the "rules" vary from place to place and from one time to another, but I do acknowledge that every society has rules for behaviour.

Since it seems you forget, I also stated that people can disagree with your position even if they agree with the idea of one objective, absolute morality.

And call it being "philosophical" if you want, but I believe that it's simple human decency to not harm people without a very good reason. This is what you're advocating, and so far, you've only given fallacious arguments and your own unsubstantiated opinion to support your position. While you're free to believe whatever you want, I don't accept this as support for public policy or any action that's going to have an impact on others..

Gay single life is already permitted and endorsed (at least legally) fully and completely. Civilization has yet to crumble.

It's exactly the same thing. You're asking for state-sanctioned discrimination against one group for no reason other than your own personal opinion. It's just as wrong.

I've yet to find such an article that wasn't prepared by a group trying to shore up support for a position they already had before the "study".

Apparently we are ignorant. Please tell us... where will abortion, euthanasia and same-sex marriage lead? Be sure to spell out the process step-by-step so we can understand how we'd get from this to Hell on Earth.

But you're right... the march to freedom and equality has been a bad move generally. Maybe we should back things up a bit; where would you draw the line? Get rid of racial equality? Gender equality? Actually, I think the "slippery slope" may have begun with freedom of religion... maybe we should get rid of that, right?

I find it acceptable. Please... inform those assembled what exactly my own "immoral practices" are for which I'm easing my "weary and guilty conscience".

Gay Pride Day is a single festival, and while it's one expression of homosexuality (sort of how Mardi Gras is one expression of the culture at large), it's just one expression of it.

But contrast the Gay Pride parade with an expression of heterosexuality: the strip club. As a straight man, I am definitely not defined by this thing that is heterosexual as heterosexual can be; are you?

Homosexuality is just as broad as heterosexuality, and condemning all gay people because of things you find objectionable at the Gay Pride Parade doesn't make sense. Do you draw conclusions about the moral character or parenting ability of all heterosexuals based on the antics of the people at a New Orleans Mardi Gras? If not, do you think it's appropriate to draw similar conclusions about an entire group of people another (and in many ways tamer) street festival?

 

I'm sure is does increase blood flow, any flexation of muscle will do that, but strengthening the muscle ,what muscle, if your referring to the anal,tell that to those who have to wear diapers because they have destroyed the anal muscle that is essential for terd control

 

Sometime when I'm drinking I'll share with you the gospel song I wrote a few weeks ago, "Gays and lesbians destroyed my marriage." It's the lament of a good Christian heterosexual whose life was wrecked when homosexuals destroyed the sanctity of his marriage. Probably be a big hit on Christian radio.