Followers of the same-sex marriage issue were forced to endure another painful round of marriage debates this week, as news commentators offered empty arguments against traditional marriage (e.g., “the State is unfairly favoring one type of love and attraction over another”) and absurd arguments favoring same-sex marriage (e.g., “one’s gay sexual tastes are analogous to being black or female”). To help erase the bad memories and fuzzy logic, here’s our own Marriage Debate:
- Q. What are the best arguments in favor of preserving and strengthening traditional marriage laws?
Before posting your answers in the comments box, consider our suggestions below–then have at it. To ensure your comments are posted, keep it clean. (There may be a brief delay while comments are being reviewed and approved.)
- MarriageNewsNow! Top Ten Arguments for Strengthening Traditional Marriage Laws
- The State has a definite interest in protecting by law the unique heterosexual union that creates, feeds, nurtures, and educates its massive citizenry from infancy to adulthood.
- Children need a long-term stable home that marriage law helps to ensure.
- Marriage law protects dependent spouses and children from economic destitution and poverty arising through spousal departure.
- Families formed without marriage contracts dissolve easily and repeatedly, leading to high rates of child neglect, abuse, and juvenile delinquency.
- Same-sex marriage threatens American democracy via judicial imposition of laws contrary to the democratically determined will of the American people.
- Gay marriage law removes basic freedoms with regard to religious ceremonies, the right to conscientious objection, and the right of parents to determine the educational curriculum for their own children.
- Legalization of gay marriage threatens constitutional rights of free speech under the guise of “hate speech” censorship laws.
- All cultures of human history have recognized marriage as a unique contract between men and women oriented to the long-term project of raising of families.
- Gay marriage defies nature’s own design; the parts don’t work that way.
- All major religions denounce same-sex marriage as against God and nature.
Advertisements
I think it’s a slippery slope. If marriage law is broadened away from only heterosexuals (who reproduce children) to include homosexuals, why wouldn’t ANY two people or more people of ANY group be allowed to be “married”?
So, if two gay people, why not three? Why not allow a bunch of college roommates to call themselves “married” while away at college? Why not allow a person to marry a step parent or grandmother? Perhaps Star Trek fanatics could be “married” because of their sci-fi attraction. I mean, should everyone get state marriage perks just for living with other humans???
Definitely agree marriage exists because of–and for the benefit of–families/kids. Like for any business, there has to be clear law to define and protect what a company does and who does what and such. Gays don’t make kids and families and therefore don’t need any special laws that prescribe their duties and penalize them for leaving the partnership.
So if a man and woman decide they don’t want children we should strip them of their legal marriage rights!!!! This website is absurd and hurtfull to the growth and establishment of our “GOD” given world. I am not gay nor am i an activist but people eed to be stopped! I thought the bible says that only “God” may judge others. If you really believe that what gay people are doing is wrong then let him speek to them about it. There is no reason why we shouldn’t let them have family health insurance because you want to protect the “Sanctity” of marriage! What a load! i don’t know what you are so scared of but all of you need help. And not from the bible. it has corrupted your common sense skills!
If children is a significant reason for marriage, when why wouldn’t we want to require people have a child first to show that the marriage will be fruitful.
Have we considered that married couples, with a large rate of Christians result in divorce? I would say that divorce hurts families more than the introduction of same sex marriage. And all major religions denounce same sex marriage as against God? Well sorry, but your god made us the way we are – homosexuality is abundant in nature, and is more natural than you’d like to accept.
What a bunch of quasi-religious hooey. Eg.: “All major religions denounce same-sex marriage as against God.” Hmm, in my country, the nation’s largest Protestant denomination (the United Church) is very much in favor of same-sex marriage. Odd, too, is how both the Reformed and the, er, Conservative branches of Judaism do too. Oh, and the Quakers. (Agreed, not really a “major” religion, but America used to pride itself on freedom of religion, so any appeal to religious prejudice holds no weight. OR at least shouldn’t, in a secular society.) Or, “The State has a definite interest in protecting by law the unique heterosexual union that creates, feeds, nurtures, and educates its massive citizenry from infancy to adulthood.” R-i-i-i-g-h-t. No homosexual has EVER had or raised a child. In the history of the world. Or, “Children need a long-term stable home that marriage law helps to ensure.” – Except, of course, for the children of homosexuals. The heck with them, eh? I mean, bein’ the child of a homerseckshul is maybe worse than actually being a sodomite. Or, “Marriage law protects dependent spouses and children from economic destitution and poverty arising through spousal departure.” And queer spouses and their children need no such protection, eh? Or, “Families formed without marriage contracts dissolve easily and repeatedly, leading to high rates of child neglect, abuse, and juvenile delinquency.” So let’s forbid gay couples from even having marriage contracts, thus virtually guaranteeing their so-called “marriages” will “dissolve easily and repeatedly. Does the right not even know about the concept of logic? Or justice? Or, “Same-sex marriage threatens American democracy via judicial imposition of laws contrary to the democratically determined will of the American people.” Which merely ignores the several States that have passed same-sex marriage laws in their Legislatures. And, which conveniently also ignores the very role of the judiciary in determining the Constitutionality of laws that were purportedly “democratically determined”. I wonder who else’s rights “the American people (TM) can now put to a vote?
Really, you should think twice about typing such easily disprovable sites. It discredits your arguments. Oh, and the best/most laughable: “Gay marriage defies nature’s own design; the parts don’t work that way.” They’ve ‘worked’ just fine for me and my husband for going on near 25 years now. How silly. Really, your side must do better if you hope to have even a modicum of believability.
Megsamillion, easy divorce is a major problem, but gay marriage laws have the same negative effect. Both must be rejected.
The *legal* stipulations of marriage law, when written to include gays, are that the agreement is temporary, romance based, and easily dissolvable. Such a legal contract is outright dangerous to heterosexual adults whose biology causes them to raise kids for decades. Gays don’t have any similar situation by nature.
When heterosexuals look at the terms of the gay marriage contract (which would be the contract for everyone, by the way), they note that (1) there is no mention of kids anywhere, (2) the contract allows easy spousal abandonment, and (3) there’s no legal recourse for the economic dependents (usually women, and the children) regarding breach of contract. In other words, this gay marriage law does nothing to stop rampant fraud and victimization.
The same-sex law works fine for homosexuals who do not have the economic risks heterosexuals do. However, gay marriage law simply doesn’t work for heterosexuals. It doesn’t address their economic and legal needs whatsoever, especially those of the children. As a result, women and children are victimized repeatedly and severely by bored spouses who feel that they’ve “just lost the spark.” Divorce kills futures.