Contest – Has Gay Marriage Hurt your Marriage

I should think only the tiniest fraction of the people who oppose gay marriage do so on the grounds that it will hurt their marriage. This is just a red herring. Sometime, just for laughs, argue against an opinion you disagree with based on what it's advocates actuatelly do say.

A search at Google with the parameter: "homosexual marriage threatens traditional marriage" yielded 564,000 results in 0.33 seconds.

Search results

Sure seems as though somebody is making that argument--and making it frequently.

Q.11: How would so-called homosexual "marriage" hurt traditional marriage, children and families?
A: There are 4 main ways:

1) Marriage is about the next generation. Legal sanction of so-called homosexual "marriage" would always deny children either a mother or a father. A compassionate and loving society always comes to the aid of motherless and fatherless families. It never intentionally creates such families, and yet that is what homosexual "marriage" would do. These types of homosexual families are based on the desires of the adults, not the needs of the children. No child-development theory says children need parents of the same gender, but rather that children need their mothers and fathers.

2) Homosexual "marriage" is a vast, untested social experiment with children. No society, at any time, has ever raised a generation of children in homosexual families. In this instance, children are allowed to become the subject of sociological experiments for the sake of adult sexual desires.

3) If marriage is redefined to include two people of the same gender, where would it stop? How do we say no to group marriage? If marriage is simply about love and commitment, on what basis do we deny group marriage? There are already lawsuits underway challenging the laws that prohibit polygamy on the same grounds as used by homosexual "marriage" proponents. Is it bigotry and discrimination to oppose polygamy and group marriage? Of course not. Just like it is not bigotry or discrimination to protect the traditional and historical institution of marriage as one man and one woman.

4) If so-called homosexual "marriage" is legalized, school children will be taught it is the same as traditional marriage. The people of Wisconsin don't believe homosexual "marriage" is the same as traditional marriage. Yet if we allow the legalization of so-called homosexual "marriage," this will happen. There are already books written for small school children, such as Heather Has Two Mommies, Daddy's Roommate and King and King.

A Google search with the parameter: "homosexual marriage hurts traditional marriage" yielded 761,000 results in 0.20 seconds.

One can reasonably object that not all of the results represent cases of people claiming that homosexual marriage hurts, threatens or diminishes traditional marriage--but that does not alter that many of the search results lead to web pages which make exactly that claim. Brandon has written: This is just a red herring. Sometime, just for laughs, argue against an opinion you disagree with based on what it's advocates actuatelly [sic] do say. Brandon's contention that this is a red herring is patently false.

For an interesting example of what people claim that traditional marriage is threatened by homosexual marriage really do have to say, i suggest reading at the Wisconsin Coalition for Traditional Marriage, Inc. page (Cheeses, they're incorporated, no less). One interesting entry on this FAQ page is:

Quote:

Q.11: How would so-called homosexual "marriage" hurt traditional marriage, children and families?
A: There are 4 main ways:

1) Marriage is about the next generation. Legal sanction of so-called homosexual "marriage" would always deny children either a mother or a father. A compassionate and loving society always comes to the aid of motherless and fatherless families. It never intentionally creates such families, and yet that is what homosexual "marriage" would do. These types of homosexual families are based on the desires of the adults, not the needs of the children. No child-development theory says children need parents of the same gender, but rather that children need their mothers and fathers.

2) Homosexual "marriage" is a vast, untested social experiment with children. No society, at any time, has ever raised a generation of children in homosexual families. In this instance, children are allowed to become the subject of sociological experiments for the sake of adult sexual desires.

3) If marriage is redefined to include two people of the same gender, where would it stop? How do we say no to group marriage? If marriage is simply about love and commitment, on what basis do we deny group marriage? There are already lawsuits underway challenging the laws that prohibit polygamy on the same grounds as used by homosexual "marriage" proponents. Is it bigotry and discrimination to oppose polygamy and group marriage? Of course not. Just like it is not bigotry or discrimination to protect the traditional and historical institution of marriage as one man and one woman.

4) If so-called homosexual "marriage" is legalized, school children will be taught it is the same as traditional marriage. The people of Wisconsin don't believe homosexual "marriage" is the same as traditional marriage. Yet if we allow the legalization of so-called homosexual "marriage," this will happen. There are already books written for small school children, such as Heather Has Two Mommies, Daddy's Roommate and King and King.

You really blew it that time, Brandon.

O-K stop with the stats and debate - this is supposed to be funny.

Linkat wrote:

O-K stop with the stats and debate - this is supposed to be funny.

When you post an article ridiculing a belief, you can hardly be surprised that people who have that belief respond. If I someday post a cartoon depicting all liberals as ignorant and uneducated people, I'm sure that no liberals will try to defend themselves.

Linkat wrote:

O-K stop with the stats and debate - this is supposed to be funny.

When you post an article ridiculing a belief, you can hardly be surprised that people who have that belief respond. If I someday post a cartoon depicting all liberals as ignorant and uneducated people, I'm sure that no liberals will try to defend themselves.

Linkat wrote:

O-K stop with the stats and debate - this is supposed to be funny.

When you post an article ridiculing a belief, you can hardly be surprised that people who have that belief respond. If I someday post a cartoon depicting all liberals as ignorant and uneducated people, I'm sure that no liberals will try to defend themselves.