Could someone tell me how gay marriage would effect us heteros negatively?

[coloradodem2005]

The Republicans keep talking about how liberals are forcing their definition of marriage on the country by making gay marriage legal. How? This is how I see it. By forcing a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, the Repubs are forcing their values on the gays and turning them into second class citizens. If we accept it, everybody is equal. <gasp> How terrible. We cannot have equality in George W. Bush's America. His goal is to turn back the clock on everything.

Republicans Leave Massachusetts alone. Leave San Francisco alone. Leave the gay community alone. They have done nothing to you. If they want to get married or at least get a civil union let them.

[David Dunham]

1. It Won't In any way.

[Joe Momma]

2. it would not

[AndyP]

3. Nothing

I don't see any one thing wrong with it. I think if a gay couple is married then hetro people's marriage is nothing less, so what's the big deal?

[yellowcanine]

4. Why yes - your spouse is going to dump you for someone

of the same sex. Lots of heteros out there just biding their time, dontcha know? All of the pent up lusting for a same sex marriage is going to explode and end marriage as we know it.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

9. Been there, done that.

Turns out that my first wife and I shared a lot of the same interests ot-- moviehs, art, nature, travel. Unfortunately it turned out we b shared an interest in women, too.

[MurikanDemocrat]

12. ROTFL!

Hetero's everywhere will suddenly become susceptible to complete sexuality conversions! Overnight!

[unblock]

5. why, your heteromarriage would become utterly meaningless

<sarcasm>

your spouse will no longer feel any commitment nor any sense of obligation or duty to either you or your children.

marriage would cease to be anything anyone took seriously, and bastard children would roam the streets, abandoned by all.

but then, god would unleash more sin-targetting diseases like aids, so all the evil people would be struck down by the wrath of god.

so you see, it all works out nicely in the end either way.

</sarcasm>

[brainshrub]

6. Gays would find out that marriage is a sham

and then they would tell everyone! This would make women even LESS likely to spend their lives with us. Within a few years all us hetero men will die lonely and sexless.

Gay marriage must be stopped at all costs!!!!

[leftofthedial]

7. there will be THEM sinning and getting away with it

we would get coodies from the abhorrence of it all.

[MurikanDemocrat]

8. It would have no negative affect on us at all.

None whatsoever. And I have some strenuous objections to screwing with the Constitution to TAKE AWAY rights, from ANYONE.

[foreigncorrespondent]

10. Oh but we have done something to them...

...most of us don't vote for the party of bigots. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Terwilliger]

11. Straights might have to accept their own homoerotic desires...

Like a life, children, mortgage, Fridays at the Castro, dog, etc.

[havocmom]

13. Cartoonist David Fitzsimmons chimed in the other day

with this offering:
<>

I heartily recommend getting your daily Fizt Fix
http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/relatedarticles/9375.php

[Bertha Venation]

33. that's beautiful

thanks for posting

[Syrinx]

14. it would destroy the holy tradition of marriage

Or something. :shrug:

[kenny blankenship]

26. you mean

the last little scrap of marriage's sacredness that was not shat on by britney spear's 10 hour marriage and insta-divorce turnaround ?

[papau]

31. hetero dream of converting gay with good sex runs into marriage bond?

Fundie decision time (not that fundies do not have affairs with married others - or do not have affairs while married - just that this adds another right and wrong decision to the mix)

[mountainvue]

15. I don't

think it will at all. I can't even believe that they are pursuing this issue. We've take a hard, hard right in the last four years.

[stevedeshazer]

16. But what about the "sanctity" of marriage?

After all, God meant for man and woman to be together. You mean you'd throw away all 5,000 years of existence and suddenly allow a man to marry a man, or a woman to marry a woman? God meant for us to reproduce! It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!

Gays can't have children, which is ordained by God! And it's biological, too! Women should raise children and men should PROVIDE!

What, now I suppose you suggest that "Heather Has Two Mommies"?!

My goodness gracious, what would Aunt Gladys and Pastor Uncle Dumdum think?

We need to protect our CHILDREN!! The kulture war has begun!! They HATE us for our FREEDOMS!! Jeezus Lord Awmighty, GET WITH THE PROGRAM!! OUR ENTIRE WAY OF LIFE IS AT STAKE!! Everything changed after 9/11!!

Oh, and some of my best friends are gay. And black. And liberal. Really. I don't care what they do in the bedroom (I know, because I've seen it on the internet.) But they CAN"T get MARRIED! Everyone knows that marriage is sacred between ONE man and ONE woman.

If we allow this, pretty soon you can marry ANIMALS!! And DIRT and MARTIANS!!

We must follow the word of GAWD. And HE told me it is WRONG! I spoke with him this morning! Just after I was BORN AGAIN!
</sarcasm>
_______________________________________________________________________

Seriously, this is their entire argument.

Steve, born right the first time....

[robertpaulsen]

28. LOL, Stevie D!

You forgot the part about gay marriage turning America into Sodom and Gomorrah, which will cause Gawd to initiate the Rapture to bring good straight non-deviate Christians home to heaven and leave the godless immoral liberal fornicators to their Satanic doom.

That aside, you nailed their Medieval mindset.

[kitkatrose]

36. Heck, if gay marriage brought the Rapture,

you'd think all those fundies would be salivating at the thought of being nearer to their God. Unless of course, they knew deep down, that they were going to hell for all eternity. :evilgrin:

[Lefta Dissenter]

17. Hey, it's just like the woman who called into C-SPAN said,

If you vote for Kerry, the next thing you know, a man will be walking down the aisle with his... horse!!! I can't afford to pay for a wedding, or even a rehearsal dinner, for my horses, so I think it's just downright WRONG!!


I guess she didn't quite realize that Kerry isn't in favor of gay marriage, anyway. :shrug: It shows a lack of education on SO many levels! :(

[mhr]

18. Fundie Christians Would Live In Fear That Someone Is Committing Sin!

Bush's two objectives are to prevent fear in fundies and rape them economically via multinational corporations.

[justinpower]

19. Swinger parties would never be the same.

[Nobody]

20. According to tradition....

marriage was a property transfer. You let two people of the same sex marry, which partner is the chattel?

[thinkingwoman]

48. LOL!!!

Thank you. That's the best answer I've heard about this issue!

Who will be the chattel? should replace What will we tell the children?

[TreasonousBastard]

21. I just wanna know about...

gay DIVORCE.

Who gets the house, the kids, the dog, the strapons...

Alimony... Child support...

Lawyers...

Half of all conventional marriages already end up in divorce, so the concept seems to have some cracks already. And, there seem to be some pretty well established conventions for divvying things up.

So, if we have to make up some new, non-gender-specific, rules for gay divorce, it will be very interesting, indeed.

[mondo joe]

22. The laws are already non-gender specific

Husbands or wives can get alimony and/or child support depending on the circumstances of the marriage and divorce.

Same sex marriage doesn't change anything in this arena.

[kenny blankenship]

25. as long as it's called marriage

and not something else, then divorce will work exactly the same way.

Really, if you hate gay people, letting them get married is probably your best shot at making their lives miserable short of dragging them out to a lonely stretch of road, tying them to a fence and beating them to death's doorstep and letting them die of exposure.

50% of the time, these little imps of Satan will end up in divorce court. Short of being witness to their come-uppance at the Last Judgment, could the schadenfreude get any better? No, and I can't imagine why this doesn't overrule the gaybashers' objection to gay marriage.

But then I'm gay, and can't really fathom the malignant workings of the religiously insane, homophobic mind.

[Virginian]

23. If gays can marry then all these hetero men will

suddenly turn gay and marry other men. Hetero relationships will terminate left and right and all these kids will be in homes where there are two mommys or two daddys and the whole universe will think the rules don't count, including gravity, and planets will fall out of their orbits and go hurling into suns and it will be the end of life as we know it. (sarcasm)

I asked my husband if he could explain it to me, and he could. He said the people fighting gay marriage think being gay is a sin. So the part I still don't get is: How can being in love with someone and wanting to commit yourself to them for the rest of your life be a sin?

As we said in the 60's, "Peace, Make love not war."

[Bertha Venation]

35. I want answers from the "right" to BOTH questions:

Both "How will gay marriage harm 'the institution?'"

and your question, "How can being in love with someone and wanting to commit yourself to them for the rest of your life be a sin?"

And I want answers devoid of religious "reasoning," scriptural references, stereotyping, lies, "evidence" from research by self-professed scientists who have never submitted their research for peer review, etc.

I think the "right" KNOWS they have no basis for their claims other than two bases that cannot be used in this country:

RELIGION AND BIGOTRY.

Oops -- but they'd never admit to the bigotry, and they'd obfuscate on the religion by beginning the "this is a Christian nation" bullshit harangue.

[kitkatrose]

38. You're probably not going to get an answer,

because the only way objection to gay marriage makes sense is throught religious justification.

"How will gay marriage harm 'the institution?'"

The only way this makes sense is if you view marriage as primarily a means for procreation. Since gays cannot procreate together, they have taken the main meaning out of marriage. Now, I think most people disagree with their definition of marriage, so there probably won't be any common ground there, but that's the only reason I can think of that makes some sort of sense.

"How can being in love with someone and wanting to commit yourself to them for the rest of your life be a sin?"

Okay, this one's tricky. Sin is a religious term, so you can't really take the religion out of this one, but I'll try to keep it at a minimum. My personal take on this is that fundies don't see gay love as valid. It's merely 'lust of the flesh' or some such nonsense, kind of on par with premarital sex. If being gay is defined as having sex with the same gender , then it can only be lust in their eyes, which is a sin.

I hope that makes sense.

[Bertha Venation]

44. Yes, makes sense.

Your answers are quite similar to the answers we hear. I used to be a fundy, kitkatrose, long ago, and I railed stupidly, ignorantly against the homosexual lifestyle even as I suffered in my closet.

These religious 'phobes refuse to accept that all of their objections disintegrate in the face of reality. Part of the fundamental problem is that they don't accept the reality most of us know. Their "reality" is in a world of blind faith and unquestioning belief in the Bible as the sole authority on the teaching & expectations of the world's one true leader.

I could explain to one of these misguided, ignorant folks how I lived apart from my mate for a year, and how I uprooted and left my family and the only home & life I'd ever known to make a new life with this woman on the other side of the continent. He would be incapable of hearing me. I could ask "how is it then that I am supposedly ruled by perverted desire and insatiable fleshly lust?" He, convinced that I am just a poor, hateful sinner, could only reply by saying, "The Bible says that you are."

edited for clarity (I hope)

[kitkatrose]

47. I'm glad you're not a fundy anymore.

These religious 'phobes refuse to accept that all of their objections disintegrate in the face of reality. Part of the fundamental problem is that they don't accept the reality most of us know. Their "reality" is in a world of blind faith and unquestioning belief in the Bible as the sole authority on the teaching & expectations of the world's one true leader.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I wonder how they would take it if you turned their logic against them. Someone posted a while back that some fundies they knew were intentionally making a lot of waste because the world isn't going to last and that it doesn't matter how we treat the Earth cause we have a heavenly home, etc. If you told them that they shouldn't concentrate on the affairs of men since it'll deter them from their heavenly goal :eyes:, I wonder if their head'll explode. :evilgrin:

I also wonder what'll happen if you make the case for gay marriage from a purely legal standpoint. That whether or not they like it, government has meddled in religious affairs when it granted married couples numerous benefits, and as such it becomes a federal institution subject to federal laws (can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation). So if they want marriage to be a 'religious institution' then they'd have to give up the federal benefits, right?

[Bertha Venation]

52. the secular state of marriage

Another DUer called me yesterday, very excited, w/ news that she'd had a fabulous conversation with her mother, a Southern Baptist. Long story short, she got her mother to see that the marriage rights we're demanding have nothing to do with the church and everything to do with the way the state sees a couple -- her mother saw that it is a legal contract, not some religious sacrament, that we're demanding.

Revelations like that come only one-on-one, I believe. I think the only way to win any fundy over is by making it clear that all wee seek are the secular, civil rights attendant to a marriage license. I don't want to walk into my old church and demand to be married there.

Even so, that will change few fundies' minds.

[countmyvote4real]

24. Back to the original question...

How gay marriage would effect us heteros negatively?

• Gays will just do it better - fabulous ceremonies and a better success rate. Of course, that doesn’t count if they marry Liza Minnelli. Then all advantages are off.

• There will be less people to feel superior over in a legal way. Everybody can still hate people for their race, religion, politics and sexual persuasion, but hate will have to be “equal” under the law. That only leaves the French to deride. Bummer.

• The children will be confused when there’s no longer a mixed message about equal rights.

• Parents of same sex couples will gain a child of the same sex instead of the opposite sex “they wished they’d always wanted.”

• The Bible will be exposed for not really codifying marriage as being between a man and a woman or a dog and a cat. At it’s best the Bible (if you strive to live by either the Old or New Testament) will be found to have further contradictions in a world thousands of years later. At it’s worst, family pets will sue.

• This is a mixed one. Desirable neighborhoods will become more desirable. Property values will probably go up. Not good for taxes, but great if you’re selling.

• Polygamous families in Utah will have to have multiple husbands.

* It will revoke the sanctity of a marriage. Well maybe so IF your God (whatever) was paying attention to these events. Marriage is as sacred as you believe it to be and yet it still requires a license from the state. Hmmm. Might be a nice way to weasel out of something not so sacred anymore.

Sarcasm off.

I applaud ColordoDem2004 for the presentation of this post. In no way do I mean to deride this poster with the sarcasm of my response. In fact, I can’t think of any real reason why gay marriage should be a threat to any heterosexual marriage.

It’s just stupid and hypocritical to think otherwise.

Equal is equal or it’s not.

[Serenity-NOW]

27. I'm opposed to marriage for anyone

Since most end in divorce,many in homicide, and cost people plenty emotionally and financially I don't wish it on anyone but masochists.

[xxqqqzme]

29. it won't

it is yet another rabid right wing attempt 2 divide the country by stirring the hate pot. god, i cannot abide these cretins!

[DU GrovelBot]

## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[Enjolras]

30. Has the Christian Right begun endorsing extramarital sex?

If not, then they apparently are saying that gay people are to remain celibate for life. And they say this isn't about homophobia!

And it's not just gay people, you know. Ife right to marry they want to use the dubious "marriage is about procreation" argument, then infertile heteros, widowed/divorced persons beyond their child bearing years, and lower income people like me who have responsibly chosen not to have children because we can't afford to raise them should also be denied the right to marry. (Either that, or they should be supportive of a lot more funding for welfare and food stamps)

And are we to remain celibate for life as well? Again, unless they've begun endorsing sex outside the "sanctity" of marriage and I just haven't heard about it yet, the answer is yes. That's a little much to ask, don't you think?

[Virginian]

50. You've stated my situation also.

If marriage is for the purpose of procreation, I shouldn't be married to the wonderful hetero companion I have. I don't want to give him up.

[Robb]

32. It will, and here's how.

Gay couples will book all the good florists, decorators, and wedding venues early, forcing hetero couples to get married in boring, unattractive places.

This will of course lead to an increase in the hetero divorce rate ("And plus, we got married at the Howard Johnson's, you bastard!!!"). Eventually hetero marriage in general will crumble.

I don't understand why no one else is concerned about this! :D

[kcwayne]

34. This is all about government legislated morality

The born again Christian constituency that took over the government in 2000 believes that they are they only people on earth with a correct view of morality, per their interpretation of the Bible.

They do not care about equality or freedom. In their view, we should all be slaves to Jesus, and it is their devine duty to shackle the non-believers into compliance with their vision.

Christianity as practiced by these people and a democracy that embraces personal freedom are mortal enemies.

[arewethereyet]

37. there is an actual impact if you're interested

Lowered tax revenues
Higher Social Security costs
Higher medical insurance costs

for starters.

[Vickers]

39. Yup, plus I will have to spend more on wedding gifts

Something to consider here in South Florida.


:P

[arewethereyet]

42. you can make light of it but it is a lot of money

and the government has made a lot of money by taxing minorities that can't hurt them with votes. I'll be surprized if the ammendment does not happen regardless who is in the Oval Office.

[Vickers]

43. Oops! Sorry I agreed with you in a light-hearted way.

It won't happen again, I promise!

[Virginian]

51. Lowered tax revenues?

What about the "marriage penalty?"

[arewethereyet]

53. I don't see where it's ever so applied to me

and at the state level its clearly better.

[kenny blankenship]

55. so uh does that mean

that homosexuals are supposed to go on being single to SUBSIDIZE heterosexual marriage?

I'm guessing from that that you MUST be FOR gay marriage, because no sentient being could be so callous and mean spirited as to deny some people marriage just in order that they may go on being able to afford it.

Could please you specify whether you are for gay marriage or against it? It will help me figure out what to say about you in my prayers.

[arewethereyet]

56. I didn't make the rules and you wanted an example of harm, you got one

the only point is to make people aware that Washington and each statehouse has a financial stake in this issue.

As for me I'm a civil union supporter.

[kenny blankenship]

57. so many errors, so little time...

sticking to the issue, that is not harm to the institution of marriage.

Thanks for playing though. If it's any consolation, no one on your side has ever done any better.

[arewethereyet]

58. the question did not address the institution of marriage

the question was "how gay marriage would effect us heteros negatively".

Nice try to think you are clever but its obviously just you admitting that you can't confront that.

Now if you would prefer to discuss it, fine. I may be around later on. Have to pick up my kid from a birthday party just now.

[Blue Gardener]

40. Wouldn't it create jobs?

More caterers, more photographers, more florists, more wedding planners, etc. Of course those jobs would have to remain here in America and not outsourced, so that would not be a good thing according to the Bush administration.

[earthman dave]

41. It might make us think about gay sex for a few seconds

So it's clearly a good idea to stamp all over the human rights of a large number of people to make sure John Q Homophobe doesn't get upset.
</sarcasm, in case you hadn't guessed>

[Nobody]

45. The only non-religious arguments I have ever heard against

One has already been rightly laughed at in this forum: Marriage is for couples planning to have children. Wrong. Loads of people marry and don't have kids. Loads of peole marry and can't have kids and know it.

The other argument I heard last week and is equally invalid. The conservative said that employers should not be forced to insure the partners of gay people.

For all you married people out there, tell me, did you have to get your employer's approval to marry? And did your employer consider refusing to insure your beloved because the company doesn't approve of your partner?

I can tell you right now that answer is no, and if a company tried to do that there would be a huge outcry. Or maybe not. Comapnies seem to be treading heavily on the rights of workers as it is.

[LeinesRed]

46. What if they divorce in fewer numbers?

It'll make us heteros look bad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Lindacooks]

49. I've never been able to figure it out

I'm hearing 'gay marriage will destroy the sacred institution of marriage' but nobody ever expands on that. It's time more liberals started asking those questions. If it gets enough airtime, this right wing crap will be exposed.

[arewethereyet]

54. what is there to expand ?

from the sacred perspective its between a man and a woman. Do some other combination and the institution is compromised.