Marriage Vs Marriage.. A question

[clublights]

Ok So I have a question.

Now I know this is going to bring up some emotional responses but that is not really what I'm looking for just honest explanations.

I have brought this up to the mods they while saying " I don't wanna touch it with a ten foot pole" have given me the go ahead.

I have no real issue with Gay Marriage.

I understand that is is against The Bible, and I have no qualms with that nor is that my question.

What I'm wondering is how exactly ( or your opinion heh) does a couple of guys or gals getting married hurts traditional marriage ( outside of what the bible says)

I frankly just do not understand how it hurts. I've been married... I've been divorced. With failed marriages reaching almost 50% of all marriages I just don't get it.


I wanted to ask here because this site generally leans right and I know I'll get more answer to my question here then anywhere else.



So again here's the question:

Setting aside the issue within The Bible, How does gay marriage hurt traditional marriage?

A couple of final Warnings/ Notices:

1. I'm NOT out to change anyones opinion on either side of the issue but possibly my own.
2. The Mods are going to keep an eye on this and will lock it up if we get out of hand.
3. We are all adults and lets act like it ( at least for this one thread)
4. PLEASE leave the emotions at the door as much as ya can on this one.
5. I thank you in advance for helping me understand the issue better.

[Tinelement]

Ready......go!!

[Badger]

I don't see how it hurts anything, but then again I'm not of a Christian based faith.

If a gay or lesbian couple wants to marry each other it doesn't affect me, my wife, my children in any way shape or form. IF/when it does, I'd likely deal with it at that time and in my own way.... which is probably outside of a majority way of thinking also, but hey.... I live back here in the woods.... people seriously disappear.




Badger

[kanekutter05]

I thought this was going to be some marriage battle. I was going to volunteer my wife and I

If you're excluding the Biblical reasons, then I dont think I have anything to add here

[Mtn.man]

Everyone wanted a pc of the Rock

[TFOGGER]

I personally have no qualms with homosexuals getting married. They have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us. The flip side is that they should have to abide by all that that legally implies: divorce, inheritance, taxation, child support, alimony, etcetera. No rights without equal responsibility. Legally, marriage is a contract between 2 people. In the eyes of the law, the genitalia of those people should be irrelevant.

Socially, traditional marriage supporters believe that allowing nontraditional marriage to be sanctioned by the government will somehow dilute the "sanctity" of their marriages. I personally believe that the .gov should not be in the marriage business.

[cstone]

Isn't this a question of definition?

What does marriage mean? Excluding the definition I would use based on the source I would choose, leaves me with this source as one of many possible alternative sources: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage?s=t

Ultimately, marriage is a legal contract made by two parties as defined by the laws of a given political entity, i.e. county, city, incorporated jurisdiction.

Regardless of what a particular group thinks or feels about marriage, the only legally enforceable definition of marriage must be decided by the political entity that provides the marriage license.

Given the nature of most democratic political entities, a majority of voting citizens within a particular political entity, SHOULD (not always true) determine how that political entity defines marriage.

This is an interesting area of US law. I am not a legal scholar, so this is the quickest reference I could come up with:

"Between two different States in the United States, enforcement is generally required under the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" (Article IV, Section 1) of the U.S. Constitution, which compels a State to give another State's Judgment an effect as if it were local. This usually requires some sort of an abbreviated application on notice, or docketing. Between one State in the United States, and a foreign country, Canada, for example, the prevailing concept is comity. The Court in the United States, in most cases, will unilaterally enforce the foreign judgment, without proof of diplomatic reciprocity, either under judge-made law or under specific statutes." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enforce...eign_judgments

The subject is interesting and obviously arouses great emotion for persons who have something at stake.

Be safe.

[Teufelhund]

I personally have no qualms with homosexuals getting married. They have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us. The flip side is that they should have to abide by all that that legally implies: divorce, inheritance, taxation, child support, alimony, etcetera. No rights without equal responsibility. Legally, marriage is a contract between 2 people. In the eyes of the law, the genitalia of those people should be irrelevant.

Socially, traditional marriage supporters believe that allowing nontraditional marriage to be sanctioned by the government will somehow dilute the "sanctity" of their marriages. I personally believe that the .gov should not be in the marriage business.

This echoes my feelings on it exactly. There is no argument at all outside a religious premise, which is intentionally prohibited from being legislated.

I'm pretty surprised by the responses here, except the one guy who let his emotions get the best of him. I honestly expected to see a lot of responses in that same vein.

[TriggerHappy]

I personally have no qualms with homosexuals getting married. They have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us. The flip side is that they should have to abide by all that that legally implies: divorce, inheritance, taxation, child support, alimony, etcetera. No rights without equal responsibility. Legally, marriage is a contract between 2 people. In the eyes of the law, the genitalia of those people should be irrelevant.

Socially, traditional marriage supporters believe that allowing nontraditional marriage to be sanctioned by the government will somehow dilute the "sanctity" of their marriages. I personally believe that the .gov should not be in the marriage business.

+1 well said

[Ah Pook]

<sticking fingers in the fan>

I have no problem with gay marriage. From a government standpoint, it is a way to track marriage/divorce, just like straight couples. Marriage, in the eyes of the state, would/should give gay couples the rights as straight couples. Some of those rights being legal and medical decisions, taxing status, insurance, etc...

I don't see how gay marriage can/will effect the tradition of straight marriage. With close to a 50% divorce rate, what is there to effect?