Joseph00
New Member
"Save it"? Is it in danger?
They use those terms to insight fear and panic. Those groups make it seem as if giving marriage rights to homosexuals somehow takes away the marriage rights of heterosexuals.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"Save it"? Is it in danger?
"Save it"? Is it in danger?
You must not have read any of the posts where I talk about my lovely wife, yes indeed there are VERY happy marriages out there, mine included. So now you have met someone, at least on cyber space, who is happily married.
As far as gay marriage the main reason many object (other than religious/moral reasons) to expanding the definition of marriage is the fear that it will lead to further expansion that could in fact affect all of the populous, i.e. polygamy, changing the age of consent, marriage to extended family member, I was shocked to learn that marriages to first cousins are still legal in most states (http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/cousins.htm) ect. How could individual choices affect others? Well for example expanding the definition could mean increased costs for companies that provide benefits (insurance, retirement, ect.). Such companies have already said that statistics show that for example gay men are at a higher risk of contracting certain *very* expensive to care for diseases, which could lead to higher insurance costs for all. Other marriage expansion options also carry with them multiple ways costs could increase for the populous as a whole if legalized.
Im not saying that such arguments are right or even accurate, just that there should be a dialogue. I would want to study other countries that already have legalized gay marriage to see if in fact their social services costs have in fact increased to get some sort of guage on the situation. What I think can be said is that exanding the definition to include gays opens the door to a slippery slope as to where the legality line is now drawn and that carries with it major social engineering ramifications for all. All this being said, I am ever mindful that *my* IR marriage would not have been legal prior to 1967, so bottome line for me is I would favor gay marriage for that reason and because of personal experience, I have some great gay couples as clients who I like as people, and I would be happy to see them legally married. It's just not a simple as saying it has no affect on the public as a whole, because it will.