Quote:
|
I'm fine with weaken institutionalized marriage. The government should be involved. As a religious person, my conceptulization of what marriage is already so far from what the government says it is that the governments definition has no affect to me. Nor should it. Formalized marriage is basically a religious thing at its roots, so government shouldn't be in it.
|
I disagree on two counts here:
1) While the origin of marriage may have religious roots, there is ample evidence that the arrangement simply makes sense from a purely secular point of view, and our government has implemented the institution of marriage with absolutely zero religious requirements.
2) I believe that the nuclear family (mother, father and children) is a crucial element to the success of our nation, and I believe it is in jeopardy. Further weakening the institution of marriage would be detrimental to the country. The effects of legalization of all/any form of marriage would be extremely disruptive to our legal system and economy. If the company you work for currently gives you family benefits such as group insurance coverage for your dependents, you can kiss them goodbye, because there is no way your company could afford to provide benefits to the various combinations of dependents when polygamist marriage and non-sexual partnerships are allowed. This is just one way in which people are harmed by the gay marriage movement.
That said, there are several folks who are posting on this thread who are advocating gay marriage, but when their comments are analyzed, it becomes clear that they are really in favor of stripping away all federal and state recognitions of marriage. Their only rationale for supporting gay marriage is that it's a vehicle for accomplishing the goal of removing federal benefits from marriage. Thus, gay marriage weakens traditional marriages, and the mantra "it should be allowed because it doesn't hurt anyone" is incorrect.