[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Max2147

I just can't wrap my head around how gay marriage somehow weakens the institution of marriage.

Let's face it, marriage isn't in great shape right now. Our divorce rate is sky-high, and domestic violence is all too common. I don't see how allowing truly loving couples to marry, even if they're the same gender, somehow weakens an institution that's supposed to be about love.

First, less than a century ago, people used to marry just once in their lives, and stayed together until high age. that has been the norm. Today it is the exception from the norm.

Second, originally, marriages have been about economic traits, distribution of work, and securing a safe environemnt with future perspective to children. love is luxury in that. Certain cultures even see marriages as a tool to increase family status, gain political power, and to come to wealth by selling their kids into marriage.

For Christians, marriage is a "holy sacrament", a bond that is meant to be natural, spiritual, social, all in one, and due to the social role, it was meant to be between a man and a woman. That religion gave it that status was for two reasons: as a mediator in forming that bond, the religious institution won in social power and influence, and it added to the argument that where there can be children from that partnerhsip, a far-reaching perspective of socially protective stability must be maintained.

Many young people marry head over heels, just becasue they asre in love. Theyignore other fatcors, and oversee other important factors, even in the other's character, that speak against a lasting relationship. Add to this the social stress from working environments, the economic pressure to dissolve the family and rip it apart so that women can (must?) return into their jobs as early as possible, and a general hedonistic egoism and tendency to not being enduring and to avoid difficulties on first sight, and you have many major reasons why marriages fail often these days.

It all is about the social institution of family, the way it is mant to be, has already been so severly hurt.

There are a lot of heterosexual marriages out there that do a lot more harm to the institution than a loving homosexual marriage ever will.

Two bads do not form one good.

To me the right of marriage is the right to marry the person you love, and right now gays/lesbians are being denied that right.

Maybe that is becasue you do not use the term "marriage" int he historically grown meaning of it, and just cisntruct your idea of relationship and mislabel it as "marriage", althiugh that temr smeans soethign different. Already Confuzius complained about the disorder of term - and the unpleasant consequences coming from that. More and more words get used, but less and lesser they do have a meaning.

Names and terms are not arbitrary. Use them only for what they actually are reserved for in meaning. "Marriage" neither by name nor economically nor religously nor culturally nor socially is not meant to describe homosexual partnerhsips, like it or not. I also do not marry my dog, although I may like it very much. And when I call "Discrimination!" because somebody tells me I should not marry my dog, nevertheless I will not be allowed to marry my dog.

All that said, I see civil unions as an acceptable alternative. For that matter, I think all marriages should be seen as civil unions in the eyes of the law. Give the term "marriage" back to the religious institutions, where it belongs.

At least the German constituion puts the family in its tradito9nal meaning under explcit special protection by the state, and financial and tax benefits given to families also base on that constitutional guarantee. Since families in their traditional meaning of "father-mother-children of their own" are so vitally important for our society (even more with our societies overaging and not enough babies being born), I fully agree with these bonis, last but not least becasue they express that their importance is being accepted and recognised. Indeed the need to not compromise the importance of - already massively hurt - families as a social core institution even more is my main argument against not accepting home marriages as equal to normal marriages.

And taken for itself, the idea simply is absurd to the max, too, consiering that the term is not arbiotrary, but has a long grown history of meaning.