Is marriage primarily for procreation or family bonds & commitment?

First, I am a gay man, 27 and married to a guy. Oftentimes, I read and checkout articles on conservative websites (particularly National Organization for Marriage & Family Research Institute). They really drill the message that marriage is primarily for procreation and that really messes with my OCD brain. In addition, they talk about how gay people tend to not be monogamous. Is a marriage of a couple that will not procreate (and lets say I do not adopt either) less valued? Should love and commitment to live and take care of one another be enough to be valued at a societal level, without all the other social constructs (expectation to reproduce)? It seems they try to perpetuate that self-actualization is based on what you put into a family (through procreating) and that is the ultimate benefit to society. Or am I just getting to caught up in some religious construct that is so ingrained in society that it even affects me as a non-religious person? It seems I was doing very well post DOMA and the fact marriage equality was extended to my state; but now I am suffering as I feel all the reasons/differences between same sex couples and heterosexual couples are being pointed out as the opponents are looking for more and more arguments for why the states need to stop pushing same sex marriage.
:frowning:

Don’t get caught up in their trying to steal the word “marriage”. Until we become a theocracy Marriage is a legal concept only. Anything religious nuts try to force on it is just crap. The only thing you should wonder about is why marriage between conservatives is allowed. Those marriages tend to produce little conservatives, ripe with hate in their hearts. And that’s definitely not something we need nor that Jesus would have wanted. :wink:

As I see it, the rate of divorce, spousal cheating, separation, etc. is widespread and essentially the same in all couples, whether ethnically the same or different, religiously the same or different, hetero-, homo-, politically the same or different, chronologically the same or different, etc.
With our population problems, they should encourage gays to marry. I recall when I was in my twenties and a group of guys were standing around the coffee machine during break. One jerk who constantly hit on all the secretaries (without success) complained about a recent hire who was apparently gay. Being a wise ass, I couldn’t help commenting, “You should be happy and hope for more gay guys here. If they were heterosexual, you’d have even less success hitting on the female secretaries.”
Occam

This may help.
http://ed.ted.com/lessons/the-history-of-marriage-alex-gendler

It’s primarily for family stability, which then makes for more social stability. Despite the many differences the marriage concept has gone through over time, it’s always been about stability.
Marriage is obviously not necessary for “commitment” to a person in a romantic/sexual sense, but in heterosexual relationships at least, the possibility of procreating is usually a risk that can’t be completely avoided; that means thoughts about family, etc. will enter the picture at some point. For that reason, the concept of marriage will always be fixed on straight couples.

As I see it, the rate of divorce, spousal cheating, separation, etc. is widespread and essentially the same in all couples, whether ethnically the same or different, religiously the same or different, hetero-, homo-, politically the same or different, chronologically the same or different, etc.
Not even close, Occam. Gays are a lot more promiscuous than straights, as are blacks compared to whites. You can see it when you look at the STD stats, for example. Also, around three quarters of black children are born to single mothers. That said, none of this has anythig to do with people tryng to justify why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.
First, I am a gay man, 27 and married to a guy. Oftentimes, I read and checkout articles on conservative websites (particularly National Organization for Marriage & Family Research Institute). They really drill the message that marriage is primarily for procreation and that really messes with my OCD brain. In addition, they talk about how gay people tend to not be monogamous. Is a marriage of a couple that will not procreate (and lets say I do not adopt either) less valued? Should love and commitment to live and take care of one another be enough to be valued at a societal level, without all the other social constructs (expectation to reproduce)? It seems they try to perpetuate that self-actualization is based on what you put into a family (through procreating) and that is the ultimate benefit to society. Or am I just getting to caught up in some religious construct that is so ingrained in society that it even affects me as a non-religious person? It seems I was doing very well post DOMA and the fact marriage equality was extended to my state; but now I am suffering as I feel all the reasons/differences between same sex couples and heterosexual couples are being pointed out as the opponents are looking for more and more arguments for why the states need to stop pushing same sex marriage. :(
Your situation is no different from that of a heterosexual couple who chooses to not have children or who can't give birth but chooses not to adopt. It's similar to a hetero couple who marries late in life. Opponents to same sex marriage will always find some way to criticize it. You do best by ignoring it. Having children is NOT the only reason for marriage. There is a host of other reasons and it's nobody's business but the couple's. You can't live your life worrying about the opinions of some other people. There will always be someone who is against what you do. This is true of heterosexual people, too. Lois
As I see it, the rate of divorce, spousal cheating, separation, etc. is widespread and essentially the same in all couples, whether ethnically the same or different, religiously the same or different, hetero-, homo-, politically the same or different, chronologically the same or different, etc.
Not even close, Occam. Gays are a lot more promiscuous than straights, as are blacks compared to whites. Please provide solid evidence for this rather than personal opinion. You can see it when you look at the STD stats, for example. There is no evidence that gays get STDs more than straights. It's only that STDs among gays are publicized more because some people want to make it an issue. Also, around three quarters of black children are born to single mothers. That said, none of this has anythig to do with people tryng to justify why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. Then why bring it up? Lois
It's primarily for family stability, which then makes for more social stability. Despite the many differences the marriage concept has gone through over time, it's always been about stability. Marriage is obviously not necessary for "commitment" to a person in a romantic/sexual sense, but in heterosexual relationships at least, the possibility of procreating is usually a risk that can't be completely avoided; that means thoughts about family, etc. will enter the picture at some point. For that reason, the concept of marriage will always be fixed on straight couples.
Well, it doesn't seem to be working very well in terms of stability if you consider he divorce rate, domestic abuse, etc., does it? The gays I know who are married (and I know quite a few) have much more stable marriages than many of the married heterosexuals I know. Lois
Not even close, Occam. Gays are a lot more promiscuous than straights, as are blacks compared to whites. You can see it when you look at the STD stats, for example. Also, around three quarters of black children are born to single mothers. That said, none of this has anything to do with people trying to justify why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Lois is right George If you are gong to make gross generalizations like this you really need to provide the data to back it up. Otherwise the claim is just an expression of your own personal biases. The question of sexual habits and race for example needs to take into account confounding variables such as income and whether the child grows up in a single mother, single father, or dual parent home or with no parent at all. Since black children are more likely to be poor and therefor more likely to have grown up in non-traditional households it may be hard to separate these factors from race when commenting that blacks are more promiscuous. It may simply be that poor people have more sexual partners or people who don't grow up with two parents have more sexual partners regardless of their race. It is also important to understand that STD stats are not a perfect surrogate marker for sexual activity since the rate of STD transmission depends not just on the number of sexual contact but who those contacts are and what level of education the person has regarding STD prevention. It also depends on the availability of that protection and on cultural norms and attitudes towards things like condoms. You may find this paper helpful in understanding some of the issues involved http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446372/pdf/11029992.pdf I'm not sure what your comments have to do with marriage in general or gay marriage in particular though.

For those of you care, you can look up the HIV statistics on CDC site. Or you can bury your PC head in the sand like Lois and macgyver. And what does that have to with gay marriage? I don’t know, ask Occam.

For those of you care, you can look up the HIV statistics on CDC site. Or you can bury your PC head in the sand like Lois and macgyver. And what does that have to with gay marriage? I don't know, ask Occam.
You are the one who made those statements on a thread about gay marriage. That's what it has to do with gay marriage. The topc was procreation within a marriage. You completely changed the subject because of your own squirm-inducing prejudices. Seems to me you are obsessed with the details of gay life. I wonder what that indicates. Lois

It indicates that I didn’t agree with what Occam said.

It indicates that I didn't agree with what Occam said.
What is it that Occam said that you disagree with? That coworkers tend to gather around the coffee machine at work and shoot the breeze and make comments about the secretaries?

Wait a minute, George. You gave your views of the behavior of gays and blacks vs caucasians. However, it’s apparent that even if your data is correct, it applies to the whole group. My statements as does this thread, refer to marriage. I believe the subset of married people behaves differently from the behavior of humans in general.
While the level of promiscuity may have been greater for gays in the past (quite possibly because they weren’t allowed to get married) than it was for heterosexuals, the advent of HIV seems to have reduced that activity among gays greatly. Concomitantly, it seems that young and even older heteros are moving into the hooking-up syndrome of everyone screwing everyone whenever they feel like it.
Occam

No, gays have more sex because they are guys, and guys like to have a lot of sex. Simple.

No, gays have more sex because they are guys, and guys like to have a lot of sex. Simple.
You are such a tool.
No, gays have more sex because they are guys, and guys like to have a lot of sex. Simple.
Even if this were true (and you really need to provide more than your own unsupported personal theory as evidence here), I dont see what this has to do with the subject of this post.

I was an advisor to a teen group a few years ago, and their conversations were at a level of openness that was beyond my comprehension as an old fud. However, George, from what I heard, quite a few of the girls were more orgasmic than the guys, and because, while girls might turn down guys, the guys never turned down the girls so they had an insane amount of sex. So, George, even if you comments were true in the old days, and easily believed by old guys like you and me, they don’t seem to hold in the modern world.
Again, however, your comment applies to the group in general. That’s NOT the focus of this thread. Look at the title. It has to do with marriage.
Occam

It's primarily for family stability, which then makes for more social stability. Despite the many differences the marriage concept has gone through over time, it's always been about stability. Marriage is obviously not necessary for "commitment" to a person in a romantic/sexual sense, but in heterosexual relationships at least, the possibility of procreating is usually a risk that can't be completely avoided; that means thoughts about family, etc. will enter the picture at some point. For that reason, the concept of marriage will always be fixed on straight couples.
Well, it doesn't seem to be working very well in terms of stability if you consider he divorce rate, domestic abuse, etc., does it? The gays I know who are married (and I know quite a few) have much more stable marriages than many of the married heterosexuals I know. LoisIt's not about stability for the partners, it about stability for "family" - meaning a man and a woman who produce children. Studies show that it's better for kids to grow up with married parents living in the same house. But yes, the traditional American marriage concept seems to be dying. It will be replaced by something else, just like it replaced an earlier model.