This "argument" is so pathetic, it should require no rebuttal.

UPDATE:

I can't help wondering whether or not any of the disagree votes are from those who don't think even the most absurd assertions should be left unchallenged?

In 100 years There will be laws prohibiting opposite sex marriage.

Hmm, I've never married, but I'm pretty sure that if I had Married that it would be a strong enough union to survive the fact that gays could also marry. In fact, I can't see how this is even my business.

I will have control of one marriage and whether gay people can marry or not will have no affect on the health of it. My choice of partner, and ultimately our compatibility and communication among other factors between us will make or break it.

I've seen a damn sight more STRAIGHT marriages that have a better chance of destroying the sanctity of marriage.

Whether or not a church body chooses to recognize a union between partners of the same sex is between that church body and God, and is not the responsibility of the government to regulate unless such a union imposes upon the civil rights of another individual (as in marrying a child or other such nonsense).

If we truly cared about the sanctity of marriage, we would ban celebrity marriages...

Marriage between a man and a woman is the only thing that should be called and recognized as a marriage. Anything else must be outlawed as a perversion.

Marriage threatening marriage????

Yes,  we must protect the sanctity of reality television marriages.  LOFL

As with some of the other arguments on this list, I can see two meanings for this one. The first related to "marriage" having religious connotations (e.g. "sanctity"), and the second related to the terms "marriages" and "unions" being interchangeable (i.e. secular). As for the former, I think it's rather clear that gay marriage proponents want to use this term in the law because it may hasten social acceptance. Nevertheless and notwithstanding what my personal position on the matter may be, I don't like the idea of forcing such a change by usurping religious concepts when a viable alternative is available, which brings me to the second possible meaning of this argument. If "union" is acceptable, then this argument loses most if not all of its strength since "marriages" would be defined by the church and "unions" by the state (though there would be a considerable overlap). For instance, a church could recognize a polygamous marriage but the state would not. To address some of the common claims in this thread, I'll add that many point to the currently high divorce rate, yet the "sanctity" proponents can simply counter that it's too easy to get a legal divorce by citing those statistics. In the final analysis, the strength of this argument depends on it's meaning, so I'm sitting on the fence.

I seem to recall that this argument was also used as an argument against interracial marriage...

If this statement means retroactivity, to undo what has already been done, it is ridiculuous. If it means marriage as an institution, then it is correct.

Read my lips. Our civilization and society is under attack. The traditional family is the bedrock of history, civilization, culture or whatever you want to call it.

That is the plain, unvarnished, iron-clad, irrefutable truth. History shows that societal collapse has a vanguard of sexual promiscuity and deviance including the breakdown of traditional familial arrangements.

Usually history moves at a glacial pace. I am bemused and amazed how fast the pace is today. The homosexual lobby and agenda is moving to the top of the list, and soon, I suppose, it will be approved.

It is already a crime in some jurisdictions to criticize it. What a joke on us and our posterity!

its not only the family but the way we all supose to live.its a treat to all who believe in one man one women marriage.

" Marriage is a secular legal concept and the concept of sanctity doesn't even enter into it. "

Actually, that is very dependent on your religion and your beliefs. I was married in church and, for me and my religion, I was joined to my husband in the eyes of God by one of his representatives on Earth, not by a local aurthority official in a registry office.

As for whether gay "marriage" threatens the sanctity of marriage, I have rarely heard anything more ludidcrous. If two people of the same sex have been together for a long time, decades in some cases, why shouldn't they not just be entitled to profess their love for each other in the presence of others but to also be entitled to share the rights and entitlements that a heterosexual couple would?

The speed, nonchalance and inconsideration with which people enter marriage these days and the increasing divorce rate are greater threats than a unification of two loving and committed people of the same sex.

Where is the evidence for this statement?

How exactly does anyone else's marriage effect yours?

People marry for money, status, citizenship etc. The divorce rate it almost 50%. And let's not forget the sanctity of marriages such as Britney Spears' 55 hour marriage Allowing homosexuals to marry is NOT going to be a bigger problem than all of that. I think the biggest thing to ruin the "sanctity" of marriage is the rate of infidelity within the relationship itself, NOT outside sources.

How many heterosexual marriages have fallen apart due to gay marriage?

My kids threaten the sanctity of my marriage.

Maybe it may make a mockery of marriage (for the gay couple), but it certainly isn't going to threaten all marriages.

Main Entry: sanctity Pronunciation: 'sa[ng](k)-t&-tE Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -ties Etymology: Middle English saunctite, from Middle French saincteté, from Latin sanctitat-, sanctitas, from sanctus sacred 1 : holiness of life and character : GODLINESS 2 a : the quality or state of being holy or sacred : INVIOLABILITY b plural : sacred objects, obligations, or rights http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/sanctity Let's face it. All of the arguments concerning the "sanctity" of marriage are, obviously, essentially religious objections. Well, I'm sorry, but the Law is not allowed to give preference to any one, or even any groups of religions. That would be a "religious establishment," and as we all know... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Those who object to same-sex marriage on religious grounds are doomed to run smack into the "impenetrable wall of separation" that exists between church and state. So, bloody your noses if you wish, but if you really want to stop same-sex marriages, I would suggest that you start looking for a compelling secular state interest to advance. This one will get you nowhere. percivale

Not mine. I agree with the comment that serial marrying celebrities and people like Britney Spears who get annulments before the wedding photos are developed are making more of a mockery of the "sanctity" of marriage, than people who may not fit into any traditional definition of family. Oh, and one thought to pass on to Ignatius, I'm not so sure that people are so worked up about what gay couples are doing behind the privacy of their front door so much as what's going on at the back door.

A ridiculous accusation. A national divorce rate well over 50% threatens the sanctity of all marriages. Not to mention entertainement that is readily gobbled up by Americans such as "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" Mainstream heterosexual Americans are simply in no credible position to accuse gays of attempting to "make a mockery" of marriage. It would be almost impossible for any group to show as much disrespect toward the institution of marriage as our nation's large middle class has done during the past quarter century. Piss and moan all you like about what I just stated; it is irrefutably true.

How does GETTING MARRIED threaten the institution of marriage?! In a country where 50% of people who get married end up getting divorced what kind of harm could allowing same-sex marriages do?

Sanctity is a religious concept and I rarely see arguments about the religious aspect of gay marriage. And I am not concerned about what religious sects and cults think of it. Marriage is a secular legal concept and the concept of sanctity doesn't even enter into it.

Um, the sanctity of my marriage isn't threatened. If this is your argument, heterosexual marriage must be weak indeed.

2ND UPDATE: Let me just jump in here to respond to Dac's original exhortation to me, I don't want to bring God into this discussion, and I generally don't. I don't think God's will is the logical reason to intellectually decide that some perversion of traditional marriage which would allow two people of the same sex to marry each other has anything to do with God or religion in general. Do me a favor: before you address me in response to one of my posts, could you at least read what I've written and address it, before you go off on some ridiculous tangent? Gay men can marry today, they can marry just about any single woman they want. They have the same rights as I do. More, I'm married. The fact they prefer men is immaterial. How would it benefit society at large to allow people of the same gender to marry each other and how would it be superior to civil unions? Why marriage? I just don't see the logic. Nobody deserves anything. They deserve to live and abide by the law, like I do. It's becoming obvious that this is an attempt to achieve an endorsement of the gay lifestyle by government fiat. Their/your only hope is the Harry Blackmun of homosexuality. UPDATE: A marraige IS a contract. Hello? It is a contract between one man and one woman to join their lives together in love, and be faithful to each other. There is NO SUCH THING as a gay marriage. It doesn't exist under our system of laws. Every contract contains certain criteria in order for the contract to be binding: consent of the parties, fair and equal consideration, a legal document (license), etc., etc. As our laws exist today, a man cannot enter into such a contract with another man (no matter how effeminate one may be), a woman cannot enter into such a contract with another woman. It's been this way for thousands of years in various iterations. Start there. How will you change the Common Law (as if you could) to accommodate somebody's sexual preferences? I don't condone an attempt to legislate someone's sexual preferences or their right to prefer guys over women. Bringing the word marriage into the discussion doesn't make any legal sense. It's not what marriage has been formalized and institutionalized for. You can call the union a lot of things but marriage wouldn't be one of them. But, we're getting pretty far afield from the sanctity of marriage. ORIGINAL COMMENT 4/15/05: Not the sanctity, you provide that yourself. I don't believe I've ever heard this proferred as an intelligent argument.

EO You say gay marriage doesn't exist under our system of laws...that's easily recitified then, isn't it? Make a law for it! If you want to bring God in on this...read Tomorrow's God and what that has to say on the subject; I bet it's somewhat nearer the truth. UPDATE: GoneAway: the world is changing and people are realising that the old way at looking at God has not helped the world in any shape or form. We will soon be realising who or what God is..an energy, us, every individual in this world and that we are all connected. Then and only then will we stop blowing each other up and mistreating people. Anyway, I'm sure EO can make his own mind up after having read the book without you telling him what he should and shouldn't read. You are becoming very fundamentalist these days, GA. This is precisely why a book like Tomorrow's God is something valuable to read...it doesn't spout out a doctrine,it asks us to rethink our understanding of God....What is it you are actually afraid of? Possibly, finding out the truth? (For your info, my experience of God has been exactly the same as the writer of that book) Anyway, back to the gay marriage thing. Marriage is a civic ceremony conducted by Man, purportedly under the name of God. Jesus himself never married, so the sanctity of marriage about which he spoke meant that the commitment given to each other would be understood within defined rules that support and nourish the relationship for its duration and are accepted by each party. That can equally apply to gay couples, can't it?My,how some of the so called Christians on this site love to distort Christianity!

Since when is it the job of government to protect the sanctity of marriage? For you constitutional law buffs out there, point this out in the Constitution. Talk about judicial activism, sheesh.

It threatens the sanctity of Marriage if they Call it Marriage! If they call it something else fine. I think were playing a game of words here and a lot of folks are just not getting it. Gay Relationships are not a threat to traditional marriage. Calling a gay relationship Marriage is what is what I have a problem with!

Mommy! Wah! Two queers might marry! I'm so worried it threatens marriage sanctity! No, it doesn't. The sancitity of marriage has already been smashed by the shocking divorce rates of STRAIGHT people. We've dropped the ball- not gays.

*Conceptually* marriage is much like a contract, its validity is challenged whenever someone breaks its terms. So following from that, we can say that everytime someone cheats on their spouse, we are threatening the sanctity of marriage. The divorce rate in the US is reaching near 60%, that in my view is a major challenge to the institution of marriage itself. Can marriage become an institutionalized arrangment? There are a lot of problems with this one.

The sanctity of any Marriage can only be threatened by the two individuals who comprise that marriage.The high divorce rate shows that heteros often de-sanctify their own unions with no help at all from gays.

Agree with abichara. Additionally, getting away from the ritualization and down to brass tacks and actual relationships: if anyone feels on a personal level that their marital union is any less sacred because of gay people getting married, then they have problems that are beyond homophobia.... Marriage is a personal affair. What others do should not impact your own experience of marriage.

An argument I understand, but don't necessarily agree with. I think tradition is very important, and I see where people would see that threatened. However, the sanctity of marriage could also be threatened by adultery or someone beating their spouse.

It seems kind of like saying my Christianity is threatened because theres a Mosque and a Buddhist Temple in my town. No, Im pretty sure Im going to keep on living and believing the same things that I truly believe regardless of how the world shifts. I dont agree with a lot of things that are going on and have been since long before I arrived on the planet. But, when it doesnt affect me personally, then I see no reason to get my knickers in a knot over it.

The general idea of this argument is that somehow the institution of marriage would be sullied by allowing gays to marry. As many have already stated, the numerous people I know who cheat on their spouses or marry and divorce on whim has no effect on my relationship with my husband. One of my co-workers is in a long-term and loving same-sex relationship; the knowledge of her love life has no impact on mine. The use of the term sanctity in this statement, however, adds a different dimension to the argument; sanctity refers to the holiness or godliness of something; in this case, that would be marriage. This statement, then, would imply that all marriages are religiously-based. Legal marriage in this country does not require religious ceremony; there are too many different religions, and the state cannot favor one over the other. My husband and I were married in a courthouse, a non-religious ceremony, and I would highly disagree if anyone were to believe that our marriage is somehow less important than if I had a wedding in a church, and I would be very upset if we didnt have the same benefits as other married people just because were non-religious. I respect those who are religious, too, but that doesnt mean that I wouldnt have gotten married to the one I love because it may be wrong in the eyes of some people who are religious. If someone came up to me and said that Your marriage doesnt count, it wasnt a religious wedding, I would probably slap them for their insult. . The worth of a couples marriage lies solely in the hands of the couple themselves.

About half of all marriages end in divorce in this country, which is a greater threat than allowing gays to marry. The sanctity of marriage is created between the married partners and not because of society's norms.

Where did this come from? How does two men or two women getting married do this?

I'm hoping someone can explain this one to me - as I don't follow. My marriage isn't threatened by The Bachelorette, my marriage isn't threatened by a national divorce rate pushing 50%, my marriage isn't threatened by Britney Spears getting married while drunk in Las Vegas, why should it be threatened by two gay dudes that want to tie the knot?