What Upsets People About Gay Marriage
 

Let me first start by saying that I'm a happy hetrosexual who's married, but currently seperated. My marriage - well I'm yet to find out whether it can be revived, but it was not even 5 years when my husband moved out.

Now tonight there was an article on 60 Minutes about gay marriages. Me personally, I do not have a problem whatsoever about 2 people of the same sex making a 'commitment to each other' and having that be classed as legal. Let me clarify further, by saying that in Australia it is not legal and is a far way off from ever becoming so.

I'm not religious at all. So to my way of thinking, 'marriage' is exactly that. A commitment between 2 people to be truthful to each other and support that person thru thick and thin. No where in the vows that I recited did it ever say anything about abiding by every homophobic's conditions. My marriage is between my husband and I and no one has ever butted in on this. Now why do some people feel that they have the right to stipulate whether a gay couple can have this same right. And by saying this, I'm talking purely about the commitment side - not about having children as my views are slightly different on this subject.

I'm interested in TFPer's views as perhaps I keep missing something when this topic arises.

I just have a short answer: I agree with you for 100%

And I'm glad that in the Netherlands it's completely legal since a few years.

Well, look, I think those who oppose gay marriage are generally offended by homosexuality, and have a gut reaction to anything that would legitimize it. Remember that, in most states, homosexual sex was illegal until relatively recently. There are still sodomy laws on the books in some states that make gay sex a crime (not that they're generally enforced that way, but still).

It's what Jon Stewart said--the most rational, sensible thing anyone on either side of the debate has said. It's not an argument about the nature of marriage, it's an argument about whether you view homosexuality as something that's a natural component of the progression of humanity, or some random fetish.

There's an awful lot of people out there with this 'random fetish' then.

And that still being the case, who's being hurt here?

I'm of the same view point, so maybe we need some homophobics to chime in. What's wrong with a happy couple getting married?

Excellent question. I've been pro gay marriage for a while now, but I was raised Lutheran, so I did at one time dissaprove of homosexuality (becase I didn't know any better). My understanding is this: the Bible is God's word; everything in the Bible, at least to a christian or pseudo-christian (someone who only attends church on Easter and Christmas, but at the same time pretends to know the bible like the back of their hand), homosexuality is completly and totally banned without any question or doubt. Several churches have excommunicated homosexuals for not repenting. It's a very serious belief that cannot be overstated (whether it's serious becuase of actual faith or political reasons depends from person to person). Most christians believe that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin. Allowing homosexuals to get married in the church is like condoning the sin (I imagine that the see it like allowing prostitution in the narthex after church along with coffee and cake).

The problem is that not only do many conservatives (not just Christians, many Jews and Muslims feel the same) do not understand the necessary seperation of church and state when your government isn't a theocracy. Many countries are "free" countries, allowing civil liberties by law. This, to me, means that homosexuality should be recognised in legal marriage, but churches cannot be forced to marry them.

I wont lose any sleep tonight if a homosexual couple gets married. Bravo to them for taking the plunge. There are two major causes of opposition: 1) Religion 2) Lack of Openmindedness. The church though based on rules such as "love one another" "judge not lest ye be judged" "let ye who is without sin cast the first stone" "preach not on deaf ears" they teach their "members" to be judgemental and intolerant of anything not just like them. Hellfire and brimstone and its YOUR job to go fix them. They should butt out and mind their own business. If a gay couple wants to get married, is that going to make their pizza taste bad tonight?

Others say they do not want their children being exposed to such "gayness" as holding hands and kissing in public. Wakie wakie and smell the eggs and sausage bucko! Your kids watch tv? Go to school? Then they see it in the halls. If they manage to live into adult hood they are going to see it. Why make it such a shock? This will make them into haters as well. It is a viscious circle and I wish it would stop.

Most homosexual couples I know pretty much keep to themselves and have a few close friends. Why cant the intolerant people follow their example and mind their own business too?

Since you presume that anyone who opposes gay marriage is a "homophobe," does that make everyone in favor of it a "heterophobe?"

Now that your original bias has been addressed, I'll answer your question. There's nothing wrong with it. I know of no one who opposes two people linking their lives in such a fashion. The general opinion, as I (and many other people) see it, is that you're calling an apple an orange.

Words mean things. If gays and other people in search of preferential treatment are going to declare that some words are offensive to them, they're going to have to get used to the fact that some heterosexual couples think that a change in the definition of what they consider a sacred relationship is offensive.

Good Point - I'm sure people both oppose and are in favor of gay marriage for many different reasons than being homophobic, but all too often people jump to conclusions.

My question, I suppose, is that if two heterosexual people are committed to each other, why does it matter what the legal definition is?

As far as gay people and preferential treatment - I have seen that to be true in some cases. However, in this case, gay people are simply asking for the same right that most other men/women in this country have. If nothing else, for financial reasons. I don't find it particularily fair that gay people are not currently allowed to file taxes jointly, nor insure their significant other on their insurance, ect.

That being said, I am for gay marriage.

I understand that some people may claim ownership to the word marriage by attaching their own definitions to it, but the facts are, the word is open to use by everyone, EXCEPT homosexuals, including atheists and agnostics.....satanists, even.

How about marriages of convenience for legal and/or financial reasons, without a shred of love or sacred commitment? Quickie marriages in Vegas that dissolve within weeks, days, hours? Where is the meaning of the word marriage in these instances? Common sense would seem to dictate that the more loving and committed marriages, the better.

In light of all this, perhaps you can understand why those of us who support gay marriage see the opposition to it as biased at best and irrationally bigoted at its worst.

And that said, I am not saying that you are a bigot, just that, personally, most dissent concerning gay marriage seems to be knee jerk reactionary and not given much thought.

I personally am not a fan of marriage... if two people want to spend the rest of their lives together, committed to one another, knock yourself out... you don't need a piece of paper to legitmize it... I know people who are married, who commitment to each other is just a word, I know others who aren't married, who's commitment to each other reaches places I can't even begin to understand.

What two people decide to do, I really don't care.

But should gay marriage be legal? No i don't think it should be, because to legalize it, means that there was something wrong with it to begin with. It may just be semantics, but it should not be illegal, it should not be illegal, it should just ... be...

I'm going with the New Hampshire mindset here... It you doing it doesnt effect me... doesn't need to be a law.

That's a false negative. Being in favor of gay marriage says nothing about your commitment to straight marriage.

Personally, up until mid-College, I was "homo-ignorant", which is similar to homophobia, but is based on absolutely no information. Then I met some gay people (or, rather, gay people who were "out"), and the ignorance went away. There are two gay couples on my wife's side of the family, and I think they should be able to get married.

I have no problems with gay marriage, but wow that's a terrible comment. Why must people be afraid of or embody what they don't agree with?

I blame pop psychology.

Though I don't personally have a problem with it myself, I know why many religious groups see homosexual marriage as a sin. I also think that most Christians are guiding themselves and attempting to guide others byt he laws of the Old Testament. I think they are forgetting the greatest commandment given in the new testament - "To love the Lord thy God with all your heart and with all your sould and with all your might, and thy neighbor as thyself." They would not want other's to force their beliefs on them so they should not force their own beliefs on others.

I do believe that homosexuals should not expect ANY church to perform a marriage ceremony for them because that would be asking the church to condon something that they are against. It's a two way street - do not force others to believe the way you do, regardless of what you believe.

I also believe that there are occasions when homosexuals and heterosexuals alike should behave with discretion. I say this because of an incident that occured in our town about a year ago as I recall. There were two teachers in the highschool or middle school (I don't remember which exactly) who are homosexuals. Both guys work there and both were on duty while the kids loaded up on the busses after school. They are a couple and while the kids were getting on busses, not AFTER the kids were all gone, the teachers were seen kissing. I was not there but the way the news spun it, the kiss was not a peck. No matter what kind of couple this is, the behavior was inappropriate when they are on duty and in a professional environment. When people complained they complained about the couple being homosexual instead of the universal problem of inappropriate behavior in a professional setting. There was quite a hullabaloo with regards to prejudice against homosexuals. This couple caused other homosexuals more trouble than anything and harmed their cause.

I agree, raeanna, that no church should be forced to marry a gay couple if they have strong objections to it. As it is now, no church can be forced to marry a couple against its objections. My first husband and I were refused a church wedding because of our age difference. Such is their right. But marriages are performed outside of the oversight of religion all of the time. Which is why the opposition to gay marriage on a religious basis rings false to me. There has never been an outcry about the "unsacred" use of the word before. People "marry" dogs to each other for crying out loud! And I'm all for it, lol.

As for the two teachers, I think their behavior was inappropriate as well, but I imagine there wouldn't have been as much outrage if the couple were hetero. Simple fact. Sometimes, I think, in reaction to claims of homophobia (a term which is inapprpriately overused), people tend to try and deny that bias against homosexuals exists, when in actuality it is more realistic to admit that it does and that it still colors and magnifies people's reactions to the issues that involve them.

No problems with gay marriage here. However, once the papers are signed and it is an 'official' legally binding deal, be ready for a divorce, and the separation of assets, funds, property to ensue. If hetero have to deal with that nonsense of divorce, let NO one be exempt from it.

I'm fairly sure that you took that passage out of context. The Bible commands people to love God and hate sin. As you know, according to the Bible, homosexuality is a sin. You can treat people with respect without being accepting of their practices. It's a "Love the person, hate their actions" type of thing. No one is forcing, or even expecting, someone who is a homosexual to suddenly turn heterosexual. Marriage has always been considered to be strictly between male and female(s) (That's not just by Christian standards) and most people would like to see it remain that way.

Anyway, sorry to get off-topic there. I don't really agree with gay marriages but, then again, I really don't care what two people do in their own privacy. I'm not going to take up arms if gay mariages are ever legalized in the state of Florida. It doesn't affect me in any way, shape or form.

Infinite Loser - I know what you're saying is exactly what my mother would say.

I do not recall reading in the New Testament anything against homosexuality. I would have to research it again.

I guess where I'm coming from, Christians today often throw out certain parts of the Old Testament as they feel fit. Not eating pork, not working on the Sabbath, and many other parts. Yet they old TIGHTLY to other laws of the old Testament that are not talked about much or even at all in the New Testament.

First off, while Liv's desire to get the opinion of a "homophobe" is a tad spurious it *does not* suggest that all who are against same sex marriage are homophobes. It *does* suggest that all who are homophobic would be against same sex marriage.

As to your suggestion that all who are in favour are "heterophobes"... :lol: Why escalate it?

As for "calling an apple an orange"... What are you talking about? Two people , in a loving, committed relationship are no different from any other couple... regardless of their genders.

Same-sex couples are not looking for "preferential treatment". They are looking for equal treatment in the eyes of the law. Big difference.


I support willravel's comment:

This is a moral issue stemming from religious principles, I don't see how or why that is a problem, as all of our codified law and moral beliefs stem from arguably the same place. People have beliefs, why should they have to compromise them for the agenda of a small segment of the population? It really doesn't matter to me if you are gay, or if you are gay and want to get married; but it does piss me off when people call me a homophobe or start running their mouths because I don't agree with homosexuality as a practice or institution. To me it does come down to a slippery slope argument, at the same time I'm not trying to compare homosexuals to deviants or evil. Marriage is a religious institution, so lets give homosexuals civil unions and be done with it.

For the record there are a few verses from the New Testament directly relating to homosexual being Romans 1: 24-27, 1 Cor 6:10, 1 Tim 1:10 of the top of my head.

Edit: Sorry I had to add this, as with all things I can find a South Park line that I feel is relevant. This is from Mr. Garrison in the Death Camp of Tolerance episode. (Editted for Relevance).

I don't know. I have yet to hear an argument against homosexuality that holds weight. The religion card doesn't really mean that much to me, especially in light of the fact that, at least in my experience, most people who cite the bible as a factor can't even tell me where the bible says it's bad, some can't even tell me which particular denomination of christianity they subscribe to. I know plenty of "antigay cause god said so" people who have no qualms breaking with their lord's good word when it comes premarital sex or the sanctity of heterosexual marriage or interest free loans. The fact that god's opinion on homosexuality is more relevant than god's clearly expressed opinions on any number of other things to me points to a clear case of "blaming your bigotry on your god".

Citing the lord as a reason to look down your nose at the gays is pretty convenient, though, in that it takes the person doing the judging off of the hook for having to take responsibility for their particular beliefs on an issue.

Even if an "antigay cause god said so" person actually is devout and consistent in their beliefs, i still don't really care what their god says. I don't feel that justifying one's behavior by the opinions of one's god automativally validates that behavior. Fred phelp's god tells him to picket the funerals of american soldiers because of teh gays, and i don't hear anyone going out of their way to claim that he isn't a douchebag, despite the fact that as far as he's concerned he's just doing what god demands of him. Maybe it isn't your god, but it's a christian god nonetheless.

If everyone can believe what they want about gay marriage, i can believe what i want too. I believe that about 99.9999999999% of those opposed to gay marriage and homosexuality are bigots. If you're one of them and that hurts your feelings, well, tough. If anything you can take comfort in the irony of your taking offense at being judged for your judgement of homosexuals. I don't know what i'd call that other .0000000001%, i'll have to wait until i meet one of them.

"A tad?" If this were a discussion on receipt of government assistance, I wouldn't ask for "losers" to chime in. I don't know whether 'chick meant it to be insulting, because it's pervasive throughout the media (and this forum) to label as a "homophobe" anyone who doesn't support whatever gay agenda is making the news. Had there been reason to suspect that she knew better, I would have used a stronger word than "bias."

To illustrate the obvious point that not all who disagree with gay marriage are homophobes. That fact does not appear to be known widely in some circles.

Marriage has been historically been defined as the union of a man and a woman, both from a religious and a legal standpoint. However, gays that garner the most press are unwilling to accept any legal arrangement, even one equivalent to marriage, that is not called marriage. To me, that indicates a lack of tolerance for others, and beyond that, a desire to rub the entire situation in the faces of those who don't agree with them. A compromise that gives the gay faction every legal right it wants, without calling it marriage, is acceptable to me, and every gay or straight I know, but not to the gays who make the most noise.

The gays I was referring to are seeking preferential treatment in a variety of arenas. I didn't want to range too far off-topic, so I didn't go into detail, but I was not referring to gay marriage.

What's funny about people like you Filth is that you are as bigotted as the people you label.

I don't think so, though you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I'm not rationalizing my perspective. I'm not irrationally afraid of the sexual behavior of strangers when that behavior has have no bearing on the way i live my life. I'm not selectively embracing the words of my most favored diety. I don't require, to feel comfortable in the world, control over the sexual activities of consenting adults. I don't require, to feel comfortable in the world, control over how consenting adults label their relationships. I don't reserve the right, to feel comfortable in the world, to judge the sexual activities and relationships of consenting adults(provided no one is getting hurt). Even if i were being a bigot, there is one key difference between myself and those i would label. I can take credit for my perspective on this issue. I don't need a diety on which to pawn off my bigotry.

To me, the issue of gay marriage is similar to the issue of interracial marriage. I hear very similar arguments against it from certain folks of certain religious persuasions i.e. it's not natural, it's an abomination, etc. Those people were clearly bigots. Religiously motivated bigots, to be sure, but bigots nonetheless. Calling someone a bigot doesn't make me a bigot.

Rationality has no bearing on bigotry, only perspective, a bigot is merely someone who is intolerant of somebody elses view, which you clearly are on this matter.

Also as an aside, not to jump to far down the trail of absurdity, but last time I checked, A black man and a white woman, or any color combination thereof, can procreate. Procreation, you know natures grand decision for the survival of a species, is wholly natural; that having been said, it seems homosexuality would there by be an aberration of nature, right or wrong.

I was actually using the old definition of bigot:"One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ," or some similar variation. Bigots are intolerant of people who aren't like them because they aren't like them. I am intolerant of the perspective of the vast majority of people who opposed the existence of homosexuality and homosexual marriage because i find them by and large to be short on intellectual honesty concerning the subject of homosexuality. That is my personal experience. I'm intolerant of people who aren't capable of stating with conviction that they just don't like the gays and that's that. There's always some kind of convoluted explanation like the one you offered right here in this very post.

Well, first of all, i wasn't asking you about your opinion on interracial marriage. I was comparing arguments used against interracial marriage with arguments used against gay marriage and finding some similarities. Obviously the clever "gays can't have kids" distraction doesn't apply to interracial marriage. The whole "It just ain't right" and "god don't like it" arguments do apply.

About that distraction: Homosexuality happens. In nature. All the time. It is as natural as an elm tree. I've never heard of it being a threat to the existence of humanity, or any species in general. As far as i know there aren't any animals on the endangered species list because of homosexuality, though that certainly would make for some interesting conservation efforts.

Gays can and do procreate. Some of your friends probably have homosexual mothers or fathers. One nice thing about nature(unless you're a social conservative) is that nature doesn't check for a marriage license prior to allowing mating. As you said "procreation... natures grand decision for the survival of a species, is wholly natural" Homosexuals can procreate, therefore they are natural, at least as far as your logic goes.

As an aside and not directed at mojo, it is interesting to hear so many religious folk suddenly abandon any kind of notions concerning the intention of their "intelligent designer" and embrace "flawed" evolutionary theories when the subject of homosexuality comes up. Apparently, even though the lord created us in his image as part of some divine plan, when it comes to the propogation of our species it's all survival of the fittest. Regardless of god's intentions or omnipotence the future of his favorite species can be thrown into doubt by the smallest of nonhereditary potentially maladaptive behavioral changes.

It seems to me it is a simple case of growing awareness. I know in my region of Canada we have the two extremes, to play on a cliche, north and south poles. I live in a huge university town which is prodominately liberal (one is prodomiantely liberal arts school, the other completely liberal arts) but we also are home to a large elderly community. I find that there is both a "hate" for the homosexual lifestyle and a respect for it. For a town of 60,000 we have a gay bar and our annual gay pride parade during pride week. As for marriage, I'm actually unaware of the progress of it?

i think it's as simple as people having to get used to it. It'll happen.

Not any longer. Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 struck down all existing consensual sodomy laws. They may technically still be on the books, but they're no longer in effect.

No, and the two situations are not parallel. Favoring gay marriage is favoring equal rights. The equivilent position to opposing gay marriage while keeping it an exclusively heterosexual institution would be opposing heterosexual marriage and wanting it to be an exclusively homosexual institution.

No, we're calling a marriage a marriage.

Well, you've got two or three things jumbled together there, so let me see if I can untangle them.

First, we don't want preferential treatment, we want equal treatment. We want to get married, adopt children, not be fired or denied promotions or housing or equal protection under the law. Equal, not preferential.

Second, we're not addressing the sacred aspect of the institution. That's a religious matter, and churches are already free to deal with marriage as they see fit. Some will marry same-sex couples, including some Christian churches, while others won't. The laws won't touch them. This is strictly a matter of the civil marriage contract.

Third, there is no attempt to change the definition of what marriage is in terms of rights, privileges, and responsibilities, the only thing that would be changed would be which groups are granted this right. Granting equal rights to formerly disenfranchised groups has historically always turned out to be viewed in a positive light.

Fourth, there are already married couples in the sacred, religious sense. I see a dozen or so, often along with their children, at church every week. Laws prohibiting homosexuals from getting married legally are not going to prevent us from being married in churches.

Fifth, I'm assuming that you're referring to words used as slurs against homosexuals in your comparison. If so, it falls apart on it's face. We're not using "marriage" as a slur or insult, nor are we applying it to other people. We want to honor the institution, not attack it.

No, actually, I don't know that, because it isn't.

However, keep in mind that the bible is irrelevant. We aren't discussion Christian or Jewish marriage, or any form of religious marriage. Those are already protected. We're discussion solely laws relating to civil marriage.

No it hasn't.

Exactly.

Recognizing gay marriage would not require anybody to compromise their beliefs. Nobody would be required to enter into a gay marriage, attend one, and churches would not have to perform them. Those who remain opposed would be free to be completely uninvolved, just as they are, I assume, in respect to existing religious gay marriages.

The religious institution of marriage would remain unaffected. Many homosexuals are already married in a religous sense.

None of those directly condemn homosexuality or homosexuals.

Irrelevant. Procreation is not, and has never been, a requirement or an element of the marriage contract. Couples are permitted to marry who are not capable of procreating, the elderly for example.

I would be incapable of procreation regardless of who I married, as I'm sterile. Does this mean I shouldn't be permitted to marry a man? I can't have a baby with him. I don't think anybody would reasonabley say I shouldn't or is attemting to prevent me from doing so.

Why then, should it prevent me from having my marriage to the woman I love legally recognized?

On the other hand, there are laws that allow certain couples to marry only if they can prove that they are not capable of producing offspring--a few states have this requirement for first cousins, a ridiculous requirement if you ask me.

Gilda

Why should any citizen settle for anything less than equality? A marriage is a marriage. Definitions shift with usage. It is the nature of language to do this.


As for any argument that includes procreation as a pre-condition of marriage, I will be sure to tell all of my married and childless friends that their marriages are null and void -- I'm looking at you Lurkbastids.

I was merely responding to raeanna74's post.

As I posted earlier, I really don't care whether or not homosexual's are allowed to marry or not. However, for centuries, marriage has always been deemed betweeen a male and female. I could be wrong, but off the top of my head I don't know of any culture which has ever promoted gay marriages (If you know of any, then enlighten me). Whatever the reasons-- Religious, political, social or otherwise-- The status quo regarding marriage is that it's strictly between a man and a woman.

What upsets people about Gay Marriage?

I really think it has nothing to do with marriage at all. I think these people were bread from birth to hate homosexuals, or a product of their environment, and hate to see them get any rights, or in their mind “special rights”. They can always quote the bible and they can always use the “sanctity of marriage” line, but really that is a polite way that makes their cause have more creditability and makes them look not so inhumane.

I wonder how many people that are strongly against gay marriage are for other gay rights? Betcha not many. I wonder how many people that are strongly against gay marriage actually have a close friend that is gay? And no, Jason that works four cubicles down that you and you say “hi” doesn’t count.

Procreate: To beget and conceive offspring; reproduce.

Do they REALLY? I have never heard of a homosexual couple who were able to concieve with their reproductive abilities alone. I have heard of couples who were able to reproduce with the help of medical technology and implantation, with the help of male sperm implanted in one or the other of a female homosexual couple. But this, is this really possible? When and where did this happen?

Not with each other, no, but most homosexuals are capable of procreation, and many do procreate either through heterosexual contact or through the use of scientific aids.

Gilda

Just to play Devil's Advocate, if only for a second, why should homosexual's be allowed to marry?

Erm... Homosexuality rarely occurs in nature. The majority of the times it does occur are between two organisms which possess both male and female organs. It's not nearly as commonplace as you say it is.

No, it hasn't. Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, and Canada currently recognize same sex marriage. South Africa will by the end of the year.

Marriage is a basic civil right that is being denied to homosexual couples. All people should be treated equally under the laws.

In additiion, it benefits them, it benefits their children, and it harms nobody.

Rare though it may be, it does occur in nature, and thus is natural.

Gilda

Those changes have only happened RECENTLY. For centuries-- No matter what the culture-- Marriage always has been deemed as a sacred union between males and females. No matter what the causes, many cultures have always openly looked down on homosexual practices.

Oh! And marriage isn't a right. It's a privilege.

Homosexuality in nature occurs for procreation purposes (All right, in some species which lack both sexual organs (Such as some primates), homosexual tendencies have been observed, but the actual act of sex between same genders have not). Nothing more, nothing less. Not to gay bash or offend anyone, but the reasons for homosexuality occurring in nature are far different than the reasons homosexuality occurs in humans, as two homosexuals can not reproduce (I believe someone stated that earlier).

In Ancient Greece and Roman cultures homosexuality was allowed, yet was struck down by the rise of the christian faith.

So those recent changes are not the first time in history that has happened.

If marriage is a privlage then why do you have the quick marriages in Nevada. Such a privilage!

Then why has there been homosexuality for over 4000 years?

Equality before the law is what is being discussed here.

Of course, I suppose we could go back to using science, religion, or any other rhetorical tool to justify inequity.

I suppose we could go back to justifying that blacks are racially inferior. That way we can get them back on the plantations where they belong.

Women are clearly not as smart or as able as men, I don't know how they managed to get the right to vote, let alone speak their minds in public.

Heck, what is this spurious concept called citizenship? Only the aristocracy, fingered by God, have the right to rule (and tax!).



We live in a secular culture (last time I checked). Religion doesn't (shouldn't) enter into discussions of this nature. Religion has nothing to do with the rule of law (yes, of course our laws have grown out of religious tradition but that has little to no bearing on current day interpretation of law).

Your religion may tell you that homosexuality is a sin. Bully for you! Don't become a practiving homosexual. The key here is that all citizens are supposed to be equal before the law. Those who would fight to discriminate based on something as silly as sexuality need to seriously examine their place in the division of church and state.


I like Mal's approach. Abolish all marriage.

Beautifully said.

And more to the point, quickie divorces...

Interesting.
I see an awful lot of argument and debate in this thread. What I do not see, is anyone (with the exception of one "Devil's Advocate") take the stated position that Homosexuals should not be permitted to marry.
Which...is fine. I, like so many others, also believe that homosexuals should be allowed legal marriage, but that churches should not be forced to marry them.
So...what then is the problem? To whom are we arguing our stated point?

Umm no.

The actual equivalent would be having a discussion about racism and asking a racist to chime in with an opinion.

She *did not* equate (in that post at least) homophobia with *all* who are against same-sex marriage. It was you who made that leap.

It's rather simple. No one has the right to marry. Not me, not you or anyone else who reads this. A right is something which is owed to you and marriage isn't owed to you (Even if you would like to think it is). The institution of marriage-- More than anything else-- Is a based off of social structure. Rather, being married is a privilege, just as being able to drive or owning a cell phone is.

I haven't based anything off of religion. The only time I ever mentioned religion was in response to a users post which happened to mention religion. Anyway, as I stated in my post prior, being married is a privilege and, as such, the act of being married can be denied to any persons. How does the denial of the privilege of marriage negatively affect a homosexual's life?

The notion that citizens are equal under the law-- While noble-- Is a load of horse dung. There are many social inequalities present in our every day society, which are not questioned and accepted as common practice (For example, in the United States, we deny criminals the right to vote, we deny minors the right to enter into contracts, you can't legally drink if you're under the age of 21 etc.). If you're going to argue on the basis that denying homosexuals the privilege of marriage is violating the notion that citizens are equal under the law, then you'd better start to challenege all inequalities.

Looks like I'm going to have to speed up my plot for world dominiation, well at least domestic domination...

I stand by my original statement that I don't think anyone should get married, that all marriage is, is just a piece of paper... but...

if the tax status were gotten rid of, and people were smart enough to have wills and powers of attorney and that other stuff (which every adult should have anyhow) What does it matter who marries who?

What right does any government have to legalize or illegalize marriage?

A person could marry their freakin' dog for all I care... the government has no place saying that it's either legal or illegal.

Infinite_Loser: I wasn't addressing you, or anyone in particular, with my comments about religion. It was simply arguing to remove religion from this debate as it has no place in a discussion of law in a secular society.

Yes, there is a a lot of inequity in the world. So, by you suggestion, unless we can solve all inequity we shouldn't solve any? Wow. (I won't even get into the fact that the examples you have provided included criminals and minors).

The issue is, again... equality before the law for adult citizens.


A marriage is a marriage. There is no reason (other than bigotry) to deny these rights.

No, I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying, though, is that if you're going to argue that gay marriages should be legalized on the basis of social equalities, that you should argue against all social inequalities and not just one of them.

And my examples were simply to show that there are a great deal of social inequalities in our societies (Whether you agree with the examples given or not). They were simply the first to come to mind.

I asked a question earlier, but I think it was ignored. What do homosexuals lose by denying them the privilege to be married? Better yet, in what ways are they negatively affected?

Who's to say that those battles aren't being fought? Just because this particular issue is prominent doesn't mean that others issues aren't being addressed.

Progress is not instantaneous... it usually happens one fight at a time.


I didn't ignore it at all. The are being denied the right of equality before the law. There is no reason, other than bigotry, to deny these "priviliges" as you call them. To me, that is enough.

What do heterosexuals lose by denying them the privilege to be married? Better yet, in what ways are they negatively affected?

It's the same things.

Since marriage is a privilege, how can the denial of something which someone isn't entitled to be considered bigotted?

If heterosexuals weren't allowed to be married, they wouldn't lose anything nor would their normal lives be affected. Therefore, shouldn't the same thing be said of homosexuals?

Edit: But, you see, we have an accepted status quo which is the result of thousands of years of practice. Unfortunately for many homosexuals, the prevailing attitude throughout many, many cultures is that homosexuality is a gigantic "No no". Even in the United States, when votes are taken on the issue of legalizing gay marriages, you usually receive a resounding "No" vote. It might not be "Fair" but, then again, many things in life rarely are.

Have you read Gilda's reports of her recovery from her accident? She was in the hospital and unconscious. Her wife, who is also a medical doctor, was not allowed to make any decisions on her treatment. The only way the doctors would accept her instructions were to have Gilda's sister there, saying "Do what she said".

They'd lose NOTHING? Honestly..

Those are the losses I was referring to -- and those are some of the things that unmarried gay couples cannot enjoy.

I know what you were getting at, buy my point was that they're aren't losing anything which they don't already have. No benefit is being taken away from then, since they never had it in the first place.

Meh... A slightly cynical view, I know, but still true nevertheless.

I wouldn't categorize it as cynical. I'd categorize it as dismissive. Perhaps even evasive.

Just my opinion...

So, here is one vote for "tyranny of the majority".

It wasn't fair that blacks were discriminated against. They should have just learned that their status as second class citizens was just life not being fair.

"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."


Their rights as a citizen are being diminished. They are being excluded from the benefits of marriage that are accorded to citizens as a whole, through no other reason than bigotry.

There is no sound reason to limit someone's rights in this manner in a secular society.

You keep mentioning that this is a secular society, but this secular society-- As a whole-- Doesn't approve of gay marriages (In the United States, this is evidenced by the fact that votes on gay marriages usually receive a resounding "No" vote).

It's not intended to be dismissive or even evasive.

Just like women and African Americans -- they didn't have the rights in the first place, so no "benefit is being taken away since they never had it in the first place" ?

And you don't see how that's bigoted? It's not cynical, it might be evasive and dismissive, but it's definitely bigoted.

"Hey look -- an underpriveleged class. Let's not give them equality, beacuse .. well,... uhh.. they don't have it now so they don't know what they're missin!"

I'm apathetic as hell to gay marriage, it's a non-issue to me. You get it on a ballot, I'll vote for it; but it doesn't make my "top 10 list" of social issues that I feel a need to do something about.
What I find hard to understand is the insistance on the use of the word "marriage". Why not use a term that doesn't carry the same political / religious baggage. Legislation that allowed the same rights, but was labeled as a civil union, would stand a much greater chance of passage. From a strictly tactical perspective, I'd compromise the wording to get the rights.

Examples of other "status quo" practices that are now no longer accepted by the majority of the Western world:

Slavery
Blood feuds
Duels
Arranged marriages

I'll also point out that there are biblical approval for all of these as well as widespread acceptance of them. Cultures change. Ours probably will accept homosexual marriage, although it may not be in our lifetimes (then again it might). Since I'm not gay, it won't directly affect me regardless of the outcome. However, it does affect my friends and family and I don't want to see them struggle with issues like Gilda's. If you're against gay marriage, my opinion is that you're ignoring the realities of life. If you're willing to grant all the rights that a married couple has but unwilling to call it a marriage, then that's fine with me as long as you recognize my right to call it what it really is.

All right. You've taken what I was saying out of context. I don't agree with denying people basic rights. What I do agree with, however, is denying people privileges (Things such as marriage, driver's liscence, etc.).

If you remember, the Tenth Ammendment states that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

In a nutshell, a state can deny anyone basic privileges as long as the people agree to it. In this case, the states have voted (Overwhelmingly, I might add) for the non-legalization of gay marriages. That is what I agree with. If that makes me bigotted, then so be it.

Well, to rely upon your argument - in essence, they've never had these rights therefore they are not entitled to them - you would have to, by necessity, be dismissive. And the argument itself is evasive of any real discussion about it. That's how I come to that conclusion. And it is common among those who oppose gay marriage, but are averse to being viewed as bigoted.

To address the question in the title of this thread, I contend that more prevalent than religious bias against homosexuality is the simple "ick" bias. And the ick-sters are loathe to be associated with the haters and the religious objectors. So they come up with these vague arguments regarding priveleges and the status quo that seem dismissive and evasive. Because they are.

Tell us why you agree with denying people priveleges? On what basis? Did you feel this way before gay marriage became an issue?

If YOU remember, the Fourteenth Amendent addressed a similar idea:

Aside from specifically preventing states from invoking laws which take away priveleges granted to OTHER United States Citizens, it prevents taking away life, liberty, and property. Read the list I have above and show me one that's not one of those three.

If you're going to quote the Constitution, remember that the same document can be taken two ways.

I don't believe anything has been taken out of context. Again, I suggest that you are advocating for the tyranny of the majority.

The majority once agreed that blacks should not be allowed to drink from the same water fountain as whites. Heck, if the majority of people agree that this is OK then it *must* be OK. Drinking at a water fountain isn't a right, it's a privilige... besides, we've provided them with their own water fountain. It's just as nice, really.

This has nothing to do with who has the right to make a law. It has everything to do with inequity before the law.

I have no problem with gay marriages.. It's unnatural and IMO disgusting, but it's someone elses life and sexual preference, not mine. With that said, this is America, the so called land of the free, so more power to them.

What I DO have a problem with, is gay marriages mainly gay men having the ability to adopt children. That is not a postive thing for any child in any form. Could you imagine the hell this kid would go through in a public school system when people found out? Talk about an extreme case of a social misfit. Potentially creating another social disaster and a kid that mentally is just not together.

Besides removing a child from some sort of foster care or adoption center, I just cannot thing of one positive thing about gay marriages adopting children.

Again, just my opinion. But, I'm very strong about it.

(P.S. Sorry for the edit, but formatting on my laptop is hell for some reason. Drives me crazy.)

This is really a topic for another thread... Please feel free to start another thread as I would love to debate it there...

No, I didn't forget the 14th Amendment. I fully well realize realize what it says and I fully well realize what it means. Now, with that being said, I might be wrong, but I distinctly remember a series of states taking votes regarding a ban on gay marriages, all of which passed resoundingly (I believe this was back in 2004).

I haven't kept up too much with recent activities, but unless those laws were revoked, then doesn't that show that states can indeed pass bans on gay marriage?

Yes. It does show that they can pass laws banning same sex marriage. It doesn't make it right. It also doesn't mean it is permanent. Laws can be struck down in the court of law.

The law in Canada was changed to allow same sex marriage when the courts said that denying the right to marriage ran contrary to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A charter that protects against the tyranny of the majority.

That was my point.

I used to feel that way too. Now, -I don't know- I guess I am begining to think differently. Thses days people usually live together before they are married, and then get married. I always though -what's the difference now? Nothing has changed except a last name maybe. But now I think the idea of marriage is more romantic than practical. It's making this momumental coomitment to another person offical, and it parades it around in front of others so to tell everyone "See, I love this person so I don't try anything."

I am not married so maybe my view is naive, but to me it is very romantic. And that too me is the basis of why anyone should be allowed to marry whomever they like.

I can also pass a law, with appropriate support, banning all Muslims from entering the USA. It doesn't mean that the law is right or will stand up in a court of law.


My wife and I were married just over 13 years ago. We had a ceremony with about 100 people in attendence. We didn't sign any license. We didn't take any vows before a deity. Nonetheless, we consider ourselves in every way but the legal or religious definition, married.

The ceremony of marriage. The decision to commit yourself to another *is* a big decision. What the government has to do with was and continues to be, beyond me. I don't understand it.

We both felt that it was enough to tell our friends and family that we were married and to have a celebration to commemorate that committment.



(interestingly, my wife and I are getting married at city hall this Friday. Because we immigrating to Singapore and Singapore doesn't recognize common-law marriage we need documentation to show we are married. The neccessity of this action annoys the hell out of me...)

You claim was that it has always been between male and female. It hasn't. It doesn't matter that the changes I list are recent, they disprove that claim.

Oh, and many Native American tribes followed a practice labled by anthropologists as berdache. Most nations prefer the term two spirit. It allowed, and even celebrated the practice of a male dressing and acting the role of a female even marrying another male. The argument can be made, I suppose, that this represents an early form of transsexualism, but given what I've read on the subject I think it covers both male homosexuality and transsexuality depending on the degree to which the two-spirited person identified as masculine or feminine.

In the United states marriage is a right. Loving v. Virginia:

In Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, biologist Bruce Bagemihl documents hundreds of animal species that exhibit various kinds of homosexual behaviors.

Non human animals engage in pretty much every sexual behavior that humans do.

We don't know the exact reasons for homosexuality occurring in nature outside of human beings, though it has been linked to overcrowding in some species. We have a very good grasp of the causes of male homosexuality in humans, while there seem to be multiple causes, mostly environmental, for females. They're both natural, though.

Gilda

Perplexing no matter how many times I hear it. Particularly with your figures, as it looks like they amount to saying that one out of a trillion same-sex marriage opponents manages to avoid bigotry - does this mean that you've cast judgment on people from a couple other planets besides Earth?

I can only chalk up your experience to a lack or experience, a lack of diverse experience, or an inability/unwillingness to understand the non-bigoted opposition. Take your pick or supply me with your own explanation, because it's been more like 75/25 for me. A minority, to be sure, but sizable and - contrary to your implied assessment - existent.

If you're to argue that 100% of them are wrong, I agree. But whether they fall into the definition fallacy, the "correlation = causation" Scandinavian fallacy, the slippery slope fallacy, or what have you, I've met quite a few same-sex marriage opponents that avoid any noticeable kind of bigotry. That don't show intolerance of homosexuals. That treat homosexuals as equals and friends. That even sometimes- believe it or not - aren't against completely equal rights for homosexuals. (It sometimes amazes me how much stock people on both sides put in a mere word.) They aren't bigoted in any meaningful way. You might as well label everyone you disagree with bigoted - it will dilute the word just the same.

While we're riding on the theme of people being able to believe whatever they want, I believe that people who assume bigotry in this context are on the same level as people who assume a hatred for America on the part of anti-war folk. The same careless and unimaginative level.

Marriage is a basic civil right in the United States.

Eight months ago I drove my car into a ditch, ending up with a severe concussion, cerebral edema, and a mangled left arm. I was unconcious for three days. My wife Grace was at the hospital within 12 hours. She is a nurse with a master's degree in emergency medicine, and has worked both as a paramedic and in the ER. She had with her my living will naming her as the person I wanted making my medical decisions, and there was a number of them to be made, for example, whether to try to save my arm or to amputate. Even though she had a living will in hand, she wasn't permitted to make those decisions. She was not permitted to visit me in ICU during a crucial period of time when it was unsure whether I would survive. They attempted to contact my parents, the last people I'd want making decisions for me, which is in my living will, to do that. My wife was forced to get a lawyer and a court order to get those privileges.

In the interim, my sister was determined by the hospital to be my next of kin. Until the court order arrived, the doctors involved would explain the choices to my sister, Grace would tell them what she wanted done (in every case making the same choice I would have for myself, I might add) and Sissy would tell them "Do what she said." Once the court order arrived, she was treated like my wife rather than an unrelated friend.

What required a living will and a court order would have been automatic had we been legally married.

That's just one. There are dozens, probably hundreds, and all come automatically with marriage, without having to make other arrangements.

Red herrings. Those are separate issues that deserve their own separate discussions. We all have issues that concern us more than others. Specific advocacy regarding those issues does not require that one take a specific position on other unrelated or only tangentially related issues.

All marriage is unnatural.

Speaking as a homosexual in the process of starting a family, I understand the specific concern you express here, and it is a reasonable one to have. When we have a child or children, it will be an issue that we'll discuss with them and how they can deal with the potential teasing or bullying at school. It, however, has not proven to be the case that children of homosexuals are harmed in any way, or turn out any differently from the children of heterosexuals.

Gilda

The numbers mean that i have never heard an argument against gay marriage that seemed reasonable or sufficient justification for depriving homosexuals of certain rights. I'm not an absolutist, though, so i left the door open with that really small number because i know that perhaps there is a good reason out there somewhere that i just haven't heard yet.

Okay, so obviously your completely subjective experience is way more valid than mine. Wait, why is that again?

I would love to understand the nonbigoted opposition. I have tried and ultimately what it comes down to is that every argument i've heard that seeks to justify the marignalization of gays and gay rights is based on flawed logic, tyranny of the majority, or outright dishonesty. I would love to understand an argument that completely justifies the denial of the right of marriage between two men or two women. I would. Just because I feel like in doing so i would be seeing some sort of mythical creature. Like a unicorn.

I'm arguing that essentially 100% of the arguments are bigoted. I would also argue that essentially 100% of the arguments used against interracial marriage were bigoted.

Help me out. Explain to me a nonbigoted justification for opposing same sex marriage.

You may not see such rationales as bigoted. In my mind they are perhaps bigoted by definition. I used the numbers that i did because i have yet to hear a well reasoned, consistent, nonarbitrary reasoning for opposing gay marriage.

Fair enough, though to be sure, there are several reasonable arguments for why our current iraqian military endeavours are flawed. Like i said above, i have yet to hear a reasonable argument(reasonable enough to justify the denial of civil rights) for why gay marriage is bad.

I should also mention that i don't hate bigots. They have every right to believe what they want.

i think that when two people love eachother, they should be able to do as they want. if they want to get married, they should! whether it's heterosexual or homosexual.. it shouldn't matter. love is love.

I have no disagreement with the second sentence here.

I just don't see how you conclude that every argument indicates bigotry on the part of the arguer. Either you're making a leap, or I'm missing a step.

Please supply us with a non-bigoted argument. You speak about them but have yet to supply one.

Thanks.

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman by definition.

This study from Scandinavia shows that same-sex marriage led to the deterioration of their institution of marriage.

Marriage requires procreation.

Three off the top of my head. Keep in mind that I'm not submitting them as good arguments; they are, in fact, seriously flawed arguments. But now you get to explain why anyone who makes these arguments must be a bigot, as opposed to merely mistaken.

That isn't an argument.

Scandanavia? Do you mean Belgium and the Netherlands? What study would this be? Was it conducted by an organization that doesn't have an anti-homosexual agenda?

No it doesn't.

Gilda

If this is true, I know a WHOLE lot of people who aren't actually married. You're trying to subsume a biological function-mating-into the social institution which has grown up around it-marriage. There are untold numbers of perfectly happy married couples without children either by choice or because one or the other of them is incapable of having children.

I expect all of those people would be fairly upset if you told them that their either lack of desire or lack of ability to procreate renders them not married.

The "study from Sacndinavia" argument is hilarious. Correlation does not equal causation and statistics are easily manipulated. If I had the link, I'd refer you to the Fark cliche which clearly shows that global warming is linked to a decrease in the number of pirates in the world.

Just being mistaken is fine, because it implies some sort of misunderstanding, e.g. "Oops. I misread the recipe and accidentally put in two cups of sugar instead of two tablespoons." Do people who are "just mistaken" about homosexuality even exist? Is fred phelps "just mistaken" and should i feel bad about calling him a bigot on the off chance that he is?

People who opppose gay rights are bigots because generally the particular line of reasoning that they employ isn't relevant to their position. They are bigots because the level of commitment they have with respect to any argument against homosexuality is directly related to their ability to convince others of that argument's veracity. Once a particular line of reasoning is discredited they move on to another one. Their preexisting disdain for homosexuality necessitates some sort of rationalization, the specifics of which aren't important.


I feel very comfortable labelling all who oppose homosexuality bigots, because the vast vast vast majority of them are. On the off chance that they are "just mistaken", well, they shouldn't feel so bad, i was "just mistaken" too.

Now you're playing semantics. You know very well what was meant by the statement "Marriage has always been considered to be between a man and a woman", even more so because-- Along with that statement-- I happened to ask you to name me some ancient cultures in which homosexuality was a common part of (You turned around and tried to give me current examples). My claim is still correct: For as long as anyone can remember, marriage has always been deemed between a man and a woman. It's only until very recently which people have tried to challenge that claim.

I'm fully aware of the term and what it involves. Explain to me, however, how this exquates to any type of homosexuality and/or transexuality? More than anything else, "berdache" was a form of social structure. Both males and females would take on specific roles in their community. There has been no evidence that any of this had anything to do with one's sexuality.

Try that argument and see how far it gets you. Marriage isn't owed to anyone-- Not me, not you and not anyone else who reads this sentence.

Did I not address that earlier in a previous post of mine? There have been displays of homosexual tendencies in some animal species, but it stops far short of sexual intercourse.

This isn't completely true, either. As far as procreation purposes, we know that homosexuality occurs in animals with whom both have male and female sexual organs. In organisms which lack both male and female organs, we have observed homosexual tendencies as a way of social interaction or to release stress. For example, bonobo males will commonly engage in penis jousting with one another (Think "Chicken fight", only with penises) as a way of social interaction.

I would, but you instantly dismiss all opposing arguments as bigoted.

Plain and simply put, gay marriages aren't legalized because people don't want them to be legalized. For thousands of years, marriage has been defined as being between a man and a woman and, not surprisingly enough, people want to keep it that way. For whatever the reason-- Social, political, religious or other-- The common concensus is that homosexuality is seen as unnatural.

Marriage has always been considered sacred. When something which is seen as unnatural starts to encroach on something which is seen as sacred and holy, then of course you're going to get stark opposition.

When divorce, annulments and celebrity hilarity are all illegal, you will have an argument that marriage is sacred. Marriage, particularly in this country, is a farce, at best. And it's a farce which has enormous legal consequences.

Which says absolutely nothing for the fact that marriage, as an institution, has nothing to do with love or religion and everything to do with property. Everywhere marriage developed and in every fashion, it was essentially as a device to transfer property between generations. It became "sacred" because of its incredible importance to groups of peole to establish family structures which would produce children and provide them with the resources to survive. Love wasn't an issue; god wasn't an issue; sacred wasn't an issue. Creating and supporting children was the issue. Religions used, adapted and reinforced the importance of that social structure by making it sacred. And then finally in the last several hundred years, we decided that maybe we should let people choose their own mates instead of having families arrange marriage for maximum financial benefit.

Our society no longer focuses all of its efforts on ensuring that children exist and survive, because we've gotten exceptionally good both at producing them and at keeping them alive. It is no longer the primary focus of our societal structures and that's reflected by enormous liberalizations in all aspects of society, both public and private. Marriage is in no way a prerequisite either for the creation of a child nor for ensuring its survival. And it hasn't been for a very long time. You and others may personally believe that a child is best raised in a household with a married mother and father who stay faithful to one another their entire lives, but that is neither the norm nor the trend for the last several hundred years.

Western society doesn't stone you for adultery, nor do we kill or shun bastard children. We allow divorce, we allow annulment, and marriage is not simply a union representing the love between two people. It is an incredibly important economic and legal device with far-reaching implications. Marriage, in practicfal terms, represents far more than a "sacred bond" between two people before the eyes of god. I cannot and will not argue with you that if a religion chose not to marry two people of the same sex for purely religious purposes (i.e. sacred bond before the eyes of god, etc.) I would accept that wholeheartedly. You can believe whatever you want to believe. The problem is that not everyone believes that, and marriage as an institution cannot simply be relegated to "it's sacred, gays would contaminate it so they can't do it." That's no longer a functional definition of marriage and hiding behind it merely demonstrates the lack of an argument based on anything other than the faith that it is wrong because your religion tells you it is wrong. Though you have the right to believe that, I do not believe you have the right to impose that belief on millions of other people who disagree.

However, practically, I agree with you. The United States, nominally, is a democracy, and, as it's mentioned nowhere and doesn't fall under any of Congress's enumerated powers, it would seem that gay marriage is a states' rights issue. Every state should be allowed to vote and decide for itself whether or not it recognizes gay marriage. If it does, so be it. If it doesn't, so be it. I think the results of such a vote would surprise you, though.

That will probably all change with my generation; the majority of my demographic supports the right for homosexuals to marry. Our parents, the baby boomers, have so gloriously diluted any kind of notion that marriage is sacred that i honestly can't even imagine why anyone would be bothered if gays could get married. Fuck, i think the notion of marriage is downright quaint. The only reasons i could really see for me to legally marry my girlfriend are the ones pertaining to legal rights.

Even if marriage has always been traditionally defined as being between a man and a woman(or several women), so what? Why is that somehow a sufficient excuse to deprive homosexuals of the right to marry? That's where i get lost, the whole "we've always done things like this and the mere thought of doing something different chaps my ass to no end" line of reasoning. Where were all these strict traditionalists when it came to sodomy laws? Or the internet? Or casual fridays? I guess i just don't see the wisdom in being a social luddite, or at least claiming to be one only when it comes to homosexuality.

The funny thing about the idea that homosexuality and marriage shouldn't mix because homosexuality is unnatural is that homosexuality is actually a great deal more natural than marriage itself. Homosexuality is a rarity in the natural world, so is lifelong monogamy. There certainly aren't any wedding chapels in nature. If we are going to use "nature" as our metric for acceptable behavior, then the vast majority of the activities undertaken by the vast majority of people in the world are just as disgusting and immoral as homosexuality. The fact of the matter is that we don't consider the vast majority of the activities undertaken by the vast majority of people in the world to be immoral and disgusting(at least not because they aren't natural). This being the case, how can the idea that homosexuality is wrong because it isn't natural not be a complete line of bullshit?

I don't think that you can say that marriage has always been considered sacred and take into account modern day divorce rates. Marriage hasn't really been sacred for a long time. The idea of it perhaps, but not the actual practice of it.

There is a strong correlation between age and support for homosexual marriage; the younger you are the more likely you are to support it. Most of my generation thinks it's okay, and i can't imagine there will be very many members of my daughter's generation who think gay marriage is wrong. I look forward to the day when we look back upon the people who were against gay marriage like we look back upon the people who were against the civil rights movement.

One thing i don't look forward to is finding out what my generation's idiotic hangup will be.

I have a question for you, then. Why should the traditional definition of marriage be changed to benefit a few people? You probably will say something along the lines of "To rectify social inequalities", but then it makes me wonder why you aren't bothering to try to correct all social inequalities and not just those you want to change.

'Tis ok. I don't see the point in arguing again just one social inequality while ignoring the rest of the them, simply because they don't interest you. It's a two way street, you know.

Actually, in nature, you're more likely to find two organisms which mate for life than you are to find homosexuality. I just thought I would clarify that.

Whatever immoral and disgusting activities you are speaking of, I can assure you that there is opposition to it. Only because I'm curious, what activities are you speaking of?

Let me correct what I said then: In most non-western countries, the idea of marriage is still sacred. It's ironic-- Yet, of no real surprise-- That the divorce rates in most western countries (Which are considered to be socially progressive) are drastically higher than those in non-western countries. Also of no real surprise, is that most western countries are generally more accepting of gay marriages than non-western countries are. I suppose you could say there is some type of direct correlation there, but I won't get into that.

I already know that for a fact. Younger people are generally more accepting of changes than older people are. That still doesn't mean there won't be opposition to gay marriage. As I stated prior, there are a number of factors which influence people's opposition to gay mariage, stemming anywhere from social, political or religious reasons.

To those who are opposed. From the responses I've read here too, most people don't seem to have a problem with allowing same sex marriages to be legalised, as long as that doesn't impede on the church goers.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm not religious, nor my husband or anyone in my family down the line. I would think it hypocritical of me to decide to get married in a church because that's the norm. In fact, I'd be quite surprised if the norm in Australia is a church wedding and personally I believe if this is the case, it stems from the older generation.

We opted for a beach wedding with an intimate party of 20 people. When I said my vows that day, there could have been no one else there - it wouldn't have mattered a rats. I was speaking to the person I loved and the people present were privileged to be witness.

I just don't understand why a small minority of people feel that 'commitment', which is what it is, are so against it and feel that they have the right to stop people making this 'COMMITMENT' to another person - not them - but the person they love.

We can all say 'heh, it's just a piece of paper' and so it is, but then let these couples have their piece of paper

I have a quick question for people who are opposed to legalization of homosexual marriage: does your position change if all state "marriages" are renamed to "civil unions," and only religious organizations actually grant "marriages?" Now, everyone gets the same civil contract granting all the legal benefits of marriage, and your particular religious organization can grant you whatever title it chooses in its marriage practices. If this is just some harmless semantic battle, and you simply don't want to sully the long standing Merriam-Webster definition of the word; would you feel more comfortable adopting a semantic choice that clearly delineates the civil/state institution from the religious one?

As to why people feel odd about homosexual marriage, I think part of it natural resistance to change; I think this natural resistance to change is reinforced by widespread traditional homophobia. I find it exceptionally difficult to believe that a nation of people who commonly say things such as "so, then, like, I was totally like 'oh my god,' but then she was totally like 'as if,' so then i was totally, like, you know, like, 'oh. ma. god!!!'" and "well fucking shit bo, what the fuck was that shit all about, fuck fuck fuckedy fuck fuck fuck" or "fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on ...well shame, well you can't fool me." really are having such a strong opposition because they don't want the technical definition to be altered.

Red Herring. Who say we aren't and who say you have to. By your thinking we should do nothing but accept the status quo.

All of which, generally speaking, stem from bigotry (whether the person is aware of it or not).

I for one advocate for a return to those heart-felt times where marriage involved kidnapping a bride from a neighboring village. Or better yet, knocking her over the head in order to drag her back to the cave. While we're at it, can we get back to burning witches and having multiple wives.

The only reason to oppose gay marriage is to make sure that our gay friends don't have to be as miserable as the rest of us. It's a compassion thing, really.

:lol: Perfect. I'm all for compassion...

I think you are on to something here. It is easy for people to answer a poll "Should marriage be between a man and a woman" as yes. Most people think that a husband has a wife by definition and a husband does not have a husband in a marriage. The concept of two wives or two husbands being married does not fit the definition of marriage in most people's opinions.

Therefor we either change the definition of marriage (which is hard for many to accept) or call same sex commitment something else like civl unions. I bet if the poll questions were asked in a different way not using the word marriage that more people would be in favor of equal benefits for same sex unions.

For those wondering how it can be worded, here is a summary of the Canadian Civil Marriage Act

Because those "few people" want it to change, have good arguments as to why it should change and there aren't really any good reasons that it shouldn't.

Who says i'm not for correcting all social inequalities? Why is that relevant? Here's an interesting question, one that is about as meaningful and relevant as your wondering about why i'm not trying to correct all social inequalities: How come you aren't trying to force everyone to revert back to traditional ways of doing things?

You do realize that this thread is specifically about gay marriage, no? If i were to come in here arguing about other social inequalities it would actually be considered to be in bad taste. Your assertion that i, or anyone else in here, is ignoring all other forms of social inequality is ridiculous. What it also is is a great example of what happens when people try to justify opposition to gay rights; they invariably end up flailing around, tossing out irrelevant rhetorical questions and trying unsuccessfully to remove the focus of the conversation from their flawed perspective.


You know what you'll never find in nature? Two animals that are married to eachother.

Well, the habit of equating "unnaturalness" with "immoral and disgusting" necessitates that the vast majority of behavior that humans engage in must necessarily be immoral and disgusting. For instance, telecommunications are wholly unnatural and must therefore be immoral. Driving isn't natural either so it must also be immoral. Abstract thought? Arguably unnatural therefore immoral. I could go on.
Most of the things we do are as natural as homosexuality, yet when it comes to condemning behavior homosexuality is the only one that is abhorrent because it isn't natural. Sounds like bullshit to me.


It's also ironic that the divorce rates in the most socially conservative states in the U.S. are higher than the divorce rates in the most socially liberal states. But i digress. If you concede that marriage isn't sacred in the u.s. then why do you think people pretend that it is when the subject of homosexuality comes up?

You could say that there was some sort of correlation there, but you couldn't really claim any sort of significance or causation. Hetero marriage has been in decline as an institution since long before gay marriage was even a blip on the radar.

Gilda and frosstbyte: congrats on missing the point of my post.

You describe an interesting hypothesis. A hypothesis that I don't hesitate to believe is sometimes - or even often - true.

You don't describe the thought process that took you from "this is true for anti-gay marriage opponents I've met" to "this is true for all people who use these arguments". Care to?

But I've got to argue your conclusion for the scenario also. Try this: you grow up in an environment that isn't exactly intellectually diverse, and through the course of growing up, you're given six arguments in defense of a political position that sound like really good arguments to you. One day, you meet someone who thoroughly dismantles reason #1 in front of you. You switch to reason #2.

Preexisting disdain is the only explanation for the switch? Really? It must be hidden reason #7?

Call me crazy, but I suspect that a more cautious appraisal would reveal five other possible explanations: reasons #2-6. If you have multiple reasons for supporting an action, you don't just toss out your support when fault is found with a single reason. "But wait! What about this?" isn't a sign of underlying bigotry, it's a sign of intellectual caution.

People express multiple reasons for a belief does not necessarily signify a master, all-controlling hidden reason.

Oh. Well, if other people make mistakes, then that makes yours okay.

Touche salesman.

In a purely theoretical sense, you're correct. Any of those arguments can be made simply in support of a position without any underlying hate or biggotry. I think the responses you're seeing reflect the fact that such a contention is so purely theoretical. If an unbiased person were trying to decide "Is gay marriage a bad thing?" those statements could all be evaluated in trying to make such a decision. And such a purely theoretical person, if he evaluated those claims and found them to be true, could safely make them without being a bigot.

The real world bottom line is anyone arguing for or against gay marriage isn't trying to decide "Is gay marriage a bad thing?" They're for or against gay rights because they either have no problem with gays or they think gays are an aberrant abomination which should be ostracized and prevented from being who they are. The underlying agenda for people who dislike gay marriage is "Gays are bad" not "Gay marriage is objectively harmful to society." The second is a rationalization of the first. And because the first is a subjective, learned dislike, any rationalizations or arguments stemming from it are bigoted.

In theory, you're right. Someone out there could make those arguments without any ulterior motive in support of the theory that gay marriage is harmful to society. De facto, I do not believe anyone is making those arguments who doesn't already have a problem with homosexuality because of a subjective belief that it is wrong and people who are gay should not receive any rights which protect that status.

It seems that the argument for legalizing gay marriages boils down to "Heterosexuals can do it, so why can't I?" I'm pretty sure that there are people who would love to legalize-- Say-- Incest along the same grounds. Why shouldn't we do that? After all, one could argue for incest the same way one is arguing for gay marriage. We shouldn't deny two consenting adults "Basic civil rights", less be deemed as bigots.

You call my perspective flawed because I happen to disagree? Well, I could call your perpespective flawed simply because you're relying on the assumption that everyone should have the same privileges as each other. I know I said this earlier, but on the same grounds as you want to legalize gay marriage, we coul also legalize a host of other less-favorable activities. That doesn't mean we should.

No, but do you know what you will find in nature? Social structures built around "Families", much like you find in humans. Do you know what you'll never find in nature? Two members of the same gender having sex for reasons other than procreation.

...And you accuse me of bringing up irrelevant points. When one says "Unnatural", I believe them to mean a deviance from the original function or purpose.

I do remember that earlier you asserted that homosexuality was a natural and frequent occurance in nature, which you later backed off of. I suppose I should just come right out and say it, but it's my opinion that homosexuality isn't as "Natural" as you would assert.

In nature, homosexuality only occurs in oragnisms which have both reproductive organs. In humans, homosexuality occurs erm... Well, I couldn't really tell you why it occurs, but what I can tell you is that it's not for the same reasons as it occurs in nature. Doesn't a deviance from the original purpose of homosexuality classify as "Unnatural". In my book it does.

(And this is a bit pre-emptive: Before someone states "Sex was only meant for procreation purposes!" I would like to point out that both dolphins and bonobos have sex for reasons other than procreation, hence showing that it does occur in nature.)

Are you meaning that divorce has slowly been on the increase or that less and less people are being married each year?

This is where you're wrong: Personally, I don't have any problems with homosexuality. If that's what you are, then that's what you are. However, I don't believe they should be allowed to marry. Anything else, they can have, but the privilege of marriage should be kept to a man and a woman (And those are my views).

And we come back to... why? What is at the root of your desire to prevent two other citizens from sharing the rights that have been granted to you?

You have given no real reason of your own other than, "Those are my views".

Sorry... that's just not enough of a reason to reduce the rights of a another citizen on this issue.

I'm sure Gilda would be more than happy to inform you about the biological basis for homosexuality for both males and females. You can also probably find it yourself without too much looking on this forum in case she doesn't want to post it for the umpteenth time. If homosexuality is unnatural, than albinoism, Down's Syndrome, any biologically based pyschological disorder (schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder), birthmarks and bad teeth are all unnatural, too, along with a slew of other things.

"Unnatural" means "does not occur naturally" which is to say, humans created it. Homosexuality, particularly among males, seems to have an exceedingly firm grounding in biology and not a choice that each gay person makes for him or herself. Yes, it's different. No, it's the condition of most humans. That doesn't make it any less natural than any of the myriad of other biological differences between people.

I've given you plenty of reasons why I oppose gay marriage.

Anyway, let me ask you a question which is very relevant to the issue at hand. Would you be willing to legalize incest along the same guidelines which you are arguing for the legalization of gay marriage? If you're against it, could you give me your reasons as to why you're opposed to it besides "Those are my views"? I'm willing you couldn't, as there is no real reason to not legalize it except for the fact that you would view it as wrong.

If you don't have any problems with it, then you shouldn't have any problems with them getting married. If you have problems with them getting married, then you clearly have problems with them. The cognitive dissosance there should be pretty obvious.

And to the incest question, sure. I couldn't care less who people marry or have sex with, as long as there is no coercion. I'm sure I'm an extreme minority on that one, but it really doesn't make much difference to me. I think it's weird and kind of gross, but I also think water sports and foot fetishes are weird and kind of gross. So I will choose not to do it and choose not to be around people who choose to do it in front of me. Life is short; live and let live.

Again with the red herrings. Please stick to the topic at hand.

Incest has nothing to do with either marriage or same-sex marriage. You are grasping at straws.

And... no. You haven't supplied any reason yet. You provided three examples above that you stated were flawed. Are you going to hang your reason on three clearly flawed arguments?

I agree with fossbyte: