Are there any members of the gay community that are opposed to legalizing marriage?

I don’t see why there would be any, however, I also realize that in any group you will never have 100% solidarity. Are there any persons in the gay community that actually oppose making marriage legally binding within the gay community? Why?
The reason I ask is because on these boards there are a plethora of threads dealing with the issue and EVERY single gay member of the SDMB is in favor of it (for all the right and obvious reasons). But there must be a dissenting voice or two within…

As an example;
I’m sure there were slaves that opposed freedom too. A small and nonvocal group it would have been. Probably afraid of the responsibilities that would come with freedom and/or were treated very well by their master.

So, anyone?

There was a comment in another thread: someone said they knew a lesbian who was opposed to gay marriage because the bible said it was wrong. Sorry I can’t give more detail.

(In theory this could make sense - if you believe marriage is intended to raise children, you might believe fewer marriages than currently allowed should be, whoever you like to sleep with - though I don’t personally know anyone who thinks that.)

All of the ones I’ve spoken to object on the grounds that they don’t believe in ANY state recognition of marriage.

Maybe it’s the evil cynic in me, but I figure there have got to be a few gay dudes with commitment issues, because they are, after all, dudes.

You know there is someone out there who has been running the line, “I’d marry you if I could, but the damn government won’t let us” for years, who is secretly hating the changing of times, and hoping it all fails. I wouldn’t expect them to be too vocal with that reason however. :wink:

Like Stonebow said, one gay guy I know have said they aren’t in favor because they aren’t for any state recognition of marriage. He claims it’s the Libertarian viewpoint. Whatever.

I think it should be legal but I don’t want it for myself. I have decided that I am way to set in my ways to want to live with anybody again. Of course, now that I’ve recorded that statement in a very public forum, I will probably fall madly in love on the way home tonight and yearn to get married. I have cursed myself! :eek:

And now for the English translation.

Like Stonebow said, one gay guy I know has sad he isn’t in favor because he isn’t for any state recognition of marriage.

I swear English is my native language. :smack:

Well, at least the Georgian dialect of it. It does bear a passing resemblance to that spoken elsewhere - outside of Louisiana, of course.

Y’all cut that out afore I’m havin’ to knock you cross-eyed, boy!

I know several gay guys who don’t want to get married and think the whole thing is pointless, usually in the “why did I go through all this if I just want to be like everybody else” sense. Haven’t met any who actually oppose it, though.

Then there could always be those in states which recognize common-law marriage that would be afraid of being shotgun married by the state. Heck, I’m hetero and I would be afraid of that if common law and same sex marriage were legal in Florida. It would be your word against your roommates that you were NOT common law spouses.

In a recent print interview (in Canada) k.d. lang opined that she did not think it was necessarily in the the best interest of gay and lesbian culture to follow a straight model.

That doesn’t necessarily mean she’s necessarily anti-same sex marriage, but that she is weary of the effect it may have on the GLBT community in a broader social context.

I’m not quite sure I understand exactly what she means because the article didn’t offer her much of an opportunity to elaborate. In any case, she’s on record as being a bit dubious about the same-sex marriage issue.

The thread title, ‘Are there any members of the gay community that are opposed to legalizing marriage?’ could be subtitled, ‘Open Invitation To Bring A Pitting Down On Yer Ass’.

Within the GLBT community, when one voices the opinion that the same-sex marriage debate should be put on hold for a while is just asking for trouble. You either get called names like ‘Self-hating, Aunt Tom’ and people assume you’re a Log Cabin fundamentalist.

In a perfect world, equality would reign supreme. Same-sex couples would have the same right to suffer in the binds of matrimony as their hetero counterparts. But this isn’t a perfect world; the majority of people are opposed to gay marriage. SSM opponents aren’t ignorant. They’re not hate filled. They’re not even wrong. They just have a differing opinion with a different set of values.

Why do I think the same-sex marriage debate should be put on hold?

Putting aside the fact I personally never considered it an important issue to begin with, in my opinion the SSM debate has a whole lot less to do with civl rights and more to do with economic interests. Is that necessarilly a bad thing? No. People are free to co-habitate and enter into civil union agreements. Why this need to have it state sanctioned? I’ll be the first to admit civil unions and state sanctioned marriages aren’t exactly the same - but last time I checked, same-sex relationships are a little different than straight ones.

I don’t see the similarity between the civil rights struggle in the 60’s and today’s SSM battle. Today, no one in the GLBT community is being deprived of basic human rights. You want the right to marry? Fine, be my guest. But don’t try to legislatively/judicially force people to accept that which they are morally opposed to.

I’m sorry, but this isn’t going to fly. If one is opposed to SSM because one doesn’t believe the state should be involved in marriage at all then one is not ignorant, hate-filled or wrong. If one opposes it because one believes a book of fiction compiled 1500 years ago says so, or because one believes that recognizing SSM will lead to the downfall of mixed-sex marriage, or, well, any other reason that SSM opponents give then ignorant and wrong definitely apply (and hate-filled is not a stretch).

Well, the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to marry is fundamental so by default your statement is incorrect. In addition, there are IIRC 36 states which offer no civil rights protection on the basis of sexual orientation. Take a spin through lambdalegal.org for some examples of people in the GLBT community who are being deprived of their basic human rights.

This makes absolutely no sense. Absent a massive mindwipe or a directive from The Lord God Almighty, many so-called “Christians” will go to their graves morally opposed to SSM. There is no reconciliation possible between gays being granted the right to marry and “moral opposition.” Hell, thre are people who still oppose on religious grounds racial intermarriage. And if it’s a choice between granting same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry and catering to religious prejudices, well, screw religious prejudices.

Well, it’s the old honey and vinegar rule. Though I myself am not a religious person, I don’t believe people’s faith is fodder for debate. Ridiculing your opponents beliefs only delays future reconciliation.

I’ve just never have been comfortable with a body of nine appointed justices ruling what rights are fundemental and which ones aren’t.

Would you agree with me that one generation from now, SSM’s will be the norm throughout the USA no matter what percentage of the population define themselves as Christian?

The 64+ crowd oppose gay marriage something like 75/25%. It’s only opposed by a plurality in the age 18-35 bracket. Provided militant groups like ACT-Up don’t start throwing more condoms at St. Patrick’s parishioners, the economic benefits that come with marriage will be supported by the majority.

No, there’s nothing wrong with asking that question. (Except it might be better-suited for IMHO, if the OP were just asking for people’s opinions, or Great Debates, if the OP wanted to hear people’s arguments for/against.)

Or, maybe some of us are just getting older and impatient and worried that we’re going to die before other people decide whether they want to let us live our lives how we want.

Why not? We (no longer) have laws against drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes, which many Christian groups and the Ba’hai (sp?) faith are morally opposed to. We don’t force them to drink or smoke. We just recognize that those who choose to, should be allowed to.

Personally, I see it as a human rights issue because a segment of the population is allowed the right to marry, while I am not, because of a precondition that I did not choose to have and I no longer choose to surpress. Someone wants to be morally opposed to my marriage? Fine, be my guest. But don’t try to legislatively/judicially force me not to marry.

See? No pitting.

It’s not supporters of SSM who put matters of faith up for debate. It’s those who have religion and who seek to impose their perceptions of the rules of their religion on others who do that.

Then you’re living in the wrong country.

I certainly hope that SSM becomes legal and “normal” within a generation or sooner. As far as dragging ACT UP into this, I kind of doubt that SSM is an issue that any chapter concerns itself with to any great extent (and you know as well as I do that there were no condoms thrown at anyone during the Stop the Church demonstration).

Um, she’s not a reliable source for relationship stability as a girlfriend of hers that I knew left because she found out that kd had Constant Craving and was playing Miss Chatalaine in other cities while touring. Of course someone who doesn’t want to be monogamous would see marriage as a ball and chain.

Al Rantel, who has a show on KABC (AM 790, Los Angeles), is a conservative gay man who is opposed to same sex marriage.

A quick google search turned up this article at newsmax.com, written by Rantel, in which he explains his position. His does not appear to be of the “get-the-gummint-out-of-marriage-altogether” variety.

So the opinion of a gay woman who doesn’t think that gay people should follow a straight model of monogamous marriage should be discounted because she doesn’t follow a straight model of monogamous marriage? Genius.

I don’t know of any who actually oppose it but I bet there are at least a significant minority who think “Just let us have the damn civil unions & let’s not fuss about calling it ‘marriage’. Better to get what we can than to fight a prolonged battle that’ll just provoke greater opposition.”

Hey, I understood that! Of course, I’m bilingual – I speak both Upstatenewyorkese and Carolinian! :slight_smile: