Here a Bill is trying to be passed on allowing gay couples to have civil unions thus become legally recognised. The thing I can’t understand is those who oppose its’ arguements. Why would legalising it ruin the family, denegrate marriage, ruin society, set poor role models etc etc?
If gay couples already exist in vast numbers, having families and being part of society, why would legalising it make any blind bit of difference to the way society currently is?
I can see some inheritance ramifications; a gay widow/er could then get the deceased partner’s estate also wedding/union celebration planners may get increased business and there will be more stress on the department of internal affairs to churn out more legal papers/marriage certificates - but this has nothing to do with arguements against.
I should have added that our PM has made a point of saying that this is not to take the place of marraige, it is to be a parallel alternative. She herself would have had a civil union, instead of a marriage if it had been a choice when she got married.
I am also interested in seeing this debate.
Specifically, in all of the media coverage of this issue in the past couple of years, I have yet to hear any opponent of gay marriage explain precisely how the institution of marriage between heterosexual couples will be undermined by granting homosexual couples the same privilege.
So, I am honestly and sincerely curious. Please explain the specific ways and effects that would harm the classic institution of marriage.
According to Norman Tebbit, the ‘government promotion of buggery’ in the UK has led to the ‘breakdown of family life’ and ‘an obesity epidemic’. (?!)
Hear the words of the great prophet Tebbit.
But then, it’s hard to find the words to describe just how far out of his tree Tebbit is.
Yes, it is true. Berkeley and San Francisco are desolate hellholes where demons walk the streets raping children, men driven mad with reefer fever assault pure-blooded American schoolgirls, and villainous Liberal academics rule over an empire of terror from their ivory towers.
O_o
Actually, thats a pretty accurate picture! 
“I can see some inheritance ramifications; a gay widow/er could then get the deceased partner’s estate also wedding/union celebration planners may get increased business and there will be more stress on the department of internal affairs to churn out more legal papers/marriage certificates - but this has nothing to do with arguements against.”
Maybe the lawyers are pissed because they’ll lose business?
I plan on living forever. So far, so good!
I like to think of Berkeley as a liberal testing grounds. If Berkeley accepts it, and is still there in the morning, the world won’t end with it.
I hear they’re trying to legalize prostitution now. I didn’t know that sororities were illegal.
da da dum
Anyway, Berkeley is a perfectly nice place to live, with all the gay sex, nudity, war protests, rampant drug use, witchcraft, and general liberalism practiced therein.
don’t forget divorce lawyers
The following are so far from my views that they don’t even deserve being attached to my name, but to do justice to the argument, so far as I’m able:
"Marriage is a foundational institution of our society. People should either marry or live singly – and gay people should not marry each other; that’s a mockery of what marriage is supposed to be.
“Civil unions are a fake form of marriage that debases that noble and sanctified institution. Therefore, they will weaken a basic element of what makes America a stable society, and should not be approved.”
To this one might add the idea of what God expects people to do, according to many of those who claim to follow Him. And your choice there is celibacy or entry into a marriage pledged before Him. The religious opponents of civil unions will argue this; there are also people opposed on secular grounds, for whom the first two paragraphs but not this one are valid.
Needless to say, my own personal views are nothing like the above. But in the interest of doing justice to that view, that’s my best understanding of the arguments.
<goes to look at marriage certificate>
“Holy Bonds of Matrimony”
<puts certificate back in manilla folder on bookshelf>
A completely secular legal status seperate but equal to marriage might appeal to more than just homosexual couples.
I hear the slippery slope argument too. “If we allow people to marry their same sex, where will end? If a man can marry a man, what’s to prevent him from marrying a dead bat, a body of water, or a literary device? Or all three at the same time, plus a couple of brightly-colored machine tools, his mother, and his own left kidney?”
I’m not sure why these folks think that laws opening marriage to same sex couples can’t still have limits.
Well, I’ve heard those views on the news, but they aren’t satisfying as “arguments.” And I’m a firm believer in understanding both sides of a debate, but I didn’t understand this.
Why does the state necessarily have to endorse a specific religious standard of wedlock?
and the question I asked of myself, and to which I could find no answer:
In what way is my marriage to my wife diminished if two men are granted the same rights as spouses?
Honestly, I could not think of a single loss imposed on my relationship with my wife.
After pondering it, the best I could come up with is the following:
1 - My marriage loses a small amount of exclusivity – my wife and I no longer belong to a club that includes only heterosexuals,
and,
2 - In some circumstances, I may have to explain that I am a male and that my marriage is a heterosexual one.
That’s it. And it doesn’t seem like very much at all. Completely trivial. So I kept trying.
Until I realized that the weight I’m giving to 1) and 2) assumes I don’t find homosexuality morally repugnant. Going back and weighing them again, in the mindset of a homophobe, those two concessions become much larger. And the less tolerance I hold for homosexuality, the more repugnant they become.
So I can only conclude that my opinion of gay marriage is inextricably linked to my opinion of homosexuality in general. The marriage is only a symbol of the relationship, therefore it is a focal point for my opinion of the relationship.
Furthermore, my analysis lends a lot of credibility to the analogy of the gay marriage issue to past struggles with issues like interracial and interdenominational marriage.
I still haven’t gotten to the first question at the top of my post, though.
We had several fun ongoing debates about this a few months back when several places (such as San Francisco) said that gay marriage is OK, sanctioned/performed gay weddings, etc. Look back to mid/late Feb (just after Valentine’s Day) and you’ll find 'em.
The question that was raised several times by several people, and as far as I can recall never satisfactorily answered, was this:
If you are opposed to gay marriage, please explain your reasoning without resorting to either your religion or the fact that you think gays are ‘icky’. (Neither of those being acceptable reasons for passing a law here in the US).
I think the only real explanation is that many people view marriage as a sacrement that is reserved for the union of a man and a woman. Some of those may or may not consider homosexuality to be immoral, but that probably has little bearing on the “that’s just the way things are” mindset. I mean, some people think its sinful to eat shrimp. Why? Because, that’s the way it is. Don’t ask me, ask God. And so on.
And since flouting God’s rules is just bad practice in general, it’s not unreasonable to expect, if you hold such beliefs, that official recognition of unsanctifiable bonds represents an erosion of the moral fabric of the nation.
I personally, can’t make sense of it, but I can understand the “if A then B” logic of the faithful. If you take their basic premise as a given, the rest follows naturally enough. If you question the premise, the argument falls apart completely. I wouldn’t try too hard to get your head around it, because there’s no point. If you don’t hold those beliefs, it’s a futile effort to ask why they think that way, or how could they hold that view. You just have to be aware that the view exists, understand the rules that dictate their logic as far as their basic meaning goes, and take it from there.
But I don’t understand how the new law will be a change agent of society - everything is already going on. I can see how legalising drugs may increase drug use, but legalising gay civil unions will not increase the number of gay couples.
Because we’ll raise little gay kids and make little gay neighborhoods or something. It’ll be bizarro world. O_o
Dude, you’re using sound logic. This can only lead to confusion. Clear your mind. Think “Gay…bad…gay…bad”.
And little gay cars in pastels, and… it’ll be SPECTACULAR!
Fabulous I think. And super, thanks for asking.
And disco balls everywhere…
sigh