Homosexual marriage

Great Debates
1

Thoughts?

From a non-religious point of view, I don’t think homosexual marriage should be allowed because it erodes the very foundation of the family. If you redefine the traditional “family” to include any combination you want, you open us up for a huge downfall. If same-sex couples should be allowed to wed, who says it will stop there? What makes you think certain groups won’t use that as a springboard to make exceptions for other types of unions as well? We could start to see marriages to multiple partners, marriages to minors, marriages to blood relatives…etc. After all, who’s to say what’s acceptable? Who’s to say what the definition of a married couple should be?

2

“Cats and dogs, living together…”

As a divorced man with children I have seen the system of marriage from a number of different angles and as far as I am concerned if someone wants to contract to form a non-heterosexual or polyamorous married unit more power to them.

Per your example, logically I can’t see how enabling gays to wed is a slippery slope to married minors and incest unions in that they are not related categories. How does gays marrying each other open up the pederasy or incest doors? Please be specific.

3

Sinful, you’ve been registered since 12/02, and yet you bring out the exact same undeveloped argument that gets used every other week on this board? Can you actually bring something new to the table, or do you just want to rehash the same arguments that get put up in a “new” thread every week?

Traditional family? Which definition of traditional family are you using? Are you talking about nuclear family, which is largely a 20th century invention? Or are you pretending that a nuclear family has its roots dating back millions of years?

What downfall? Is it going to cause a tornado or something? Perhaps an ion storm? Klingons to invade?

Perhaps they might, but that’s a completely separate independent issue. You start out by discussing homosexual marriage and then disingeniously lump it in with other things.

Huh? What country are you in? Marriages to minors are already legal in several US states and plenty of the world.

Let me guess. You?

4

Well, in the spirit of Sinful’s logic, I say it’s better to be safe than sorry. With that in mind, I’m going to lobby to abolish marriage as an institution across this entire nation. Next: Christmas. Maryland has set a great precedent for this.

WHO’S WITH ME?!

5

I see no problem with homosexual marriages, i strongly disagree that they will lead to incestrial marriages or marriages to minors, ect.

Infact i find it rather ingnorant of people who disagree with same-sex couple wanting to spend thier life under ‘till death do us part’, it is quite single-minded, especially when the divorce rate around the world is at an increasing high!!!

I certainly do not come from what some would call a ‘nuclear family’, So would u find Sinful, that same-sex marriages are not ok, but the still not traditional, single parent families are??? i honestly see not justification in your arguement in why homosexual coupe can not marry???

6

I think it really depends on your definition of “marriage”; be it a socio-legal institution, which in effect amounts to a tripartitte contract between parties, traditionally a man, a woman and the state, or is it a moral/spiritual institution, a long term committed relationship entered into voluntarily by people who, because of their affection for one another, wihs to pool resources and share the joys and burdens of life.

You open with a debate about whether homosexual marriages should be allowed, but after reading your post, i think that you are grouping more towards a definition for marriage.

Before we “redefine the traditional ‘family’” as you put it, perhaps it would be better first to establish the idea of a traditional family and question why it came about in the first place.

If, by traditional family, you mean a man, his wife and his offspring, then you are excluding homosexual marriages from all of this. By definition, you’ve answered your own question. Gay marriages won’t be allowed because they are radical and anti-traditional. Then, there is no debate.

If, however, you are mooting the evaluation of gay marriage as a social construct and its feasability, then i must ask you for your definition of marriage.

Anyways, “will gay marriage lead to other types of unions” is a different question from “should gay marriage be allowed”, though the two may be linked. Your assumption is that other types of unions are inherently bad - morally repugnant. I ask you to revise that assumption, however.

What is wrong of marriages to multiple partners, if all parties are willing? Certainly the state does not have the right to prevent the getting together of individuals should they so wish. And as BrightNShiny pointed out, marriages to minors are allowed; in fact, marriages between minors is oft the norm in rural provinces of China.

Your last example of incest is a little tricker as there is hidden bias. I feel you are more value-judging the act of incest (which, as i agree with you, is reprehensible due to many reasons); which is different debating whether blood-marriages should be allowed.

7

Please explain to us exactly how this happens. Exactly what damage is being done and exactly how does it occur?

I’ve asked this question to a variety of Christians and have never gotten a satisfactory answer. It’s my not so humble opinion that there is no damage done to the family by allowing homosexual marriage. It’s being used by various fundamentalist Christians as a diversion, drawing attention away from the real issue: equal treatment of the GLBT community before the law.

8

Rather than trotting out the standard refutations and arguing them out: What’s a “family”? Is there a “slippery slope”? etc., I want to propose something radical for Great Debates – the OP has expressed an opinion and given somewhat questionable grounds for holding it. Let’s ask him (her?) to define his/her terms, demonstrate logically how the chain of reasoning he proposes works, and in essence prove his thesis.

JFTR, the points made against his thesis are IMHO valid – but let’s ask him to make his case and then analyze it, rather than supplying him with counterpropositions that we are then compelled to defend.

That’s how a classic debate is supposed to work – the person advancing a proposition is expected to be able to defend it. Make him do the work here.

9

I don’t see what the big hoo-haw is. Personally, I’m in favor of allowing homosexuals to marry. Not on the basis of any particularly strong reliqious convictions or concerns about social justice. Basically, my argument is simple:

Why should only heterosexuals be miserable?

10

I’m in favor of legal unions between gays, although I’d prefer it be called something other than “marriage.”

I’ve been wondering whether history provides any sort of guidance. Have any past societies given formal recognition to gay unions or gay marriage? If so, how well did the systems work? Were there unexpected virtues or unintended problems? Also, if no society in history recognized gay unions, does that negative information have any significance?

11

Same-sex couples have been living together in long-term, happy, stable couples for–well, forever. This is not something new. All the new laws (should they be passed) would do is to give them the same advantages straight couples have: as far as taxes, adoption, visitation rights, etc. It would also give them the same disadvantages when it comes to divorce.

I, too do not see any reason why gays should not be allowed to legally marry; but, being a pessimist, I don’t see it happening in this country anytime soon.

12

I second Polycarp. All too often, someone comes in and frames an OP that is highly unsubstantiated. On an issue as hot as gay marriage is, invariably the thread develops in a myriad ways with people defending and explaining a myriad positions. Let the OP explain his/her thesis better before any of us jump in.

13

Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe
by John Boswell

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679751645/qid=1058118120/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/002-7927811-3424024?v=glance&s=books

14

I agree with the OP completely. The gall of some people trying to get together and make so-called “families.” Next thing you know, couples will be allowed to actually end their marriages. And then re-marry to form new families, like it’s just that easy! And infertile women and impotent men will be free to exchange wedding vows, despite their obvious inability to produce offspring (the only normal, healthy reason for a family), instead of being banished to the woods like the barren freaks they are. And old people- don’t get me started on the old people- who won’t be having kids any time soon, will also be allowed to walk down the aisle even though their purpose in this world has come and gone. Then the blacks and whites will be getting together, the Jews and the Hindus, people will be letting foster kids that * don’t even belong to them* in their homes, ageing mothers- and fathers- in law will live in the guest rooms of houses all across America.
I’m sorry, I have to go vomit.

15

*The woman next door has been married and divorced about 8 times, and her current husband has totally lost count of how many times he’s been married.

The guy across the street is having affairs with two of his customers, and his wife is fooling around with her dentist.

There’s a guy down the street who’s regularly beating up his wife. She always forgives him because he says he’s sorry.

There’s a woman on the next block who allows her husband to sexually abuse their two daughters.

The woman on the corner forces her daughter to turn tricks in order to support her own drug habit.

Her husband refuses to pay child support to his former wives and children.

There’s a doctor who married his wife only for her looks, and she married him only for his money.

There’s a little girl who doesn’t know that her “older sister” is the person who gave birth to her; but she’s right about who her father is.

There’s a guy who infected his wife with HIV; she had no idea he was frequenting prostitutes.

There’s a woman who married a man who’s on death row for murdering his former wife and her lover.

There’s a couple who keep their six-year-old daughter locked in a closet, in her own urine and feces. The mother would like to get help, but she’s afraid her husband would kill her.

There’s a couple who won’t allow their 16-year-old daughter to get any kind of sex education aside from abstinence. The daughter just had her third abortion, and her boy friend denies any responsibility.

There’s a guy who left his two young children inside a hot car for four hours. Their mother left them with their father, in spite of his history of neglect.*

This list could go on and on, ad nauseum. And all these people are married heterosexuals, and nobody questions their right to be married. And you don’t think these people are eroding the very foundation of the family? Do you really think that a gay couple in a committed monogamous marriage constitute some kind of new threat that doesn’t already exist? That foundation is already seriously crumbling, without the help of gay people.

16

Hey, nice neighbourhood panache.

Seriously though (to the OP) how will homosexual marriage erode the family? Will it erode my actual family, or that of my kids when they grow up?

17

The continuation of the human race will never be in doubt; because there will always be people who want to have babies, and there will always be people who want to bring them up to be useful to themselves and to society or the human race.

Your fear about opening up the gates to all kinds of marriage in all kinds of combinations of the sex identities should no longer dwell in your heart and mind. Those gates will be opened whether you like it or not, of course you have the option to always belong to a chosen minority and persevere in your group’s adherence to marriage as now understood in Western law.

As regards your argument against gay marriage, it is based upon what I call ‘argumentum ex metu horroris in mente’, argument from fear of horror in the mind. Examine each incident of horror and see whether it is really horrible. But first you have to decide what is horror.

Susma Rio Sep

18

Why are there so many debates on gay marriage in GD? They are all basically saying the same things?

There is the moderate contingent that really is neutral.

There are gay people and their friends who don’t see why people are trying to claim that there isn’t discrimination(and I do think there is).

Finally, there is the contingent of people who have to bring up pedophelia, bestiality, and any number of other arrangements that aren’t between consenting adults.

What’s the deal?

19

nisobar linked the book above, but I wanted to expand on that. Some of John Boswell’s examples:[ul][li]Male lovers in ancient Greece were said to swear fidelity in front of the tomb of Hercules’ cousin/lover Ioloas[/li][li]Cretans had a strange ceremony in which a kidnapping was staged (with the consent of the kidnapped), the two went on a honeymoon, and then the pair returned. The “kidnappee” was given the opportunity to reject his “kidnapper” then[/li][li]Romans made these homosexual unions semi-offical through “fraternal adoption”[/li][li]There are mentions of actual homosexual marriages among the Romans. I think it was Juvenal who complained about it one of his satires. Also, the emperor Nero was said to have married a man.[/li][li]the most radical claim Boswell makes – one that has been largely accepted now – is that the Medieval Church was performing homosexual unions until the Church became more conservative in the 12th century. The ceremony was called “adelphopoesis,” and paralleled the heterosexual marriage ceremony. [/ul][/li]I think the lack of homosexual marriages around the world says more about the institution of marriage than anything else. Until about the 18th century, marriage in the West was almost always a union of property, not lovers, and was used to ensure smooth inheritance. Marrying for love in the 18th-century was considered a fad – it was refered to as mariage à la mode – fashionable marriage. No one expected it to last.

20

“They are preserving the sanctity of marriage, so that two gay men who’ve been together for twenty-five years can’t get married, but a guy can still get drunk in Vegas and marry a hooker at the Elvis chapel! The sanctity of marriage is saved!” - Lea Delaria