With Canada amending their laws so that two men or two women can get married, I think this provides an opportunity to answer a question; just what would homosexual marriage do to destroy a society?
Canada joins Belgium and the Netherlands with laws that allow gays and lesbians to marry. So far the first two countries haven’t descended into moral chaos (or any other type, either). So if homosexual marriage does do something to the fabric of society, just what is it? What should we look for as proof that homosexual marriage destroys society and is wrong? We have three test cases now, what should we be on the look out for?
Two points with this thread: first, let’s stick to specifics. No vague statements like God will be mightly displeased and show his displeasure. Lets have something that observable and can be reasonably tied to homosexual marriage being made legal.
Second, no pile-ons. I politely ask those who believe homosexual marriage to be wrong to state their case as to the damage it can cause here, clearly and succiently.
From what I’ve been able to gather, Freyr, the arguments are that it (1) condones sinful sexuality (because all gay sex is sinful), (2) damages the “sanctity of marriage” (which God appointed for the purpose of procreation – pleasure and the unification of the couple being side benefits), or (3) destroys public respect for marriage as an institution (this one I find harder to explain/justify, even trying to think like a fundy.).
Obviously, I’m not propounding those arguments, just trying to provide some information on what they are in a repertorial, hopefully objective fashion.
The “sanctity of marriage” argument has always bothered me. Marriage hasn’t been sacred since lawmakers wrote the first divorce law. How can allowing gay marriage damage holy matrimony more than divorce?
Well, with homosexual couples being prevented from marrying for so long, the legalization of gay marriage would obviously result in a massive exodus of gay couples rushing to get married toot sweet. This would then translate into lots of wedding banquets and celebratory parties, on a scale never seen before by America’s restaurant and dining industries. And despite their best efforts, the ensuing onslaught of celebratory cuisine would overload the entire food-service sector of the country…
What interests me is that the States recognize Canadian marriages. If you go to Canada and get married, then you are considered married when you returned to the States. Will the Congress change this tradition? Will the President issue an executive order?
Or will gays finally be treated with (gasp!) equal rights under the law?
I’ve been in the same arguments as Polycarp, and what I’ve understood the main thrust of the “It is wrong for the government to allow marriages between homosexuals” point to be is that, if the government does so, it condones and even encourages immorality. I’ve been told it would be like the government passing a law which allowed people to steal.
I have posed the following conundrum to people who oppose homosexual marriages. If sex outside of marriage is immoral, and homosexuals are not allowed to marry, what are homosexuals to do? One thing I heard during the recent scandals involving the Catholic Church is that it seems to many people to expect heterosexuals to remain celibate throughout their lives. I’ve yet to get an answer to why homosexuals should remain celibate other than “I don’t know” and “I don’t care. It’s immoral.”
I live in Ontario, the centre of the current… outrage-of-the-right.
I keep hearing arguments about it damaging the “sanctity of marriage”. That one can easily be shot down - I always point out that in my mom’s school, about half the kids (JK to 6) come from divorced families. So much for the “sanctity” of marriage.
The other big argument that I hear from the religious right, other than the whole “god is upset” song and dance, is that it causes a redefinition of the word marriage.
Webster assures me the definition hails from the 14th century (from French) and goes as follows:
1 a : the state of being married
b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK
c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family
Okay. So the religious right insist that the definition must involve a “husband and wife” and that its purpose is to found and maintain a family. By THAT definition, married folks who don’t have kids are not involved in a “real” marriage (in some cases the catholic church supports THAT notion big time…)
Since they can’t seem to hold onto anything else - like the sanctity notion, or the God will be angry angle - the anti-gay-marriage clan seems to go back to the definition of marriage.
Some, in debates I have had, have suggested they come up with another word to define gay marriages (give them all the rights and benefits of marriage, but give them another wooooord…) I jokingly suggested Gayrriage (Garage, pronounced the british way) and some have actually agreed that would do. I guess it’s one step up from the closet? :rolleyes:
It’s a sticky debate here. My generation (twenty-somethings) and the younger folks don’t seem to care - in fact they seem happy that their peers are going to have the same rights and freedoms as the rest of us. The older generations (the 50+ crew) are mostly opposed, and generally bring up the definition of marriage as their argument cornerstone.
I live in Ontario too, and I must admit I see very little outrage here at all.
Most of the negative attitude towards the decision has been the criticism that the court made a decision that wasn’t based in law. There is not actually anything in the Canadian constitution that specifically justifies the decision; sexual preference isn’t a prohibited form of discrimination in Sec. 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, an omission that was not accidental.
Some people therefore have a concern that the court has basically just made up a law out of sheer will, rather than ruling on a law. This is a valid concern - I don’t know enough about law to know how much error the judgment did or did not contain, but as has been pointed out, we have here a case where a democratically elected legislature passed a law defining marriage in a specific way, where the Constitution of the land did not in any way state that this law was unconstitutional, and the courts decided to overturn it anyway. “Judicial activism,” as it were.
Whether this is a good or bad thing, IMHO, is a separate issue from the goodness of the law itself. I’m personally all for gay marriage rights, civil partnerships, whatever; in fact, I see a lot of social good coming out of it. I have no time or interest for the religious arguments against it; if you don’t LIKE gay marriage, don’t enter into one. But the argument that it should be Parliament, not the courts, that writes the laws within the framework of the Constitution is a very strong argument indeed.
Actually I think this idea stems from not believing that homosexuality is natural. Instead it’s thought to be an evil created by the people who practice such acts. If that’s the case, the expectation is not that they go through life being celibate, but that they realize what they’re doing is wrong and turn back to a “normal”/moral way of living – straight sex.
The Catholic Church I think has been rather progressive compared to some other religions about homosexuality. There are many priests who regularly visit homosexual AIDs victims and continue to welcome homosexuals into the church. The prevailing doctrine is essentially, love the sinner, hate the sin. Essentially, being homosexual is not bad or immoral, but homosexual sex acts are a sin. I know it’s hard to see this as progressive, but there are many hard-line right wings religions that believe hatred and pursecution of homosexuals is doing what God wants. From that stand-point, the Catholic Church is definitely in the right direction. This is big since any reform in the Catholic Church is slow.
From a general moral standpoint, I think gay/lesbian marriage makes perfect sense. By continuing to make it illegal/banned, the government is essentially promoting that homosexuals be promiscuous. Alternatively, allowing people in love to commit to spending their lives together promotes the morality of monogamy, which is what the right wingers believe in. The fact that we already have laws against polygamy proves that these multiply partner relationships are believed to be immoral – so why promote this type of lifestyle on homosexuals?
Using the Bible as a moral hard-line against homosexuality is a rather weak argument. The Bible also documents acts of child molestation and specifies how to sell children into slavery. The books of the Bible were written by humans who inherrently integrated believes/practices of the time period. This means that it is impossible to translate everything written throughout the Bible into this time period. Interpretation of the books is needed, and unfortunately, human interpretation carries a lot of flaws and mistakes.
While I agree with the thrust of your argument, I must disagree with this. Absolutely nothing says that you’re promiscuous unless you marry, and aren’t promiscuous if you marry. Living in a monogamous relationship has nothing to do with what religious rituals and ceremonies you choose to go through.
Well, if you ask Senator Rick Santorum (R - PA), he’d say it paves the way for polygamy and bestiality to be accepted. Other than that, I’ve got nothing. Even after a three page thread on it.
Because…God will be mightly displeased and show his displeasure.
Seriously, I think it’s just that people are afraid of what they don’t know about. Other than that, I honestly cannot think of one thing that would happen, other than, well, d’uh-gays would be able to get married!
Sorry, Rick, I’m going to have to disagree with this:
The whole “judicial activism” label bugs me. The way it looks to me is that the politicians have realized that any one of them who takes that step to “legalize” it (marriage, pot, whatever) is going to have some trouble getting re-elected. No one has the guts to take the steps that people are asking them to take (it is quite risky), so they leave it to the courts to decide. Thus difficult decisions get made because the politicians use the judges, in a way, to make the call and take the flak. The politicians end up winning both ways - the decision gets made and they don’t have to appear to agree with it, so everyone’s happy ! Plus it’s the JOB of the courts and the judges to interpret laws. That’s what they’re there for. That’s how the system was designed.
Also, at this point, this argument gives people who don’t want SS marriages (not directed at you, Rick) an argument to hang on to. “It’s not that I don’t think gays should marry, it’s the mechanism with which it’s happened.” Bullsh*t. They realize they’re out of arguments so they hang on to this one. It’s missing the point entirely.
The other problem I have with this whole debate is the “Well, this is the way things have always been” argument. This line of ‘reasoning’ has been used against ending slavery, allowing women or minorities to vote, banning anti-miscegenation laws, and so on, and so on.
The other argument that bugs me, which hasn’t reared its ugly head in this thread yet but is in at least one Letter to the Editor a day, it seems: “The majority of Canadians don’t want this.” Even if this were true (in some areas of the country it may be) it’s still not a vaild argument.
The point of a democracy is not that the majority gets to decide what it wants, but that the elected representatives make decisions which protect the minority.
Santorum said nothing of it “paving the way” to polygamy and bestiality. He simply made the legal statement that if the right to consentual sex within ones home is absolute, then that includes not only hetero and homosexual sex, but bigamy, polygamy and incest as well. This is logical and correct.
It seems to me that there are two arguments you can make. Both of these arguments require holding certain beliefs I don’t hold, and that it doesn’t look like a lot of people in this thread hold, but here they are.
Allowing gay marriage would suggest that the state thinks that the relationship between two gay men or women has the same kind of moral or emotional validity as the relationship between a man and woman. In reality, however, it does not, and it is insulting to a married straight couple to say that their relationship is no more valuable than that of two gay people.
It is in the interest of the state to encourage heterosexual marriage and relationships. There is some segment of the population, however small, that is capable of either heterosexual or homosexual relationships. Removing stigma against homosxuality or publicly approving of gay marriage might cause these people, who otherwise would enter into heterosexual relationships to enter into homosexual ones.
Of course, both these arguments assume that heterosexual relationships are somehow better,or more to be preferred then, homosexual ones.
It’s neither logical nor correct. Bigamy and polygamy are not analogous because they are not sexual acts, they are illegal contracts. Polyamory (multiple sex partners) is perfectly legal and none of the governments business.
IIRC, Santorum did try to throw bestiality into the mix which is obviously not analogous on any level.
Incest between consenting adults may be somewhat comparable, but I don’t have a problem with legalizing incest between consenting adults. It may be gross, but I don’t see how it’s the government’s business. I would still argue that incest is emotionally disordered relationship, though, while same-sex relationships are perfectly normal and healthy.
