How could loving, committed, Same-Sex marriages possibly bother you?

[Lilairen]

(Personally, I’d find a lot of religious arguments against homosexuality a lot more convincing if I weren’t in part-time service to a god who’s been quoted complimenting another god on His fine, sexy ass. And ‘soul’s gender’ thing is much more complicated when one knows that the Name Who is responsible for making souls is appropriately praised with “Father of fathers, Mother of mothers.”)
To those people who can’t see gays getting married in your faith because of your god’s laws – talk to the appropriate people about it. Your priests. I am entirely in favor of your religious denomination not performing marriages that are not in keeping with your religious laws.

Other religions have no such laws. Some have no marriage ceremony at all. And there has as yet been no rational reason presented for why civil marriage contracts should be handed out according to the beliefs of one religion and religious denomination.
Marriage is, as far as I’m concerned, a covenant between those getting married and their community. People will form families whether or not they can covenant with their community – but if the rituals of marriage cannot accomodate recognition of those families, the community will weaken, and the institution of marriage will die.

I’m not exaggerating here – I know many people who refuse to get married, who refuse so strongly that they will argue with people who intend to get married, who will demand that they justify that decision. Because marriage is worthless to them as anything other than an enshrinement of discrimination. They find other ways of recognising the formation of families within their communities and binding people together in family and support for family, because that’s one of the things that communities need to be healthy. But marriage is dead for them.

I think that’s pretty awful. I think that destroying the sacredness and value of marriage by pretending that only some families count and get to go through the covenanting process is unjustifiable and by my standards grievously, horribly, distressingly and even disgustingly immoral.

I don’t expect that this will convince those who think like Fontbone; the argument is too personal, too theological, and too much an appeal to the value of the institution. My faith holds family sacred, holds community sacred, recognises marriage as the process of forming a family recognised by the community and binding both together towards the same goal of health and mutual support.

I wanted to write it anyway, because the “religious people are against gay marriage” notion is too strong; because pointing out that marriage to a person of one’s choice was held to be a fundamental right in Loving vs. Virginia doesn’t seem to matter when people are throwing their gods around. I don’t know. Maybe marriage is dead, and some other way of recognising families needs to be born to replace it.

[KellyM]

@Fontbone

I explained already, very clearly, why I believe homosexuality is wrong.

No, you explained THAT you believe homosexuality is wrong. You gave no rational reason for that belief, which appears to be founded in the irrational beliefs that “souls have gender” and “male souls can only marry female souls; any other combination is wrong”. Neither of these beliefs has any rational basis, at least not that you have shared with us. A reason that follows logically from one or more irrational premise is itself irrational, no matter how rational the process leading to that reason – and irrational reasons are not valid bases for legislation.

You shouldn’t accomodate it, unless you live in the US, and the majority of the people agree with it. That’s the point of a democracy.

The United States, thankfully, is not a democracy. It’s a civic republic, and our Constitution requires, inter alia, that all laws have a rational basis. If we adopt a Constitutional amendment wholly lacking in rational basis (which this “Defense of Marriage Amendment” would be), that would be clear evidence that the United States has abandoned rationality as a basis for law.

Also, you did neglect to respond to a number of my other points. Perhaps you can review my comments and revise your remarks.

[spectrum]

@KellyM

Also, you did neglect to respond to a number of my other points. Perhaps you can review my comments and revise your remarks.

He seems to be ignoring points and entire replies left and right, choosing only to respond to those which will allow him to easily just restate his initial opinion over again…

[ebok47]

Aha! At last it rears its head. Those biblically minded citizens are referring to Leviticus 20:13, “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.”

Ah, Leviticus, possibly the most entertaining chapter in the Bible. The “Mosaic Code” as it is called quite often, has in it several sayings by the Lord, through Moses, that discriminate against several people.
It also says that you cant wear two different types of fabric, and that different things should not be mixed at all(I have a habit of immeadietly applying this to gender, therefore, the only holy marrige is same sex)
in Leviticus 21:17-23
“Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.
For whatsoever man he be that have a blemish, he shall not approach:a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,
Or a man that is broken footed, or broken handed,
Or crooktback, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;”
.
.and so on, and so on
I wish I saw more people out to make illegeal to have a flat nose, or to be blind…or people trying to make it unlawful to blend cotton and polyester in clothes…

luckily Jesus went on to say that we shouldnt follow the Mosaic code (including the bit about homosexual activity), and gave examples of what to do instead.

But this dosent have much to do with marriage, save for if we debate if the morality, based on the bible, of homosexuality.

But it does say, in 1 Corithians 11, that woman was made for man.
which would mean same sex couples are ignoring God,
dosent say how it effects everyone else.

In fact, nowhere in the Bible does it say that the homosexuality of a person reflects, damages, or has anything to do with another.
So, from a biblical standpoint, if we take everything to be literal in the bible, yes, same sex marriges are a sin (or they may not be, if you think everything after Jesus does not hold the same truth) , but they dont have anything to do with people not in them.

reads what Ive written
oi, from someone who’s female, 4.5 on the kinsley scale and dosent really believe in God, hates the bible…that gives off, essentially, the opposite standpoint.

So I think I understand where christians come from when they oppose gay marrige for themselves, but not why same sex marriges have any effect on them.
Not to mention, of course, the seperation of church and state.
As for children, why cant they think for themselves? should it not be up to them to decide their opinion on the matter? If a parent express their opinon, sure, but to “pass it on” is something completly different- as if you cant let them be themselves.

[Joe_Random]

@Fontbone

To me, it comes down to this: the soul has gender, and marriage in an eternal sense is between a man and a woman. Homosexuals choose to act in opposition to this basic nature.

Are you advocating that it not be legal for people to do things that are “in opposition to [their] basic nature”? It is not in our basic nature to not eat when we are both hungry and have access to food, so I guess dieting should be illegal. It is also not in our basic nature to walk on our hands or to ride unicycles, so I guess circuses should be outlawed as well.

And besides which, what if two homosexuals want to be married, but not in the “eternal sense” (whatever that is)? Shouldn’t that, at least, be allowed?

see homosexuality the same way [as alcoholism]. Something that certain people have a tendency toward, but that can be denied, if that person so chooses.

I see homosexuality as more like being left handed. It’s something that makes no difference in how a person functions in society, except that they prefer to do things with the opposite hand as most people. Would you expect left handed people to stop using their left hands, and switch to their right, if you happened to have religious beliefs that God doesn’t want people using their left hands?

So why am I opposed to homosexual marriage? Well, it goes like this: if homosexual marriage were allowed to have full equivalency with heterosexual marriage, it would add an unspoken approval of homosexuality to the general culture.

Yeah, so what? Society already has an unspoken approval of things like believing in other gods, or no gods at all. It already has an unspoken approval of gambling, and of displaying gratuitous violence and sex as entertainment. What’s one more sin added to the pile?

I don’t have children now, but when I do, I’ll want to teach them my beliefs on homosexuality. It makes it much more difficult to teach them that something is wrong if they see it as a publicly accepted norm.

Maybe you should let your children decide for themselves what is right and wrong.

Yes, I am responsible for teaching my children, and I accept full responsibility for that–I don’t expect society to raise my children. But I believe that part of the POINT of civilization and society is to provide the optimum environment for proper raising of children, and so whenever something becomes a threat to that, I oppose it.

What you really mean is “I believe that part of the POINT of civilization and society is to provide the optimum environment for proper raising of my children to share my prejudices, at the expense of the rights of other people.”

Which brings up another reason I’m opposed to homosexual marriage: the children aspect. The family is the central unit of society. A family consists of a mother, a father, and children. Homosexuals are obviously unable to bear children, and so a marriage between them is inherently incomplete from the get-go.

So do you oppose the marriage of infertile heterosexuals on the same grounds? If not, then this particular point is . . . well . . . pointless.

[look_ninjas]

@Fontbone

I do believe, as the scientific community in general seems to believe, that some people have an inborn tendency toward homosexual desires. However, I disagree with some of the people here in saying that that automatically makes the person homosexual. Alcoholism is transferred by the genes, that’s also an established fact. My family on my father’s side has a long history of alcoholism: if I were to take a single drink, there’s a good chance that I’d fall into the same trap myself. However, even if I have that tendency, because I’ve never had an alcoholic drink, I’m not an alcoholic. I’m not denying my true self, I’m not betraying my genetic nature in some way; I’m making the choice not to be an alcoholic. I see homosexuality the same way. Something that certain people have a tendency toward, but that can be denied, if that person so chooses.

There’s a bit of a problem with this argument. Genetics influence our lives in all sorts of weird and wonderful ways. We may have a genetic predisposition to something - I’ll use your example of alcoholism - which can be avoided. You decide not to take that first drink, and you’ll never get it. So far, so good.

However, genes are responsible for much more than our potential for cancer and our predisposition for addictive behaviors. There are some things in our genetic makeup that cannot be avoided or denied, no matter how much positive thinking we do. Take achondroplasia, the most common form of dwarfism. It is genetic, like alcoholism. With achondroplasia, however, there’s nothing you can do that will prevent you from becoming a dwarf. You can’t make that decision to be “normal,” to be tall. Anyone born with the genetic predisposition to achondroplasia will be a dwarf forever.

So here’s where we have a problem. Alcoholism and achondroplasia are both genetic. One can be avoided. One can’t. Homosexuality is genetic. Can you avoid it, or can’t you? I’d say you can’t. I don’t believe there’s a gay person in this thread who would say otherwise. What data do you have, Fontbone, that’s going to prove us wrong? Because I’d like to see it.
Disclaimer: I hope achondroplasia is an acceptable analogy (I also hope you like alliteration, but that’s another story). I felt it appropriate as it is genetic, permanent, and doesn’t have any unflattering moral connotations. It certainly wasn’t my intent to marginalize or insult anyone.

[gum]

written by Fontbone

I don’t have children now, but when I do, I’ll want to teach them my beliefs on homosexuality. It makes it much more difficult to teach them that something is wrong if they see it as a publicly accepted norm.

Just this Fontbone: What if your child is gay?
jezus. Poor kid.

[Phlosphr]

Gum Did you see my link to the article on Homophobia being linked to arousal? Page 3 I believe of this post.

And I believe Fontbone is a woman…??? Am I wrong? If so, my appologies.

[gum]

Phlosphr I did. Just now. [I couldn’t get SDMB to co-operate before]

Thank you.

It’s a bit like I thought, huh. :o)

I don’t know if Fontbone is male, or female? . I pity her [his] kid- to be.

[Robbbbb]

To Fontbone, Quint Essence and others:

One argument I hear from people like you goes something like this: “I disapprove of homosexuality, therefore I feel that gay marriage should be outlawed.”

The problem is, I can’t see how the first half of the statement automatically leads to the second half. Homosexuality is here to stay. You are not advocating banning homosexuality itself, and it won’t go away no matter what you legislate, despite the fact that you feel it’s immoral/yucky/whatever. So instead, to somehow “dissuade” homosexuality, you want to deny rights to them. Like marriage.

Here’s an extreme example: I am morally against drug abuse. Drug use is a choice, and I obviously don’t want my kids to become drug abusers. Does that mean I want a constitutional amendment singling out drug users for special treatment? No. Just because they’re a drug user, they still should have the same rights as non-drug users. Using your logic, maybe we should pass a constitutional amendment saying that illegal drug users should be required to pay twice as much income tax. Or perhaps, illegal drug users should be denied the right of protection from cruel and unusual punishment. Do you think that’s fair? Or appropriate?

And the difference is, drug abuse is illegal, homosexuality isn’t. Yet you still want to change the constitution to single out homosexuals as being a group that should get less rights than everyone else.

Trust me, if this amendment passes, you’ll be seeing protests and civil disobedience the likes of which have never been seen in this country. And it’ll be so public, there’ll be no way to shelter your kids from it. Which was the whole point of banning gay marriage in the first place, right?

[Edlyn]

loopydude, I must congratulate you on “getting it” about middle America. And frankly, from the responses I’ve read in this thread even I have tossed and turned my position mentally on my long commutes to and from work.

That’s not good and that’s all I’m going to say about this subject - ever. I’m done.

[MrBoy1967]

I’m a 100% straight & practicing Roman Catholic, and -Surprise!- I have no problem with gay marriage. Furthermore, I’m amused by people who are trying to make a distinction between marriage and “civil unions.” If it quacks like a duck…

Ask yourself-“If 2 atheists get married in a JP’s office, is it still a marriage?” The civil institution of marriage is every bit as valid and binding as any religious ceremony, at least in the eyes of the law.

While there are still some states that recognize the creation of common law marriages, even those marriages have a host of legal rights and responsibilities that go along with them.

All that gays are asking for is the same bundle of rights and responsibilities. Check this out: http://www.washblade.com/2003/12-26/news/national/iowajudge.cfm

So, this court recognized a responsibility, but the partners never at any time had the same rights as straights in their relationship. The court is exercising a power to treat people as if they were getting a divorce when they were not even married! As it stands now, gays can’t inherit property or exercise medical power of attorney without extreme legal wrangling, and sometimes even the best drafted documents get tossed aside by the courts. For example, a case here in Texas threw out the will of a gay man who left a huge estate to his lover. The family won on grounds of “undue influence.” This meant that the previous will was reinstated. But for minor details, it was identical to the voided one. The family challenged and defeated this and every other will the decedent had made over the course of his 20 year relationship with his lover. This case is still the law. I can guarantee you, a black man could leave his estate to the KKK easier than a gay man could leave property to his lover.

The truest test of a democracy is how it treats those in the minority.

This is because whatever group you are in is the majority now does not guarantee that you will always be in the majority, and if minority rights are consistently trampled, no one’s rights are safe for long.

Remember, we live in a society of laws that is ostensibly seperated from religion (of any kind). For a law to pass muster with the courts, it must have a secular (non-religiously based) rationale; empirical proof of a harm to be avoided or a good to be enhanced.

In other words, just basing an anti-gay union argument on “souls”, the Bible, etc., just won’t cut it.

(BTW- I know I rambled and wandered a bit, but I read this thread from start to finish in one sitting, and there was sooooooo much to discuss.)

[ismecdb]

Seems clear to me that those who oppose gay marriage, (or the use of the term ‘marriage’ for a gay union, or whatever semantic weaselly bullshit,) have “faith,” “belief,” and some general feeling from they-don’t-know-where as their rationale. This leaves reason out of it from the start, so demanding logic from these folks is a waste of time. Part of faith is believing no matter what, right? Seems like denying your faith at least a little to even bother trying to make it sound rational.

My point, (and that of many other posters): this is obviously a case of religious belief (and some non-religious ick-related bigotry) dictating U.S. civil policy, which is against the Constitution. Why oh why can’t we have the separation of church and state that the supreme law of the land says we have? Why do I ever have to listen to religiously motivated crap in the public sphere? Hell - I stay out of their churches; can’t they stay out of public policy?

I really don’t understand why these nice religious folks can’t grasp the concept of separation. No prayer in schools, no commandments at courthouses, no recitation of “under God,” abortions for whoever makes that choice, privacy in the bedroom, equal protection for everyone under the law…

[Typo_Negative]

I’ve got 14 divorces in my immediate family. Heterosexuals all.

The gays can hardly screw it up any worse than the straights have. I say let 'em have a shot.

OR let’s just do away with it all together. Maybe it would be best if only civil unions were recognized by the law.

[JRDelirious]

@MrVisible

Actually, that’s the situation in the US now, too. You can have a religious ceremony, but you need to sign a certificate to be married. You can be married before a Justice of the Peace, and not have any church involved.

Unfortunately, the religious people want to have the civil institution bow down to their religious doctrines.

Partly, and equally unfortunately, because unlike in Napoleonic-Code jurisdictions in the US it was made the usual practice to automatically deputize the ministers of religions to officialize said certificate. This allowed the propagation fo the fallacious cultural meme we see so often in this threads, that Sacramental Matrimony was the original genuine item, and civil marriage is barely a stopgap facsimile (when in reality, “civil” marriage historically antecedes the sacramental form). In some NC countries, which is to what I think the reference was, you must to have the civil union officialized separately and independently from the religious ceremony.

It doesn’t help at all that to this day a few major religions (and/or large chunks of their followers) will yell and scream that a purely civil marriage is “not real”. That’s just bulldada. Civil Law has jack to do with “eternal souls”.

[istara]

@Scylla

This doesn’t make sense. Even if we accept the fallacious proposition that homosexuality is some kind of curse or handicap depriving one of normallness, why would you want to rub it in.

I guy with no legs isn’t normal. Should he not have a wheelchair so that his life can be as normal as possible.

If you really do have nothing against gay people, shouldn’t you want them to be as “normal” as possible?

I remember the guy who writes the Savage Love column (who is himself definitely gay) describing homosexuality as something like “a naturally occurring deviance” or “deviancy”. I can’t find that particularly column, but I remember him having to defend his words to some guy who found them offensive/bigoted or something. The problem was with the nuance of “deviancy” which has a negative weight (implying immorality). But symantically speaking, it makes sense. I guess he could have said “deviation” - maybe he did - but I remembered it as deviance/y.

To me, it makes the argument for gay rights even stronger, because by acknowledging that it is a minority state, but something still occurring (like lefthandeness) naturally, you take the wind out of a lot of bigoted sails. It’s like “yes, it’s not the norm, it is problematic in that it doesn’t make-a-baby for example, like heterosexuality can, but it still happens naturally, it should not be vilified or discriminated against.”

[ralph124c]

First I have nothing against what two people want to do, as far as that goes. However, marriage is a LEGAL institution, and if it is extended to people of the same sex, this will be used to perpetrate all kinds of frauds:
-pension fraud
-benefits fraud
-shielding of criminal activity (the fact that married people are not required to give testimony agaiinst eachother)
-all kinds of estate problems
-immigration fraud
To put it simply, it will open a pandora :eek: 's box of issues, and cause countless problems!

[jayjay]

@ralph124c

First I have nothing against what two people want to do, as far as that goes. However, marriage is a LEGAL institution, and if it is extended to people of the same sex, this will be used to perpetrate all kinds of frauds:
-pension fraud
-benefits fraud
-shielding of criminal activity (the fact that married people are not required to give testimony agaiinst eachother)
-all kinds of estate problems
-immigration fraud
To put it simply, it will open a pandora :eek: 's box of issues, and cause countless problems!

And you are convinced that two people of opposite sexes have never ever ever gotten married to take advantage of the above…why?

People get married for convenience NOW. And yet nobody ever says “Prove you’re in love and sleeping together”, do they (note: immigration marriages excepted)?

Why is it somehow worse when it’s two people of the same sex who might get married for the above purposes? And explain to me why a marriage of convenience is about pension or benefits fraud when it’s two men or two women but not when it’s a man and a woman? I wonder how many of those 70-year-old couples who are married because it’s cheaper to live together than alone are committing pensions and benefits fraud?

Open your eyes. All of this stuff is happening now with opposite-sex couples without any comment whatsoever. To claim that it would suddenly be a major problem if same-sex couples did it is disingenuous.

[KellyM]

@ralph124c

First I have nothing against what two people want to do, as far as that goes. However, marriage is a LEGAL institution, and if it is extended to people of the same sex, this will be used to perpetrate all kinds of frauds:
-pension fraud
-benefits fraud
-shielding of criminal activity (the fact that married people are not required to give testimony agaiinst eachother)
-all kinds of estate problems
-immigration fraud
To put it simply, it will open a pandora :eek: 's box of issues, and cause countless problems!

And, of course, none of these things EVER happen with opposite sex marriage. :rolleyes:

[Mizzkyttie]

@ralph124c

First I have nothing against what two people want to do, as far as that goes. However, marriage is a LEGAL institution, and if it is extended to people of the same sex, this will be used to perpetrate all kinds of frauds:
-pension fraud
-benefits fraud
-shielding of criminal activity (the fact that married people are not required to give testimony agaiinst eachother)
-all kinds of estate problems
-immigration fraud
To put it simply, it will open a pandora :eek: 's box of issues, and cause countless problems!

Ralph124c, I hate to say, but as jayjay has already stated, straight folks do this all the time. In fact, I was unaware until a couple of years ago that my very own brother got married to his first (he’s now on his third,) wife not because he loved her and wanted to live forever with her and make many babies or anything like that – it’s that he wanted more money out of the Navy, and she wanted to have somewhere free to live and finish her college education. I was sickened and very upset when I found this out, but I’m sure he’s not the -only- person who’s done it ever. And, what about the straight women who marry US soldiers/sailors, etc. who wish to just marry them to get over here to the states? My mother, who is from the Phillipines, warned my brother repeatedly when he went overseas to not date anyone “because so many just want their citizenship.” In fact, it even happened to a friend of my family – he married a lovely young woman from the Phillipines, she got over here, had a baby by him, and then divorced him in a red hot minute, once her status as a citizen was secured.

It happens so often, it’s scary – and these are straight people. Yet, you don’t see a ban on straight marriages on these grounds.