I’ll just say this right away:
I’ve got an arguemenative essay I have to write, and I chose do to it on Gay Marriages.
What I need to acquire info on if you are pro- or con- gay marriages. Please provide a reason why you are pro-/con-, as that would be the basis of my whole essay. (Also if you would know why someone else would be pro-/con- please include that.)
And if your con-, stay away from religon, I’ve already thought of that arguement, and yes it’s going in the essay.
I don’t think you CAN stay away from religion on this issue. I am pro-gay marriage. The two main reasons I think it will be a long time coming:
• Yep—religion. There are too many people who think it’s evil.
• Money—too many corporations and insurance companies don’t want to cough up extra benefits.
I assume you’re talking about whether or not the government should recognize gay marraiges, yes?
Okay. My opinion: let’s remember what marriage is. It’s a contract between two people to give mutual support, share property, and protect, house, and educate any children of the union that may presently or eventually exist. It has as a corollary the conservation of property within the family.
There’s nothing in there to suggest that the founders of the marraige need be of opposite sexes. Two people can join resources and property, and the state does not (with a few exceptions based on anti-trust and so forth) forbid the merger of larger economic entities.
For the state to mandate that it will only permit unions of opposite sexes is not a marriage law, it is a sex law, and therefore ridiculous.
I would consider gay marriage not possible in a religious sense, but legally it is no more offensive than a lot of other things the government considers legal. For example, in my religion it is immoral for a divorced man or woman to be remarried. Abortion, capital punishment, and extramarital sex are immoral. But they certainly aren’t illegal. From a purely legal point of view, where people decide to share resources, a civil union makes as much sense as any other civil marriage.
I am for it because the primary reason to have marriage, secularly, is to enable a couple who wish to commit themselves to each other for a lifetime to have that formalized under a standard social contract, and if, as deplorably often happens, that commitment expires, there be standard means by which the now estranged couple may disentangle their lives from each other in a legal framework. There is no reason why such a relationship need be limited to a man and a woman.
From the religious viewpoint, various arguments can be made on both sides, and you said you wanted to avoid them as much as possible. But one primary argument, usually advanced under the guise of religion, is that the purpose of marriage is for procreation, to provide a stable family environment for children. This to me does not seem adequate: though that is an important purpose for the majority of marriages (including many gay ones), to consider it the sole purpose would imply that all marriages should be dissolved at the wife’s menopause, to enable the husband to continue procreating – he’s still fertile – that any marriage which does not result in kids is somehow less than worthwhile – including my own – and a bunch of other absurdities.
You are in the wrong place for the “con” side of the argument. Try visiting The Pizza Parlor ( http:thebruces.stormbirds.com ) and explain the question there. There are intelligent right wing people there who will give you the gist of their arguments against it, without offensiveness.
Cecil did a column on this: [/url=“http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000128.html”]What’s the big deal about gay marriage? Why do we have marriage laws at all?
There are also tons of threads on this on Comments on Cecil’s Columns and Great Debates. I leave it to you to search for these. Some of the later ones have cross-links to the earlier ones.
Thanks for the info & links, honestly, I’m despiratly looking for con- arguements. I have pro- ones up the wazoo but I can’t fathom any con-'s outside of organized religon.
Ok. Well there’s the one Polycarp mentioned.
Marriage is for the purpose of creating and nuturing offspring.
Which of course only works if you also ban marriage for post-menopausal women, men with vasectomies or anybody who says they have no intention of having children. And ignore the children nurtured in gay partnership, because they were adopted, created through aritificial insemination, or were from a previos marriage, not unlike a lot of children of married couples.
If we let the gays get married, next it will be polygamy and incest and pedophila. If we change the tried and true definition of marriage anything goes people will be marrying their eight year old twin sisters.
Which also works if you ignore all the changes in the tried and true definition of marriage already. Like including marriage between a twelve year old girl and a forty year old man. Without her consent. Or not including the marriage between a black guy and a white girl. There’s never been any absolute standard of what a marriage is, all societies created their own definition. And there’s no reason changing ours means not having any standard.
Gay sex is icky.
Probably the biggest argument people have against gay marriage, usually disguised in relgious terms.
And of course there’s the argument that giving all those benefits will cost people money. But people don’t usually make that one either as it does not sound as noble as Defense of Marriage.
Umm…Polycarp is right. This is not the place to come for con arguments. Not if you want them defended.
Does the government care whether my friends are men or women?
Does the government care whether my co-workers are men or women?
Does the government care whether my relatives are men or women?
Does the government care whether my neighbors are men or women?
Why does the government specifically care whether my spouse is a man or a woman? It’s really none of their business.
I’m not exactly pro-gay marriage, but if they want to do it, that’s their choice. The government allows athiests to get legally married, so the argument about how it’s a religious institution doesn’t work. I would prefer that my church would not do it, but I don’t think the government should stop them from become a legal union, or whatever. You can’t treat people like second class citizens just because they’re different. Sorry if I kind of touched on the religious idea too much. Just thought I’d give my thoughts.
First let me say that I am pro marriage for anyone who wants it. But, I have had this discussion with a few folks who were against it and some of their ideas are:
If it were legal you would have people getting married who were not gay just so that one could get benefits, (ie insurance). For instance two guys (or gals) who have been friends forever, one loses his job or takes a job with crap benefits but the other has great bennies, they could get married so that they both have great benefits. Then when one meets someone they REALLY want to marry they just get a simple divorse (sic). Yeah I know this is fraud and they could get in trouble but what is to stop them from saying that they are bisexual and just have an open marriage to support them dating the opposite sex.
To tell you the truth I agree that this could be a problem but it’s not impossible to regulate to a workable degree. Hell, no one complains when male-female couples do the same thing.
Just thought I’d help ya with somethings I have heard. Later…
FWIW I’m opposed to gay “marriage,” for, yes, religious reasons. I think a lot of people think it’s verboten just because ‘the Old Testament says its bad’ or something like that. It’s far deeper. For Christians, marriage is a sacrament, almost on a par with the eucharist or baptism in its importance. The union of male and female in intimacy is held to be the closest picture we have of what kind of relationship God wishes to have with his people.
Maybe that helps you see why it’s so important to so many people.
Having said all that, I’m supportive of civil unions or whatever you want to call them. I’d prefer they didn’t use the word marriage. I think the time will come, as I think it should, where there is a better distinction between “marriage” (or whatever we call it) as a civil association between two people which society has a vested interest in fostering, and “marriage” as a religious committment. Some will have one but not the other. One may be harder to get out of than the other.
Really id say the best solution is to call all goverment approved marrages civil unions while call religious marrages marrages.
Here’s a different opinion for you; I don’t believe the government should legally recognize marriages at all - straight, gay, or otherwise.
Religious ceremonies are private matters.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by T140 *
If it were legal you would have people getting married who were not gay just so that one could get benefits, (ie insurance). For instance two guys (or gals) who have been friends forever, one loses his job or takes a job with crap benefits but the other has great bennies, they could get married so that they both have great benefits. Then when one meets someone they REALLY want to marry they just get a simple divorse (sic). Yeah I know this is fraud and they could get in trouble but what is to stop them from saying that they are bisexual and just have an open marriage to support them dating the opposite sex.
Of course, there is the fact that there are A LOT of non-love weddings between men and women…A LOT of people get married for the other persons money or benefits…and divorce when they find something better. Its not that much different, and, i don’t seem to hear much about governments debating THAT!
I agree with you. I was just passing along arguments I have heard about the subject to give more info for the OP. Later…
This is an interesting old thread about gay marriage:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=22726
Here is a column against same sex marriages.