Apart from the idea that we are “One nation, under a fundie god, with liberty and justice to an arbitrary set of the population” are there really any compelling arguments against gay marriage?
As a person who seems to have an opinion on everything, I can’t see one damn reason why (well, one which is worth its salt, anyway) gay marriages shouldn’t be allowed, posthaste.
Is it really just the matter of procreation? If so, what about adoption as a suitable alternative?
Personally, I don’t see how procreation is a valid reason. Many heterosexual married couples don’t procreate.
Hey, I don’t either, but I have heard it before… 
While we’re putting the stomp-down on potential arguments against, I’d like to note that there is absolutely nothing at present stopping a man and woman from getting married solely in order to take advantage of any government tax benefits, so why should the possibility of two straight men or two straight women getting married to do so be such a horrible Thing-Which-Must-Be-Prevented?
jayjay
Actually, I would guess that the perspective of children being adopted by homosexual couples would be an even stronger deterrent for many people…
Yup. I’m against gay marriage on principal.
But then I’ve gone on record as being against government being in the marriage business at all. I don’t want the government sanctioning gay marriages, straight marriages, inter-species marriages, etc. Marriage is a religious ceremony, plain and simple. It’s none of the governement’s business who participates in a religous ceremony.
But given the fact that they are and will continue to stay involved (there’s not a snowflake’s chance in Hell that they’ll stop), government sanctioned marriage (and the benefits involved) should be open to all consenting adults.
Fenris
Marriage is affirmed by religions and offered legal recognition and protection by society. It is also defined as a relation between a husband(man) and wife(woman). I’m satisfied with the status quo as regards this institution.
It’s quite apparent the gay community isn’t. So. What to do about it…As regards gay ‘marriage’, are you looking to secure the same legal protections offered in marriage? Would a civil union be satisfactory? Is there something more that the gay community wants? Is it the whole word/concept of marriage that the argument hinges on?
**
According to the government a marriage is a civil arrangement. It matters not whether you get married by the Roman Catholic Church or by a Justice of the Peace.
I’m confused. How will the benefits of marriage apply to anyone if you don’t expect the state to recognize any marriage?
Marc
Marriage need not be affirmed by any religious institution, otherwise atheists could not marry. All that is needed is a justice of the peace.
As I see it, marriage seems pretty clearly defined by society as between a man and a woman, so it seems that to enable gays to marry would require redefining it, which I would support, but is unlikely to happen soon. Depending on what various state laws say, it could be argued that the rights and priviledges of marriage cannot be denied to gays, but most likely it would indeed require special legislation in most states.
For me, as marriage is a term that relates to a societal institution, and as society does not recognize the institution of marriage between members of the same sex, I would find civil unions acceptable. The next step would be to move towards a societal acceptance of gay marriage, but I don’t see it as appropriate to force upon society a new definition of marriage, as long as the rights of homosexuals are protected.
I disagree with the government. I grant you, that’s the way things are, but I don’t agree with them.
I don’t want the state to recognize any marriage, but I don’t think I have a chance of winning that argument.
Thus, if marriage must be recognized by the state, I’d like to see state-recognized marriage pared down to the barest essential: a contract between two people for mutual financial support (and child care). Anything outside those bounds ain’t the government’s business, IMHO. I doubt that this view will ever become the majority view, but if I were dictator…etc.
Fenris
So what are you saying? That the day gay marriage becomes legal, all the hetero married couples are going to look at each other and say, “Well, the definition of marriage has been changed, so our marriage is somehow polluted and invalid now”? Puh-leeze! Stop bogarting the civil rights, man.
Wait a sec here, gobear. I thought the whole point was civil rights. You sound as though nothing less than a complete change in the religious/legal definition on marriage will suffice. That doesn’t square with the argument I keep hearing that gays as second class citizens deserve the same legal rights as anyone else. If the definition doesn’t fit, just change it? Up is down, right is left(never wrong, though), and anything can mean anything only when every last person is happy? Sheesh. Equality doesn’t mean identical. What is wrong with the current definition of marriage? Why won’t a gay alternative guaranteeing all due protection under the law work?
Religous, no. Legal, yes.
And the fact that people are having trouble seperating them give some indication of why I don’t like having the Government in the marrying business.
Besides, if the government recognizes a Catholic marriage as legal and binding, how in the world can they choose to ignore a Unitarian (say) gay marriage, without deciding what religions are valid and which ones aren’t?
Fenris
Separate but equal isn’t.
Speaking as a gay man in a long term relationship (OK, a year+ isn’t long term, but we’re banking on it :)) I’d like to see the day where we have the same legal rights as straight marriages.
If the gov’t want’s to make “marriage” the union of one woman and one man (which is the DOMA), then fine. “Marriage” is a word. Many straight couple do not get “married” but live together “till death do us part.” Eventually they get the same benefits as “married” couples. If two men or two women decide to make a life together, they get nothing.
I know a couple who lived together for some 9 years. One guy passed away, but since the house was in his name, with no POA, his partner can’t sell the house. He can’t get morgage relief or any other gov’t subsisities. If they were hetero, there would be no problems. They would have had a common law marriage.
So, to answer your question, no I don’t require the gov’t to sanction gay “marriage”, civil unions such as they have in Vermont would be satisfactory.
Cheers!
You’re right, dogsbody. And wrong. You’re right about ‘separate’ because two men/two women do not meet the definition of marriage. Not only do I think so, the dictionary says so, and so do a majority of the country. Granted, the dictionary can say whatever one wants it to say, but the standard has been set for…ever? When did marriage not mean man and woman? You’re wrong because your reasoning for gay marriage is to legal rights and protections equivalent to the married citizenry. I somewhat belatedly acknowledge the validity of your claim, however you’re still talking about a legal recognition for a biological distinction. You can’t say an apple equals an orange equals a lemon. There are commonalities, not equalities.
First, let me answer your question with a question. Are there really any compelling arguments against marriage between or among blood relatives? I don’t ask this to be facetious; I honestly believe that it is a question just as valid as yours.
I will actually answer your question two ways. First, we have a word - “marriage” - that, given that men and women are fundamentally different, describes a relationship that is unique. Think about it. If men and women are different, an inescapable corollary is that a relationship between two men, or between two women, is different than a relationship between a man and a woman. Please note that I said different. I did not say “better” or “worse”. Just different.
Thus redefining marriage to include other kinds of relationships would be a kind of “meaning” inflation to which I object in principle.
That’s my answer on a personal level. As to the matter of what the government ought to be doing, I am more or less with Fenris.
No. I just don’t think we should change societal definitions until society wants to. Civil unions, while not ideal, are a steppingstone towards gay marriage.
Of course, if society is willing to call gay civil unions marriage so much the better. For my part, I’m willing, but I’m not all that big a part of society.
Basically, I think gays should have the right to enjoy the legal protection and benefits of marriage, and that homophobes should have the right to piss and moan and refuse to call it a marriage. At some point society will simply tell said homophobes to stuff it.
Or perhaps you could look at it as that I don’t see the term marriage as a civil right, but as something that society decides. If gays can enter into civil unions, society will probably concede that they are really married shortly thereafter.
Well! I can’t say for sure if I’ve been insulted, so perhaps I should confirm it, **waterj2{/b]. I’m a homophobe for opposing gay marriage? One second while I check the definition…"…irrational hatred or fear of homosexuals." Ahh, nope, doesn’t fit. Unless…are allheterosexuals who don’t define life according to gay philosophy automatically homophobes? Let me know, 'cause I thought this was the GD, not the pit.
Well! I can’t say for sure if I’ve been insulted, so perhaps I should confirm it, waterj2. I’m a homophobe for opposing gay marriage? One second while I check the definition…"…irrational hatred or fear of homosexuals." Ahh, nope, doesn’t fit. Unless…are all heterosexuals who don’t define life according to gay philosophy automatically homophobes? Let me know, 'cause I thought this was the GD, not the pit.