To those opposed to gay marriage: Why?

Great Debates
161

Isn’t it funny… Dopers looove to argue semantics. Even if they KNOW the meaning of what you are trying to say, if it can be interpreted another way, they will argue THAT way and completely disregard the intended meaning.

Why do you guys do that? It’s soo agravating. You know what I mean. Do you just love to argue? This is one big reason why so many threads go off on tangents, like this one has.

Let this be a lesson… make SUUUURE that what you say can ONLY be interpreted in the way you mean.

In case you are really that obtuse and honestly believe that I thought you would agree with my beliefs on gay marriage… **
I only meant that these two explanations answered the OP.** Boy, I even said it right there.

162

Dude, it is TOTALLY relevant. That is all that I am saying. Same sex marriage is yet another step away from a world that I belief works best. Women leaving the home happened earlier. My whole point is that I think it would be in society’s (emotional) best interest if we step forward to the world as it used to be, not back to the way it’s headed.

And yes, I completely know that I am saying that backwards from your point of view. You probably think we are walking forwards into the future. I think we are walking backwards, blind to what we are headed towards. And that is the point I am trying to make. Our young children’s subconscious minds understand classic mother and father roles best, not because their friend’s parents are male and female, but because it’s instinctive. Homosexuality isn’t instinctive (yet). When it is, that would be fine. I wouldn’t be against same-sex marriage. This argument isn’t about homosexuality. How you live your life is your business. But when it affects the world around us negatively, then I am against it.

163

And let’s not forget that you aren’t supposed to judge others, which you are doing. I am not condemning anybody. That’s God’s job. And I don’t see how I am being condemning. Please ellaborate.

164

But you’ve conveneiently forgotten all the parts of the old world that were terrible and you’re ignoring the reasons we “stepped away” from it in the first place.

Plus you’re mixing up your prepositions by suggesting we step forward to the past and back to the future. Yo, McFly!

Got a degree in child psychology, or any other credentials to lend evidence to such a statement? Frankly, without such credentials, any argument involving the prhase “subconscious” is unfalsifiable nonsense.

Personally, I sense that subcsonsciously you favour SSM but live in denial because of a religious upbringing (see? Pointless.)

Then I’ll count you “not against” right now, because all indications are that homosexuality is instinctive for a minority of the population, much as left-handedness is, or a fondess of (blech) rhubarb.

Welcome to our side.

165

I’ll admit that the world wasn’t as good as it is now in certain terms, racial equality for example. But it is possible to progress in certain areas and go back in others, like morality. If it were possible to maintain high morals and allow same-sex marriage, then I wouldn’t be against it. Maybe it’s the closed-mindedness of the religious right that would end up making things worse. I don’t know. But I do think that SSM would make things worse. Can we change it? Doubtful. But take comfort in the fact that (barring any social change (or Jesus returns)) you will probably eventually win. It just might not be for a few decades. And what condition does the world need to be in in order for SSM to be accepted without question. That’s not a world that I want to live in. It’s not SSM that I have a problem with, but the condition of the world that will allow it to exist. That’s what I have a problem with.

I hope you just took this as an opportunity to make the McFly joke, cause I did comment on it already.

Hardly. I believe what I believe because I value high morals, not because I believe in God or Jesus. My upbringing is responsible for my morality, but I could have just as easily been atheist and have high morals. My Dad is atheist.

:dubious: Yeah, right. Next thing you’re going to be accusing me of being in the closet. I find guys repugnant. I don’t like straight guys. They are rude and selfish. And I don’t like gay guys either. The idea of… you know… really grosses me out. And if this doper sampling of gays is any indication of real gay society… no thanks. Not for me. I like people that think of God first, and themselves last.

166

In my experience, if all gays were like the ones I’ve met on the Dope, then most gays would be vastly superior to many straights I’ve met in real life.

And I like people that remember that however they treat other human beings, that’s how they’re treating God.

:dubious:

167

OK, I’ve wisely avoided wading into this discussion so far, but I just can’t resist. I am very strongly in favor of gay marriage (I even did door-to-door canvassing for Human Rights Campaign to raise money for it.), but I try never to hold a position without understanding the opposing position, and I think this thread has helped me to understand the other side of this debate. I’d like to try to describe how I understand the anti-gay marriage position, and see how it comes out.

Some people place a very high value on social stability. The 60s and 70s in the US were a time of great social progress, but it came at the cost of great social instability. It has been said that what you think of the 60s determines whether you are a liberal or a conservative: if you think they were a net good for society, you’re a liberal; if not, a conservative. Most people on this board, including me, think they were a net good, but there have undeniably been costs. For many, the very fact of change is to be counted as a cost (though not necessarily a significant one). Many of the costs were unforseen and unforseeable even to the participants of the time. Social cohesion lessened, crime rose (perhaps inevitably) from a long-term low in the 50s, families became less stable.

I believe that the phenominal rise in divorce rates was a necessary price for granting women the freedom and equality they deserve. Many marriages were (and are) abusive and harmful. It is imperrative that women (and men) be able to escape from them. But it can be argued that marriage is now taken less seriously than it once was. Some marry without seriously intending to stay together for life or without seriously considering the ramifications. Many psychologists now claim that divorce is far more harmful for children than was once believed, and are actually advising some couples in non-abusive relationships to “stay together for the kids.” My own mother was advised by her councelor to get a divorce because relationships invevitably weaken and people grow apart. The marriage probably would have ended anyway, but she sometimes wonders why it occured to no one (except my father) to even try to save it. Again, the rise in divorces (even frivolous divorces) was worth granting women their rights. My own parents’ divorce was worth it. But in both cases, I’ve payed a price.

Marriage is a fundamental element in our society. Changes to it (just like the ones that took place in the 70s) inevitably have a cost, often in unforseen ways that affect the very fabric of our society. I believe that gays (like women in the 70s) have rights (some say basic human rights) that have been denied them. I believe that freedom and equality are higher values than stability and that human rights (by definition) morally trump any consideration. I would like to believe that I would die to defend the rights of others: likewise, I would see society change or even (in theory) be destroyed for if it were necssary to grant others their rights.

Others value stability more than freedom and equality, at least in this case. They may society as particularly vulnerable to basic social changes, or see marriage as something other than a right, or believe that there are extenuating factors in this issue (such as a percieved immorality to homosexuality) that tip the scale toward valuing stability. They see marriage as being undermined because stability is a primary function of marriage. Even if no individual marriage is harmed, the purpose of marriage is undermined by changing its understanding. These values are not inherrently religious, although their is a strong correlation between valuing stability highly and holding religious beliefs.

These people are wrong. They are wrong in their moral judgements, and possibly much else. I believe the cost to granting gays the rights they deserve is trivial and the action imperative. I also think extending marriage is actually inducive of stability and social cohesion in the long run. Though wrong, they are not necessarily unreasonable. There is a cost to granting gays the rights they deserve, as there is a cost to all progress. Some are unwilling to pay it.

168

Well, it’s not fully agreed that the world is less moral than it was. It’s an easy thing to say the modern world is less moral, but that only works if you overlook just about everything bad about the past.

That’s the second time I’ve seen you make a conditional claim about dropping your objection (the first being if homosexuality could be shown as instinctive). More on this at the end.

I’m not sure where you live, but I feel compelled to point out that the nation of Canada is heading quite firmly toward SSM, or at least the legally equivalent civil union, and no outbreak of immorality is apparant within our sparkling shores. If you ever visited us, would you feel compelled to commit suicide or something? Please restrain yourself. We like our country tidy.

Well, I hope you took that as an opportunity to tell us about your Dad, cause I did comment on it already (I said “see? Pointless.” about statements referring to the subconscious)

That’s hysterical, because by “our side” I was referring to people who favour individual rights, not gays. I’m not even gay myself (not that there’s anything wrong with that) but I have a strong aversion to attempts to restrict individual freedom in cases where exercising that freedom causes no provable harm to society. Your “ick” reaction is not sufficient evidence, I’m afraid, nor was the “ick” reaction to interracial marriage sufficient reason to ban it.

Now as for your claims that you’d drop your opposition if:[ul][li]High morals could be maintained, and/or[*]Homosexuality could be shown to be instinctive[/ul][/li]
Well, I can’t really argue for the first without a good working definition of “high morals” (please offer one), but I’m sure I can find any number of cites from reputable psychiatric journals that show homosexuality as a purely natural inclination felt by some random segment of the population. If I do so, will you stand by your word and drop all opposition?

169

Entertainingly enough, I’m one of those folks who places high value on social stability.

Which is one of the reasons I’m absolutely in favor of marriage equality.

Marriage is the social institution used for the recognition of relationships. Its strength lies in the fact that it’s an established, fundamental social institution, one which not merely ties together the direct participants, but which the surrounding society both interacts with and supports. (Several religious rites of marriage include that specifically in their ritual.)

So what happens in the case where there exist relationships, such as a partnership between two people of the same sex, which cannot go through the social institution for the recognition of relationships?

Well, first of all, an underclass of sorts is created; a number of people are established who, denied access to the basic rituals of their society, are less invested in that society. They’re kept on the fringe, and become a natural insurgency, a disruption. Further, those people who aren’t part of that group, but who are sympathetic to them, may also start distancing themselves from the consensus, creating a social split (and resulting turmoil).

Within that group, alternate means of recognising relationships will form, often directly in competition with and/or to the exclusion of marriage. (Yes, I have encountered people who refuse to get married because of marriage discrimination. Some of them will attempt to dissuade those people who wish to get married from doing so, citing taking advantage of straight/monogamous privilege as intrinsically immoral. I have even encountered people who are actively in favor of divorce as a form of protest for those people who have gone so far as to actually go through that ritual.) This is direct competition with the concept of marriage, and an active process of undermining it.

In the end, marriage equality is either established, or the value of marriage is destroyed because it is no longer the means of establishing a relationship within a community, merely a competing and distinctly tarnished institution.

170

Actually, SSM would give the partners responsibilities toward each other, which halfway measures like domestic partnerships often don’t do. A coworker of mine is in a domestic partnership with another woman. Since we both work for a government agency which recognizes the partnership, she can do many things for her partner that I can do for my husband. She can make her partner a beneficiary of her pension, she can cover her partner under her health insurance, she can take sick leave to care for her partner when the partner is ill. But she is not required to do many things I am required to do. Her partner can (and does) receive SSI, even though my coworker has a fairly high income. When retirement time comes, my coworker can take the highest payments, which end at the employee’s death. I can’t do that without my husband’s consent- otherwise, I must choose a benefit which continues to pay him after my death. Should her partner need nursing home care, my coworker’s income will not be taken into account in determining Medicaid eligibility. If my husband needs nursing home care, my income will be taken into account in determining his Medicaid eligibilty.
The responsibilities marrried people have to each other is a reason to support a single institution with the same name for both same sex couples and opposite sex couples (and it doesn’t matter to me what the name is, as long as it’s the same). It makes no sense me to allow same sex couples to gain many (but not all) of the benefits associated with marriage through domestic partnerships, contracts etc, and deny them the ability to also take on the responsibilities associated with marriage.

171

Yes, I agree completely. Social stability is very good, and gay marriage will promote it. I was trying to understand why and how others might disagree.

(I don’t think you misunderstood, but I want to be sure.)

172

I’ve gotten into these semantic arguments before, and I despise them. You have a job to do before Christ, and He’s specifically defined the fundamental principles you are to act on. Same applies to me. I was reminding you of them. If you choose to see it as judgment, and the comments you’ve made in this thread as not, then I have little more to share with you. Go in peace, to love and serve our Lord.

173

I’ve asked you this directly two or three times now, and you seem to just ignore the question. I’ll try one more time: Please tell me just how same-sex marriage has ANY effect on what it is that you call “high morals”. How does the fact that same-sex marriages exist in the world prevent you, or me, or your children, or anyone from maintaining their high morals?

174

From this, you can make one of two assumptions:

  1. Proponents of same-sex marriage are shrill, whiny, and quick to resort to name-calling at anyone who disagrees with them.

  2. Every single argument against the legalization of same-sex marriage that has ever been posted on this board has been defeated, repeatedly, by revealing that it is either illogical, based on an invalid assumption, acting outside the clearly-established roles of church vs. state, or that it is simply not fair. And still people claim that there are valid, rational arguments against it that have nothing to do with homophobia.

I have yet to see anyone on this message board who has been involved in an argument against same-sex marriage who did not at one point or another say that it came down to “personal or religious reasons.” Ever. I have seen thread after thread brought up asking for the reasons why people are opposed to this, and they’re met either with silence, or irrational arguments that when pressed, come down to being uncomfortable or repulsed by homosexuality itself.

Is this the rational, reasoned argument that we’re supposed to be responding to?

The definition of the word “homophobia” is “fear of or contempt for homosexuals and homosexuality.” Therefore, the word fits.

175

Well, it’s not exactly fair. You ask a question about a personal choice, “why are you against same sex marriage.” Then you shun us for telling you our personal choice, “because I feel that it continues society on a path that leads to more immorality.” I’m sorry if I sound condemning of your beliefs. I don’t mean to be. I don’t think this argument (from my point of view) has anything to do with homosexuality per-se, but rather the definition and purpose of marriage, and the importance of family and a heterosexual marriage’s strengths in family. I know, to some marriage<>family. But it used to be. And that’s my point. The world is changing. It used to be marriage=family. And I like the idea of a world that celebrates family. Homosexual marriage is most often marriage<>family, though not always I understand. See the difference? SSM continues that trend. It gives the equation marriage<>family strength. Do you understand now?

I’ll answer the rest later, including Roadfood’s. (Though if you can’t see that I have already answered the question, I don’t know how I’ll explain it again - though I’ll try.) I have a lot of work to do for a trip. I’m actually working on a response outside of the browser. Stinking gerbils are hungry lately.

176

No. Not at all.

It was preferable when you openly said that your opposition was because you’re repulsed by men in general and homosexual intercourse in particular. At least that was honest, and not a self-serving attempt to justify it as something else.

The question, I will remind everyone you and everyone else, was what are your oppositions to same-sex marriage.

Not what is your opposition to childless marriages, as some people have mistaken the question to be. And I’ll remind everyone that childless marriages are still perfectly legal for everyone in the United States. As long as they’re not homosexuals. Heterosexual couples who don’t want to have children are perfectly able to be married; there are no bans in place for that. Heterosexual couples who aren’t able to bear children have a wealth of opportunities to help them conceive or adopt and are without question supported by their community. Homosexual couples who want to raise children are the ones who are shunned and their relationships are declared legally illegitimate. That is what’s “not fair.”

Not what is your opposition to federalism, or the role of judges in the legislative process, or the will of the people, or the rights of the church, or hiring pastors, or suing churches for performing weddings, which are often used to try to derail the argument.

Your opposition to same-sex marriage is based on your opposition to homosexuality itself. The wording of your posts makes this abundantly clear. You reduce sexual orientation to “one’s beliefs,” which it is not. You claim that homosexual couples who are fighting to be married are working to undermine the definition of family. You claim that homosexual marriages would not be equal to family, without giving any rationalization of this “argument.” You claim that it’s selfish, that it’s all about getting tax benefits – your money – and not about starting a family. You don’t acknowledge that a same-sex couple is exactly the same as any heterosexual couple that desires to start a family but is unable to conceive a child on their own.

In short, your objections are not to same-sex marriage, but to homosexuality.

To me, the answer to the OP’s question is completely obvious. What are people’s objections to same-sex marriage? They think that homosexuals are promiscuous and selfish. They think that homosexual intercourse is lustful, carnal, sinful, or just “icky.” And they insist on being able to hold onto these prejudices without having to think about whether they’re valid, and without having to be called homophobes, because that’s “not fair.” I would think that the solution is simple: if you don’t like being called a homophobe, don’t say things that are homophobic.

177

Dude, did you even read the paragraph that you quoted? That is not homophobic in the slightest. People? Was that paragraph homophobic? So I used the word “beliefs”. #%^@ IT! THAT’S JUST SEMANTICS!!! You know what I meant! Why do you dopers always argue semantics? Semantics is just pointless bickering just for the sake of arguing. The worst kind of arguing is arguing for arguing’s sake. Just a waste of time. Which I have far too little of. I don’t appreciate it. So stop it. That paragraph was reasonable and not homophobic in the slightest. And it proved that the argument has nothing at all to do with homosexuality, but the redefinition of marriage.

  1. It used to be marriage=family. marriage<>family was the exception.
  2. Then it was marriage<>family. But marriage=family was still preferred.
  3. Eventually marriage<>family became stronger, but marriage=family is still assumed. This is the way it is today.
  4. SSM<>family (I know that SSM could = family but it is not generally understood to be children oriented.) I’m not generalizing, society is.
  5. So SSM solidifies the opinion of society that marriage<>family.

I prefer a world in which marriage=family. My personal preference. The OP asked about what our personal beliefs were, so that’s the answer. I like a world that takes families into consideration. The family oriented world by definition must be moral. (I’m not saying one way or another whether homosexuality is moral. That’s not the issue.) Think of the world that exists today. Would you let your 4 year old child watch TV oriented towards the immoral ideals that are prevalent today? Would you let your 4 year old watch 24? How about soap operas? I wouldn’t. And many parents wouldn’t either. Think about what was on TV 50 years ago. Much more mild than today, right? Yes, we have protections today. But we have to. The world of the past didn’t need them. Children could run around the neighborhood without worrying about kidnappers long ago. Remember halloween? Seen many kids trick or treating door to door lately? I didn’t think so. I have more examples, but that’s for later. I have to get to work.

178

You can repeat that as many times as you want, but you’ll continue to get people “arguing semantics” until you explain what you mean by that.

Why? Why does same sex marriage not equal family? Not understood to be children-oriented by whom? By you? By “society” that’s making this generalization? Why is your definition of what a same-sex marriage is the only valid one? What about homosexuals like myself who do want to raise children?

And what about heterosexual couples who cannot conceive children? Are they a family? By whose definition? Yours? Why is your definition of “family” more valid than theirs? Would you oppose the rights of heterosexual couples to marry if they cannot conceive children?

What about heterosexual couples who don’t even wish to have children? Still a family? And again, are you so confident in your definition that you would deny their right to marry?

Once again, you claim that there is nothing homophobic about what you say, that it’s simply all about the definition of marriage and family. But your definition makes assumptions about homosexual couples that are invalid. The only fact you have correct is that homosexual couples are biologically incapable of conceiving children on their own.

If you can honestly assert that to protect the “definition of family” as you understand it, you’re willing to ban or invalidate the marriages of heterosexual couples who either cannot or choose not to have children, then no, there is nothing homophobic about your position. (It’s just completely abhorrent, IMO).

On the other hand, if you believe that it’s okay for heterosexual couples to marry whether or not they can or want to have children, but that homosexual couples should not be able to marry because they cannot have children, then your position is homophobic.

179

Does the general U.S. population believe that homosexuals have children? Yes or No?

180

I don’t know from the general U.S. population. Based on the votes, I would tend to say no. But if this thread proves anything, it’s that people believe a lot of stupid things. I have to wonder if the “general U.S. population” believes that most homosexuals act like what they see on “Queer as Folk” and “Will and Grace.”

But that question is as irrelevant as kidnappers and whether or not women should stay in the home and the fact that children should be chaperoned when they go trick-or-treating. You keep insisting that you’re stating your personal beliefs about same-sex marriage. Not the generalizations of society. Not the general U.S. population. We’re trying to hammer down what are your personal objections to same-sex marriage. So let’s stick to that, all right? Let’s keep it personal.

Start with two couples. One of the couples is two of my good friends. They’re a heterosexual couple who have discovered that they’re unable to conceive a child on their own. The other couple is me and my boyfriend, two homosexual men who for obvious reasons cannot conceive a child of our own. Both of us plan to either adopt or use a surrogate mother to have a child.

Now, assume that because of some colossal blunder in the democratic process, you have been given sole control over how the rest of our lives play out. To which couple do you grant the “privilege” of marriage? Neither? Just the heterosexual ones? Or both of us? Are the hetero couple also contributing to the downfall of society as we know it, or is it just us homos?

If you support marriage for neither, then your opposition is not to same-sex marriage, but to childless marriage, and you should say so and act as such. Your laws should ban marriage for couples who are not able to conceive children, not couples where both members are of the same sex.

If you support marriage for my friends but not us, then your opposition is because my boyfriend and I are of the same sex. Ergo, we’re homosexuals. Ergo, you’re a homophobe.

You have yet to explain how two people of the same sex getting married will help bring about the downfall of the idyllic “Father Knows Best” society that you imagine existed 50 years ago. My sincere advice would be to: 1) actually get to know some homosexual people, to help dispel the misconceptions you have about them; and 2) read a book or two about what life was really like in the 50’s, because it wasn’t like what you see in sitcoms.