What is the rationale for opposition to same-sex marriage?

Great Debates
361

Wasn’t this thread all about teh gays wanting to get with the program and marry each other but being prevented from it? Maybe that’s the real source of the opposition to same sex marriage: the religious right wants us gays to go back to being wildly promiscuous and living up to their stereotypes.

(Note: Not proposed as a serious explanation. I figure the disclaimer is necessary since someone in this thread had seriously proposed “If the gays can get married, marriage won’t be so special for the straights and marriage rates will plummet, dooming Western Civilization,” which is of approximately the same degree of stupidity.)

362

That cuts to the heart of the issue, which is about where we draw the line regarding sexual mores. Trying to equate two parades misses the point, because the issue is about sexual mores and not about subculture. If the Irish wanted to celebrate sexuality in the street on St. Pat’s it would cause the same kind of problem in our protestant ethically dominated culture.

363

I’m not saying that bigotry isn’t a descriptive word, only that people stop thinking when they use the word bigot. “Oh the reason they do this is because they are bigots.”, of course underlying that is, “Why are they bigots?”, but no one goes that far, they are satisfied with bigotry as an explanation, they think that ‘irrational hatred’ is sufficient to describe the opposing viewpoint. That’s my problem. I don’t care if you call someone a bigot, I just care if it stops people from being intellectually curious about a position they don’t hold.

364

Future medical advances will probably allow people of the same gender to impregnate each other. This has already been done with some non-human animals.

Once that happens, you’ll be okay with gay people marrying, right?

365

So your argument boils down to prejudice based on sexuality is acceptable and prejudice based on ethnicity isn’t? Cause I can’t come up with any other way to parse that explanation.

366

He’s already okay with gay people marrying.

367

No, I am saying that this is a real issue that should be discussed rationally, and the standards of sexual mores shouldn’t simply be dismissed as bigotry.

368

Well, let’s look at why people are bigots, on both “sides”:

Evangelical side:
They believe that God’s pronouncements should be codified into law.
They believe that if gay people are allowed to get married, it’ll cause some kind of problem with hetero marriage, but can’t coherently explain their reasoning.
They’re homophobes (like me), and worse, want the gays dehumanized at every turn (not like me).
Somebody with authority over them told them to think that way.

Crazy Amoral Free Love side
They want the same rights everybody else has, and perceive those who try to stop them in getting those rights in a bad light as a result, but wouldn’t mind them if they stopped.
They oppose bigotry on princible, but wouldn’t mind if the bigots stopped being bigots.
They dislike seeing people oppressed by an unjust tyranny of the majority - but don’t mind majorities that don’t tyrannize.
They’re amoral satanistic atheist bastards of evil, very bad and evil evil, who hate all that is good and relish the opportunity to oppress those poor innocent christians by making changes to the law that have little or no effect on them.*

Did I miss anything? If not, then wow, those bigoted bigoted gays. With all their intolerance. They should really shut up and let the Evangelical majority tyrannize them like good submissive second-class citizens, like all good non-intolerant people do.
*included for completeness

369

What do gay pride parades have to do with gay marriage?

370

So, in essence, you’re saying that we should forbid all weddings because they’re nothing but a couple announcing publicly that they will be living together and screwing every chance they get?

Because that’s where your logic takes you. If gay marriage is nothing but a public display of sexuality, then the same must be true when it’s a man and a woman publicly declaring their intent to start a family too.

Or perhaps it’s the love and commitment that is important to why they want to marry. In both cases.

371

No need. The concept doesn’t apply. I’m not seeking to make two different groups tap into two different things (like schools) in that hopes that we can get them to be equal. I’m proposing the tow different groups tap into one set of laws, which by definition, will be equal to itself. Both Miller’s idea and mine do this. The only difference is the use of the word “marriage”. But thanks for giving me the opportunity to clear this up, as one than one poster has made the same erroneous assumption.

372

Marriage is not about sex. Sex is one component.

No, that’s a silly oversimplification. It is about starting a family, not about displaying sexual promiscuity.

Are we talking about celebratory rituals or what? I’m not certain where the goalposts are. My comment was about gay pride parades. So are you talking about my comment relating to gay pride parades or gay weddings?

373

Wait, what?

The post I quoted is definitely an argument against gay marriage.

Guess I need to read the whole thread or something…

374

I am arguing the con position. Personally I am pro-gay marriage.

375

Should my* dislike of the Irish also not be dismissed as bigotry? If your answer is ‘yes,’ I’ll concede that at least you’re consistent even though I disagree with you about whether or not the two stances represent bigoty. If your answer is ‘no,’ then I’m going to need further explanation.

*Disclaimer: My dislike for the Irish is purely hypothetical. When I started this argument I probably should have written ‘Bob’ and ‘Ted’ instead of ‘you’ and ‘I.’

376

From the last paragraph of post 360:

377

The problem isn’t the laws about marriage - as you note, a law that says “copy-paste all the marriage rules to civil unions”* would make any changes to those laws automatically cross over. (Maybe.)

The problem is laws made pertaining to civil unions. Changes made specifically referring to those would not automatically cross over to effect marriage as well, allowing an infinite scope for ratcheting back the freedoms granted, away from where they started based on equality to marriage. And there’s nothing stopping that from happening at all.

And of course there’s the fact that everything that’s not a government, from insurance policies to hospitals, would be completely free to distinguish between civil unions and marriages in their own policies, and would not have to start off by copying and pasting all the existing rules over.

  • Am I the only one who thinks there is not a chance in snowball that an actual law would be written saying “civil unions are separate and completely different from marriage but (at the moment) have all the same rules and are included in the effects of any law that includes or mentions marriage”?
378

The only thing, and I mean the only thing I can dream up as opposition to gay married couples having children (which isn’t exactly the issue here, I know) is the difficulty children of gay couples may experience from their peers, and possibly being gender confused otherwise.

“You have two Dads!”
“Your Mom’s a fag”

Etcetera.

I am sure there are studies and stats that have been compiled that show that children from hetero marriages are equally as likely to be dysfunctional as those from a gay marriage via adoption, but I don’t really know as I didn’t bother to look it up.

I still wonder how having two mommies or two daddies impacts a child’s psyche, though. Also it may be worth mentioning that some (not all) gay people certainly live an extremely alternative lifestyle (not that some heteroes don’t, mind you, but I’m guessing it’s more likely) and that may impact children if exposed to it as well. You know, the whole Blue Oyster Bar, ecstasy, sex in the bathroom sort of thing.

I realize that this may very well be a biased stereotype, and I am generally in favor of equal rights for everyone, but I’m trying to think of some kind of objection to gay marriage that makes some kind of sense, because everything else I’ve read in this thread as an objection to it generally makes no sense to me.

379

a) The right to freedom to practice the religion of one’s choice does not and never has extended to being able to restrict other people’s actions, even if one finds their actions morally objectionable. There is a fundamental difference between asking for permission to do something, and asking for someone else’s permission to do something to be curtailed.

b) If you honestly believe that gay marriage and straight marriage are fundamentally different, it would be helpful if you could identify the core difference.

We’ve already had argument ad nauseum that it is or is not about the ability to breed.

We’ve established that we do not require straight spouses to breed, nor do we require proof of their fertility before a marriage is permitted.

It has been asserted that it’s not about whether a couple DOES breed but about whether they theoretically COULD, to which I say, as has been said above, that gay people breed all the time.

You might say that “a homosexual relationship cannot produce offspring,” but to make that argument is to assume that the only reproduction that benefits society is that which occurs solely between married biological parents who raise their own children, which clearly isn’t true. Many children are conceived by persons who do not ultimately raise them, and our society has shown no interest in prohibiting that. Many married persons – mine, for instance, as I was adopted at birth – raise children to whom neither spouse is biologically related. Our society actively promotes this.

If it’s not about breeding, what is it about? Is it gender? What, exactly, is the nature of this gender difference? Is it that two parents of the same gender necessarily raise children in a way detrimental to society? I think that’s been proven false, but again, that would go to parenting issues, not marriage ones, a separate issue. What does society have an interest in promoting about marriage that bears on gender?

I submit that marriage, as an institution, has benefits to society unrelated to parenting issues, and that no one has yet explained how those benefits can be said to be reduced in gay couples. It is in the interest of society that couples commit to one another, entwine their finances, share expenses, cohabitate, support each other emotionally, make each other happy, and so on.

It is NOT GERMANE that some people find gay sex morally objectionable.

380

No, dismissing things as bigotry is anti-intellectual. Understanding WHY you think something is invalid is superior to simply dismissing it as bigotry.