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

[panache45]

@shiftless

I’m sorry but when you’ve been going along in one direction for a while without thinking about a thing it’s not that easy to make a sudden turn.

This excuse may have been valid 30 years ago, but not in 2009. I find it impossible that anybody who’s not in a coma simply hasn’t thought about this issue, or needs to make a “sudden turn” in an issue that’s been discussed to death over the past several years.

And your other arguments are just as flimsy.

[Bricker]

@Shodan

A major objection is not merely the concept, but the way in which its proponents are trying to get it implemented.

Your comment is true, but outside the scope of this thread. I think (and am open to correction on the point) that the idea was to explore opposition to the concept itself.

Put another way, one might ask, “What is the rationale for opposition to same-sex marriage in Vermont?” There, it’s been instituted by the legislature. No one can seriously argue it has circumvented the democratic process.

There are few more staunch opponents of judicial activism than I. But so far as I can see, this thread isn’t about that.

[cosmosdan]

@shiftless

1. I think we have a lot of problems with the marriage laws already. In some states getting married and/or divorced is as easy as buying a candy bar. In other states it is difficult, divorce in particular. There are all kinds of odd stuff throughout the states. Some places apparently you can marry a 14 year old!? In some places an abused spouse can’t get out of a marriage; not easily anyway. There are things that I think need to fixed and opening the franchise to more couples isn’t going to help that at all and it would probably distract from it.

2. I’m not convinced that people won’t find a way to abuse the system. Back in the day, when a man worked and a women stayed home and they were married to each other the laws were made to reflect that reality, such as it was. What will keep people from marrying for business purposes, to hide or shift funds or prevent testifying, for example. Sure that can be done now and it is done now. People marry to give citizenship, to join assets. They divorce and remarry to save on taxes. It’s a little limiting when it has to be a man and a women.

Same-sex marriage is coming, I’m sure, but after that we are going to see a huge number of new laws passed to adjust the meaning of marriage and I’m not sure it will head in a good direction.

I think both these reasons are invalid when compared to civil rights. No doubt gay marriage will suffer all the ills that straight marriage and there are problems but that’s no reason to deny them equal civil rights. The same for #2. While abuse does occur and it’s not a valid reason to deny people equal rights.

[emmaliminal]

Some of the homophobia is based on a basic misunderstanding of homosexuality as a choice. Some people literally believe that the only thing keeping *they themselves *from throwing gay orgies every weekend is their upstanding moral values. Their opposition to same-sex marriage is similar to the anti-drug mantra of “If we make it legal, we send a message to our kids that it’s OK to do drugs.”

[ElvisL1ves]

@Shodan

Suppose we set the precedent that judges can create these kinds of new rights

Equal protection is not a “new right”, and it was “created” in exactly the manner you approve.

For judges not to enforce it when presented with a case invoking it, with no “rational basis” to the contrary identified, would constitute “activism”. But you would approve of that.

[NaSultainne]

@jayjay

:rolleyes:

So why does no one blink an eye when two 80-year-olds show up at the JP? Why is there no “fertility test” to determine who gets a marriage license?

Why should they? This is a silly objection. Society does not mandate childbearing for any couple, it merely supports the natural union which, ideally, will produce children. Fertility tests, as well, are a recent option. In case you haven’t noticed, couples marry intending to have children, or not, and subsequently find that, you know, stuff happens. A spouse dies, an accidental pregnancy, fertility issues. Again, society promotes the union which can naturally produce offspring.

And that’s not even noting that there are a LOT of gay couples WITH KIDS. Why should those children have no protection for their family? Who died and made straight families the only ones who have a claim to the word “family”?

Gay relationships cannot have children, naturally. Every gay couple has had to work around the biology in order to make this an issue. In other words, they’ve created the problem and now demand society fix it. Fine. As with any person caring for children, whether single, divorced, family relation or whathaveyou, gay parents should be entitled to all the legal rights and responsibilities of any other parent. See, that was easy. Oh, but you don’t really mean that, do you? You want to talk about non-parents, but that’s not what you said, so I’ll leave that for the next bite. Then, the word, ‘family’. Family isn’t some word with one definition. Family can mean nuclear family (father, mother, children) but can also include aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, godparents. You can call your relationship a family, it does not obligate society to award you something as a result.

Another thing…what kind of family has been the foundation of civilization? Because the nuclear family (mother, father, children…only) has had a fairly short lineage. Who gets to say that the single mother whose husband died shortly after their child was born doesn’t form a family with that child? Who gets to say that the two sisters whose husbands left them each with a kid who live together to share expenses isn’t a family? Who gets to say that the two lesbians, one with kids from a previous marriage to a man, don’t form a family? If the biological mother of that child dies, who gets to say that the other woman, who has helped raise the child for the last five years, isn’t that child’s mother?

Your definition of family is too narrow.

Perhaps the ‘nuclear family’ has a narrow lineage. Okay. So what? Our society was founded on marital monogamy. Not bigamy, not polygamy, not gay marriage. These others are, or have been, right out. That’s where we start. Again, ‘family’ isn’t the issue, so stop making the point emotionally. Family is as family does, for pity’s sake. And your final issue. Words do have meanings, though they are subject to change over time, tis true. Mother means the female parent. If two women choose to raise a child together, I don’t care if the child calls them Mary and Mary, or Bertha or Mom. One woman is the mother, biologically speaking. She is entitled to all the rights of a parent. Anything beyond that requires the couple in question to take affirmative legal steps to secure. It still isn’t the same as marriage.

[NaSultainne]

@Polycarp

Disclaimer: The following does not express my own opinion, but is as unbiased a presentation of their position as I can manage:
snipped.

Polycarp, you weren’t even trying. Why bother in GD if all you’re going to do is a drive-by snipe?

[jayjay]

@NaSultainne

Perhaps the ‘nuclear family’ has a narrow lineage. Okay. So what? Our society was founded on marital monogamy. Not bigamy, not polygamy, not gay marriage. These others are, or have been, right out. That’s where we start. Again, ‘family’ isn’t the issue, so stop making the point emotionally. Family is as family does, for pity’s sake. And your final issue. Words do have meanings, though they are subject to change over time, tis true. Mother means the female parent. If two women choose to raise a child together, I don’t care if the child calls them Mary and Mary, or Bertha or Mom. One woman is the mother, biologically speaking. She is entitled to all the rights of a parent. Anything beyond that requires the couple in question to take affirmative legal steps to secure. It still isn’t the same as marriage.

So, in other words, all you have is “We’ve always done it this way.” That’s pretty much what I thought.

I’d note, as well, that prior to Loving v. Virginia, families were also defined as being “of the same race”. Good luck with your place in history on this one.

[mswas]

@jayjay

:rolleyes:

So why does no one blink an eye when two 80-year-olds show up at the JP? Why is there no “fertility test” to determine who gets a marriage license?

And that’s not even noting that there are a LOT of gay couples WITH KIDS. Why should those children have no protection for their family? Who died and made straight families the only ones who have a claim to the word “family”?

The vast majority of human ancestors actually.

Another thing…what kind of family has been the foundation of civilization? Because the nuclear family (mother, father, children…only) has had a fairly short lineage. Who gets to say that the single mother whose husband died shortly after their child was born doesn’t form a family with that child? Who gets to say that the two sisters whose husbands left them each with a kid who live together to share expenses isn’t a family? Who gets to say that the two lesbians, one with kids from a previous marriage to a man, don’t form a family? If the biological mother of that child dies, who gets to say that the other woman, who has helped raise the child for the last five years, isn’t that child’s mother?

I am just repeating the argument. shrug

Your definition of family is too narrow.

It’s not my definition.

[cosmosdan]

@Bricker

Heh heh heh.

So I thought. But as it happens, “merely semantics” makes a great deal of difference. It’s not “merely.” Trust me.

Or find that old thread of mine. It’s long, and frankly if you get through it and think of an argument I didn’t, I’m willing to listen and be re-converted. But don’t hold your breath.

Since I support equal marriage rights for gays I wouldn’t be interested in reconverting you. I oversimplified. What I meant was if civil unions and being legally married give straight and gay couples the same rights then the label becomes semantics. If it doesn’t then their rights are still being denied.

I see from jayjay’s post that it’s much easier to simply add same sex language to existing marriage laws, although it occurs to me that civil unions could be described as having all the legal rights of marriage, couldn’t they? But then, why bother?

[NaSultainne]

@ElvisL1ves

Equal protection is not a “new right”, and it was “created” in exactly the manner you approve.

For judges not to enforce it when presented with a case invoking it, with no “rational basis” to the contrary identified, would constitute “activism”. But you would approve of that.

And this is why gay marriage will win, not because it’s right, but because it’s too easily swayed by emotional appeal. I cannot tell you how many times I’ve heard: “Well, if two people truly love each other…!”

Equal rights should apply to equal situations. Not equivalent. Because, at the core, that’s the distinction. Marriage is a relationship in which the sexual union, by no means the sole purpose of the relationship but an integral part, nonetheless, can and under natural circumstances will, result in offspring. Society recognizes through tax laws and community support the essential nature of healthy, productive future generations. Gay relationships do not and cannot produce offspring. They, by definition, are not equal in value to society.

[jayjay]

@mswas

The vast majority of human ancestors actually.

They were wrong about slavery. They were wrong about women’s rights. They were wrong about child labor. They were wrong about the rights of non-whites. They were wrong about government. They were wrong about religion. They were wrong about science. They were wrong about medicine.

Frankly, the collected wisdom of humanity through the ages isn’t something I’d give much credence to, at least not until we get into REALLY modern times.

It’s not my definition.

You’re certainly claiming it.

[NaSultainne]

@jayjay

So, in other words, all you have is “We’ve always done it this way.” That’s pretty much what I thought.

So, your reply is, “Let’s just do something different, I’m bored!”? I’ve pointed out that society has a vested interest in healthy marriages producing healthy, productive members of society. That’s why society not only recognizes the union, but actively promotes the union! The same cannot be said of gay relationships. Two different things are not the same.

I’d note, as well, that prior to Loving v. Virginia, families were also defined as being “of the same race”. Good luck with your place in history on this one.

And your argument here is, what? That black is gay? This is a silly argument. Black people reproduce just like white peope. Shock, I know. Gay people cannot, under any circumstance, reproduce naturally through their sexual behavior. Again, gay is different.

[gonzomax]

According to the net ,marriage was not codified by the catholic church until the Treaty of Trent in 1563. At that time the important people were entered into marriage by their parents. It was a legal and binding contract to merge families and power. Marriage existed in most cultures to take care of kids and wives who could be left penniless without it.

[jayjay]

@NaSultainne

And this is why gay marriage will win, not because it’s right, but because it’s too easily swayed by emotional appeal. I cannot tell you how many times I’ve heard: “Well, if two people truly love each other…!”

Equal rights should apply to equal situations. Not equivalent. Because, at the core, that’s the distinction. Marriage is a relationship in which the sexual union, by no means the sole purpose of the relationship but an integral part, nonetheless, can and under natural circumstances will, result in offspring. Society recognizes through tax laws and community support the essential nature of healthy, productive future generations. Gay relationships do not and cannot produce offspring. They, by definition, are not equal in value to society.

So easy for you to say when the denial of those rights won’t affect you in the slightest, isn’t it?

Actually, the recognition of those rights won’t affect you in the slightest, either. But you can’t see that.

It’s okay. Keep standing in that schoolhouse door. The tide of history is going to carry us past you and then you can turn around 20 years from now, look back at us, living our lives as equal citizens, and wonder where the hell you went wrong. What connotation do the names Orval Faubus, Bull Conner, George Wallace, have today? Prepare to find the name Jim Douglas among them in a few years or decades.

[jayjay]

@NaSultainne

And your argument here is, what? That black is gay? This is a silly argument. Black people reproduce just like white peope. Shock, I know. Gay people cannot, under any circumstance, reproduce naturally through their sexual behavior. Again, gay is different.

The point is, who fucking CARES anymore whether a marriage produces children?! How archaic an era are you going to hold society to?

I do NOT respect tradition just because it’s there. I do NOT respect my ancestors just because they existed before me. People who do are fossils, stuck in the rut that those before us created over the centuries.

It’s 2009, not 1709. Join us in the modern day.

[cosmosdan]

@Shodan

A major objection is not merely the concept, but the way in which its proponents are trying to get it implemented.

The definition of marriage as “one man and one woman” is pretty foundational, and goes back to the common law. For judges to say, “OK, now it is different” without the rest of us having a chance to decide if we agree or not is a pretty blatant example of judicial activism.

Judges , especially state supreme courts do get to decide on definitions when weighing human rights. We’ve had enough struggle with civil rights in this country to understand that the majority should not vote on the civil rights of a minority. If there are laws on the books specifying marriage is only to be between a man and a woman then those laws can be addressed but it doesn’t require a public vote to recognize them as archaic. If there is no such specific law on the books then the judges do get to decide.
Of course the public can voice an opinion but then they need to come up with valid reasons to deny other citizens their rights. That’s what we’re discussing here. are there valid reasons? The answer is NO!

I think that has a lot to do with the worry that allowing gay marriage to be created by judicial fiat will downgrade current marriages in some way. It is not merely this change, IOW - it is that allowing so fundamental a change to proceed unquestioned leads almost automatically to the question “what the hell are they going to try to pull next?”

I’ve heard this approach. I do think the public has a right to have laws questioned and examined. That’s not the problem.

You can call that homophobia if you like, but it rather misses the point.

That;s not what’s being called homophobia. It’s invalid reasons to actively oppose giving gays equal human rights that’s being called homophobia. It’s one thing to say, “HEY! Mr judge you shouldn’t change the law on your own you must go through the proper channels” and quite another to actively campaign against those changes in any form.

[NaSultainne]

@jayjay

So easy for you to say when the denial of those rights won’t affect you in the slightest, isn’t it?

Actually, the recognition of those rights won’t affect you in the slightest, either. But you can’t see that.

The denial of rights? You haven’t presented an argument for those rights, other than the following. Please, correct me if I’m wrong.

Straight people have sex.
They can get married.
Gay people have sex…
Therefore, gay people should be able to get married.

Problem is, that’s not the be-all and end-all of marriage. Otherwise, government wouldn’t, and rightly, shouldn’t, give a gosh-darn who’s having sex with whom.

It’s okay. Keep standing in that schoolhouse door. The tide of history is going to carry us past you and then you can turn around 20 years from now, look back at us, living our lives as equal citizens, and wonder where the hell you went wrong. What connotation do the names Orval Faubus, Bull Conner, George Wallace, have today? Prepare to find the name Jim Douglas among them in a few years or decades.

Okay, alright already, I get that this is an emotional issue. I’m not trying to beat you over the head, okay? I’m trying to argue this from a purely functional position.

[jayjay]

On the off chance that I’ve managed to find my way onto Shodan’s ignore list, can someone else post the question I asked him before? The question: Given that Vermont just passed the first legislatively-approved (as opposed to “activist judges”) same-sex marriage law, how do you feel about that?

[jayjay]

@NaSultainne

The denial of rights? You haven’t presented an argument for those rights, other than the following. Please, correct me if I’m wrong.

Straight people have sex.
They can get married.
Gay people have sex…
Therefore, gay people should be able to get married.

Problem is, that’s not the be-all and end-all of marriage. Otherwise, government wouldn’t, and rightly, shouldn’t, give a gosh-darn who’s having sex with whom.

The only people trying to say that that’s our position is the other side. How about:

Straight people fall in love and want to intertwine their lives and affairs (not THAT kind) with each other and protect that intertwining with government enforcement.
Straight people can get married.
Gay people fall in love and want to intertwine their lives and affairs (again, not THAT kind) with each other and protect that intertwining with government enforcement.
Therefore gay people should be able to get married.

Are you implying that gay people can’t love each other? It’s all about sex?