Why are some people against same sex marriage ?

In My Humble Opinion
41

I would have no problem with that.

However, the reality is that “government getting out of the marriage business” is a far more distant reality than achieving government-recognized gay marriage. Now that the dam has burst, force should continue to be applied in that direction. Later on, if people want, pressure should be applied as far as “getting government out of the marriage business altogether.”

Bottom line: the issue is not marriage, per se, but that government can not discriminate against gays and lesbians and/or on the basis of gender (i.e., through entering a marriage contract, a woman can confer on a man certain rights, which exercise is prohibited if the second partner to the marriage contract is a woman, i.e., gender discrimination).

42

You actually believe your own bullshit, don’t you? Scary…

I did not speak to definition at all. I spoke to the form of your argument. “It just isn’t” is unacceptable in support of your assertions, as is “men and women are different.” If this is all you have, then instead of continuing to spout it, maybe you should examine it a little more closely. Maybe you should also actually answer the questions I asked you about what other arguments you would accept solely on the basis of “it just isn’t” and how readily you would accept “it just isn’t” as an answer to someone challenging your own marriage.

Or you could just fart around some more about “plumbing” and waste everyone’s time, including yours.

43

The government can’t get out of marriage. The whole issue of same-sex marriage arose because of the legal definition of marriage. Someone in a recent post linked to a list of over a thousand different legal situations which only apply to married people. A straight couple can generally choose to marry and every one of these legal situations will automatically apply to them. But a gay couple are denied this option. Most states have passed laws declaring the civil unions are not the legal equivalent of marriages, so the one is not a substitute for the other.

44

Little Nemo I understand what you say, but I think it would be more honest to redefine benefits for civil unions then try to extend marriage benifits to SSM.

Otto I can see the steam coming out of your ears from here, but it still doesn’t change the fact that gay marriage is not marriage, nor is a coke a pepsi, nor is the color red blue. I did not bring up plumbing - just responded to it, but I think most of us agree that men and women are far different then just plumbing. Some have mentioned (outside this thread) that the difference is so great that one gender might as well be from a planet closer to the sun then earth, but further then Mercury, and the other should be from the place where we sent the rovers Pathfinder, Opportunity and Spirit, and for that matter some Viking landers, and a polar survayer that crash landed somewhere.

correct me if I’m wrong nisosbar but I think we are in agreement that the governmental term should be civil union. You seem to go for the theory that since it is easier for a SSM couple to get the term marriage then that is what they should shoot for regardless of the relivance.

Napier are you saing that males should be barred from marriage? then only f-f relationships should be reconized, if so this is a relationship that has no name, marriage is taken and will go down in history (assuming we go tthis cloning thing down) as the once needed union of a f/m, so we will have to come up with a new name for it.

45

I’m surprised tha nobody has mentioned the economic impact of ssm. All of a sudden there will be a lot more people ENTITLED to social security survivor benefits and health insurance but there won’t be enough new money coming into these programs to cover them. The calculations for these social programs were done with only hetero marriage in mind and they will cost more with the new ssm people added. This new coverage will come out of my (and every working stiff’s) wallet

Now I’m sure people will say that gay and lesbian people have been paying into social security and other programs for a long time with no survivor benefits and that’s a valid point. All I’m saying is that payouts from these programs will cost me (and everyone) more money in taxes and health insurance costs IMHO.

For the record I have no bias against anyone marrying anyone. Quite frankly I can’t wait for the polygamy floodgate to open so I can marry twins. :slight_smile:

46

Yes, correct on all points.

The most important thing, as far as I’m concerned, is that the government is not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender. If government suddenly said tomorrow, we aren’t going to recognize anyone’s marriage anymore, and it’s strictly between you and whoever/whatever you say, but it has no legal weight whatsoever, I would be fine with that. (Well, I mean, I wouldn’t REALLY be fine with that, as such, but I could not object on the basis that gays and lesbians were being discriminated against.)

At this point in history, marriage is clearly within grasp, so I see no point to ceasing to demand equal rights in favor of getting government out of marriage altogether. That can wait 'til later, if necessary.

Also, if religious people want to hold that relationships between gays or lesbians can never be marriage, I’m fine with that, just as long as “marriage” is not then sanctioned by government.

47

As the system exists today, favoring heterosexuals and discriminating against gays and lesbians while they pay into the system, the financial burden is harder on gays and lesbians than heterosexuals. That is not fair.

One for each end? :smiley:

48

Every time I read this, it sounds like the perfect defense of gay marriage. Men and women are different. Men and sheep are different. Men and houseplants are different. Men and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg are different.

Unless we want to start down that road that leads to people marrying small sovereign nations, the most logical course is for men to only be allowed to marry those most like them: other men.

QED.

49

But WHY? You keep typing this and as far as I can see, people have been asking you to clarify why without any explanation. Don’t give me the old “marriage is for procreation” argument, as I know lots of gay couples with children (either adopted or artificially inseminated - both ways hetero couples can have children as well), and my wife and I have been married for 17 years without children, and we don’t intend to have any. Does this invalidate MY marriage?

50

nisobar…

I agree entirely. Asking someone to pay into a program when they’re not likely to benefit from it is very wrong. You’re right, it’s not fair.

The OP asked why some people are opposed to ssm and I think some would be opposed just because it will cost them money. You can’t drop beneficiaries into a program like social security without having an effect somewhere. Either premiums go up or benefits go down, there ain’t no free lunch. Given that gay men on average might have higher health care costs and shorter life expectancy due to HIV would give this greater impact.

51

But I don’t know many/any gays that want a ‘marriage’, whatever that is. They want equality.

They’re perfectly willing to acknowledge ‘marriage’ is a hetro concept but want some recognition by society and the law (and the tax auth) that they and their relationship is equal.

It seems we just don’t have the words in the English language yet to describe something that’s akin to marriage but is gay.

Hardly surprising, I guess, as we don’t usually add words until there’s a need for them, as was the case with the invention of the ‘Internet’.

But this isn’t, in my experience, about gays wanting to be ‘married’ - marriage is for straights so to say that implies they want to be straight, which doesn’t work, it’s really about gays wanting equality.

That’s what I understand over here . . .

52

No, actually, it won’t – it’ll come out of your kid’s pockets.

Social Security is a benefit, not an annuity program. You don’t get out what you put into it, what you get out of SS is money your parents contributed to it (and interest on that). Money goes into SS from current workers, and goes out to retirees. That’s why SS is facing problems from the baby boom, with an oncoming increase in retirees collecting, but a decrease in the number of current workers paying in.

53

Semantics aside…in the end, Coke and Pepsi both taste like malted battery acid. And if it looks like a marriage, acts like a marriage and quacks like a marriage, that’s close enough to be called a marriage in my book.
Ranchoth
(To hell with mixing my metaphors…I’m tossing them in a friggin’ wood chipper.)

54

Thank you for proving with finality the utter emptiness of opposing SSM. You can’t come up with a single thing other than “it just isn’t.” Your opposition is built on nothing but your own ignorance and obstinance.

kanicbird, poster child for ignorant bigots everywhere.

55

It’s an idea that might be worth exploring in principal. But in the real world, the people who oppose same sex marriages are the same people who oppose legally equating civil unions with marriages. They apparently don’t want gays to have coke or pepsi; gays are supposed to settle for the cheap store brand relationships.

56

But then again I oppose SSM but would have no problem with having the Gov’t just do civil unions for everyone, extend rights to Civil Unions that are currently given to marriages.

This is not entirely accurate, there are marriages of continence which are 100% legal but not moral. I don’t think any homosexual person would be denied marriage in any state if they are actually marrying - meaning creating a civil union with someone of the opposite gender.

‘The message is the media, if you want to change the message, change the words you use’ - indirect quote, but yes this is my point, a new word is needed and Gov’t should change how it recognized couples by again changing the word (civil union has been suggested)

As for the SS arugment, I would like the Gov’t get out of that as well and privitize the system. Actually I would say that people engaged in SSM should be barred from SS benifits and SS payments, the system is horriable and any chance to correct it should be taken, even if it is just a small percent of the population, IMHO. Perhaps inclusion of SSMC would overburden the system and colapse it sooner. But to be fair, they should be entitled to the benifits, as I have said Civil Unions should get all the legal benifits as marriages

kimfair perhaps this is what otto was trying to ask. I would say to look up the word in the dictionary - the meaning is defined for us and I don’t understand why you wish me to accept your definition just because you say that my dictionary is wrong. I find it insulting for you to ask me to justify the meaning in the dictionary but I will try, though the burden is still yours.

Marriage defines a certain type of relationship between the genders. Here I will stop for the following:

I have made an assumption which I am willing to challenge which might change my view.

We already agree that men and women are different on more then a plumbing level. The way they operate is quite different from each other, such as shown in the ‘Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus’ and other similar books. Yes I know that these books are somewhat controversial, but there are plenty of other books that try to explain differences too, and even if the conclusion of the books are wrong, the observed pattern of differences are much harder to argue against.

I am asking what is the dynamics of a homosexual relationship? Does one partner actually take the role of the opposite gender? I’m not talking about Adam goes to work, brings home a check, while Steve stays home and takes care of the house and does the laundry (but it would be interesting to see if that happens). But more on a physiological level does one partner take on the role of the opposite gender. Can someone provide a link to something along these lines?

57

LOL should be convienence, not continence

58

Erm. I think you’re already running into trouble in assuming that marriage always involves falling into rigidly defined roles. The stereotype of husband=dominant and wife=submissive (even in a benign sense) is true of some marriages, but not all – and not as many as you might think. Sometimes the wife is the dominant partner, and sometimes the “balance of power” is more equal, or more complex, than can be simply ascribed to set roles.

So while many homosexual relationships do also have dominant and submissive roles, many others don’t. It’s just the nature of human relationships.

59

At one point I’m pretty sure that “marriage” was defined as a union ordained by God, yet now it is acceptable for two atheists to get married by an Elvis impersonator in Vegas and to have it called marriage.

My point is that definitions change, and it’s time for the definition of “marriage” to change again.

There’s no need for either partner to “take the role of the opposite gender”, because there is no such role. I honestly cannot think of any way in which all husbands are similar or in which all wives are similar. There’s no common thread at all.

60

OK. Here it is:
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry – J. T. Shawcross>

So, Kanicbird, is it possible that more than one definition can exist, or is it beyond comprehension to discuss the marriage of painting and poetry?
How old is the dictionary that you are consulting? Are there listings for such words as webcam, cyberspace, or dvd? If there aren’t, then by following your reasoning, one might come to the conclusion that they just don’t exist either, they just don’t.