# Why are people against same sex marriage?



## oceanbaby (Nov 19, 2001)

I honestly can't figure out why so many people are so passionately against this. I can see the other side of every other issue, even though I may disagree, but I really can't see the other side of this.

I understand why people can think homosexuality is weird or gross or wrong (even though I do not think this), but why are they so passionately adamant that they not be allowed to marry? Anti-sodomy laws have been reversed - many people obviously that that those were ridicilous. So why is the marriage ban so popular?

Can someone please enlighten me?


----------



## miranda (Mar 8, 2003)

I can't enlighten you, but wanted to voice the same question. I just don't get it


----------



## anothermama (Nov 11, 2003)

I had a long, torturous discussion with my dad last night. He is a very staunch, religious conservative.

What it came down to for him was that
1)"They" are trying to redefine marriage, and if you redefine marriage it isn't marriage anymore
2) It's part of a larger plan to remove God from our government and country
3) Gays *can* get the same benefits through other means (He mentioned joint IRAs and such) so they don't NEED to get married.








:


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by anothermama_
*1)"They" are trying to redefine marriage, and if you redefine marriage it isn't marriage anymore
*
so...a homosexual couple affects the definition of his heterosexual marriage but an adulterous heterosexual couple doesn't? by his logic, adultery should lead immediately to divorce court and a ban on ever being able to remarry.

:rolling eyes right along with you

my parents are the same...


----------



## BusyMommy (Nov 20, 2001)

I think it's fear. Fear that it will erode society ala "Leave it to Beaver." And, where to next...brave new world?

Fear that we're breaking Biblical law or standards.

We had this discussion on my other board and those against it were very open and honest. Not flaming, just expressing their "whys."

So, I guess all we can do it teach our children that we're all the same and we're all deserving of respect. Hopefully, that will rub off on other children.


----------



## Colorful~Mama (Feb 20, 2003)

i've been showing this to my friends/family who are anti gay marriage due to their religious beliefs.

http://www.musingson.com/ccCase.html


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

I will just pop my head in and remind everyone that debating homosexuality is not allowed at this time. So please remember that when you post to this thread. Thanks


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

All of the above makes total sense to me - thankfully, because I, too, am having a really hard time understanding why people are so threatened by homosexual marriage.

I wonder also if there is a bit of worry that it will mean less tax revenue. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but don't married couples pay less taxes per person than do single people? It may seem insignificant, but obviously (think SF), there are a *lot* of homosexual couples wanting to get married. It would add up pretty quickly.

Just thinking out loud, in hopes of making some sense of it.


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

It has to be for religiou sreasons only.

I have no problem with it. I wish everyone else the smae happiness I have.


----------



## LunaMom (Aug 8, 2002)

I don't get it, either.

I agree with dado's point about the definition of marriage - there are lots of screwed-up things that go on in staright marriages, and nobody tells those people that they don't have the right to marry. Nobody stops a woman from marrying a man who beats her, nobody stops two teenagers whose parents say they must get married because the girl is pregnant, nobody stops drunk celebrities in Vegas, nobody stops idiotic reality-show contestants who treat marriage as a publicity stunt. Yeah, marriage is really a sacred institution in America...until you turn on Fox TV.







:

I've also heard the procreation argument, and that's garbage, too. Does that mean that couples who do not intend to have children have no reason to marry?

I would love to hear an argument for this that makes some sense to me. I wouldn't agree with it







, but I'd love something that would make me say "hmmmmm." Because I'm really outraged at the people I listen to on the radio who still have yet to give any REAL reason why gays getting married is bad for society. Usually when I'm on one side of an issue, I can still understand where the other side is coming from even if I don't agree, but this one stumps me.

Until I hear something intelligent, I'm still going to believe it's homophobia, plain and simple.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Plain and simple they want to enforce their "religious" views on others.


----------



## Victorian (Jan 2, 2003)

re: taxes - actually, it is the opposite, married pay more unless they have kids. Imagine all the money that SF is making right now in marriage lisences and etc. Really, it makes financial sense for the US to have gay marriages.

RE: the religious aspect. I do believe that this is another example of religion not being too separate from the government (well maybe as separate as a "separated" married couple that still has sex 3x a week). But if marriage is so holy, maybe we should all have civil unions via the government, and if a couple wants to have a religious "marriage" ceramony, it is separate and non-legally binding.

my thoughts.

Victorian


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

Victorian - THAT is exactly what I think!!!!

I would happily call what I have a civil union. that is what it is after all. It is a legal contract. I was not married in a church, temple, etc. or married by a priest, rabbi, etc. I say leave marraiges to the religious, and term all of this a civil union.


----------



## Victorian (Jan 2, 2003)

A little Off Thread!

my and dh were married in a PUB! Imagine how our ultra-conservative relatives loved that! It is great to watch our wedding video and see all the pints on people's tables.


----------



## anothermama (Nov 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by dado_
*so...a homosexual couple affects the definition of his heterosexual marriage but an adulterous heterosexual couple doesn't? by his logic, adultery should lead immediately to divorce court and a ban on ever being able to remarry.

:rolling eyes right along with you

my parents are the same...*
Good point....one I will be sure to mention to him if it ever comes up again.......which I admit I hope it doesn't.......it's very frustrating to have *that* be my father.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Victorian - Thanks for clarying the tax thing for me. At least that's one diversionary tactic that can't be tossed around.

I'm with you on the civil union thing. It seems a pretty obvious solution that would promote equality. Unfortunately, I doubt it'll actually fly because it doesn't promote the true agenda of the zealots behind this idiotic proposition.


----------



## anothermama (Nov 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by AdinaL_
*I will just pop my head in and remind everyone that debating homosexuality is not allowed at this time. So please remember that when you post to this thread. Thanks







*
whats there to debate!!???









you *are* so obnoxiously positive.........but thats why we love you!!!!!!!


----------



## anothermama (Nov 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Dragonfly_
*All of the above makes total sense to me - thankfully, because I, too, am having a really hard time understanding why people are so threatened by homosexual marriage.

I wonder also if there is a bit of worry that it will mean less tax revenue. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but don't married couples pay less taxes per person than do single people? It may seem insignificant, but obviously (think SF), there are a lot of homosexual couples wanting to get married. It would add up pretty quickly.

Just thinking out loud, in hopes of making some sense of it.







*
I think that maybe that is part of the governments issue with it, but I doubt that many regular citizens really think too much about that.....


----------



## anothermama (Nov 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by LunaMom_
*?

Until I hear something intelligent, I'm still going to believe it's homophobia, plain and simple.*

I agree and I'd love some help articulating this better.

As mentioned above, my dad is very anti gay marriage, but says things like "homophobia MEANS fear of gays and I don't fear them! I like most that I meet! But I don't think they should marry."


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by anothermama_
*Good point....one I will be sure to mention to him if it ever comes up again.......which I admit I hope it doesn't.......it's very frustrating to have *that* be my father.*
I'm soooooo with you. I'm faithfully screening calls because I'm expecting my father to ring any moment and say, "So what do you think about what's going on in San Francisco?" That's his catch phrase for ensuing political "debate" (he calls it debate; I call it pointless argument) - "So what do you think about....."

I love him, but *man*....


----------



## oatmeal (Nov 15, 2002)

There are chiefly two reasons in this country for people wanting to block same sex marriage

1. Bible.
This country is predominantly Judeo-Christian and the bible explicitly states that homosexual sex is a sin. I can say this as a raised Catholic, that Christians have always believed they hold the corner and god and reality, and for this reason they try to beat everyone else over the head with their dogma.

2. Sexual intimidation/Fear
Most people, not just a few, are terrified of sexual freedom and what expressions of sexual freedom mean to them personally. Even WHEN it's just a man and woman doing it missioanry style people get scared about it. The man who got me pregnant with my daughter was terrified of my sexuality as a hetero sexual woman - just terrified.

People think of homosexual sex as something taboo that happens in the damp forbidden darkness, and for that reason they do not want it legitimized by a title that has been reserved for heterosexual couples til this point.

It's about sex, baby... plain and simple.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

anothermama - Have you asked him why he doesn't think they should marry? I've yet to hear a credible response... or any response for that matter, other than "they just shouldn't," or the tripe about marriage being "between a man and a woman."

IMO, definition follows form, so the "definition of marriage" argument doesn't hold water with me.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

The main argument that I have heard is that there is something *inheirantly* bad for the society about sex outside of man/woman marriage. So, the same reasons that tax breaks to not apply to long term domestic partnerships. Our tax structure has traditionally been set up to reward people with one person making *much* more than the other and having children.

I assume it is the same reasons people support public indecency laws, etc... certain behavior is "bad' for society and so, should not be encouraged or condoned.

What I find ironic is that the very people who fear a "big brother' govt the most are often the ones most comfortable with govt defining our civil liberties.


----------



## SaveTheWild (Mar 14, 2003)

Maybe this is what they're afraid of:

http://www.theonion.com/news.php?i=1&n=1

hehe, I love the onion, its hilarious.

I agree with everyone who says that the reason they are against it is that they are trying to impose their own views of religion on everyone, and their fear and recognition that as society grows more and more aware, the less and less tolerance there is for religious extremism. They must figure that they have to hold on to what they have with tooth and nail, lest they be sent into the twenty-first century...


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

This was :LOL

Quote:

"This is a victory, not only for our state, but for America," Festa said. "Simply allowing consenting gay adults the same rights as heterosexuals was never the point. By forcing everyone in the state into a gay marriage, we're setting the stage for our more pressing hidden agendas: mandatory sodomy and, in due time, the legalization of bestiality and pedophilia."
But *this* is 100% Onion (I love their facts







):

Quote:

Massachusetts has one of the highest concentrations of gay households in the country, at 1.3 percent, according to the 2000 census. Under the new laws, the figure is expected to increase by approximately 98.7 percentage points.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Just wanted to add that I have heard the "bad for society" arguement from non-religous people as well. Which is







because the people I am thinking about are very pro-gun/anti-gun control--- and how is *that* good for our society?


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

I keep hearing that gay marriage is nothing but a "social experiment" and, as such, it should be stopped. With that kind of thinking women wouldn't have the vote and segregation would still be the law of the land.

Here's what I think the anti-gay marriage crowd is really afraid of...that gays and lesbians will be given the right to marry and nothing will change. Kind of like how all the protesting about how horrible it would be for gays and lesbians to adopt has been proven unfounded.


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

I do believe a lot of it is religiously tied. Another part could be to ask the question, where would it end? Meaning in some parts of the country (and world for that matter) polygamy is considered legal. If the "traditional" rights now being given to a union between a man and a woman are extended to cover same sex unions, then how far of a throw is it to extend it to all types of unions? Just some food for thought.......


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by oatmeal_
*This country is predominantly Judeo-Christian
*
there is no such thing.


----------



## Sean (Feb 22, 2004)

On the assumption that some of y'all really are interested in reading the arguments against gay marriage, here are some links to pages with that information.

They're all well written opinions either against gay marriage, or in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). I should warn you, though, if you are expecting them to be full of hate speech, Bible quotes and misspellings, you won't find any of these. For the most part, they don't even cite religion as a reason, nor do they even so much as mention their fear of sexual intimidation. So maybe they have other reasons.

You can read the actual text of the President's own speech supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Back in 2001, there was a very good online debate on National Review's website among Stanley Kurtz, Robert Knight, Jonathan Rauch, and Hadley Arkes about gay marriage. Jonathan Rauch was arguing for its institution, with the other three arguing against it, but for varying reasons.

This article in the Weekly Standard is an analysis of how gay marriage has damaged marriage in Scandinavia. The evidence is meant to disprove the 'gay conservative' argument that gay marriage will actually strengthen, and not weaken, marriage.

Here you can meet Marilyn Musgrave, the author of the Federal Marriage Amendment.

And if you've read all those, you may want to read this one, and this one.

I'll summarize: most of the prominent conservatives in favor of the FMA (if you take them at their word) don't even care so much about preventing gay marriage as preserving the rule of law. The way they see it, they are trying to protect democracy more than marriage. The people in a democracy have a right to make their own laws, and their elected legislators have a right to institute homosexual marriage, or not. But they feel that the Federal Marriage Amendment is necessary to preserve this right; otherwise a court could interpret the Constitution in such a way as to rescind it.

(I subsequently edited this post because one of the links didn't work.)


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Dado---

You can never let that one get by, can you? :LOL


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

AGH! Tired, your quote made me lose soda out my nose!!!

the pain....the pain....

Oh and yeah, what Adina said.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Sean---

Glad you wandered over here!!! You've had some really thought provoking posts in Spirituality already. welcome!


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Hi Sean.


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Sean_
*The way they see it, they are trying to protect democracy more than marriage.*
how does a federal action preventing states from exercising their own choices count as protecting democracy?


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Sean_
*...an analysis of how gay marriage has damaged marriage in Scandinavia.*
no spin in that decription.







if anything, that article shows how unnecessary marriage of any kind is to maintaing a safe, prosperous, respectful society.


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

delete. big snip to avoid confusion. eom.


----------



## shelbean91 (May 11, 2002)

Quote:

It's part of a larger plan to remove God from our government and country
Isn't there supposed to be separation of church and state?

Quote:

As mentioned above, my dad is very anti gay marriage, but says things like "homophobia MEANS fear of gays and I don't fear them! I like most that I meet! But I don't think they should marry."
This sounds like a lot of the old reasons (and still current in some areas, I suppose) that people opposed interracial or interfaith marriage.


----------



## emmasayshi (Dec 5, 2003)

I lived with my boyfriend for years before we got married, and to be honest I thought the marriage thing was just ok. My inlaws were assholes, it cost us a fortune, and the only people who had fun were my dearest friends and later that night, me.

:LOL







:LOL


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by shelbean91_
*Isn't there supposed to be separation of church and state?*
Pat Roberston is on record saying separation of church and state is a liberal lie.


----------



## anothermama (Nov 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Dragonfly_
*anothermama - Have you asked him why he doesn't think they should marry? I've yet to hear a credible response... or any response for that matter, other than "they just shouldn't," or the tripe about marriage being "between a man and a woman."

IMO, definition follows form, so the "definition of marriage" argument doesn't hold water with me.*
basically, what it has boiled down to with him is the religion thing...this country was founded on religion....the bible says its wrong.....blah blah blah

he's also said that in the history of the world, all other cultures determine marriage to be between a man and a woman as well.


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by anothermama_
*all other cultures determine marriage to be between a man and a woman as well.*
i'm beginning to learn there isn't even a universal definition of gender that divides us into only two camps.

http://www.glbtq.com/arts/native_am_art.html

and without bulletproof definitions of male and female there can't be a bulletproof definition of heterosexual marriage.


----------



## anothermama (Nov 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Sean_
*

I'll summarize: most of the prominent conservatives in favor of the FMA (if you take them at their word) don't even care so much about preventing gay marriage as preserving the rule of law. The way they see it, they are trying to protect democracy more than marriage. The people in a democracy have a right to make their own laws, and their elected legislators have a right to institute homosexual marriage, or not. But they feel that the Federal Marriage Amendment is necessary to preserve this right; otherwise a court could interpret the Constitution in such a way as to rescind it.*
Fundementally, much of this ignores the implied messages that will occur if we make an amendment to ban gay marriage all together. The supreme court has ruled in the past that "liberty" in the first amendment emcompasses the right to marry......and we've determined that everyone is entitled to their first amendment rights regardless of sexual orientation.

Anyways, disguise it all you want with double talk and rhetoric, but it doesn't change the fact that the bottom line is this: When you say "You do not have the same rights as me because of your different lifestyle" you are being discriminatory. Period. It's a shame so many conservatives use their education in order to corrupt an otherwise simple argument.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by anothermama_
*Anyways, disguise it all you want with double talk and rhetoric, but it doesn't change the fact that the bottom line is this: When you say "You do not have the same rights as me because of your different lifestyle" you are being discriminatory. Period.*
anothermama - I pretty much agree with you here. But I'd change one thing - instead of "lifestyle" I'd insert "immutable characteristic." If we start refusing to discriminate based on lifestyle choices, that *does* open the door to some pretty scary possibilities.

People who are different because of some circumstance beyond their control should be protected from discrimination, though, of course.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by dado_
*if anything, that article shows how unnecessary marriage of any kind is to maintaing a safe, prosperous, respectful society.*
Well said. That was exactly what I got out of that article too.

Quote:

_Originally posted by anothermama_
*...When you say "You do not have the same rights as me because of your different lifestyle" you are being discriminatory. Period. ..*
Brava!


----------



## Sean (Feb 22, 2004)

Quote:

_Originally posted by anothermama_
*Anyways, disguise it all you want with double talk and rhetoric, but it doesn't change the fact that the bottom line is this: When you say "You do not have the same rights as me because of your different lifestyle" you are being discriminatory. Period.*
The original request on this thread was to learn why people who are against gay marriage feel that way. To that end, I provided links to the most prominent and influential among them. Maybe it would be more productive to take the conservatives at their word and engage their arguments than to dismiss them as doubletalk and rhetoric.

Quote:

*It's a shame so many conservatives use their education in order to corrupt an otherwise simple argument.*
But _both_ sides have a simple argument; in truth, theirs might be simpler than yours. Theirs boils down to, "Democracy is good," which would fit on a 9x2 bumper sticker with room to spare. It's also true. Your liberal argument, "Gays have a first amendment right to marry," is 5 words longer; and even if it's true, they are unconvinced that it's true.

The point is, just because they disagree with you, it doesn't make them evil or insincere. _They_ certainly don't think they're employing doubletalk to corrupt a simple argument, and informing them that they are won't change their minds.


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Sean_
*Theirs boils down to, "Democracy is good," which would fit on a 9x2 bumper sticker with room to spare. It's also true.*
entrenching in the constitutuion language that denies a class of people access to a societal institution - especially while not increasing access for any other class(!) - cannot legitimately be described as furthering the cause of democracy.

but i do agree the debate should be a respectful one.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Sean_
*...But both sides have a simple argument; in truth, theirs might be simpler than yours. Theirs boils down to, "Democracy is good," ...*
I read the links you provided and I don't understand how you came to that conclusion. "Democracy is good" is *not* the core of their arguement.

The core of my arguement is "Civil Marriage is a Civil Right", which would indeed fit well on a bumper sticker and it trumps theirs in that it actually addresses the issue at hand.


----------



## Sean (Feb 22, 2004)

Quote:

_Originally posted by pugmadmama_
*"Democracy is good" is not the core of their arguement.*
Maybe you missed it. Here are excerpts from the President's speech:

Quote:

_bits of George Bush's speech_
The [Defense of Marriage] Act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342 to 67, and the Senate by a vote of 85 to 14. Those congressional votes and the passage of similar defensive marriage laws in 38 states express an *overwhelming consensus in our country*....In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage.....[The California law], which clearly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, *was approved overwhelmingly by the voters* of California....On a matter of such importance, *the voice of the people must be heard*....Decisive and *democratic action is needed*,....
See how again and again he appeals to the popular will and the democratically enacted laws as opposed to the activist courts? That's the core of his argument.

I won't excerpt all those other articles here, but they make the same case. Hope that helped!


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Sean_
*See how again and again he appeals to the popular will and the democratically enacted laws as opposed to the activist courts?*
i want to be really clear about this.

a president...

who did not win the popular will, er, vote...

whose election was finalized when a court stepped in to stop the counting of votes...

wants to pass an ammendment because of "activist courts"?

is that about right?

again, whatever the motivation, a legal prescription that denies access to one class without enabling another class greater access cannot legitimately be called "democratic".


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Sean_
*Maybe you missed it....I won't excerpt all those other articles here, but they make the same case. Hope that helped!*
Here's a quote from an article you linked to...maybe you missed it, but democracy doesn't have a damn thing to do with thinking like this and the other "the sky is falling!" essays you linked to:

Robert Knight writing for the National Review : _But there is nothing "reasonable" about two men or two women having sex. There is something deeply wrong. The practice should be discouraged and resisted, not accommodated. One can love friends and relatives who have a homosexual problem without caving in to the politically correct campaign for mandated acceptance._


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

pugmadmama, you hit the point squarely. the idea that this has anything to do with furthering "democracy" depends entirely on the "democraticness" of the actions the so-called activist judges are overturning. the simplest way to see this is replace "gay marriage" in the laws of those 38 states with, say, "women's right to vote".

this is about preventing any state in the union from democratically choosing a broader definition of marriage for itself.

it's like Rosa Parks never sat on the bus and we're right back in 1953 again.


----------



## RachelGS (Sep 29, 2002)

The "democracy" thing leaves me steaming. There are fewer homosexuals than heterosexuals in this country, so randomly applying "majority rule" to their civil rights is just outrageous on all kinds of fronts. Let's imagine a small town in 1965 with 90% white people and 10% blacks. If slightly more than half of the white folks are racist, a popular vote would pretty much insure permanent segregation. And today, if slightly more than half of heterosexuals are prejudiced against gays, a popular vote is going to insure ongoing discrimination. Democracy is not just about majority rule. It's also about civil rights.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by RachelGS_
*... Democracy is not just about majority rule. It's also about civil rights.*
At the offices of the Unitarian Universalist Association in Boston, there is a large banner hanging out from that says "Civil Marriage is a Civil Right" Says it all, doesn't it?


----------



## polka123 (Nov 27, 2003)

hmmm. I see no problem with same-sex marriage.

I do think the ones against it are motivated by:

money- think of all the $$ lost due to these folks being able to file under married instead of the higher "single" tax bracket OR the insurance co.'s losing b/c those folks putting each other on their med ins.

antiquated (sp?) religious beliefs.

someone's idea of mainstream marriage - how many of those righteous folks end up on Springer?

ahhh yes.... how many of those oppsed to the idea watch & enjoy:
"will & grace" or "queer eye" ????














:


----------



## oceanbaby (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:

this country was founded on religion
Hmm, I thought this country was founded by those fleeing religious prosecution and seeking freedom for their individual beliefs.


----------



## Sean (Feb 22, 2004)

Rachel, I think you get it! You are actually answering the real arguments offered by the other side, not setting up a straw man to bash. That's the proper and productive way to debate any issue, and it does my heart glad to see it. Your point is essentially the same one Lincoln made against Douglas in the debates on slavery. Douglas, you'll recall, was all for "letting the people decide" whether slavery should be legal. His position could be paraphrased as "Democracy is good," and he was right about that. But Lincoln held that certain moral absolutes trump the goodness of democracy, and he was right, too. Your analogy to racial segregation is another example of the civil rights of individuals outweighing the collective right of the people to pass laws.

So far, so good. Of course, there are conservative rejoinders to these arguments, too, which deny the applicability of your analogy (i.e., homosexual marriage is not an inalienable right) which you can easily look up and refute at your leisure. Hopefully you'll set an example for everyone else by continuing to debate honestly and logically.


----------



## Sean (Feb 22, 2004)

Quote:

_Originally posted by pugmadmama_
*Here's a quote from an article you linked to...maybe you missed it, but democracy doesn't have a damn thing to do with thinking like this...
*
No, you're right, Robert Knight wasn't one of those I meant when I said in my post that "most of the prominent conservatives in favor of the FMA... are trying to protect democracy more than marriage."

As it happens, Robert Knight is _against_ the FMA! Glad we cleared that up.


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

The flaw in the "Democracy is Good" point of view is one the founders saw clearly. It is teh very reason we are a Republic and that the Gov has three branches. The potential tyrany of the mob. The majority is not always right.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Sean_
*No, you're right, Robert Knight wasn't one of those I meant when I said in my post that "most of the prominent conservatives in favor of the FMA... are trying to protect democracy more than marriage."

As it happens, Robert Knight is against the FMA! Glad we cleared that up.*
He is against it as it is now written because he thinks it's _too liberal_. He wants it ammended to ban civil unions as well, then he would support it.

Stanley Kurtz writing for the National Review:

_The divorce revolution, the sexual revolution, and the homosexual-rights movement all emerged simultaneously in the sixties, and the entirely related advances in these three social movements explain why we are on the verge of legalized same-sex marriage today. Again, you can argue that the gains in freedom and tolerance are worth it, but don't try tell me that the costs to marriage - and to children - of our new cultural mode aren't real._

Where is the "democracy" arguement here? Wait, there isn't one. It's just more moaning about how our country was better off pre-1960. For an author who makes several claims that he does not want to return to the 1950s, Kurtz certainly has a difficult time saying anything good about all the years since then. And his habit of placing the lionshare of the blame on a group that constitutes less than 10% of the population is problematic at best, homophobic at worse.


----------



## Sean (Feb 22, 2004)

Quote:

_Originally posted by pugmadmama_
Where is the "democracy" arguement here? Wait, there isn't one.
No, there isn't one in _that_ paragraph. Sigh.

If one were to assemble all the sentences Mr. Kurtz has written and published throughout his career, one could divide them into two discrete categories: (*1*) those sentences that argue for the Federal Marriage Amendment on the grounds of keeping marriage in the hands of the people, and (*2*) those that do not make that argument. I suspect the second category would far outnumber the first. You have posted a brace of sentences from category (*2*).

But then there's this, which he also wrote: "As a practical matter, the Federal Marriage Amendment represents our best chance of gathering together a winning coalition, while there is still time to prevent the courts from taking marriage out of the hands of the people."

Gee whiz, pug, I understand that you disagree with these guys, but it simply isn't fair of you to say that they're not making the arguments that they are, in fact, making.


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Sean_
*"As a practical matter, the Federal Marriage Amendment represents our best chance of gathering together a winning coalition, while there is still time to prevent the courts from taking marriage out of the hands of the people."
*
that sentence has nothing - zero - nada - to do with furthering advancing or saving democracy. it based on a two flawed assumptions: that what the courts are doing is undemocratic and that democratically chosen paths have higher inherent moral value.

if you want to have a discussion about that, we certainly can.


----------



## mamacrab (Sep 2, 2002)

Oh goddess, that Onion article just slayed me! :LOL :LOL :LOL
Especially this part:

"As we are all aware, it's simply not possible for gay marriage and heterosexual marriage to co-exist," Massachusetts Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall said. "Our ruling in November was just the first step toward creating an all-gay Massachusetts."

Its just so *ridiculous* yet sadly there are people who actually think this way. I wish that reading this article could enlighten those who honestly think that straight marriage needs to be "protected."

"An-all gay Massachusetts"







: The protesters chants were priceless!! And the Chief Justice was to marry a randomly-selected "kindergarten teacher from Holyoke." *Snort!*

Ok, let me get ahold of myself.

In answer to the OP. Oceanbaby, I have felt the exact same way. On most political issues, I may feel one way, but I can intellectually understand the opposing viewpoint. On this issue, there is just no logical reason that I can grasp. It seems pure mean-spiritdness and blatant homophobia and that's it.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

First of all, I just have to say Sean how much I am enjoying your posts, both here and on the Biblical Literacy thread in Spirituality. Welcome, welcome!

You are, in total honesty, the ONLY person who has ever put forward to me a reasonable argument against same-sex marriage. Of course, I completely disagree with it, lol, but your points are at least rational and I applaud the respectful manner in which you are able to present your arguments.

The OP asked a question I have long been asking myself: how exactly does it harm heterosexual marriages, if a tiny minority of gays marry? Surely the laws legitimizing divorce, and a LACK of legal consequences to such damaging behaviours as adultery, suggest to me that the excuse of gay marriage being a "threat" to homosexual marriages is just that - an excuse. If people care that much about "protecting marriage" then why aren't they lobbying for forced castration for men caught cheating on their spouses!









As for the arguments Sean put forward: I am having the same problem as others - isn't the whole point of the courts to interpret and apply the Laws of the Constitution? And doesn't the FMA basically say "the courts have no right to change the constitution"? IME, the courts have always been the means by which the Constitution is "put to the test" when society is faced with new situations, or rethinks old prejudices.

I also want to make one comment about civil unions versus "marriage". Many, many straight couples (including myself and DH) were married by a JP and not sanctioned by ANY religion. While the Catholic Church for example, may not consider me married "in the eyes of God", the state recognizes it. Since nobody is suggesting that the Catholic Church be forced to marry homosexuals with their priests and in their churches, I fail to see how gay marriage would be any different than a straight marriage performed in the absence of any religious context.

And by the way, in Italy (and I believe France) - EVERYBODY must be married by the equivalent of a JP, a government employee. If you want a religious ceremony, it happens afterwards without the "paperwork". The ceremony itself has no legal status.

Oh - one more thing - Bush is, as usual, showing his ignorance by suggesting that "all cultures define marriage as one man and one woman". If one considers ALL cultures and the complete history of mankind, this statement is simply not true. Many cultures have practiced polygamy, one or two polyandrogyny (I think that's the right term - multiple husbands for one wife), wife swapping among brothers, etc...


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

I hear people who are opposed to gay marriage say that they just don't see why this is so important to gay people. I think there are some people that are on the fence about this because they don't get the whole picture.

I often hear that gay couples could come by most/all the benefits of marriage by other means so why rock the boat.

I hate this argument because I think it is a human rights issue and it shouldn't matter *why* a gay person wants to get married OR what it would do to marriage or our country.

I also hate this argument because people seem to only identify a few benefits of marriage. I never hear people talking the marriage benefit that allows US citizenship to a foreigner married to a US citizen. This is my issue because it has caused several gay couples that I am close with so much pain.

I know someone who got married to a man so she could stay in the US with her partner. Both of them are such law abiding people that this caused them major "moral" stress. It pisses me off that on top of their other problems that they feel guilty for breaking an immoral law.

BTW, I have some friends that just got back from SF. They said the line was too long so they went to Napa but maybe next time!


----------



## anothermama (Nov 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Sean_
*The original request on this thread was to learn why people who are against gay marriage feel that way. To that end, I provided links to the most prominent and influential among them. Maybe it would be more productive to take the conservatives at their word and engage their arguments than to dismiss them as doubletalk and rhetoric.

But both sides have a simple argument; in truth, theirs might be simpler than yours. Theirs boils down to, "Democracy is good," which would fit on a 9x2 bumper sticker with room to spare. It's also true. Your liberal argument, "Gays have a first amendment right to marry," is 5 words longer; and even if it's true, they are unconvinced that it's true.

The point is, just because they disagree with you, it doesn't make them evil or insincere. They certainly don't think they're employing doubletalk to corrupt a simple argument, and informing them that they are won't change their minds.*
First of all, I didn't say that just because someone disagrees with me, it makes them evil or insincere. And, knowing a great many staunch religious conservatives, I think that they are FULLY aware that they are trying to cover up rhetoric because no one can ever fully actually address it.

Saying that the argument boils down to "Democracy is good" is a falacy. First of all, the vast majority of common, regular American conservatives out there are not even aware of views like that. Poll your average repub, and they do not talk about that...they talk about the "sanctity of marriage", etc etc. And, again, saying that the marriage boils down to "Democracy is good" is ignoring a HUGE part of the message and ignores the facts. It's quit insulting, in fact, to say "Oh this is just a democracy issue". It's not. It is, at its roots, a human issue.

And, the liberal argument can be boiled down to two words as well..."EQUAL RIGHTS". Pretty simple, eh?

I know what the question was. I appreciate you providing those links. And I'm saying I think they are full of holes that the coservative agenda has yet to be able to address.


----------



## anothermama (Nov 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Sean_
*Rachel, I think you get it! You are actually answering the real arguments offered by the other side, not setting up a straw man to bash. That's the proper and productive way to debate any issue, and it does my heart glad to see it. .*
OH PUHLEEZ!

I'm sorry, but once someone starts churning out the ol' "My way of debate is superior so my arguments must be superior as well and I will only give any credit to anyone who argues like *I* like them to" stuff loses me right off the get go.

The proper and productive way to debate....whatever. If you don't like what other people have to say or simply can't address it, thats fine......don't veil it with snotty insults.








:


----------



## anothermama (Nov 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Piglet68_
*

As for the arguments Sean put forward: I am having the same problem as others - isn't the whole point of the courts to interpret and apply the Laws of the Constitution? And doesn't the FMA basically say "the courts have no right to change the constitution"? IME, the courts have always been the means by which the Constitution is "put to the test" when society is faced with new situations, or rethinks old prejudices.
.
*
Yes, AND as a matter of fact, the Supreme Court has historically and repeatedly said that in the "liberty" that all humans are entitled to, marriage in one of those liberties. Hence the need for an ammendment to start DENYING liberties to people.


----------



## DaryLLL (Aug 12, 2002)

Want to see what Walter Cronkite has to say on the subject?

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/n...al/8017170.htm

Quote:

...the zealots who follow the leadership of the so-called religious right are threatening us with religious war, fought on the battleground of the presidential election.

The zealots are determined to make a political issue of their conviction that same-sex marriages are so immoral as to threaten the well-being of the nation, if not civilization itself. The more fanatical among them even claim that same-sex marriages would encourage homosexuality to the degree that the nation's birthrate would be endangered. They also fear that children adopted by same-sex couples will choose to follow the lifestyle of their adoptive parents and thus perpetuate, even exacerbate, what they see as the "problem" of homosexuality...

Where is the Christian tolerance in the conceit of those Christian leaders who dare suggest that they alone can be trusted to properly interpret the lessons of their Bible, and who would impose that belief on this nation's highly diverse peoples by threatening to throw them in jail if they don't agree with the Christian right's version of God's wishes?


----------



## Sean (Feb 22, 2004)

Quote:

_Originally posted by dado_
*that sentence has nothing - zero - nada - to do with furthering advancing or saving democracy. it based on a two flawed assumptions: that what the courts are doing is undemocratic and that democratically chosen paths have higher inherent moral value.
if you want to have a discussion about that, we certainly can.*
Hi, Dado. I haven't responded even once to anything you've written on this thread, and I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you.

You are right that Kurtz's argument is based on those two premises. Since Kurtz isn't here, I feel I should point out that _he_ surely wouldn't consider those premises to be "assumptions." It's a fact that judges are less accountable to the voters than legislators; in this sense they are less democratic. As to whether democratically enacted laws are better than the other kind, people are free to refute it, but so much thought has gone into the proposition, from Socrates on down to Jefferson, that it's hardly in the class of an "assumption" to those who believe it.

The idea here is, whether a law is "democratic" or not depends more on who enacted it than what policies result from it. Can a democratic law be bad, or a tyrannical law be good? Sure. But you seem to be saying (in some of your posts) that any law cannot really, legitimately be democratic if it doesn't "further democracy," or expand civil rights. These may be laudable goals, but they are not germane to the question of whether a law was enacted democratically. A Constitutional amendment -- _any_ Constitutional amendment, even the horrible 18th amendment, which took away the right to buy and sell alcohol -- is by its nature an extremely democratic law, given the popular support it must earn to be enacted.

Also: in some earlier post, you (at least I think it was you) shot down the argument that gays cannot marry because it "violates the definition of marriage." You quite rightly pointed out that since the definition of marriage is what is being debated, it cannot be called as evidence to support itself! Exactly true.

But it occurs to me that the liberal argument that gay marriage is guaranteed as a civil right, or civil liberty, somewhere in the Constitution, suffers from the same deficiency. Obviously, if the Constitution is amended, it will not guarantee any such right.


----------



## Sean (Feb 22, 2004)

Quote:

_Originally posted by anothermama_
*If you don't like what other people have to say or simply can't address it, thats fine......don't veil it with snotty insults.*
Not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that _I_ insulted somebody? I would never insult anyone here. Do you mean that when I complimented Rachel, I was really doing it to insult you? Um, that wasn't my intention, but for what it's worth, I'm sorry you took it that way.

And yes, I do think some ways of debating an issue are better than others. Logic, respect, and civility are better than name-calling, shouting, and ad hominem sniping. If you want to refer to this mode of debate as "my way," I am flattered, but I'm too humble to accept the honor, since I think some other folks feel that way too.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Sean_
*No, there isn't one in that paragraph. Sigh.
...
Gee whiz, pug, I understand that you disagree with these guys, but it simply isn't fair of you to say that they're not making the arguments that they are, in fact, making.*
I am posting quotes from links you provided. Yes, it's true that a few of them are focusing primarily on the legal aspect, but most of those links deal with the morality issue.

I'm not making up these quotes, I took them directly from the links _you provided_ to bolster the idea that this is primarily a "democracy" issue for those against same-sex marriage. It is not, as the quote from the links _you_ provided clearly show.

The Scandinavia article is especially instructive. In it, the author basically attempts to "blame" the behavior of 90% of the population (heterosexuals) on 10% of the population (gays and lesbians). And, of course, the 1960s also must carry some of the blame, as that decade frequently must do in articles written by authors pining for American circa 1950. The logic is so tortured in that article that I'm tempted to alert the Red Cross.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

I can't help but feel that there is something offensive about a bunch of heterosexuals debating what queer people can do.

I don't know why I even bother posting this.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Arduinna_
*I can't help but feel that there is something offensive about a bunch of heterosexuals debating what queer people can do...*
I agree with you in part. I too find it offensive that straight people would presume to tell gays and lesbians what they can and cannot legally do. However, I don't think that gay/lesbian marriage is an issue only for gays and lesbians. In my opinion, this is a civil rights issue and it effects us all.


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Sean_
*The idea here is, whether a law is "democratic" or not depends more on who enacted it than what policies result from it.*
it does't "depend", they are completely separate issues.

Quote:

*...whether a law was enacted democratically.*
and this is where you conflate the issues, but i'm glad you are because it is bringing the point into sharp focus. whether or not a law is "democratic" is completely separate from whether or not it was enacted "democratically".

you are rehashing the Strom Thurmond logic from the civil rights era, but it's a strawman no matter how it is phrased: any legislative act that prohibits Rosa Parks from sitting at the front of the bus is undemocratic - regardless of how the law was put into effect. any law restricting blacks from voting is undemocratic - regardless of how the law was put into effect.

Quote:

*But it occurs to me that the liberal argument that gay marriage is guaranteed as a civil right, or civil liberty, somewhere in the Constitution, suffers from the same deficiency.*
not true. in our system of government rights are protected by default and don't need special enumeration. it is the exceptions - the restriction of rights - that require documentation and definition.


----------



## Sean (Feb 22, 2004)

Quote:

_Originally posted by pugmadmama_
*I'm not making up these quotes, I took them directly from the links you provided to bolster the idea that this is primarily a "democracy" issue*
Yes, you are quoting from articles to which I linked. Yes, some of them have nothing to do with the "democracy" argument.

However, maybe I was inadvertently confusing you by putting up those links in the same post as I summarized the democracy argument. I didn't claim that every one of those links would support, bolster, or even have anything to do with the democracy argument. (I also never claimed to agree with all, many, some, or even one of the articles.) The Original Poster expressed an interest in learning why some people are against gay marriage. I posted a variety of links, encompassing a representative spectrum of conservative opinions, along with a brief description of what could be expected to be found at some of the links.

I then summarized what I thought was the most prominent conservative argument. Maybe I shouldn't have done that in the same post, since it seems to have given you the impression that I was citing all those articles to support that argument. Sorry.


----------



## Paxetbonum (Jul 16, 2003)

I think this is all about how we define marriage too. If we stretch it to include same sex unions then one has to argue that marriage does not depend upon gender. If marriage doesn't depend on gender, does it depend on age, species, number of persons?

Can someone be married to their dog? to their child? to their brother or sister, to ten people? to themself?

At some point a definition has to be reached which places boundries. The nature of a definition is that it contains a genus and specific diffrence. If you take out the specific diffrence, you have lost the definition.

So if same sex marriage is possible, what is then seen as the definition of marriage?

I am curious.


----------



## DaryLLL (Aug 12, 2002)

Paxet, I hate your Fox News/Bill O'Reilly-speak. I truly do.

Has anyone ever in the history of mankind married an animal legally? That is beyond silly, it is surreal and I am embarrassed anyone would ever use it as an argument against gay rights.

Yes, in the past, people have married siblings. In ancient Egypt, it was the norm for Pharoahs to marry their sisters or half sisters. King Tut did. Abraham did. The common Joseph probably always looked a bit further afield for variety's sake.

Polygamy was and is still common.

Marry oneself? What would be the point?

How about marriage between a human and a supernatural being (as nuns do), or with an alien, as happens in the movies, while we are at it? Better outlaw those too, you'd say?


----------



## RachelGS (Sep 29, 2002)

*I can't help but feel that there is something offensive about a bunch of heterosexuals debating what queer people can do.*

I think I understand why you'd feel that way, but given that "a bunch of heterosexuals" are considering amending the constitution to legislate permanent discrimination, doesn't it behoove those of us who think that's terrible to speak up about it?


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Paxetbonum_
*I think this is all about how we define marriage too. If we stretch it to include same sex unions then one has to argue that marriage does not depend upon gender. If marriage doesn't depend on gender, does it depend on age, species, number of persons?

Can someone be married to their dog? to their child? to their brother or sister, to ten people? to themself?

At some point a definition has to be reached which places boundries. The nature of a definition is that it contains a genus and specific diffrence. If you take out the specific diffrence, you have lost the definition.

So if same sex marriage is possible, what is then seen as the definition of marriage?
*
First and foremost, none of the things you listed are before the court. Courts are not in the business of playing "what if?" They decide the matter before them.

The definition of marriage as a union between two unrelated adults is NOT lost if you take out the gender difference.

Personally, I find these kind of arugments offensive. Why does gay and lesbain marriage lead to these kind of arugements but heterosexual marriage doesn't? Couldn't a man desire to marry his daugther, his female dog or five women? Yes, of course, he could. But the law prohibits all of that. As well it should. And those laws would apply to gays and lesbians as well.

This whole "What's next? Marrying a dog?" line of thinking is so disrespectful of gays and lesbians. I simply don't understand where this kind of argument got started and why it continues to rear it's ugly head.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Sean_
*...I then summarized what I thought was the most prominent conservative argument. ...*
I _disagree_ with you that the "democracy" angle is the prominent conservative argument. In my opinion, it is not.

I read the articles you linked too and I've read (& heard) a lot of other arguments by both prominent conservatives and conservatives I know personally.

The most prominent conservative argument is that gay and lesbian marriage will somehow (the specifics are very vague) damage straight marriage. Which, in my opinion, is nothing but a smoke screen for homophobia.


----------



## Sean (Feb 22, 2004)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Piglet68_
*First of all, I just have to say Sean how much I am enjoying your posts, both here and on the Biblical Literacy thread in Spirituality. Welcome, welcome!*
Thanks, Piglet! It's good to be here; and thanks for your other compliments, too. I do make every effort to be respectful and fair to all sides, and it's nice when my efforts are recognized.

Quote:

*Bush is, as usual, showing his ignorance by suggesting that "all cultures define marriage as one man and one woman"*
In fairness to W, I think he said that "all cultures honor the union of one man and one woman," or something to that effect. This of course would be true even in cultures that don't define marriage exclusively that way. For instance, even cultures that practice polygamy, polyandry, or never got around to defining marriage at all, do honor the union of one man and one woman when the occasion calls for it.

(Or maybe you weren't referring to Bush's speech yesterday, but some other remarks he made? If he ever made such a claim, he would be wrong, but I haven't heard it from his mouth.)


----------



## Marg of Arabia (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:

If we stretch it to include same sex unions then one has to argue that marriage does not depend upon gender. If marriage doesn't depend on gender, does it depend on age, species, number of persons?
Oh c'mon, you are just trying to make it dramatic!

It is simple, marriage should be between 2 consenting adults.

Being gay is not a choice. Why should they be treated differently from hetrosexuals??


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Paxetbonum_
*If marriage doesn't depend on gender, does it depend on age, species, number of persons?*

While pugmadmama has already addressed this, I'm going to ask the same question:

What is there in the current gender restrictions in the definition of marriage to prevent a man from marrying his daughter? A man from marrying his female horse? What prevents a man from marrying three wives?

Simple. All those things are illegal and described as such *outside of, and in addendum to, the gender restrictions on marriage*.

As it stands, the definition of marriage between a man and a woman does not leave the field "wide open" for marriages between ANY man and woman, irregardless of genetic relationship, age, or even species. I therefore find it hard to understand how a simple changing of the gender restrictions to include "a man and a man, or a woman and a woman" would have ANY bearing on the above.


----------



## Sean (Feb 22, 2004)

Quote:

_Originally posted by pugmadmama_
*I disagree with you that the "democracy" angle is the prominent conservative argument. In my opinion, it is not.
*
Okay.

I did have my reasons for thinking it was their "most prominent" argument, as it is the argument put forward by the intellectuals most prominent in shaping conservative opinion. Also the President, who while not an intellectual (!), does count as a prominent conservative.

But really, it's not worth quibbling about. I'll concede that there's no way I could prove it's their most prominent argument, and I wouldn't have any desire to if I could. It is most demonstrably _an_ argument, and it is also, I believe, their _strongest_ argument, and as such, it is worthy of an answer.


----------



## Marg of Arabia (Nov 19, 2001)

Being gay is not a choice. Why should they be treated differently from hetrosexuals?? Someone answer my question! PLEASE!


----------



## roshismomma (Mar 19, 2002)

I have been saying a lot over the past two weeks (and living very near SF, its a constant topic) that I dont feel my marriage has been weakened, I feel better than ever about my marriage, knowing that my friends who happen to be with someone of the same sex, can be married too.

Oh, and Marg, my answer is, they shouldn't!!


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

changed my mind.


----------



## DaryLLL (Aug 12, 2002)

Marg, because "the bible says." Jeez, calm down woman.


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Sean_
*...and as such, it is worthy of an answer.*
it's already been answered many times in this nation's history. that an action is taken by democratic means implies neither that the action itself is democratic in nature nor even that the action has any moral value whatsoever. assuming otherwise is to define Hitler as a democratic leader as nothing he did was outside the scope of democratic process.


----------



## QueeTheBean (Aug 6, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by oceanbaby_
*I honestly can't figure out why so many people are so passionately against this. I can see the other side of every other issue, even though I may disagree, but I really can't see the other side of this.*
OH MY GOD. (Twilight Zone music playing)

_I said this exact sentence to my DH last night!_ I "get" the other side of gun control, abortion, etc. etc., but this one , I don't understand the opposition at all.

I haven't read any the posts, but am going back to do so. Hope I get enlightened!!


----------



## Victorian (Jan 2, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Marg of Arabia_
*Being gay is not a choice. Why should they be treated differently from hetrosexuals?? Someone answer my question! PLEASE!*
Because the people that belive that it is wrong do not belive that being gay is how people are. They believe that it is a choice.

Did anyone else see Larry King last night? He had the major of SF, that woman from Colorado who wrote the marriage ammendment, a gay actor, and a pastor on. The pastor when on and on about the gay actor's sins and how he made a choice, etc. How gay marriage should be illegeal because it is immoral and against god's laws. Larry King shot right back that religion is irrelevant in this LEGAL issue. I was waiting for the actor to punch him, he was so offensive.

Now, for the thing that I am sure will get me flamed - I am all for marriage between consenting adults. I do not believe that it is OK for relatives to be married (if they do have children, the children could have physical/emotional issues - and before you say it, I know children of gay couples and they are just fine). Marrying an animal is just silly - how could you get consent? Now, marriage between a group of say 5 people? If they are all consenting, all adult - I don't think that it is wrong. There are a lot of people in the US that do live that lifestyle already.

And as to the stupid "our founding fathers" arguement - The true "native americans" did allow gay marriage - just read about it in my Anthropology class.

The USA is about freedom, and I believe that includes freedom to love whom you will (another than fido).

Arduinna - I also find the obsession with the regulation of private lives weird, but if it is not debated, how can we stop the obvious unjustice that is being/will be done to gay people? I would hope that if this attack was anti-jew or anti-black I would be welcome to fight along side them. As Martin Luther King Jr. said "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere".

Victoria

p.s. if this does not make sense, please forgive me as I am recovering from a nasty migraine.


----------



## oceanbaby (Nov 19, 2001)

I thought this was an interesting article

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg....DTL&type=news


----------



## Marg of Arabia (Nov 19, 2001)

Thanks!







I especially like this paragraph.

Quote:

"It is really much more complex in religious perspective than you might think,'' says Tolbert, the George Atkinson Professor for Biblical Studies at the Pacific School of Religion. "What the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament) suggests as a general model for marriage is polygamy. You look at someone like Solomon who had 200 wives and 600-and-some concubines. Or Abraham, who had his first child by his wife's slave. It sounds as if it was quite normal.''


----------



## merpk (Dec 19, 2001)

Had an argument with my mother about this yesterday.

She is against it because she has this idea that "marriage" is some sort of sacrosanct word that should not be tampered with.

She is apparently for civil unions ... or at least is not intensely against them. But once the word "marriage" goes into the mix, she shuts down and doesn't want to hear any more.








:

Particularly disturbing was how she assumed I'd agree with her because of my "religious fanaticism." Which I find even more disturbing, because she's not particularly religious at all.








:

She seems to think that it's the same way the president is looking at it.










If she's at all right, it's incredible to me that the president might consider changing the US Constitution so radically ... for the first time, adding something specifically intended to restrict rights, when it is fundamentally a document about expanding and ensuring rights ... merely because of semantics.


----------



## sadie_sabot (Dec 17, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by dado_
*i'm beginning to learn there isn't even a universal definition of gender that divides us into only two camps.

http://www.glbtq.com/arts/native_am_art.html

and without bulletproof definitions of male and female there can't be a bulletproof definition of heterosexual marriage.*
















dado


----------



## Paxetbonum (Jul 16, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by DaryLLL_
*Paxet, I hate your Fox News/Bill O'Reilly-speak. I truly do.








*
I don't hate your speak.


----------



## isleta (Nov 25, 2002)

You know I really can't say if being gay is a choice, simply because I am not gay!!

I do think that it is a taboo in our society that is reinforced by the Christian church. My own experience is that many are against due to religious reasons. Many in the US are Christian and go with their beliefs. Of course I was also taught compassion, forgiveness, treat others the way you...

I understand that some feel the need to make rules of marriage, but come on! They are going to love each other regardless of law and they should, it's their life. My father is a conservative and he was even saying I don't care anymore-get on with the issues!

Regarding other cultures embracing the man-woman marriage, this is true in some but not all societies. But remember that many indiginous cultures value all members of their society and do not consider gays outside their societies. They are welcome and sometimes considered special status.

I also agree with Merpk that the constitiution is about expanding rights, not limiting them.(she worded it better







)









Sorry if I did not touch on all the issues raised or went OT-it's a long thread! I have to get through it still! Lots of good points!


----------



## SmilesALot (Nov 20, 2001)

Wow! Great thread with many many points. As a person who immigrated to this country, i thought i was missing a major point in the US constitution when all this talk about two same sex people getting "married" is being debated by all and objected to by a section of the population so fervently. This thread was great to read through and clarify my question. OP, lot of people have the same question in this country!!

I honestly don't see why this needs a constitutional amendment. Marriage is between two people who love each other and want to commit to being together - who those people are should not matter, i think!!

And, what is the legal difference between Marriage and Civil Union? Are there difference in the rights of the people involved in these processes? I ask this coz John Kerry says he is ok with Civil Unions but not same sex Marriage!

Thanks!
Peace & Love


----------



## LunaMom (Aug 8, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by QueeTheBean_
*OH MY GOD. (Twilight Zone music playing)

I said this exact sentence to my DH last night! I "get" the other side of gun control, abortion, etc. etc., but this one , I don't understand the opposition at all.

I haven't read any the posts, but am going back to do so. Hope I get enlightened!!*
Yikes, I keep using those same words, too - maybe even in my previous post on this thread...or the other thread on this topic.

Although if I think about the fact that there are people who think homosexuality is a chosen behavior, then I can ALMOST see the other side. But I still don't agree with it. I'm bisexual, I didn't choose it, I can't change it. Just because MOST people are hetero doesn't mean that being bi or gay is a choice. Most people are right-handed, but being left-handed isn't a choice either.







:


----------



## Snowy Owl (Nov 16, 2003)

You know, not too long ago, we were executing/imprisoning homosexuals, just for being gay. And now they want to start walking hand in hand down the same isles as heterosexuals? And have everyone just accept this? As if countless years of shame, secrecy and segregation mean NOTHING?!?

Sure, why not...


----------



## Aura_Kitten (Aug 13, 2002)

Quote:

there are people who think homosexuality is a chosen behavior
... yeah; those same people who turn their backs on science...

there are people who would deny gays the right to marry based on the belief that being gay is somehow unnatural -- but science has recently disproven this. animals across various species all exhibit homosexual behaviour (that is, forming unions between members of the same gender within species), and neuroscientists have found that gays and lesbians literally are hardwired differently than heterosexuals.

being gay is *not* a choice or a lifestyle, it is a way of being, and therefore homosexuals deserve the same rights as everyone else. and just because certain people *believe* differently should not affect the politics of the issue; we are not a theocracy.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

You know, I don't care a lick if homosexuality is a chosen behavior or not. I believe that for some it is and for some it isn't but it isn't the point. We _should be able to choose_ our partners.

I watched that HBO move about the suffragist and one of the best lines in the film was, "That's not the point". Someone was questioning all the outcomes of women being able to vote and the woman just said, "That's not the point".


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by IdentityCrisisMama_
*I watched that HBO move about the suffragist...*

What is so frightening is how little people ranting against gay marriage realize that they sound EXACTLY like the anti-woman-as-persons crowd, and the anti-women-voting crowd, and the prot-segregationist crowd....

In all those cases there were cries that society would go to "hell in a handbasket" if these things came to pass. Without an ounce of evidence to back it up.

History repeats....sigh.


----------



## Snowy Owl (Nov 16, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Piglet68_
*
In all those cases there were cries that society would go to "hell in a handbasket" if these things came to pass. Without an ounce of evidence to back it up.
*
Society did go to 'hell in a handbasket'... women, non-whites, and atheists influencing politics is the reason we have degenerated into the anything-goes, ultra-liberal, hedonistic, morally corrupt society we are today. **** marriage is only the next logical step.







:


----------



## anothermama (Nov 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Snowy Owl_
*Society did go to 'hell in a handbasket'... women, non-whites, and atheists influencing politics is the reason we have degenerated into the anything-goes, ultra-liberal, hedonistic, morally corrupt society we are today. **** marriage is only the next logical step.







:*










:LOL


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

Society did go to 'hell in a handbasket'... women, non-whites, and atheists influencing politics is the reason we have degenerated into the anything-goes, ultra-liberal, hedonistic, morally corrupt society we are today. **** marriage is only the next logical step.
Sounds like universal health care isn't the *only* thing you've got up there in Canada! :LOL


----------



## polka123 (Nov 27, 2003)

Quote:

Society did go to 'hell in a handbasket'... women, non-whites, and atheists influencing politics is the reason we have degenerated into the anything-goes, ultra-liberal, hedonistic, morally corrupt society we are today. **** marriage is only the next logical step.
"...... Dogs & Cats living together..."
Bill Murray in Ghostbusters








:LOL


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by polka123_
*"...... Dogs & Cats living together..."
*
*MASS HYSTERIA!*


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

Society did go to 'hell in a handbasket'
That does explain why I feel so *crowded*


----------

