Is there any REASON gay marriage is wrong?

[Octopusesgarden]

There is no reason for arguments against gay people for marraige. Just ask Louis CK:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPvVnrV1tow&feature=related

 

[Callate]

...Depends on whether you believe Dan Savage or not.

Short version: Dan Savage (an author, activist, and, yes, gay man living in Seattle) casually opined in one of his books that monogamy was an unrealistic expectation of men and especially of gay men.

Now quite frankly, I want to believe that Savage is full of it- classic "everyone who shares any commonality with me is just like me" claptrap. I think that the vast numbers of homosexual couples who have shown up wanting to marry every time it's become an option says a lot about the capacity of gay people for fidelity- I somehow doubt think they're all going in just for the insurance benefits.

But while I'm perfectly willing to countenance a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman, I find I am (perhaps prudishly) singularly unwilling to accept the notion that marriage, of any type, doesn't come with the assumption of sexually fidelity to a single person.

Yes, many marriages deal with infidelity at some point during their span. But I still think that the idea that fidelity is the preferred state and the ideal is an idea with value, and the loss of that idea could genuinely be harmful to the institution and the people who practice it in a way that gay marriage itself would not.

 

[marblemadness]

The only people who are against it are one of two things:

- Homoephobic, or
- Deeply religious

I don't think either of these groups have a leg to stand on when arguing against gay marriage. It's not my business if two men or two women want to marry, and it's not their business either.

I think in 50 years we will look back on this the same way we now look back on Slavery...

 

[emeraldrafael]

Dont tell the Mormons its not legal. There's still ones out in Carson City that like to do that.

Wow, I came into this thread expecting to learn more about what people think about gay marriage, not have to defend my religion... anyways, I'd at least like to point out, that the ones you speak of in Carson City are Fundamentalist Mormons, who are a break-off religion. They are NOT Latter Day Saints (Mormons). Modern Latter Day Saints do NOT practice or preach polygamy.

Didnt intend to offend you. Mormon is just a blanket word for the religion, just like Christian includes Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans, Angelicans, Protestants, etc.

Just like how there's different sects of Jewish people.

BUt I am sorry, I should have been more specific. I know the differences, believe me, I do. So I'm sorry if I offended you.

 

[Dorkamongus]

Well, after reading through the first 12 pages, and the last 3 pages (whew) I guess I might as well add my bit.

I personally do not believe in a gay marriage, because I see marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

HOWEVER, I see no reason to deny gay marriage do those who want it, as it is their own belief and desire.

So, as so many others have already said, just because gays can marry, does not make impossible for straights to also marry. I see no reason for my own personal belief to take precedence over another's, and deny them a chance for happiness.

 

[The Funslinger]

It goes against science, nature, God, the works. It's not just religious people who thinks it's wrong.

That's not necessarily the case.
There was a research done that said lesbian parents provide the best support for their child.
and that living together in a committed relationship, prolongs the lifespan.(regardless of orientation)

And please define "nature", animals have polygamous relationships or eat their spouses. Shouldn't we be doing it as well?

Plus if it's against nature an impotent man and woman should not be able to marry.

Every single study I have EVER read has stated that a child develops best emotionally and mentally by having both parents (assuming they are healthy in those ways themselves).

Umm, "both parents" could mean two guys, gals or a mixture.

Unless you want to follow the "Bullet storm = rapists" woman, I'm going to need citation of these so-called studies.

I think it's fairly obvious that I mean a mother and father, you know, the archetypal "parents"?

http://www.narth.com/docs/gendercomplementarity.html
http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/social-issues/2SI0804G.pdf
http://www.narth.com/docs/optimal.html
http://www.upf.org/component/content/article/3571-gender-complementarity-relationships-and-the-family
http://www.gendermatters.org.au/Home_files/21%20Reasons%20Why%20Gender%20Matters%28low%20res%29.pdf

I see, and I'm going to go ahead and counter with this: If you're going to counter with the Freudian theory that a child needs a mother and father figure to develop properly, you need to acknowledge the fact that a father/mother figure can exist outside of parenthood. It can be a close family friend, a sibling of one of the parent/guardians, a grandparent, anybody. The whole parenthood matter isn't really an issue. I mean with the argument that only a functional family works for the child, technically orphanages shouldn't exist, by your logic. There's no way an orphanage provides the proper bonding and attention for each child.

If you're going to quote using Freudian theory at all, you should probably be taken out back to the shed... Seriously, though. There's nothing wrong with gay marriage. As far as the ignorant Bible-lovers go, (don't get me wrong, I love me some Bible, I just like to use cool things like "reading" and "comprehension" whenever I try to tackle it) haven't we already decided that the Leviticus passages "don't count"? Or should we start stoning people to death for wearing different types of cloth... again...

I wasn't exactly quoting freudian theory, I was using it to understand where this other person was coming from, and then stated that if you were of the ilk that believes role models of both genders is required for healthy nurturing, that those role-models can be found outside of the parents, e.g. gay marriage is okay. Please read before you insult.

 

[Stevepinto3]

Marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman for thousands of years (mostly for paternal purposes). I have no problem if two men or two women want to have a special union of their own, but just don't call it marriage cause that's not what it is. Marriage is held by many to be a sacred tradition, and allowing homosexuals to use the word "marriage" for their unions devalues the whole concept of marriage for a lot of heterosexual couples. Besides, if homosexual relationships are by definition "different" or "alternative lifestyles" doesn't it make sense to call their unions something different then what "normal" unions are called?

And we should call a marriage between a black and white person something else because it's not traditional either. Or if a woman is elected into Congress we shouldn't call her a Senator, that devalues the term for the old white men.

 

[bad rider]

Is there any REASON gay marriage is wrong?

Dude, I'm still trying to wrap my head around why anyone would want to get married in the first place.

Well, beyond the tax benefits anyway.

YAY! tax benefits! *highfive*

 

[Dorkamongus]

Dont tell the Mormons its not legal. There's still ones out in Carson City that like to do that.

Wow, I came into this thread expecting to learn more about what people think about gay marriage, not have to defend my religion... anyways, I'd at least like to point out, that the ones you speak of in Carson City are Fundamentalist Mormons, who are a break-off religion. They are NOT Latter Day Saints (Mormons). Modern Latter Day Saints do NOT practice or preach polygamy.

Didnt intend to offend you. Mormon is just a blanket word for the religion, just like Christian includes Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans, Angelicans, Protestants, etc.

Just like how there's different sects of Jewish people.

BUt I am sorry, I should have been more specific. I know the differences, believe me, I do. So I'm sorry if I offended you.

No problem, really. If I got offended over something like that, I'd probably get really bitter about life. Just felt like I needed to say something.

Added: after all, someone else on here might get the wrong picture

 

[drummond13]

The only people who seriously oppose Gay Marriage do so for religious reasons. They believe that God believes homosexual relationships to be sinful, and since marriage is a union before God, they believe that the government shouldn't allow it. They don't have a reason for this other than "homosexuality is a sin". Since this is based 100% on faith rather than logic or reason, you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO CHANGE THEIR MINDS ON THIS. There can be no debate.

 

[michiehoward]

oh no you mite ketch "THE GAY"..

 

[bad rider]

(Before reading, please note that I AM in favor of gay marriage, in case you're very thick and don't get that right away)

You might hear people go on about how "Gay marriage is wrong", and "How it shoud be illegal" and so on. But I've yet to hear an objective reason for the case. They sometimes try to justify their position with "It would hurt regular marriage", but this is far fetched at best and a flat out lie at worst.

Fortunately these forums tend to be pretty open-minded on the matter, but if you happen to disagree with me, I'd very much like to hear a good, solid, factual reason to support your position.

EDIT: Lol, I finaly caught on to the error in the title X). I originally wanted it to say "would be" instead of "is" but forgot to delete the "be".

Gays can and have always been able to get married. It's all about the legal recognition of marriage. Let's be honest, I am anti-gay men, but if I wasn't I'd still oppose this. As it is I have few problems with Lesbians, yet I don't think they should have legally recognized marriages either.

Don't let the gay rights movement BS you into thinking that this is about love, or some kind of basic human right. The entire issue revolves entirely around money and benefits. While not explained in detail in law, the reasons why people get tax breaks for being married is the presumption that they are going to have and raise children afterwards. Making this easier is what those benefits are for. Homosexuals will never bear children, no matter what they might feel for each other, and if they choose to adopt there are already programs in place to help adoptive parents (people taking in foster kids for example wind up receiving checks from the goverment, leading to some of the nastiest rackets out there, even though the system does work as intended sometimes... the point simply being that there is compensation inherant in this kind of system).

One of the reasons why there is so much waffling on the issue of gay marriage, with states and politicians going back and forth, is because even those who support the principle, don't want to pay the cost when they figure out the racket. Homosexuals are a small minority of people, but especially at a time when most states are drowning under debt, all those people suddenly getting tax breaks hurts the bottom line. Especially when you consider that there is no justification for giving these people those benefits (as they were intended), most leaders don't want to pay that bill or have to raise everyone's taxes in order to cover that. It's one of those things that sounds like a wonderful political position, to garner left wing support UNTIL you see the bill.

Now, understand also that the "other" benefits of Marriage are BS. Like it or not, society has been working on that problem for a while. Nowadays most hospitals and other facilities will allow a "life partner" to attend the ill just like a spouse for example.


All this aside though, the main point of marriage has always been simply for two people to declare a union and themselves "off limits" to others who are interested. Nothing prevents two homosexuals from exchanging vows before the authority of their choice, and wearing rings. Functionally, marriage, as it has existed before all of the politics, comes down to community acceptance and whether people acknowlege the couple as off limits to being sought as mates. Whether the rest of the gay community chooses to accept this and respect the vows is entirely their own social issue, and has absolutly nothing to do with goverment recognition. All Uncle Sam can do is change your tax paperwork so your cut to him is a little smaller.


Despite my less than politically correct stance on it, gay rights is an *entirely* differant issue from gay marriage with far differant issues at stake. It's just that the two are politically tied together, and it's done intentionally. If your a gay right supporter, it can be hard to say you support one and not the other when they try and tie them together.

Just on your financial points, should marriage therefore be disallowed between :infertile couples, couples who don't intend to have children and the elderly. (For reasons previously stated.) Maybe there should be a fertility test at the marriage and it should end with "Till death do us part, or fail a fertility test under section 12 clause B of the marriage contract."

 

[aba1]

As far as i know the reason people are against it is mostly because of religious reasons there religion doesn't except gay relationships all that well let alone marriage and people feel it unfair to force there priests and in general religion into it.

personally I live in Canada and nobody really cares anymore n the way I see it, gay marriage being legal doesn't hurt anybody as long as the priests arn't being forced to go against the religion no matter how stupid the rule is. If one priest won't do it I'm sure there is another around the area that will so its not really that big of a deal.

 

[DarkNinja24k]

i have no problem with gay marriages and don't see why other people have problems, probably because they are ignorant or prejudiced.

 

[Dorkamongus]

Actually, I think "one" reason that most "mainstream" religions protest gay marriage is because if the laws become passed, they become legally liable for lawsuits if their priests "or other" refuse to marry a gay couple.

I have read of a case where a bishop of my religion was sued because he refused to marry two gays in our same religion. It's been a while since I read it, so I don't really remember the details, and I don't really want to look it up, but it does make a small point.

If people (and priests are people too) have to live under the fear that they can get sued (and lose under the suit) by people just for doing their jobs and holding to their beliefs... They might end up either refusing to do marriages at all, or marry everyone, regardless of what their own beliefs and duties may be.

It's just one reason that I personally think holds "some" merit.

 

[Pirakahunter788]

I feel that if Heterosexual couples can marry, so should Homosexual.
The US is a land of the free. The ability to do whatever you wish within certain regards for other people's safety and well-being should be upheld, and the rights to this should not be smudged just because some girl or guy doesn't like the thought of a homosexual couple doing it in bed. It's just complete nonsense.

I don't see any reason why they shouldn't marry. Let em' at it.

 

[Pirakahunter788]

i have no problem with gay marriages and don't see why other people have problems, probably because they are ignorant or prejudiced.

You pretty much summed up a good portion of the homophobic populace.
A sad truth, but a truth none-the-less.

 

[Doctor Drizzle]

I believe everyone has the right to be just as miserable as everyone else.

 

[William MacKay]

maybe they think it's wrong because you need people of opposite sexes to make babies and continue humanity, and they're worried about extinction. if someone actually stood up and said that i'd agree with the point (imagine if two pandas met, and they needed to mate, but one was homosexual. then the race could be considered fucked.) but humans arent endangered, so there's no problem.

 

[Seydaman]

No
There isn't.