Is there any REASON gay marriage is wrong?

[Small Waves]

Yes and no. Homosexuality is a fine thing, there is nothing wrong with it, however you don't give a kid who throws a tamper a new ball. The gay community's push for marriage has gotten out of hand, there is already a system to get civil unions set up, and as it stands most people still don't want to give them the title. All the word marriage is, is a title, that's it. There are no real perks to being a married couple can get that a gay one can't. The only people left talking about it are the gays themselves. Right now gay marriage is not a great social question, it's a group of kids throwing a fit about not getting what they want. Some day if they can get their act together and have a real argument besides "he has a ball, so I want a ball" there can be a real conversation about this issue but as it stands now there is nothing to talk about.

You know, not everyone finds filling out paperwork to be a beautiful event in their life. There are some things you cannot get from Civil Unions that you can get from a marriage. The pictures, the vows, the reception, the honeymoon, the comfort knowing that the presence of your family and friends means that they really do support your decision, etc.

The process of becoming a civil union in the eyes of the law is cold and emotionless.

 

[Nimzar]

One of the major problems is that as it is (at least in the USA) Marriage is made up of several parts.

There are contractual parts and religious parts.

There is a contract between the two people involved. (Sometimes with an addendum called a prenuptial agreement).

There is a contract between these two people and the government.

Then there is the religious aspect.

(Yes, there are other parts but these are the ones relevant to the discussion).

The problem is that the government can't disallow same-sex marriage based on the religious aspect because then the government would be favoring one religious belief over others--which in the USA is not cool.

The government also can't deny same-sex couples the option of entering a civil contract without discriminating against them.

So the current situation is that some states allow and others disallow it.

This doesn't work. It goes against the constitution:

Spoiler: Article 4 Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America

Article 4 Section 1
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Every state is constitutionally obligated to recognize public Acts and Records of every other State. Marriage as it currently stands falls under this heading. Therefore as long as one state allows for same-sex marriage all states are obligated to recognize said marriages. They currently don't but that just means many states have unconstitutional laws (and in some cases unconstitutional state constitutions).

 

[Falseprophet]

I disagree with using the term "marriage" because the idea of "marriage" as it is has been the same for thousands of years, and now we have to change it because... why exactly? Because less than 10% of the worlds population demands a change of ideas? What's next? "Marriage" to a goat? "Marriage" to your left hand? Once you break the defined nature of the language, where does it end?

Why not civil union? Why not a whole new word? Why must it be "marriage?"

By the way, that's Elton John's opinion, as well as mine. I'm not against civil unions, but I am against using the term "marriage."

You're incorrect, and if that's truly Elton John's opinion, so is he. Marriage has changed quite a bit over the last few thousand years and across cultures. Even today in Canada, our two largest religious groups are Roman Catholics and the United Church of Canada, and they view marriage quite differently. Catholic doctrine teaches the purpose of marriage is to produce children. Sex is only permitted within a marriage and only if the potential to produce children is present. Infertility is grounds for an annulment. In the UCC, the purpose of marriage is companionship. Children are a blessing but not a requirement. Hence, the former is opposed to same-sex marriage while by and large, most congregations of the latter are fine with it. Why should one group's beliefs be forced upon the other?

Gay marriage isn't wrong because all the arguments against it have already been addressed and discarded by Western society:

-We don't take children away from single parents if they're otherwise fit guardians, so the "children need a mother and father" argument is baseless.

-We've permitted in-vitro fertilization, sperm and egg donation, adoption and surrogate motherhood for quite some time, so arguing gays and lesbians can't have children "the natural way" is also a moot point.

-We allow for divorce, remarriage and in most jurisdictions, common-law marriages or domestic partnerships because long ago the law recognized that the "sanctity" of marriage doesn't mean a damn thing when it comes to things like property, care of children and powers of attorney/next of kin arrangements.

-We no longer outlaw marriages between those of different races, religions or ethnicity.

-For the most part, we no longer criminalize any sexual activity between consenting adults, or even if such laws are still on the books, the violation of privacy by the state required to enforce them is generally seen as reprehensible.

-The freedom of belief of churches and clergy is preserved; the state is not forcing clergy to marry anyone that would be against their faith to do so. Catholic priests cannot be forced to marry divorcées, but cannot bar the same from seeking a legal remarriage outside of the Church, for example. Likewise, clergy whose religion accepts same-sex marriage are also permitted to conduct such marriages.

The only objections to same-sex marriage that remain are personal or religious disapproval, and in a secular democracy, while you have the right to have such beliefs, they are no basis for restricting other citizens' rights.

TL/DR: No, there's no reason.

 

[eelel]

I guse moot is a little strong but he esentaly said other than the 10 commandments that the old law is renderd not as important and if you can point out one passage that actually condems gays in the new testament than I might reconsider my point.

I could, but I would need to go to the King James Version of the bible, where I believe it is stated several times that homosexualty is wrong in the New Testament, the newer translations all tend to combine the likes of homosexuality, masturbating, etc. into the phrase sexual deviancy, or a similar phrase, which implies it but doesn't state it outright, but the King James version I think does mention homosexuality specifically as being a sin. (Now to know which is the best translation it would of course be necessary to go to the original greek scrolls, and my greek is a little rusty, It would be possible and probably quite easy to find a site on the internet tha does do this for the passages- if you want to prove it either way.)

Then pull out your King James Version and actually prove me wrong insted of you just saying you think it is.

 

[kidigus]

Since this thread derailed somewhere around post #1, allow me to play a role:

"Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. "

-Adam Kolasinski

It's a reason, and a secular, non homophobic one at that.

edit: to give credit.

Wouldn't gay marriage in addition to straight marriage bring in more money than straight marriage alone? 'Cause I'm pretty sure it would.

Thanks for trying.

This "marriage industry" of which you speak, wedding planners and chapels? I think they'll get by.

Marriages cost money for all governments.

Thanks for the condescension.

So we'd bet better off without marriage as a whole? Because that's a position I don't have as much of a problem with.

Thanks for keepin' my headache going.

 

[thedoclc]

Everything the bible and Christians say about what makes homosexuality wrong is outdated and very contradictory. Views change after 2000 years.

You just reminded me of the best debate I ever had with an anti-gay, religious type. He did the usual trick of quoting the Leviticus "man shall not lie with man as he does with women" passage, so I just casually threw out some of other things Leviticus bans, like 'cursing' your parents, eating pork, eating shellfish, putting two different types of seed in one field and wearing an outfit made of two different kinds of material. You know, just threw them at him to see how he'd handle it.

He said exactly what you did: "some of them don't apply in modern times, because things change in 2000 years, and values change in that time too." Which I then responded to with "how come all those other ones are null and void due to changing values, but you people still stick hard and fast on the homosexuality one?"

He replied back saying "I won and I don't wanna talk to a creep like you any more". I haven't heard from him since. That was 3 days ago.

You know, a really mean person may ask what the value of pi is...

Hint, check the book of Numbers.

 

[InnerRebellion]

Spoiler: Obligatory fake reaction

If gays marry, the world will be up in flames! We'll lose our jobs! Our children will be corrupt! Satan will rule the land!

I find nothing wrong with it. I have a few people in my life who are homosexual, and hey, guess what? They're normal people.

 

[gundamrx101]

Everyone should allowed to be equally miserable. Really, it's no big deal and people (politicians and some members of the church) are using it to blind people from actual problems like the ecomony, that some preists are pedos and that everywhere you look, the US is shooting at someone new.

 

[emeraldrafael]

This sounds more like discrimination. What real benefits do you get from being married? The whole point of marriage (and really to even living on earth) is to say, "this is my woman, she is mine, do not touch her, for I have claimed her" and reproduce without worrying about some guy walking up and doing the same thing.

From a personal standpoint, yes.

From a government standpoint, you get tax breaks because married couples on average have at least one child.

And divorces cost more money. Plus, not every married family will have a child, or may have one as a pre-existing thing. And the heterosexual people that have children and dont marry, getting even MORE tax breaks.

Meanwhile (so far as I know, but the law could have changed) homosexuals are unable to adopt, and will need a surrogate mother to have one naturally (though I think they screen you and have something against homosexuals doing it). So they would receive no tax breaks for inability to reproduce.

Though I do think that homosexuals should be able to Adopt. There's no reason why you cant let them be together, then adopt, when there's so many family-less children in America or even the world. But thats another thread in its entirety.

 

[eelel]

Because their religion says so.

They usually conveniently overlook the fact that I am not of their religion when making these sorts of statements.

I can only speak for moderate Christians but there is nothing in the new testament that is against gay marriage. The fundies get all of their ant-gay talking points from the old testament, which is an interesting read and important to know where we come from but is for the most part rendered moot by the new testament.

It's not rendered moot. Jesus said that he does not intend to change a single coma or a single letter in the law. Without the Old Testament Jesus is just a wandering philosopher, his divinity stems from the fact that he's an heir to Adam, Abraham and David, has been foretold by the prophets and so on. I'm sorry to say that, but when you take time to study the Bible it seems that Jesus in fact did "hate fags". (Well, he would forgive them if they were seeking redemption, but he was capable of anger)

Not that I believe this.

I guse moot is a little strong but he esentaly said other than the 10 commandments that the old law is renderd not as important and if you can point out one passage that actually condems gays in the new testament than I might reconsider my point.

It's not surprising me that you're stubborn, it's not like you'll hear "oh, ok then" from a religious person, but you seem to forget that Jesus was a Jew by belief. He had issuses with some of the less important practices of the faith and you might say that he updated them, but he was by no means a revolutionary. Everything else that was said in the Old Testament still stands. He wouldn't rebel against it, becasue it justified the fact that he was a son of God. Not some God, a God or even the God, but God Jahwe, the same guy, who was supposed to write the Old Testament. I know it's hard to accept.

I find it funny how when some one asks for proof you make fun of them.

 

[Dark assassin for hire]

One of my friends said that gays are bad today. I slapped him and called him a Jersey boy. I then thought, "what do people have against gays?" I have several gay friends who are awesome, and there is nothing to dislike about them. I came to the conclusion that religion is whats wrong. Religion has set ideas into peoples heads. These ideas can be very wrong. I will not stand up against it though because religion is very important to some people...
so this battle cannot be won.

 

[elcamino41383]

I've not really heard any other reasons aside from "It's against the bible" or similar excuses. Personally, I don't care, let them get married. It's not going to hurt me at all.

And as for any religious types, if it really bothers you that much, just think, according to what you believe, they aren't going to go to heaven anyway. You can sleep soundly knowing that goal line defense is protecting the pearly gates from these people. So what harm is there in letting them marry if they are going to hell according to what you believe?

 

[shadowseal22]

You know, not everyone finds filling out paperwork to be a beautiful event in their life. There are some things you cannot get from Civil Unions that you can get from a marriage. The pictures, the vows, the reception, the honeymoon, the comfort knowing that the presence of your family and friends means that they really do support your decision, etc.

The process of becoming a civil union in the eyes of the law is cold and emotionless.

Just because it isn't in a church, does not mean you can't have a ceremony. You can still go on a honey moon. If your friends don't support you being gay than it is time to get new friends. The law isn't any warmer to married couples. And above all else, IF YOU LOVE SOMEONE ENOUGH TO SPEND YOUR LIFE WITH THEM 2 HOURS OF PAPER-WORK IS A SMALL SACRIFICE.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

I disagree with using the term "marriage" because the idea of "marriage" as it is has been the same for thousands of years, and now we have to change it because... why exactly? Because less than 10% of the worlds population demands a change of ideas? What's next? "Marriage" to a goat? "Marriage" to your left hand? Once you break the defined nature of the language, where does it end?

Why not civil union? Why not a whole new word? Why must it be "marriage?"

By the way, that's Elton John's opinion, as well as mine. I'm not against civil unions, but I am against using the term "marriage."

The slippery slope argument: When all other arguments hit the shitter.

Really? If Gay Marriage is legalized, you can start marrying goats and your left hand eventually as well? Fuck, Canada must be just full of people marrying their goats and left hands then with our legalized Gay Marriage, right? (eyeroll)

 

[ReservoirAngel]

One of my friends said that gays are bad today. I slapped him and called him a Jersey boy. I then thought, "what do people have against gays?" I have several gay friends who are awesome, and there is nothing to dislike about them. I came to the conclusion that religion is whats wrong. Religion has set ideas into peoples heads. These ideas can be very wrong. I will not stand up against it though because religion is very important to some people...
so this battle cannot be won.

It's not all religion. I knew some devoutly NON-religious folks who hated gays. But that's only because they'd been fooled by that talk of "indoctrination" and "youth recruitment" which, basically, is just a way for bigots to create other bigots by appealing to the very basic human fear: loss of offspring/the threatening of one's offspring.

It's a very clever, but very stupid at the same time, ploy by them. Clever because it employs very strong psychology, but stupid because ANY homosexual can tell you that they were born gay and they aren't recruiting children to 'their cause'.

 

[subtlefuge]

It's secular, yes, but the undercurrent here is definitely homophobic. Does Mr. Kolasinski advocate the annulment of the marriage of straight couples with a sterile partner? What about straight couples that don't intend to have children?

He's singling out gay couples entirely because they're gay. It's bigotry, plain and simple.

This is not entirely correct. Homosexual couples can have children through methods like in-vitro fertilization or surrogate parents. Also they can adopt children hence "giving the state more workers" or whatever Kolasinski is talking about.

Also the point of marriage isn't necessarily propagation as some people who are unable to have children still choose to get married. Some couples who are physically able to have children choose not to as well for certain reasons.

~snip~

-snip-

1) I take as a basic premise that human liberty should be increased whenever possible. Groups should be treated in a manner which increases their ability to choose to live their lives as they see fit. Since I take this as a starting principle, if we don't agree on that, then all we can do is agree to disagree.

2) In the US, it comes down to the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, which has been interpreted to mean that the civil liberty of a group cannot be infringed unless the government shows: 1) a compelling reason to do so and 2) does so in a minimally intrusive manner. I do not see any duty of the US Federal or State governments to protect or defend marriage, and even if I did, I see no reason such a duty would be best fulfilled by deny a class of people the right to marry.

And divorces cost more money. Plus, not every married family will have a child, or may have one as a pre-existing thing. And the heterosexual people that have children and dont marry, getting even MORE tax breaks.

Meanwhile (so far as I know, but the law could have changed) homosexuals are unable to adopt, and will need a surrogate mother to have one naturally (though I think they screen you and have something against homosexuals doing it). So they would receive no tax breaks for inability to reproduce.

Though I do think that homosexuals should be able to Adopt. There's no reason why you cant let them be together, then adopt, when there's so many family-less children in America or even the world. But thats another thread in its entirety.

Very good on all fronts. As a Libertarian and student of law, I commend your fight for human rights and ability to respond to uncommon arguments.

I'd love to stick around and play devil's advocate some more, but I completely forgot that the whole Pokemon online feature came out today.

So we'd bet better off without marriage as a whole? Because that's a position I don't have as much of a problem with.

Thanks for keepin' my headache going.

Except for you, who started the thread to get a discussion going and harassed anyone who disagreed with you.

Nobody reply to any of my prior statements. If you read my original posts, I was only trying to get discussion going with a view that I don't share. I have been getting flamed left and right, and have no desire to respond to anyone in the future.

 

[LCP]

As a gay, obviously I feel that gay marriage should be allowed. I can understand the argument of those people who say that "marriage" is a religious institution and should not be changed. In that case, civil unions should be given all of the same rights as marriages between heterosexuals.

Civil unions do not have the same rights?

That's news to me...

*does speedy research*

Well, I clearly haven't been keeping up to date on this.

However, I do recall stories from not too long ago where even though a couple had a civil union they would still be denied basic rights that would have been given to straight couples - one example is of a gay couple, one of whom was taken into hospital terminally ill, and his partner was not allowed to see him. Stuff like that - where inequality still exists.

In that sense, I guess having separate marriages and civil partnerships is bad - they should be seen as one and the same to prevent discrimination like that.

That's just damn ridiculous, and I am against gay being considered normal and able to adopt

Here's my solution...

-Marriage is not managed by the state. But by individual churches.
-Civil unions are used for all types of relationships.
-Marriage is now completely unrelated to rights and others.

Everyone's happy, except those who's opinion doesn't matter

 

[Small Waves]

Just because it isn't in a church, does not mean you can't have a ceremony. You can still go on a honey moon. If your friends don't support you being gay than it is time to get new friends. The law isn't any warmer to married couples. And above all else, IF YOU LOVE SOMEONE ENOUGH TO SPEND YOUR LIFE WITH THEM 2 HOURS OF PAPER-WORK IS A SMALL SACRIFICE.

You're missing the point. Some people want to go the whole nine yards and are willing to dump of a shitton of money. If the only important thing to couples was forming a legal union, weddings would be a thing of the past.

Gay's are wrong, they should be all lined up and stoned. and now there able to adopt children and pass there disgust to them. the governments of this world should also be lined up and stoned, I know 100% of you will disagree and aim hate at me but it's my opinion so please don't reply... It's not a religious thing, I don't think they'd break me and my wife up, it's just purely discussing, I'd sleep with an animal faster.

Yep them gays are out to get you, so you best watch your back. They could strike at any moment, even right now.

 

[LaughingAtlas]

*snip*

*snip*

Not biologically correct for humans, I mean. Neither the asshole nor the mouth are made for reproductive purposes as far as I know. I'm not certain the desire to "misuse" (for lack of a better way to say plug A not connecting to slot B) one's organs is natural in the nature sense, I've never seen convincing evidence that two men or two women can produce a child within their bodies without outside aid, but I've been wrong before.