What do you people on the right have against gay marriage?

The Coffee Shop
2

There’s a lot of argument’s against gay marriage. Here are a couple:

assuming gay marriage is recognized as being on par with a heterosexual marriage:

  1. Hetero couples could not be given preferential treatment over gay couples in adoption cases.

  2. The door would be opened to requireing recogniztion of other kinds of "marriage. (polygamy, etc)

  3. It will lead to trends of increasingly fractured families where a child has multiple mothers, fathers, etc. Some social scientists believe this is developmentally bad for children.

  4. Lowering the sanctity of marriage will lead to marriage being equivalent to getting a driver’s License. Divorce will be nothing more than a paperwork drill.

  5. Recognition of gay marriage would result in all publicly funded schools to required to teach children that gay marriage and a gay lifestyle is just as good as a heterosexual one.

  6. The drain on public programs that give funding to dependants, such as Social security, would be immense. all of the sudden, there will be millions of new dependants.

  7. Laslty, there’s the flat out Biblical, moral argument. If we allow gay marriage, it set’s a precedent that could be followed in other countries, eventually leading to the spread of gay marriage around the world. This would undermine various religious beliefs.

You may or may not agree with these arguments (I don’t necessarily endorse them), but there are reasoned arguments against gay marriage. They’re not talking so much about your marriage in praticular, although that would be affected as well. they are talking about thinstitution of marriage.

3

Normally this is not a topic I would wade into. There are more land mines here than Bosnia but being from the land of the gay marriage and having had friends who recently did so, I kind of feel like I have to say something.

A couple of years ago I might have been opposed to this idea, not because it threatened my marriage, but because it was “wrong”. Somewhere along the line, probably when my first marriage went south, I think I realized that love is where you find it. It doesn’t matter who or where, just that two people are happy and want to be together forever. I am very lucky to have found the woman that I want to spend every available moment with, so who am I to deny this joy to some one else? Time on this earth is too short to worry about who’s zooming who. My In-Laws are here this weekend to celebrate thier 50th anniversary. I am jealous because I am likely to old to be able to do that with their daughter. Who am I to judge someone elses wishes?

My friends who just got married are happy and more power to them. They’ve been together for years, why not get to make it official.

Just my two cents worth. Live and let live. You couldn’t threaten my marriage with a nuclear bomb.

“If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t have one”. I like that, well said.

J

4

Hetero couples could not be given preferential treatment over gay couples in adoption cases.

So change the adoption laws to give hetero’s preferential treatment.

The door would be opened to requireing recogniztion of other kinds of "marriage. (polygamy, etc)

That’s a slippery slope argument.

It will lead to trends of increasingly fractured families where a child has multiple mothers, fathers, etc.

I don’t think that just because gay marriage is legalized, that we will all of a sudden have people “switch sides”

Lowering the sanctity of marriage will lead to marriage being equivalent to getting a driver’s License. Divorce will be nothing more than a paperwork drill.

I don’t see how it lowers the sanctity of marriage, but getting a divorce already is a paperwork drill. I know, I’ve been divorced.

Recognition of gay marriage would result in all publicly funded schools to required to teach children that gay marriage and a gay lifestyle is just as good as a heterosexual one.

That’s just a scare tactic. I’ve yet to find a school that teaches “Life Styles 101”.

The drain on public programs that give funding to dependants, such as Social security, would be immense. all of the sudden, there will be millions of new dependants.

True. I would argue that they have as much of a right to those benefits as we do.

Laslty, there’s the flat out Biblical, moral argument.

Which is fine if you believe in the bible, but here again I think it’s best to live & let live. To me, christians are just one step removed from the radical muslims that want the whole world converted.

5

Two gay people getting married is not going to have an affect on my marriage. Lets say that 50 percent end in divorce, that means there on par with straight people so wouldn’t it be better to focus all of the energy on fixing the problems in everyone’s marriage instead of saying that one group can’t get married because it might hurt families (Won’t someone please think of the children!) when the system is already screwed up.

I was listening to a very smart (also very gay) constitutional lawyer a few months ago who outlined the case for marriage (in general) being a violation of the separation of church and state since it ties government benefits to a strictly religious institution. So right wing christians feel free to jump in here and tell me I’m a heathen and let me show you what 14 years of upbringing in both the Catholic and Baptist Church and do for you (yeah I know all the bible not just the parts that everyone like to use). Just don’t get out of boat unless your willing to go all the way.

6

"So change the adoption laws to give hetero’s preferential treatment. "

Under what justification. If a gay marriage is ruled to be equal to a hetero marriage, what right would you then have to restrict it?

"he door would be opened to requireing recogniztion of other kinds of "marriage. (polygamy, etc)

That’s a slippery slope argument."

There’s nothing inherently wrong with a slippery slope argument. If you recognize that marriage doesn’t have to be between one man and one woman, what’s to say it can’t be between one man and two women, or fourteen women?

"I don’t think that just because gay marriage is legalized, that we will all of a sudden have people “switch sides”
"

I’m not talking about switching sides. I’m talking about a divorced couple in which the dad decides to get married to his gay lover and now the child has a mom and two dads.

"That’s just a scare tactic. I’ve yet to find a school that teaches “Life Styles 101"”

Really. Did your school have sex ed? Did your school have you read stories about families. If you give gay marriage the same weight as hetero marriage, then you need to balance your curriculum to reflect that. It’s not that they have to directly tell kids it’s ok to be gay, it’s that you now have to include that interpretation into the rest of your curriclum where applicable.

"True. I would argue that they have as much of a right to those benefits as we do. "

Well, maybe, maybe not, but where are the funds to pay for the benefits. The laws allowing gay marriage will not also provide funds to pay the increases in dependant payouts.

"Which is fine if you believe in the bible, but here again I think it’s best to live & let live. To me, christians are just one step removed from the radical muslims that want the whole world converted.
"

Well, that is where you’re a crackpot. Christians are no more one solid group than Muslims or Jews are, and putting them all into one classification, especially comparing all Christians to radical Islamic terrorists is irresponsible and just plain stupid. You don’t have to be one or agree with them, but at least acknowledge that they aren’t an evil group bent on the destruction of all other religious or ethnic groups.

7

Like I said, this topic has more landmines than Bosnia.

My own view is that people should stop worrying about benifits and such and look at what makes a couple happy and what right do we have to deny them that? If their marriage is strong, does that not strengthen the institution of marriage? If five couples get married, what is the difference in the strain on the system if one of those couple is gay?

J

9

I’m sorry, and I’m usually a live-and-let-live kind of guy, but allowing same-sex marriage, when considering traditional society-sanctioned marriage and not civil unions, is a bad idea and cannot be countenanced.

Number one, marriage is a privilege granted by a well-ordered society in order to ensure the strength of that particular society and to also guard the rights and ensure the succession of any offspring while supporting the generational handover which occurs about every 25 years. This is why couples have to obtain a marriage license.

Number two, in all of recorded history, in keeping with the absolute authority of the natural law in regulating homo sapiens and his procreation, and especially because of the complementarity of the sexes, marriage has been a union of one man and one woman. Any fooling around with it outside of the natural law (polygamous marriages such as you might see in retro-Mormanism or in Islamic or other religious societies) is, like the push for same-sex marriages as some sort of “right”, an artifice conjured up by the hedonistically selfish among us.

Number three, so far as can be determined there is no study that has definitively stated that homosexual behaviors are anything but strictly voluntary in nature, and NOT genetically predetermined. There have been studies of identical twins, in which one twin is gay and the other is not, which give the lie to the gay lobby’s contention that human sexual behavior is involuntary and that a civil right should exist that grants certain protected-class privileges to homosexuals over and above that which is received by the general population as a whole. I don’t dispute that there may be some mental construct which we develop throughout our maturation, and which leads us to homosexual behaviors, but this is an argument for the “nature versus nuture” crowd. I’m just saying that it hasn’t been yet proven that some sort of genetic basis exists.

On the basis of my argument of number three above, I can find no legally-compelling reason for granting a privilege for a behavior which is most likely not involuntary, or **benign **(like natural skin color), but which does violate the natural law and the ordered functioning of a society.

Also, the very complimentarity of the sexes will forevermore be stood on its head. This complimentarity is the basis of societal orderliness in the world throughout most of its history. I can also envision a phenomenon of so-called “gay marriages of convenience” in order for one partner or another to gain access to certain health, employment or affirmative action benefits that he or she may not normally be privileged to receive. An example of a gay marriage of convenience could be one in which a woman who has 2 children who marries a close female friend whose own job affords full health care and other benefits for spouses and children, and who then is also eligible for a range of federal benefits reserved for classic unions of one man and one woman.

One doesn’t have to have a PhD in economics to see that the strain of resource allocation would immediately increase markedly if the well-ordered society would suddenly have to absorb any sort of union and grant it the same rights and protections afforded to the traditional married couple, who in the historical sense serves that society’s needs so very well. Polyamorous unions, polygamous unions, homosexual unions of convenience…all would end up bankrupting us in the practical sense, let alone the societal and moral senses of our predominantly Judeo-Christian population.

Personally, I think that the Left has done a marvelous job at selling the idea that homosexuality deserves the same civil rights protections and rights and privileges that those born of a different skin color have given their lives and blood for, over the years, to obtain. Don’t get me wrong…being gay shouldn’t be an invitation to be lynched. But nor should it be a free pass to affirmative action and protected-class designation. I can’t feature our country really being ready for that yet.

Time for the screaming and name-calling to begin, I suppose :wink:

10

Ok, I guess I don’t make a distinction between civil unions and ‘marriage’. What’s the difference? Are you saying civil unions are OK but marriage isn’t?

Why do you assume that gay people would be more apt to get married out of convenience as opposed to straight people?

I’m not talking about giving gay people protected status. I’m talking about giving them the same rights that I have.

11

Tony-No names, no flames. It was a well thought out response and not a knee jerk reaction.This is the last I will speak to this topic, no one will change a mind here, it’s too deeply ingrained each of us.

I agree that a woman could marry another woman to gain benefits for her two children but what’s to stop the same woman from marrying a man to acheive the same end? Fraud is fraud, their sexual orientaion does not predispose them to criminal activities.

My life changed when I met my true life partner. I would fight like hell if some one had said I couldn’t marry her. I believe that same privilege should be accorded to all.

We are governed by common law and it is ever changing, courts set new precidents all the time. Some Churches now allow gay Pastors. Twenty years ago, it would have been unheard of. Times and attitudes change. Life changes. Me? I’ll roll with it.

J

12

Well, they have the same civil rights, under civil unions, that everyone else has. My argument is basically on the natural law (biological necessity for the propagation of the species) and on the economic model, which will be bankrupted if homosexual couples or polygamous or polyamorous couples suddenly flood the marketplace with resource demands for those federal and other benefits which are reserved to traditional marriages reserved to a single man and a single woman.

There have always been marriages of convenience. Do you want to see a quadrupling or quintupling or higher in the numbers of these resource-straining marriages? I don’t.

Malthus Kahuna

14

I’m going to jump in here to help RB…because you right wingers are making no sense…

Number one, marriage is a privilege granted by a well-ordered society in order to ensure the strength of that particular society and to also guard the rights and ensure the succession of any offspring while supporting the generational handover which occurs about every 25 years.

Well yes, but with that “privilege” come inalienable rights such as visiting a loved one in the hospital and other benefits that our society deems appropriate for our partners. When making the argument that gays are more likely to engage in “convenience” marriages, you are letting your tainted view that they are inherently less ethical shape your opinion. The argument that gays are more likely to engage in an act that WE ALL deem as unethical -convenience marriage - because they happen to engage in an act that YOU deem as unethical- homosexuality- is inherently flawed.

It is your OPINION that the bible is factual. I’m not here to say that you are wrong. I don’t agree, but it’s your RIGHT to believe that. It is not your RIGHT to enforce the views of your OPININON on others. You can have the OPINION that being gay is wrong, but that OPINION does not give you the RIGHT to take away their civil liberties. Like YOUR president, you make logical fallacies all over the place.

15

  1. That makes no sense. I hate to be like this but that is pure bullshit. Me and my wife are doing everyting we can to raise healthy and well adjusted kids and a govermnent liences has done nothing to guide me in my responability as a parent. You gotta get some better ammo than that.

  2. Natural law? Are you kidding? Male animals fuck other male animals all the time. Hedonisticaly selfish? Get a grip. With all the porn, infadelity, chid abuse, spousal abuse and all other form of perversion going on with heterosexual lifestyles you can keep your defention of who is a hedonist and who isn’t.

  3. What does this have to do with anything? I choose to chocolate coat my snake, none of your damn buisness. My sword fighting has nothing to do with you or nature or choice. It how someone chooses to be.

  4. Economics? WE ALREADY FUCK WHO WE WANT! This horrible society you are fighting against is already here. You lost. This whole stuped argument make no sense.

This is what I am picking up. You are not sure of your heterosexuality so you need a piece of paper to say your ok. You need the goverment to protect your from those fags next store. Dude goverment giving the blessing to something makes no diffrence. The idea that the goverment needs to have any say in my relationship ,straight or gay, is mind boggling. It is my buisness not yours and people will do what they do liecnses or not.

This is why Republicans are left to me. Freedom isn’t about being free to a Republican it is about have a society like they want.

Why is everyone so affrais of freedom?

16

That’s a pefectly valid opinion. however, we’re not talking about 1 in five marriages, we’re talking about a large sudden glut of new marriages all at once. That’s an issue that needs to be addressed prior to allowing the floodgates to open.

18

You have given no proof that gay marriage destroys society. You have done nothing but speak of ideals not lived. Yes it does matter what the hetrosexual community does. Ideals are bullshit. Ideals are worthless with out true action.

Clean up your back yard then talk to me.

The goverment has no place in personal relationships. It does nothing in the control of human relationships.

20

I didn’t mention the Bible in the least, so that’s where you’re assertion goes off the tracks right from the start. I said **NATURAL LAW, **which for me, is biology-based.

I also pointed out the fallacy of genetic predisposition, at least at this time in our knowledge of the science. No markers have as yet been found which says that homosexuality is a benign behavior akin to skin color or sex, which is the basis for our whole civil rights program. You have no idea where I stand on civil rights, either, but you assume me to be some right-wing bomb thrower, which I’m not. I just find intellectual dishonesty unpalatable, that’s all.

I also pointed out that the Left’s attempt to align what appears to be a voluntary behavior, which the majority of people find objectionable at least as far as marriage privilieges are concerned, was very slick. Although it’s intellectually weak, they seem to have made some inroads among the more squishy of us. Additionally, I proposed that a certain hedonistic selfishness may be an underlying causus belli when it comes to voluntary sexual behavior, and that such behaviors are fodder for argument in the “nature versus nuture” crowd, and NOT for the genetically-ordered theories propounded today (that’s just strictly nature-based, and allows for no intellectual discussion to the contrary).

Lastly, had you read fully my explication, you would have seen that my argument is mainly based on the economic resources allocation model, which will be effectively bankrupted were we to toss out the marriage guidelines which we have followed for thousands upon thousands of years. Our nation and our economy is not yet ready for that.

You mistake my nod of the head to the Judeo-Christian ethics and morals which have stood our nation so well over the years as some sort of defect. This just points out your innate lack of respect and **hostility **towards the very same religions that have been the main contributors to our societal model. Perhaps you pine for the so-called “post-Christian” morality and ethos of Western Europe and the European Union. Sorry, lad…we’re just not there yet, and an attempt such as this at this time in our history will not serve us well. Rather, it’d harm us.

Like I said, one doesn’t have to have a PhD to see where ill-considered attempts such as this have led other countries in the past.

21

"There’s nothing inherently wrong with a slippery slope argument.

Yes there is. It means that one does not necessarily entail the other. Just because you let gay people marry, does NOT mean that you automatically have to let pedophiles marry their victims. "

It’s called precedent and it’s part of all legal discussions. If we pass X law, what are the implications for future laws. Don’t dismiss it just because you don’t agree with the possible conclusions. I also don’t think I ever mentioned pedophiles, so I don’t know why you’re making that crpa up unless you’re just determined to shut your mind to alternate ideas.

"I’m talking about a divorced couple in which the dad decides to get married to his gay lover

That’s a joke. You think the damage isn’t already there for that kid, regardless of whether or not their father is married to his lover?"

It’s not a joke. Surely there are issues from a kid whose parents get divorced, but that’s not what we’re talking about. we’re talking about the confusion a small child might develop if they grow up with more than one father or more than one mother.

“Did your school have sex ed?
Yes. They told us how babies were made.”

so what happens if a child of a gay marriage asks if their daddies can make a baby too? Does the school have to tech how gay sex works?

"Did your school have you read stories about families.

No. Not in Oklahoma."

I’m sorry, but I don’t believe for one second that you never read a story in kindergarten about a mommy and daddy and child going to the zoo, or something like that. don’t be obstinate.

"where are the funds to pay for the benefits

We’re talking legality here, not convenience. Besides, I don’t think there’s so many gays that it would strain the system to the extent you believe.
"

As I frequntly have to say to people who are just determined to argue, read my post. I said that I am not necessarily a believer in all these arguments. As for the numbers, I don’t think anyone knows exactly how many couples would take advantage of being able to marry, and I’m not sure we should take on the economic burden until we do know.

“Thanks. You also committed a straw man argument. I didn’t say that christians were terrorists. But please, that’s another thread. Try to keep on target.”

I’m sorry, you just said christians were one step away from muslim radicals who want to convert the whole world. I see how that wasn’t a comparison to terrorists. you’re full of crap.

22

Wow, what a softball…Fine, I’ll rephrase - Your OPINION does not give you the RIGHT to prevent them from the freedom that our civil liberties guarantee…just because their RIGHTS have been trampled in the past does not justify continuing to trample them…what kind of moronic argument is that?

And no, they don’t currently have choice…they can’t marry the person that they love. What kind of freaking choice are you giving…Marry someone that they aren’t in love with? Not committing themselves through marital vows? Why should you have the option yet they don’t?

23

“And you have given no proof that gay marriage will not destroy society.”

I can’t prove a negative. It goes against logical argument. You have to prove something I cannot prove nothing.

24

"Are you saying civil unions are OK but marriage isn’t?
"
Both candidates favor civil unions but not gay marriage. not just your hated conservatives. The reason for this is that you can define civil unions to fit the privileges you think should be extended to gay couples instead of being required to give them all the privileges extended to marriage. Things like adoptiong, SS benefits, etc. That’s the difference between CU and marriage.

25

As for natural law…see mr. tibbs explanation above…

as for the economic model…i’d like to think that doing the right thing, protecting our citizens comes first.

as for Judeo-Christian law as the basis of our society…do you not kill others just because the bible says not to? Ethics and standards can come from places other than religion. How about doing what’s right? Murder is wrong because it inherently inflicts your will on many others and negatively impacts at least one other citizen. How is homosexuality in the same realm? IT’S NOT! What two people do in the bedroom (or living room, or kitchen, or bathroom) is their business. It doesn’t effect anyone else, so you don’t get to judge it! Your opinion of if it’s ok or not simply doesn’t matter.