Anti-Gay Marriage

[I.M. Gei]

you know what would suck

if that got repealed Prop 8 style (I saw it happen here five years ago after the Mormon church poured millions into this state campaigning against it)

[shadykid]

you know what would suck

if that got repealed Prop 8 style (I saw it happen here five years ago after the Mormon church poured millions into this state campaigning against it)

eh

they already voted once not to let that happen (unlike in Cali where it was initially via state Supreme Court ruling)

on the other hand, Republicans taking the legislature back from the DFL and attempting to repeal it?

yeah, that could cause problems

Edited May 18, 2013 by shadykid

[Snowy_One]

I haven't read much beyond the first post, so sorry if I'm bringing up points that have already been discussed/answered/resolved. Here's my opinion on this though.

The real question here is 'what, exactly is marriage? Is it a legal status, religious status, or something else?' Assume for a moment that marriage is, indeed, something religious. Something handed down by God(s) and enforced through divine law. That the powers that be have said that it is between a man and woman. At this point the government coming in and declaring that gays can get married is, indeed, a huge problem as it is an attack upon the religion and beliefs of the people. Not only is it putting the government above God (basically stating that only government-approved beliefs are permitted), but it's a destabilizing presence within the religion. At the LEAST they will need to adjust to compensate for it to keep the beliefs they hold dear truly sacred.

If marriage is just a legal state, however, then there really isn't anything stopping the government from declaring that a man can legally marry his hand, two goats, and fourty-seven women of which two are his cousins beyond any legal thresholds and paperwork.

If you ask me, it's a general feeling of being threatened by both... and it is something gays should be worried about as well. Gays don't 'just want' the tax benefits. If that was all they could easily have something like civil unions with all the same legal benefits without the social/spiritual/whatever requirements. They want their union to be SPECIAL. To have MEANING. They don't want to point to their spouse and say 'that's my partner'. They want to say 'THAT is the man/woman I love and who is my husband/wife'.

Only problem is that it puts them in a paradox. If marriage is legal and not religious, the statement holds no meaning beyond a title. If it's religious though, than no amount of government legislation can make it truly be and the only solution is to find a different religion. Gays still want it though, and that's the threat. Because it means either people who 'support traditional marriage' either need to accept that the government can legislate something that is a core aspect to their spiritual lives or that something that's been key to their entire religious world view may be wrong or have been changed.

Course, it's entirely possible that the PTB are totally okay with gay marriage. I'm not denying that in the slightest. Just trying to explain some of the fears/concerns as I've heard it of some people who dislike the idea of gay marriage and, honestly, while I support making it legal, I fear that some people will take that as a right to arrest/force gay marriages on religious groups that refuse on religious grounds.

[Anouleth]

I haven't read much beyond the first post, so sorry if I'm bringing up points that have already been discussed/answered/resolved. Here's my opinion on this though.

The real question here is 'what, exactly is marriage? Is it a legal status, religious status, or something else?' Assume for a moment that marriage is, indeed, something religious. Something handed down by God(s) and enforced through divine law. That the powers that be have said that it is between a man and woman. At this point the government coming in and declaring that gays can get married is, indeed, a huge problem as it is an attack upon the religion and beliefs of the people. Not only is it putting the government above God (basically stating that only government-approved beliefs are permitted), but it's a destabilizing presence within the religion. At the LEAST they will need to adjust to compensate for it to keep the beliefs they hold dear truly sacred.

That's not really true, though. Just because gay people are getting married isn't an "attack" on the beliefs of Christians, any more than people getting divorced is an "attack" on the beliefs of christians. Should the government ban divorce or refuse to recognise divorces, just because they aren't recognised?

People who aren't Christian have no duty or responsibility to uphold your beliefs, even if you think that your beliefs need to be kept sacred. I have no duty to go to church, to abstain from premarital sex, or to rest on the sabbath, just because you think you know better than I do.

If you ask me, it's a general feeling of being threatened by both... and it is something gays should be worried about as well. Gays don't 'just want' the tax benefits. If that was all they could easily have something like civil unions with all the same legal benefits without the social/spiritual/whatever requirements. They want their union to be SPECIAL. To have MEANING. They don't want to point to their spouse and say 'that's my partner'. They want to say 'THAT is the man/woman I love and who is my husband/wife'.

And... what's your problem with this? Are you so arrogant that you think you know better than them what to call their relationship?

[Espinosa]

I won't claim I'm the one who read the post right, but it seems to me he does not hold the position you think he does (based on your response).

That said, I do not extract any clarity from the following two issues: a) why is it precisely marriage that homosexuals desire? b) is there even any unanimity in the LGBT community that the faculty of marriage is desired and appropriate for the queer folk? I mean, I have heard plenty of gays say that they aren't interested in marriage at all and find the institution pointless and outdated.

And look what happened in Georgia (country not American state) yesterday; how sad.

[Rewjeo]

That said, I do not extract any clarity from the following two issues: a) why is it precisely marriage that homosexuals desire?

Well, there's the legal benefit side (which I'm sure is all that a lot of them want), and then there's the principle. Calling their unions something different from marriage implies that their unions are inferior to straight marriages. That's what I understand.

b) is there even any unanimity in the LGBT community that the faculty of marriage is desired and appropriate for the queer folk? I mean, I have heard plenty of gays say that they aren't interested in marriage at all and find the institution pointless and outdated.

I don't see why some members not caring for marriage (and that opinion being based on the idea of the institution in general, not on their sexual orientation) devalues the views of the others.

[Espinosa]

Well, there's the legal benefit side (which I'm sure is all that a lot of them want), and then there's the principle. Calling their unions something different from marriage implies that their unions are inferior to straight marriages. That's what I understand.

You should perhaps define what a 'good' union is. You have also made an error that I'm surprised you didn't notice immediately: calling a union something different from marriage means it is something different from a marriage. If I call a pear a pear as opposed to an apple, I do not imply that the fruit (didn't intend the pun I swear) is inferior to the apple. That said, I wonder why you're putting straight marriages together into one category, as we even have names for different kinds - arranged marriage, shotgun wedding etc. That said, a legalisation of marriage opens a lot of room for abuse consistent with some of what I brought up in my previous sentence. It is not just about some mean people getting in the way of a happy couple making their union official; it's a big change whose consequences nobody is trying particularly hard to predict.

I don't see why some members not caring for marriage (and that opinion being based on the idea of the institution in general, not on their sexual orientation) devalues the views of the others.

You're conveniently rejecting what I see as an existing issue. A global legalisation of same-sex marriage transforms the culture into something very different from what we're used to (I believe this is the case, as opposed to the insistent claim that the society has already change supposedly, which stubborn bigots should acknowledge and the law should certify (as if the former were in the control of the latter in the first place)); I don't understand how this can be denied. Suppose it's all done with, and the aftermath will be the general indifference of same-sex couples to marrying each other: 'oh, we didn't care about that in the first place - as long we have the same legal rights - it was this or that political party with ulterior motives, this or that emotional activist but got nothing to do with either of us'. However, the changes to the institution of marriage would remain substantial however much marriage is needed. The problem, of course, is developing an understanding of the LGBT people and their claims and desires and distinguishing them from politics, which is an area of life as old as prostitution and quite a bit filthier.

Also to address why queer folks might want to get married and coming back to the questionable claim from the first pages of this thread (that somehow was not attended by anyone) that marriage has naught to do with religion because it exists in cultures with different religious and cultural environments. It's a simple fact that every culture was in its origins a religious culture, one where the bonds between a man and a woman were attributed sacred and mystical value. Clearly unearthly standards are difficult to match and cultures change, they undergo a transformation, but bits and pieces are left out. One such bit is the idea that marriage is good and desirable, a view shared by secular people as well. In reality, a secular world exposes that there is no reason to distinguish between an informal relationship and one made formal. You could say that the latter is a step forward from the former, a change in the intensity of feeling, decisiveness, affection, whatever else; however, that is not the case. I'm sure plenty of same-sex couples exhibit said features in contrast to specific embarrassing and unfortunate cases where a hapless young bloke is forced to marry a lady he did not even consider staying with because he didn't wear a condom. The whole declaration of one's "feelings" is questionable from a legal standpoint - "I love you and you love me" - what credibility is there? A statement of one's emotional disposition is not necessarily an accurate reflection of such, and I'm not even speaking of marriage alone there. People sue each other for having taken offence over something said or done to them for instance - what way do we have to examine said offence taken, how is such measurable? Feelings are also subject to change for any reason, or none at all.

I would argue it is a result of intellectual negligence that anybody can even state that marriage is unrelated to religion, because it is religions that provide (different) meanings to the enterprise, entirely absent and even impossible in a secular context. You're unlikely to find an example of a mainstream religion that attributes no mystical value to marriage, and it is precisely this mystical value that makes a marriage a marriage, distinguishing it from any other sexual, emotion or pragmatical union between two people (or a man or a woman, if you like, it's not me you have to argue with on this one if you're feeling like it). You could cite monastic traditions that exist in different spiritual environments, and sects like gnostics who shudder at the idea that another being will be produced to suffer as a prisoner in the dreadful cage of a material body and it is all their fault, but that's nowhere mainstream nor standard; those are the creams of said cultures (or oppositions to such) and if everybody was like them, we wouldn't have multiplied at all in order to be here today. Similarly to how one cannot be expected to be a brainy scientist or a sporty winner of the Olympics.

Edited May 18, 2013 by Espinosa

[Sublime Manic]

I would argue it is a result of intellectual negligence that anybody can even state that marriage is unrelated to religion, because it is religions that provide (different) meanings to the enterprise, entirely absent and even impossible in a secular context. You're unlikely to find an example of a mainstream religion that attributes no mystical value to marriage, and it is precisely this mystical value that makes a marriage a marriage, distinguishing it from any other sexual, emotion or pragmatical union between two people (or a man or a woman, if you like, it's not me you have to argue with on this one if you're feeling like it). You could cite monastic traditions that exist in different spiritual environments, and sects like gnostics who shudder at the idea that another being will be produced to suffer as a prisoner in the dreadful cage of a material body and it is all their fault, but that's nowhere mainstream nor standard; those are the creams of said cultures (or oppositions to such) and if everybody was like them, we wouldn't have multiplied at all in order to be here today. Similarly to how one cannot be expected to be a brainy scientist or a sporty winner of the Olympics.

Bullshit. A lot of the things you've said are true, but to claim that the 'mystical' connotations religions apply to marriage are what "makes a marriage a marriage" is ridiculous. Those connotations exist for people of particular faiths, but they're hardly the singular feature that give marriage its definition (as opposed to, say, the legal benefits and encumbrances that exist for all marriages). Further, that a connection often (but certainly not always) exists between marriage and religion does not make religion proprietor of the institution. You haven't claimed that it does, but when people end up making the claim that marriage and religion are separated, which as you pointed out isn't quite true (and plenty of same sex marriages involve religious ceremonies, too), it's usually to make the point that religion doesn't own marriage or that religions against same sex marriage ought not be able to disallow their existence just because they aren't in favor of them.

You, yourself, pointed out there exist a variety of types of marriage (shotgun, convenience, arranged). Those without any religious connotations whatsoever also exist. Religious or so-called 'mystical' connotations for marriages exist, but they definitely aren't what define it contemporarily.

[I.M. Gei]

Well, I guess even the Mormon church sees which way the wind is blowing?

[Murdok Dracul]

I can't be bothered looking through the thread to see if this has already been said, but I need to clear something up. Apologies if it's already been cleared up.

First, homophobes are stupid but hang on, there's more.

The real, sensible objections (the ones that matter) to gay marriage come from the fact that marriage isn't just about love. At its very essence, it isn't even about legal rights. It is a religious thing, yeah, but it's not about hating or denying gays. Real, sensible Catholics and other Christians, the ones that matter, aren't homophobic. This is a common misconception. The ones that are actual people with souls and feelings want others to be happy in whatever reasonable way they see fit, including loving the same sex if that's their thing.

Marriage is about religiously reproducing with someone you love. That's it. That's the purpose of marriage. That's all it is. Getting married without having kids? Well, you're not technically supposed to do that. Homophobes? Fuck 'em. They have no genuine input. They just use religion as an excuse to hate people. Those who genuinely believe fucking someone the same sex as them will send them to hell are poor, misguided buggers who have been lied to and I feel sorry for them.

Gays can't reproduce. Therefore, going by the very essence of marriage, they can't get married. Maybe in a lab, women could clone themselves, but the legalisation for that is far off in the sci-fi future, decades or centuries away.

Now, of course, your legal rights should not depend on whether you're religiously married or not. Sadly that's not the case, and the case should change. There should be some way of equalising your rights with religiously married people, yeah. 'Civil partnership' isn't enough right now, because it doesn't give people equal rights. If the heads of the churches had a well-founded reason, maybe they'd change their rules. Really, though, it's down to governments. Of course it is. A legal contract of civil partnership should allow the same rights as marriage for absolutely any couple who wants them. Non-religious people shouldn't really get married in churches, and neither should gays, not because they're unliked, but because Christian marriage isn't only about love. It's not at all about legal rights. It's about reproduction.

Last note: God doesn't hate fags. Idiots hate fags. God hates no one.

So, I'm officially a Roman Catholic, I'm 100% straight, and that's all I have to say. For now.

[Green Poet]

I can't be bothered looking through the thread to see if this has already been said, but I need to clear something up. Apologies if it's already been cleared up.

First, homophobes are stupid but hang on, there's more.

The real, sensible objections (the ones that matter) to gay marriage come from the fact that marriage isn't just about love. At its very essence, it isn't even about legal rights. It is a religious thing, yeah, but it's not about hating or denying gays. Real, sensible Catholics and other Christians, the ones that matter, aren't homophobic. This is a common misconception. The ones that are actual people with souls and feelings want others to be happy in whatever reasonable way they see fit, including loving the same sex if that's their thing.

Marriage is about religiously reproducing with someone you love. That's it. That's the purpose of marriage. That's all it is. Getting married without having kids? Well, you're not technically supposed to do that. Homophobes? Fuck 'em. They have no genuine input. They just use religion as an excuse to hate people. Those who genuinely believe fucking someone the same sex as them will send them to hell are poor, misguided buggers who have been lied to and I feel sorry for them.

Gays can't reproduce. Therefore, going by the very essence of marriage, they can't get married. Maybe in a lab, women could clone themselves, but the legalisation for that is far off in the sci-fi future, decades or centuries away.

Now, of course, your legal rights should not depend on whether you're religiously married or not. Sadly that's not the case, and the case should change. There should be some way of equalising your rights with religiously married people, yeah. 'Civil partnership' isn't enough right now, because it doesn't give people equal rights. If the heads of the churches had a well-founded reason, maybe they'd change their rules. Really, though, it's down to governments. Of course it is. A legal contract of civil partnership should allow the same rights as marriage for absolutely any couple who wants them. Non-religious people shouldn't really get married in churches, and neither should gays, not because they're unliked, but because Christian marriage isn't only about love. It's not at all about legal rights. It's about reproduction.

Last note: God doesn't hate fags. Idiots hate fags. God hates no one.

So, I'm officially a Roman Catholic, I'm 100% straight, and that's all I have to say. For now.

Quite a bit of unfounded hominem in this, but I'm not going to argue over that. I share partially the same stance as you on this.

[peener weener]

I can't be bothered looking through the thread to see if this has already been said, but I need to clear something up. Apologies if it's already been cleared up.

First, homophobes are stupid but hang on, there's more.

The real, sensible objections (the ones that matter) to gay marriage come from the fact that marriage isn't just about love. At its very essence, it isn't even about legal rights. It is a religious thing, yeah, but it's not about hating or denying gays. Real, sensible Catholics and other Christians, the ones that matter, aren't homophobic. This is a common misconception. The ones that are actual people with souls and feelings want others to be happy in whatever reasonable way they see fit, including loving the same sex if that's their thing.

Marriage is about religiously reproducing with someone you love. That's it. That's the purpose of marriage. That's all it is. Getting married without having kids? Well, you're not technically supposed to do that. Homophobes? Fuck 'em. They have no genuine input. They just use religion as an excuse to hate people. Those who genuinely believe fucking someone the same sex as them will send them to hell are poor, misguided buggers who have been lied to and I feel sorry for them.

Gays can't reproduce. Therefore, going by the very essence of marriage, they can't get married. Maybe in a lab, women could clone themselves, but the legalisation for that is far off in the sci-fi future, decades or centuries away.

Now, of course, your legal rights should not depend on whether you're religiously married or not. Sadly that's not the case, and the case should change. There should be some way of equalising your rights with religiously married people, yeah. 'Civil partnership' isn't enough right now, because it doesn't give people equal rights. If the heads of the churches had a well-founded reason, maybe they'd change their rules. Really, though, it's down to governments. Of course it is. A legal contract of civil partnership should allow the same rights as marriage for absolutely any couple who wants them. Non-religious people shouldn't really get married in churches, and neither should gays, not because they're unliked, but because Christian marriage isn't only about love. It's not at all about legal rights. It's about reproduction.

Last note: God doesn't hate fags. Idiots hate fags. God hates no one.

So, I'm officially a Roman Catholic, I'm 100% straight, and that's all I have to say. For now.

please read the thread before posting

[Murdok Dracul]

please read the thread before posting

If you mean read through the whole thread, I apologise. I read about half the thread before starting my comment and assumed that it would just be pointless arguments all the way through. Maybe I was wrong (still haven't read the whole thing :P).

If you mean you don't think my post is relevant to the point of the topic, sorry if it doesn't come across that way. (But I don't think that's what you mean.)

Also, while I'm at it, I'll apologise for the offensive language in my post. I wanted to speak plainly.

[Snowy_One]

That's not really true, though. Just because gay people are getting married isn't an "attack" on the beliefs of Christians, any more than people getting divorced is an "attack" on the beliefs of christians. Should the government ban divorce or refuse to recognise divorces, just because they aren't recognised?

People who aren't Christian have no duty or responsibility to uphold your beliefs, even if you think that your beliefs need to be kept sacred. I have no duty to go to church, to abstain from premarital sex, or to rest on the sabbath, just because you think you know better than I do.

I actually tried to keep it from being specifically Christian, but Jews/Christians/Muslims make up the majority of the world beliefs. However, marriage between a man and a woman in at least some form is found in almost every religion and is near-universal. Clearly there is SOMETHING to it, be it evolutionary pre-disposition or divine ordinance. Regardless, I'm trying neither to defend or attack, just present a method of thought and reasoning for the distrust.

Also, if you have no duty to uphold the beliefs of Christians, why should Christians have to uphold the beliefs of gays? If the Christian faith, or ANY faith, preaches that gay is not okay, why should they have to keep quiet and tolerate gays? It may be homophobic and discriminatory, but it's also their right to hold such beliefs after all.

And... what's your problem with this? Are you so arrogant that you think you know better than them what to call their relationship?

I think that it's a matter of simple logic.

If Christians and religious people in general have a problem with gay marriage...

If a similar problem does not exist for a different name despite similar/identical legal benefits (Civil Unions in this case)...

If the only difference is the title...

Then there must be something about the title that holds special value to both gays (who desire it) and religious people (who oppose gays having it).

If there is indeed something special about marriage, then changing it in any way, shape, or form will indeed affect the value of it (as it's not a worthless title). So before any changes are made it should be understood just what is desirable about marriage to make gays want it and anti-gays pick this as their battleground, lest it lose it's value due to poor management and understanding.

Well, there's the legal benefit side (which I'm sure is all that a lot of them want), and then there's the principle. Calling their unions something different from marriage implies that their unions are inferior to straight marriages. That's what I understand.

Well, then, is there something special about marriage? If so, would gay marriages have it? If not, it would seem to me that they would not be the same thing. Bicycles and Tricycles have all the same basic parts. That doesn't mean that they're the same thing though and they should have different names. Also doesn't mean that one is inferior to the other inherently.

I'm not saying that there is something special about marriage or that there isn't. Just that, if it's REALLY little more than a title, but a title worth SO much strife over, it should be understood why the title has value before we go around applying it willy-nilly, especially since a LOT of people on both sides seem to believe that it does, indeed, hold some sort of special value and robbing it of that value simply to allow some people to have it (gays in this case) makes it a phyrric victory. Especially if nothing new comes in to replace whatever was special about it that was lost.

So... At the core of this is probably the hardest question that drives this whole debate.

JUST WHAT THE HECK IS 'MARRIAGE' IN THE FIRST PLACE?

[Anouleth]

I actually tried to keep it from being specifically Christian, but Jews/Christians/Muslims make up the majority of the world beliefs. However, marriage between a man and a woman in at least some form is found in almost every religion and is near-universal. Clearly there is SOMETHING to it, be it evolutionary pre-disposition or divine ordinance. Regardless, I'm trying neither to defend or attack, just present a method of thought and reasoning for the distrust.

So God doesn't actually care how many times a day we pray or what day we go to church on or whether we eat pork or not, those are just optional, the only thing he actually cares about is that we don't get gay married.

I don't care if it was once universal. So was slavery, once upon a time.

Also, if you have no duty to uphold the beliefs of Christians, why should Christians have to uphold the beliefs of gays?

Uh, they don't?

If the Christian faith, or ANY faith, preaches that gay is not okay, why should they have to keep quiet and tolerate gays? It may be homophobic and discriminatory, but it's also their right to hold such beliefs after all.

Sure. It's totally your right to believe whatever you want. When did I ever say otherwise?

So... At the core of this is probably the hardest question that drives this whole debate.

JUST WHAT THE HECK IS 'MARRIAGE' IN THE FIRST PLACE?

It depends.

[Constable Reggie]

It depends.

Depends on what? Perspective? Is one perspective more valid than another? How should we take into account these perspectives in regards to implementation of gay marriage policy?

[Sublime Manic]

Depends on what? Perspective? Is one perspective more valid than another? How should we take into account these perspectives in regards to implementation of gay marriage policy?

Just as some examples:

In some places, it can be one man and many women.

In other places, just one man and one woman.

In other places, any two consenting people of sufficient age.

That the definition is necessarily malleable at all means it can be changed though. Is legalizing gay marriage changing the definition? Yes. And? It's changed before. It can change all the time throughout history.

[Eltishan]

I had an argument with one of my friends one time, and although this is kind of a stretch from your original question, a frequent posed response was that she didn't mind whether or not they got married, but they shouldn't be allowed to have children at all because their children would be prone to getting bullied for having two parents of the same sex. :/

Honestly, I agree that someone's marriage shouldn't affect other people, and other people shouldn't prohibit someone from marrying that person.

The same friend then went to ask, "if gay people can get married, why not brother and sister?"

[Esau of Isaac]

I had an argument with one of my friends one time, and although this is kind of a stretch from your original question, a frequent posed response was that she didn't mind whether or not they got married, but they shouldn't be allowed to have children at all because their children would be prone to getting bullied for having two parents of the same sex. :/

Kids are prone to getting bullied over everything. Banning homosexuals over possible bullying is as inane as banning fat people, or ugly people, or really absolutely anybody. If we allow stupid ten-year-olds to dictate the validity of creating offspring then there's something wrong with the system.

The same friend then went to ask, "if gay people can get married, why not brother and sister?"

Sure, why not?

[shadykid]

oh yeah thought I'd dig this up because of this incident:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/03/costa-rica-same-sex-marriage_n_3542904.html

this is even more hilarious than the French dudes that "voted incorrectly"

[N7 Dynames]

As far as I'm concerned legalising gay marriage (and thus making it more socially accepted) would be a good thing as it would eventually help lower the population.

[Esau of Isaac]

How would legalizing gay marriage eventually help lower the population?

[dondon151]

because obviously, everyone would have to gay marry, and people can't pump out kids anymore! duh!

[Klokinator]

ya srsly d00d ever1 nose that when gay marriage am legalized ever1 gose gay

srsly

[shadykid]

because obviously, everyone would have to gay marry, and people can't pump out kids anymore! duh!

it's funny until you realize some people actually think that