Reasons for Opposition to Gay Marriage?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Me and a friend were discussing the other day the often contentious topic of gay marriage. Aside from "because I'm a Christian and I don't believe in it", he really did not have much to say, so I have decided (for whatever reason) to turn to you Escapists! If you are against it, why? Some of the arguments I have heard before, which really do not make any sense to me (so if you can enlighten me or correct me if my assertions are wrong, without being an ass preferably) are:

1) The Bible says it's wrong.

I am familiar with the Bible verse being referred to, (Leviticus 18:21 -22 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through [the fire] to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I [am] the LORD. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.) My problem lies with the fact that the Book of Leviticus also says quite a few other things, most of which are not practiced by modern day Christians (or anyone really). In my opinion, you do not get to pick and choose. Why is this one verse latched onto while the ones regarding ritual animal sacrifice ignored. (Legitimate question by the way, not meant to provoke)

2) It will destroy the sanctity of marriage.

How? I really fail to see in any meaningful way how this could possibly impact the "sanctity" of anyone's marriage in any way, shape or form. How does the fact that, somewhere, someone you've never met is enjoying their relationship that they have cultivated with another consenting adult affect your life or your marriage in the slightest. To me, this is one of the flimsiest of arguments I have heard.

3) It will begin a slippery slope.

This one also bothers me. I have heard that allowing gay marriage will lead us down the path to a man marrying his dog, or a child, or some other such nonsense. To me, this argument holds absolutely no water at all. With regards to gay marriage, we are discussing the union of two CONSENTING ADULTS. There is an entire world of difference between that and anything being suggested as coming to follow. (With the exception of polygamy, which, In my opinion should also be legal. Again, consenting ADULTS making a conscious life decision which should be respected.) This is one issue where attempting to justify this argument will get you nowhere with me, so don't even try.

4) It will infringe on other people's religious freedoms.

OK, I will concede this one somewhat, with one caveat. I support the legalization of gay marriage, with one exception: that all those who object on moral, religious or ethical grounds be exempt from having anything to do with the ceremony. Suing people to get what you want, to force your world view on others who do not share it, is not the answer, for either side. (Yes, I oppose any sort of lawsuit forcing anyone to do something against their will or beliefs.)

So Escapists, what do you think? To those who oppose gay marriage, is my understanding of these arguments flawed, or have I missed something? To those in favor, have I overlooked something you perceive to be critical to the argument? I honestly want to know what you guys think.

*Forgive me if this has already been asked before, I did an Escapist search and it turned up nothing, and scoured the forums looking for a topic that I could not find.*

1) Since we don't criminalize gay sex true to the bible, we shouldn't criminalize gay marriage.
2) Marriage has no sanctity. If you're talking in a biblical sense, it only gives the man ownership and 'dibs' on his wife.
3) The same was said about inter-racial marriage. Maybe they were right? It did lead to gay marriage legalization.
4) This argument would be the same if drinking liquor infringes on the religious freedoms or Mormons&Muslims.

Yo, this have been done before. there was a thread arguing that standing against gay marriage&abortion rights for women has only religious arguments and no logical ones. You would be surprised to see the amount of people saying that there are logical secular arguments for disallowing abortions. Gay Marriage? Nobody was against it.

Look man, it's simple - it's a beacon. The organizations collect funds to fight the evil, which in this case is gay marriage, from contributes who happen to be devote believers. It prints money, so why stop the fight now?

TheIronRuler:
1) Since we don't criminalize gay sex true to the bible, we shouldn't criminalize gay marriage.
2) Marriage has no sanctity. If you're talking in a biblical sense, it only gives the man ownership and 'dibs' on his wife.
3) The same was said about inter-racial marriage. Maybe they were right? It did lead to gay marriage legalization.
4) This argument would be the same if drinking liquor infringes on the religious freedoms or Mormons&Muslims.

Yo, this have been done before. there was a thread arguing that standing against gay marriage&abortion rights for women has only religious arguments and no logical ones. You would be surprised to see the amount of people saying that there are logical secular arguments for disallowing abortions. Gay Marriage? Nobody was against it.

Look man, it's simple - it's a beacon. The organizations collect funds to fight the evil, which in this case is gay marriage, from contributes who happen to be devote believers. It prints money, so why stop the fight now?

Ah, I apologize then, I didn't realize it had been discussed at length before. Like I said, an Escapist search revealed nothing, nor did combing through the first 15 pages of topics in this forum. My conversation with a friend just left me with some lingering questions I hoped someone would be able to answer in a constructive way. The only reason I thought of turning here was that most Google searches on the issue took me to places full of die hard idealogues where nothing of substance was being discussed; rather it was simply people seeking places to validate their own beliefs.

This one I've heard before:
The definition of marriage from google is as follows:
1. The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.

I don't see that as being a problem personally, I couldn't give a damn who gets married, we may as well just change the definition, but that's a defence I have heard before.

Bigotry.

That's all it is. There is no remotely valid reason for opposing gay marriage.

Because some men fear that if women can marry other women, there wont be a single woman crazy enough to tolerate them.

thaluikhain:
Bigotry.

That's all it is. There is no remotely valid reason for opposing gay marriage.

That's bullshit, Verbatim has just posted a fantastic reason.

Verbatim:
Because some men fear that if women can marry other women, there wont be a single woman crazy enough to tolerate them.

You're asking the wrong people dude. Since Xanthious got banned I don't think there's anyone on the Escapist who opposes same-sex marriage, at least not anyone who frequents R&P. There are a few people who think there should be civil unions with the same rights as marriage, for some reason, but that's about as far as it goes.

i understand some people oppose it on religious grounds but apart from that i cant actually think of a reason why it isnt accepted

DJjaffacake:
You're asking the wrong people dude. Since Xanthious got banned.

Really, he got the ban-hammer? Well I'll be damned, I never thought I'd see the day when he said something that was outright offensive enough for that. Huh.

OT; I often sit and ponder this one and really, while I understand the objections of the religious groups I find myself both a) not caring and b) feeling that their reasoning shouldn't be the one that decides something for the entire country.

Besides its getting to the point where I think in Australia at least, it should be put down to the people: yes or no. The finer details can be debated by lawyers and such, but let us decide as a collective if we're ready to do it or not. If the answer is yes, then we chalk it up to a cultural milestone and be prepared to live with it, or honestly say the nation is not yet ready.

Captcha: in stitches. Well after watching Hellsing Ultimate abridged on repeat for most of the day, I certainly have been.

The problem with Christians who are against gay marriage is that they don't realize that you aren't supposed to follow the parts that aren't socially acceptable E.G. slavery, stoning people to death over stupid shit etc.

For the same reason I oppose straight marriage, there's no fucking reason the government should be in the business of endorsing marriages.

Gordon_4:

Besides its getting to the point where I think in Australia at least, it should be put down to the people: yes or no. The finer details can be debated by lawyers and such, but let us decide as a collective if we're ready to do it or not. If the answer is yes, then we chalk it up to a cultural milestone and be prepared to live with it, or honestly say the nation is not yet ready.

I think the issue for us is that people have been asked, and most polls come up with a majority in support of gay marriage, it's just that neither political party is willing to stick it's neck out and actually vote as a bloc in support of a bill, because they're too afraid of losing the religious vote. I'm hoping that the Libs/nats get rolled next year, Turnbull comes back as opposition leader, and maybe then something will happen.

Moderated:
The problem with Christians who are against gay marriage is that they don't realize that you aren't supposed to follow the parts that aren't socially acceptable E.G. slavery, stoning people to death over stupid shit etc.

FYI - Slavery back then didn't mean the same as it does today.

Secular reasons. Hmm...

Well the subject of gays has come up when I talk to those who don't believe in the bible. More or less, they stated that the thought of it sickened them or "It's just wrong"(I noticed they didn't bat an eye at all the interacial couples at the school. Go all the way or not at all >.>). There's still just a cultural perception homosexuality not being an okay thing to support that we haven't really gotten over yet.

CAMDAWG:

Gordon_4:

Besides its getting to the point where I think in Australia at least, it should be put down to the people: yes or no. The finer details can be debated by lawyers and such, but let us decide as a collective if we're ready to do it or not. If the answer is yes, then we chalk it up to a cultural milestone and be prepared to live with it, or honestly say the nation is not yet ready.

I think the issue for us is that people have been asked, and most polls come up with a majority in support of gay marriage, it's just that neither political party is willing to stick it's neck out and actually vote as a bloc in support of a bill, because they're too afraid of losing the religious vote. I'm hoping that the Libs/nats get rolled next year, Turnbull comes back as opposition leader, and maybe then something will happen.

Yeah, looks like. Most people support gay marriage, but not enough to change their voting patterns. The people that oppose it care enough to vote for anyone else if someone tries to let it happen.

thaluikhain:

CAMDAWG:

Gordon_4:

Besides its getting to the point where I think in Australia at least, it should be put down to the people: yes or no. The finer details can be debated by lawyers and such, but let us decide as a collective if we're ready to do it or not. If the answer is yes, then we chalk it up to a cultural milestone and be prepared to live with it, or honestly say the nation is not yet ready.

I think the issue for us is that people have been asked, and most polls come up with a majority in support of gay marriage, it's just that neither political party is willing to stick it's neck out and actually vote as a bloc in support of a bill, because they're too afraid of losing the religious vote. I'm hoping that the Libs/nats get rolled next year, Turnbull comes back as opposition leader, and maybe then something will happen.

Yeah, looks like. Most people support gay marriage, but not enough to change their voting patterns. The people that oppose it care enough to vote for anyone else if someone tries to let it happen.

Yep, that sounds pretty much spot on. Although I think it's not just that people aren't willing to change their vote, but also that there is no viable alternative. The closest we get are the greens, and they're still nowhere near powerful enough, even in such a tight parliament, to enact this change. If we had a few more major parties, like most other countries do, I imagine we'd have a much better political climate.

CAMDAWG:

thaluikhain:

CAMDAWG:

I think the issue for us is that people have been asked, and most polls come up with a majority in support of gay marriage, it's just that neither political party is willing to stick it's neck out and actually vote as a bloc in support of a bill, because they're too afraid of losing the religious vote. I'm hoping that the Libs/nats get rolled next year, Turnbull comes back as opposition leader, and maybe then something will happen.

Yeah, looks like. Most people support gay marriage, but not enough to change their voting patterns. The people that oppose it care enough to vote for anyone else if someone tries to let it happen.

Yep, that sounds pretty much spot on. Although I think it's not just that people aren't willing to change their vote, but also that there is no viable alternative. The closest we get are the greens, and they're still nowhere near powerful enough, even in such a tight parliament, to enact this change. If we had a few more major parties, like most other countries do, I imagine we'd have a much better political climate.

Well, even if (say), the Green were powerful, a vote for them isn't a vote for gay marriage, it's a vote for a whole list of things, one of which happens to be gay marriage. Supporters of gay marriage aren't likely to ignore whatever it is that stops them voting for the Greens as it is (excepting the ones that already vote for them, of course).

I know if more parties would help, the more we have, the less power each of them can have. I don't remember things being better when the Democrats were sitll viable.

OKAY!

So I dug through google to try and find something on this, and here's what I got

1) Heterosexual unions have the advantage of producing children, thus keeping society going

2) The government has full control over who it gives it's benefits to. It gives tax brakes and whatever else to couple because the government has a vested interest in their procreation. Nothing is keeping these couples from living together and having all the appearance of a married couple.

3) If we change the definition of marriage to include same sex couples, then what is to stop people from wedding their blood relatives, or animals.

4) The state has an interest in the wellfair of children growing up in same-sex households. There is plenty of research that details how hetero couples are better, but you'll find just as much on the opposite side about homo couples.

Not saying I agree with any of this one way or the other. Just putting it here for you.

The actual definition for sanctity is "Ultimate importance and inviolability." So sanctity of marriage was already fucked from the advent of divorce and widows re-marrying.

Anyway, here:

Batou667:

There are purely secular reasons for being against gay marriage; however the only ones I know are purely focused on reproductive and adoptive rights and are ultimately based on speculation due to the lack of solid scientific evidence to back any pro or anti stance. The predominate one you will see is that children need 'a father and a mother' on the basis that this is the optimal model for raising children; given how children from single parents tend to preform worse academically and socially this may be true; but the assumption is based on the idea of one female and male parent figure. Not on the basis of two parent figures (regardless of sex/gender/orientation etc) verses one. While there is research claiming that children raised by gay couples have no visible 'disadvantage' much of the research papers I've read have questionable sample sizes and data collection methods. Ultimately the samples would never be large enough and spread across enough national cultures to provide unbiased results until the practice of Gay couple parenting is widespread;by which such reasoning would be a little late.

Then their is the possibility of inheriting the orientation of the parents. A lot of you may have seen this video:


If memory serves; Zach has a sister. Now if his sister was a lesbian one could argue that his parents clearly either influenced their daughters social environment to cause this (which builds into the first reason) or that she inherited her orientation; which might be considered a 'faulty gene' as this would hamper her reproductive capabilities and under Darwinist theory make her a failed organism. Of course you can see the issues with these. It starts to bring up the question of Eugenics (OMG NAZIS!) and questions whether being homosexual is a 'bad' thing. In addition the heritability of homosexuality is a flimsy claim at best; with most research coming inconclusive due to small sample sizes (though most papers claim a correlation in male subjects) and due to the fact that correlation is not causation. Since legislation is ultimately a popularity contest where the voters are not able to grasp complicated logic; such reasons are often left out of public debates as:

A) The Data needed to disprove or support such reasoning doesn't exist
B) It tends to bring analogies to Eugenics and Nazis and stuff
C) It happens to label being gay as 'bad' which can cause significant public backlash these days.

Anyway in puting the reasoning; there may be more reasons I am not aware of or have missed.
Good day.

Anyway, marriage has been around for a hell of a lot longer than Christianity. I don't see why they're allowed to have a say at all.

Shadowstar38:

2) The government has full control over who it gives it's benefits to. It gives tax brakes and whatever else to couple because the government has a vested interest in their procreation. Nothing is keeping these couples from living together and having all the appearance of a married couple.

This...is kind of interesting, actually. If that is indeed the reason given for why hetero couples receive legal benefits, then...well...then yeah, it wouldn't make much sense for the same to be awarded to homo couples. Unless they would start receiving benefits by having a kid from a previously relationship or adoption or something. Or they only gave benefits to couples with kids period.

That still doesn't excuse the lack of some rights, like visitation, but I see that particular side of the argument better now.

kurlkurry:

3) It will begin a slippery slope.

This one also bothers me. I have heard that allowing gay marriage will lead us down the path to a man marrying his dog, or a child, or some other such nonsense. To me, this argument holds absolutely no water at all. With regards to gay marriage, we are discussing the union of two CONSENTING ADULTS. There is an entire world of difference between that and anything being suggested as coming to follow. (With the exception of polygamy, which, In my opinion should also be legal. Again, consenting ADULTS making a conscious life decision which should be respected.) This is one issue where attempting to justify this argument will get you nowhere with me, so don't even try.

Now you've done it. This thread is now slated to be derailed into a discussion of bestiality. It always happens here. It is the way of things.

In all seriousness though, with this objection, the simplest reply is that gay marriage has nothing to do with any other form of marriage. Polygamy, marrying animals or inanimate objects are each their own, separate issues and should be discussed individually on their own merits. There are no flood gates.

I mean, that puts the onus on them to explain why they think that gay marriage and polygamy or bestiality or anything else are essentially the same, and the explanation usually will kick back to your first few objections, i.e. "The bible says its wrong," or, "It will destroy the sanctity of marriage!"

To which there are already fantastic rebuttals.

kurlkurry:
4) It will infringe on other people's religious freedoms.

Wait... what? People have actually used this argument? How does having two gay people get hitched affect anyone's ability to practice their own religion? Surely you mean something else yes?

DevilWithaHalo:

kurlkurry:
4) It will infringe on other people's religious freedoms.

Wait... what? People have actually used this argument? How does having two gay people get hitched affect anyone's ability to practice their own religion? Surely you mean something else yes?

Unfortunately no, if your religion demands others abide by your rules, a society that doesn't force them to is interfering with your religion. This is somehow much worse than interfering in people's rights to marry who they choose.

DevilWithaHalo:

kurlkurry:
4) It will infringe on other people's religious freedoms.

Wait... what? People have actually used this argument? How does having two gay people get hitched affect anyone's ability to practice their own religion? Surely you mean something else yes?

No. What he means is, some ministers are afraid that making gay-marriage legal entitles gays to ask them to perform the ceremony. When said ministers reject them over their belief that gays shouldn't be married, the couple could sue or something.

Shadowstar38:

DevilWithaHalo:

kurlkurry:
4) It will infringe on other people's religious freedoms.

Wait... what? People have actually used this argument? How does having two gay people get hitched affect anyone's ability to practice their own religion? Surely you mean something else yes?

No. What he means is, some ministers are afraid that making gay-marriage legal entitles gays to ask them to perform the ceremony. When said ministers reject them over their belief that gays shouldn't be married, the couple could sue or something.

It was my understanding that presiding over a ceremony was not an obligation? I may be wrong though, for I'm not a priest, nor have I ever been married, gay or otherwise.

kurlkurry:

4) It will infringe on other people's religious freedoms.

OK, I will concede this one somewhat, with one caveat. I support the legalization of gay marriage, with one exception: that all those who object on moral, religious or ethical grounds be exempt from having anything to do with the ceremony. Suing people to get what you want, to force your world view on others who do not share it, is not the answer, for either side. (Yes, I oppose any sort of lawsuit forcing anyone to do something against their will or beliefs.)

This one's the biggest in Scotland at the moment. Gay marriage is going to be legalised soon (if it hasn't already, not too sure) with the important clause that no church will be forced to carry out the ceremonies if they don't want... and they're still bitching.

Even with freedom to decline they see allowing gay marriage in other churches as tainting their faith by association (or some BS like that). Honestly it's just a crappy argument that holds as much water as 'the bible says so', if you don't like what a church is doing, ignore it! It's like arguing that Catholicism is detrimental to your Protestant faith because they do things differently.

The sooner people realise that the private, personal actions of others in no way affects them, the better.

Assassin Xaero:

Moderated:
The problem with Christians who are against gay marriage is that they don't realize that you aren't supposed to follow the parts that aren't socially acceptable E.G. slavery, stoning people to death over stupid shit etc.

FYI - Slavery back then didn't mean the same as it does today.

Oh really? Then what did it mean?

Moderated:

Assassin Xaero:

Moderated:
The problem with Christians who are against gay marriage is that they don't realize that you aren't supposed to follow the parts that aren't socially acceptable E.G. slavery, stoning people to death over stupid shit etc.

FYI - Slavery back then didn't mean the same as it does today.

Oh really? Then what did it mean?

Generally speaking it was not limited to any specific ethnicity or race, it was not hereditary, and the chances of a slave being able to obtain their freedom were much higher than the more recent versions of slavery.

None of which lessens the fact (as perceived by myself with 21st century morality) that it is/was still a morally reprehensible system.

Moderated:

Assassin Xaero:

Moderated:
The problem with Christians who are against gay marriage is that they don't realize that you aren't supposed to follow the parts that aren't socially acceptable E.G. slavery, stoning people to death over stupid shit etc.

FYI - Slavery back then didn't mean the same as it does today.

Oh really? Then what did it mean?

I'm not sure the exact specifics on it, but pretty sure it was along the lines of "I am in debt to you this amount, so I will work for you (be your slave) until my debt is payed off."

DJjaffacake:
You're asking the wrong people dude. Since Xanthious got banned I don't think there's anyone on the Escapist who opposes same-sex marriage, at least not anyone who frequents R&P. There are a few people who think there should be civil unions with the same rights as marriage, for some reason, but that's about as far as it goes.

I'm gonna miss him and I'm one of those people who believes civil unions should replace marriage. Let me explain the reasons for that line of thought.
1. Marriage is between a man and a woman
2. Civil unions are between person A and person B
3. Thus for equality civil unions>marriage.

Side note: This forum really needs more republicans.

davidmc1158:
snip

Yeah, that isn't a different meaning. Slavery means someone is the property of another and has to do whatever they say.

Assassin Xaero:
snip

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11

Xan Krieger:
Side note: This forum really needs more republicans.

If you can find some sane ones, feel free to send them our way. It'd be a nice change of pace.

In a democracy you don't need a good argument in an academic sense, you need popular support, that's argument enough. Traditional Marriage has been upheld in referendums throughout the country, that's the will of the people, and it's good enough

vonmanstein:
In a democracy you don't need a good argument in an academic sense, you need popular support, that's argument enough. Traditional Marriage has been upheld in referendums throughout the country, that's the will of the people, and it's good enough

There are already two cases set to go to the Supreme Court on the subject. One in regards to DOMA, one about Prop 8 in California. It seems unlikely that either will survive, and with Obama in the White House, and retiring justices are more likely than not to be replaced by justices who are pro-gay marriage. The "will of the people" will soon be irrelevant, as the US has quite the history of overturning the tyranny of the majority. Enjoy your "traditional marriage" for now, because the days of "separate but equal" are numbered.

Aris Khandr:

vonmanstein:
In a democracy you don't need a good argument in an academic sense, you need popular support, that's argument enough. Traditional Marriage has been upheld in referendums throughout the country, that's the will of the people, and it's good enough

There are already two cases set to go to the Supreme Court on the subject. One in regards to DOMA, one about Prop 8 in California. It seems unlikely that either will survive, and with Obama in the White House, and retiring justices are more likely than not to be replaced by justices who are pro-gay marriage. The "will of the people" will soon be irrelevant, as the US has quite the history of overturning the tyranny of the majority. Enjoy your "traditional marriage" for now, because the days of "separate but equal" are numbered.

Yes, Obama filling the supreme court bench with anti-constitution liberal activists certainly represents a rather disturbing development. I find the concept of judicial activism more disturbing than it's results though, the fact that individuals who weren't elected possess more power than those who were may serve to diminish government by popular consensus, which, may i remind you, is the soul of democracy.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked