Are there actually any good arguments out there against allowing gay marriage?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

I've heard many arguments against gay marriage in my time but they tend to be pretty nonsensical and shallow and once you dig into them a bit the actual source of the argument tends to be either 'because God hates gays.' Or 'Because I am personally disgusted by gays.' Has anyone ever heard an argument against allowing gay marriage that actually made sense and wasn't just petty or based on mysticism? If so what was it?

The "best" argument against Gay Marriage I've heard from someone else is... because it's part of old doctrine that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and why should they have to bend over backwards to accomodate some outsider they don't want to?

I'm not saying that the above is a particularly great, or even decent argument, but at least it has some bloody point to it. Personally, I think that the best argument against gay marriage is "why would you want to marry in the house of a religion that has persecuted you since time immemorial?"

Mangod:
The "best" argument against Gay Marriage I've heard from someone else is... because it's part of old doctrine that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and why should they have to bend over backwards to accomodate some outsider they don't want to?

I'm not saying that the above is a particularly great, or even decent argument, but at least it has some bloody point to it. Personally, I think that the best argument against gay marriage is "why would you want to marry in the house of a religion that has persecuted you since time immemorial?"

Which is an argument against getting married in a church, but not an argument against marriage as a whole. My father married his third and fourth wives at a drive through in Las Vegas and a courthouse, respectively. Neither had anything religious going on at all. So why does a religious argument matter if I choose to marry my girlfriend in the same way?

In my experience, no. There's a lot of scrambling around desperately looking for one, but nothing that holds up.

Mangod:
The "best" argument against Gay Marriage I've heard from someone else is... because it's part of old doctrine that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and why should they have to bend over backwards to accomodate some outsider they don't want to?

The best counter to that one is that marriage is as not as old as people think it is, with it's original purpose being to recognising that the wife was the husband's property.

Then pointing out how it's wasn't that long ago where marriage between different ethnicities, religions or social class/caste was forbidden, yet I highly doubt you'd find anyone worth listening to who would ask "why should they have bent over backwards to accommodate some outsider?"

I'm not saying that the above is a particularly great, or even decent argument, but at least it has some bloody point to it. Personally, I think that the best argument against gay marriage is "why would you want to marry in the house of a religion that has persecuted you since time immemorial?"

1) Marriage is not the exclusive domain of Religion. Marriage in it's original, wife was property form was a legal thing, not a religious thing. You can get married outside of a church
2) There are plenty of churches and branches that recognise Gay Marriage and have been performing marriages for gay couples for years now.
3) The past is the past, no need to hold onto grudges that don't matter anymore.

Mangod:
The "best" argument against Gay Marriage I've heard from someone else is... because it's part of old doctrine that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and why should they have to bend over backwards to accomodate some outsider they don't want to?

These arguments always seem to assume gay people are never christian and christians want to marry gay people.

Honestly the best arguement FOR gay marriage is religious freedom. Some christians want a sect where marriage is a man and a man. Who are we to tell them their religion cannot define holy matrimony in that way? I always viewed gay marriage as stopping some christians performing and being part of the marriage they want rather than protecting christians from having their marriages ruined. Its just christians oppressing, for the most part, other christians by telling them their christianity isnt allowed. One religion telling another different sect of that religion what they can and cannot do. Seems bizarre to me.

The Book of Leviticus.

An arbitrary book of laws that may/may not have only applied to Jews created well over 1000 years ago that may/may not have been made obsolete by the teachings of Jesus Christ.

That's the only one I found.

Off Topic: Yes, I'm back, though I'm trying to stay out of the Dungeon for a while. But there has been a lack of fun topics lately.

The only arguments against gay marriage I've seen work are those relying on religious assumptions. Secular anti-gay marriage arguments seem to rest on things that aren't nearly as important as opponents make out such as procreation potential (but of course, all heterosexual couples regardless of whether they are fertile or not are still included, and all homosexual couples including those who have adopted, used a surrogate or have a child from a previous relationship, are mysteriously not included. Funny that).

The best argument against gay marriage is that marriage is something silly. As in, all marriage.

Or in other words, there's no good argument against gay marriage that wouldn't also be good against any other kind of marriage.

Uuuuh. Well I suppose there's the semi-serious, but not really serious at all, argument that marriage makes people miserable and why would we want to increase its scope for human suffering?

I suppose the closest I could come up with is: if the government were to make civil unions the legal equivalent of marriage, why would gay people want to marry, since it would just make them a part of a religious institution that very clearly hates them.
But even that argument has rather obvious holes.

So no. There are very few coherent arguments against gay marriage. And even those don't stand up very long under scrutiny.

NameIsRobertPaulson:
The Book of Leviticus.

An arbitrary book of laws that may/may not have only applied to Jews created well over 1000 years ago that may/may not have been made obsolete by the teachings of Jesus Christ.

That's the only one I found.

Off Topic: Yes, I'm back, though I'm trying to stay out of the Dungeon for a while. But there has been a lack of fun topics lately.

YAY YOU'RE BACK!!!!!!!!
PARTY!!!!!

OT: My problem is that since marriage is between a man and a woman I don't see how two gay people could get married. That's why I'm a fan of getting rid of marriage and replacing it with civil unions for everyone. Gay or straight or whatever else would get a civil union license, all old marriage licenses would be updated in government records as civil unions.

There's an unspoken assumption that a heterosexual couple are going to make offspring. And the propagation of humanity is a vested state interest, hence the benefits that comes with an official union.

Xan Krieger:

OT: My problem is that since marriage is between a man and a woman I don't see how two gay people could get married. That's why I'm a fan of getting rid of marriage and replacing it with civil unions for everyone. Gay or straight or whatever else would get a civil union license, all old marriage licenses would be updated in government records as civil unions.

So denying Gay couples something they've been striving for over the years and taking something away from heterosexuals to put them on the same lower ground as homosexual couples is going to not end up in a bad way...how exactly?

Marriage is a fluid concept; a hundred years ago marriage was between a man and a woman of the same race and social caste, but we changed the definition to suit the times. What is really so different here? If you're arguing this is more of a change, then technically changing marriage from the wife being the husband was a bigger change and nobody's complaining about that.

The strongest one I've seen is that marriage is about procreation. It's to ensure that children are raised so that society can continue into the future. Therefore, such couples should receive tax breaks and other benefits as it is the government's job to encourage behavior that promotes the continuation of society.

Of course, this would prevent childless/sterile heterosexual couples from marrying or else cancel their marriage (with full pay back of incorrectly given benefits) if they fail to produce children after a set time.

Also, if we choose to allow adoption to count as raising children (so we aren't preventing straights from marrying), it doesn't necessarily invalidate gay couples from doing the same.

Shadowstar38:
There's an unspoken assumption that a heterosexual couple are going to make offspring. And the propagation of humanity is a vested state interest, hence the benefits that comes with an official union.

Since any number of people are allowed to get married who don't want to have children, don't have children or can't have children, no, this is not a good argument.

There was one good argument against gay marriage, perhaps back in the 1950s or so. And that was that we didn't know what homosexuality was, we didn't know what the consequences of gay marriage would be, and that it would be unethical to make such a radical change on society when we don't know what the consequences would be.

Thankfully, western civilization has learned a lot since then. We have a general notion of what it means to be gay and which factors may cause people to be gay. We've had ample pools of single-parent families to study. We know what happens when children are raised in families without a parent of one gender. We know what happens when homosexual parents raise kids. We know what happens when homosexual couples co-habitate in a monogamous relationship for long periods of time. We have seen gay marriage in various states and other countries. And what happens is... nothing particularly noteworthy.

We also know what happens in societies where a group of people is arbitrarily denied rights based on their identity.

Therefore, true conservatives must support gay marriage.

The only one i have heard is from my bio teacher,
is that the point of a marriage is to make children (BIOLOGY TEACHER)
i'm pretty sure he dons't understand the idea of single parent and adoption
But i go to a rich private christian school so i'm not very surprised by this.

Shaoken:

Xan Krieger:

OT: My problem is that since marriage is between a man and a woman I don't see how two gay people could get married. That's why I'm a fan of getting rid of marriage and replacing it with civil unions for everyone. Gay or straight or whatever else would get a civil union license, all old marriage licenses would be updated in government records as civil unions.

So denying Gay couples something they've been striving for over the years and taking something away from heterosexuals to put them on the same lower ground as homosexual couples is going to not end up in a bad way...how exactly?

It's a compromise, gays want the benefits and to be equal and other people don't want them using the word marriage so why not give both what they want? It's equality in every possible way.

Xan Krieger:
It's a compromise, gays want the benefits and to be equal and other people don't want them using the word marriage so why not give both what they want? It's equality in every possible way.

No one side wants equality, the other doesn't. You're not accomodating both in your situation.

You either choose to make something illegal for certain people, or you choose equality in the law.

Well I remember reading a reason from an actual homosexual who argued against it because they thought marriage itself was a bad thing and thus having gay marriage cheapened homosexual relationships.

I believe one of the reasons Russia has been railing against "gay propaganda", other than religious reasons, is because they feel they're currently having a demographics crisis and are probably of the mindset that "gay propaganda" will create more ghays resulting in a lower birth rate.

Yes it's a horrible argument to make, but at least it's based in pseudoscience rather than superstition.

EDIT- saw this fun video a bit ago that delves into the history of the matter and kinda debunks the sanctity of marriage thing

Pluvia:

Xan Krieger:
It's a compromise, gays want the benefits and to be equal and other people don't want them using the word marriage so why not give both what they want? It's equality in every possible way.

No one side wants equality, the other doesn't. You're not accomodating both in your situation.

You either choose to make something illegal for certain people, or you choose equality in the law.

I'm choosing equality, the definition of marriage doesn't change and gay people get the rights they've been fighting for. Everybody wins.

Xan Krieger:

Shaoken:

Xan Krieger:

OT: My problem is that since marriage is between a man and a woman I don't see how two gay people could get married. That's why I'm a fan of getting rid of marriage and replacing it with civil unions for everyone. Gay or straight or whatever else would get a civil union license, all old marriage licenses would be updated in government records as civil unions.

So denying Gay couples something they've been striving for over the years and taking something away from heterosexuals to put them on the same lower ground as homosexual couples is going to not end up in a bad way...how exactly?

It's a compromise, gays want the benefits and to be equal and other people don't want them using the word marriage so why not give both what they want? It's equality in every possible way.

Because the other people don't own the word "marriage"? It'd be like if I owned Budweiser and demanded that a new company couldn't sell their drink as "beer" because they aren't using the same recipe I am. I don't own the right to the word "beer", I didn't invent "beer", I have no authority to demand who does or doesn't use the word. So who would seriously start a compromise with "okay, so nobody can use the word 'beer' now"?

Aris Khandr:

Xan Krieger:

Shaoken:

So denying Gay couples something they've been striving for over the years and taking something away from heterosexuals to put them on the same lower ground as homosexual couples is going to not end up in a bad way...how exactly?

It's a compromise, gays want the benefits and to be equal and other people don't want them using the word marriage so why not give both what they want? It's equality in every possible way.

Because the other people don't own the word "marriage"? It'd be like if I owned Budweiser and demanded that a new company couldn't sell their drink as "beer" because they aren't using the same recipe I am. I don't own the right to the word "beer", I didn't invent "beer", I have no authority to demand who does or doesn't use the word. So who would seriously start a compromise with "okay, so nobody can use the word 'beer' now"?

They're the ones using it right now and they're not gonna give it up. Rather than continue to deny people all the benefits of civil unions I think it'd be much easier to compromise and use something more neutral. Otherwise we'll just continue to fight for the next however many decades and in the process be denying so many people the benefits.

Xan Krieger:
Otherwise we'll just continue to fight for the next however many decades and in the process be denying so many people the benefits.

I'm guessing five years, max. At least, in America. The Full Faith and Credit Clause already demands that states recognise marriages from other states. It hasn't been challenged specifically in the case of gay marriage, but I can't imagine it'll take long before that happens. When it does, it will likely bounce around lower courts for a few years, but eventually end up in front of the Supreme Court, where I see no reason to believe that they won't rule that marriage is marriage. Once that happens, the last vestiges of the fight are over, as gays in your state may have to take a weekend trip to New York or California, but their marriage is valid and the benefits will be there. There is absolutely no way this fight goes on for a decade, let alone several.

Xan Krieger:

Pluvia:
No one side wants equality, the other doesn't. You're not accomodating both in your situation.

You either choose to make something illegal for certain people, or you choose equality in the law.

I'm choosing equality, the definition of marriage doesn't change and gay people get the rights they've been fighting for. Everybody wins.

You're not. One side doesn't want the other to have equality, so your compromise is to go "Ok, if side B wants to be treated equal, but side A doesn't want them to be, it's best if we listen to side A. But to make up for it we'll remove the rights side A has too."

That's missing the point on both sides dramatically. Side A wants marriage, but they don't want side B to have it. If you remove marriage from side A then you've not solved their problem, because they now no longer have marriage, which is the exact thing they want.

Side B wants marriage, but side A doesn't want them to have it. Not allowing them to get married doesn't solved their problem, as it's the exact thing they want.

Your situation is everybody loses, not everybody wins.

Aris Khandr:

Xan Krieger:
Otherwise we'll just continue to fight for the next however many decades and in the process be denying so many people the benefits.

I'm guessing five years, max. At least, in America. The Full Faith and Credit Clause already demands that states recognise marriages from other states. It hasn't been challenged specifically in the case of gay marriage, but I can't imagine it'll take long before that happens. When it does, it will likely bounce around lower courts for a few years, but eventually end up in front of the Supreme Court, where I see no reason to believe that they won't rule that marriage is marriage. Once that happens, the last vestiges of the fight are over, as gays in your state may have to take a weekend trip to New York or California, but their marriage is valid and the benefits will be there. There is absolutely no way this fight goes on for a decade, let alone several.

Which in turn I guess means I'll be heading out of state when two of my closest friends decide to get "married". Here in North Carolina it's against our state constitution to allow gay marriage as decided by the people. Don't think the supreme court's ruling applies here actually,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_North_Carolina
So yeah, the supreme court may recognize it but not the state.

Pluvia:

Xan Krieger:

Pluvia:
No one side wants equality, the other doesn't. You're not accomodating both in your situation.

You either choose to make something illegal for certain people, or you choose equality in the law.

I'm choosing equality, the definition of marriage doesn't change and gay people get the rights they've been fighting for. Everybody wins.

You're not. One side doesn't want the other to have equality, so your compromise is to go "Ok, if side B wants to be treated equal, but side A doesn't want them to be, it's best if we listen to side A. But to make up for it we'll remove the rights side A has too."

That's missing the point on both sides dramatically. Side A wants marriage, but they don't want side B to have it. If you remove marriage from side A then you've not solved their problem, because they now no longer have marriage, which is the exact thing they want.

Side B wants marriage, but side A doesn't want them to have it. Not allowing them to get married doesn't solved their problem, as it's the exact thing they want.

Your situation is everybody loses, not everybody wins.

But still equality is achieved and more people get the benefits than before and that's what matters.

Pluvia:

You're not. One side doesn't want the other to have equality, so your compromise is to go "Ok, if side B wants to be treated equal, but side A doesn't want them to be, it's best if we listen to side A. But to make up for it we'll remove the rights side A has too."

But here's the thing, you're not actually removing any concrete "rights" if all you do is abolish the use of the word "marriage" in legal terms. At home, people can call it whatever they want, you're not actually banning people from using the word, you're just removing it from legalese.

Or at least, well...I mean, around here "marriage" and "civil union" are basically the same thing, hell, even two people who have simply been living together for 2 years or more, get all benefits that marriage would bring. So maybe I have a case of geographical bias going here or something.

Or maybe I have misunderstood Xan entirely.

Vegosiux:

Pluvia:

You're not. One side doesn't want the other to have equality, so your compromise is to go "Ok, if side B wants to be treated equal, but side A doesn't want them to be, it's best if we listen to side A. But to make up for it we'll remove the rights side A has too."

But here's the thing, you're not actually removing any concrete "rights" if all you do is abolish the use of the word "marriage" in legal terms. At home, people can call it whatever they want, you're not actually banning people from using the word, you're just removing it from legalese.

Or at least, well...I mean, around here "marriage" and "civil union" are basically the same thing, hell, even two people who have simply been living together for 2 years or more, get all benefits that marriage would bring. So maybe I have a case of geographical bias going here or something.

Or maybe I have misunderstood Xan entirely.

You got it, it's replacing a word. Everyone gets the benefits, just under the words "civil union" instead of "marriage". All marriage licenses would be updated with the new words, same benefits, different phrasing, covering more people.

Xan Krieger:

Pluvia:
You're not. One side doesn't want the other to have equality, so your compromise is to go "Ok, if side B wants to be treated equal, but side A doesn't want them to be, it's best if we listen to side A. But to make up for it we'll remove the rights side A has too."

That's missing the point on both sides dramatically. Side A wants marriage, but they don't want side B to have it. If you remove marriage from side A then you've not solved their problem, because they now no longer have marriage, which is the exact thing they want.

Side B wants marriage, but side A doesn't want them to have it. Not allowing them to get married doesn't solved their problem, as it's the exact thing they want.

Your situation is everybody loses, not everybody wins.

But still equality is achieved and more people get the benefits than before and that's what matters.

They don't. You're removing the rights of the majority of people to accomodate some of them who don't want a minority to have the same rights.

Said people don't want equality. They don't want to have their rights removed. They just don't want everyone to have the same rights as them.

You're achieving equality by continuing to restrict rights and by removing rights for those that already have it. Lose/Lose in other words. You're doing the very thing that both sides don't want.

Pluvia:

Xan Krieger:

Pluvia:
You're not. One side doesn't want the other to have equality, so your compromise is to go "Ok, if side B wants to be treated equal, but side A doesn't want them to be, it's best if we listen to side A. But to make up for it we'll remove the rights side A has too."

That's missing the point on both sides dramatically. Side A wants marriage, but they don't want side B to have it. If you remove marriage from side A then you've not solved their problem, because they now no longer have marriage, which is the exact thing they want.

Side B wants marriage, but side A doesn't want them to have it. Not allowing them to get married doesn't solved their problem, as it's the exact thing they want.

Your situation is everybody loses, not everybody wins.

But still equality is achieved and more people get the benefits than before and that's what matters.

They don't. You're removing the rights of the majority of people to accomodate some of them who don't want a minority to have the same rights.

Said people don't want equality. They don't want to have their rights removed. They just don't want everyone to have the same rights as them.

You're achieving equality by continuing to restrict rights and by removing rights for those that already have it. Lose/Lose in other words. You're doing the very thing that both sides don't want.

It's changing one word into two and applying the benefits to more people, nobody loses anything besides one word.

Xan Krieger:

Vegosiux:

Pluvia:

You're not. One side doesn't want the other to have equality, so your compromise is to go "Ok, if side B wants to be treated equal, but side A doesn't want them to be, it's best if we listen to side A. But to make up for it we'll remove the rights side A has too."

But here's the thing, you're not actually removing any concrete "rights" if all you do is abolish the use of the word "marriage" in legal terms. At home, people can call it whatever they want, you're not actually banning people from using the word, you're just removing it from legalese.

Or at least, well...I mean, around here "marriage" and "civil union" are basically the same thing, hell, even two people who have simply been living together for 2 years or more, get all benefits that marriage would bring. So maybe I have a case of geographical bias going here or something.

Or maybe I have misunderstood Xan entirely.

You got it, it's replacing a word. Everyone gets the benefits, just under the words "civil union" instead of "marriage". All marriage licenses would be updated with the new words, same benefits, different phrasing, covering more people.

Xan Krieger:

Pluvia:
They don't. You're removing the rights of the majority of people to accomodate some of them who don't want a minority to have the same rights.

Said people don't want equality. They don't want to have their rights removed. They just don't want everyone to have the same rights as them.

You're achieving equality by continuing to restrict rights and by removing rights for those that already have it. Lose/Lose in other words. You're doing the very thing that both sides don't want.

It's changing one word into two and applying the benefits to more people, nobody loses anything besides one word.

They do lose something. They lose the right to marriage.

There's another way of solving the situation without either side losing anything. There's a way to solve the situation where no one loses the right to marriage and some people gain the right to marriage.

Pluvia:

Xan Krieger:

Pluvia:
They don't. You're removing the rights of the majority of people to accomodate some of them who don't want a minority to have the same rights.

Said people don't want equality. They don't want to have their rights removed. They just don't want everyone to have the same rights as them.

You're achieving equality by continuing to restrict rights and by removing rights for those that already have it. Lose/Lose in other words. You're doing the very thing that both sides don't want.

It's changing one word into two and applying the benefits to more people, nobody loses anything besides one word.

They do lose something. They lose the right to marriage.

There's another way of solving the situation without either side losing anything. There's a way to solve the situation where no one loses the right to marriage and some people gain the right to marriage.

They could call it marriage between themselves if they wanted, it just wouldn't appear that way on government forms. Everyone would have (legally speaking) a civil union, they can call it whatever they want between themselves.

Pluvia:

They do lose something. They lose the right to marriage.

There's another way of solving the situation without either side losing anything. There's a way to solve the situation where no one loses the right to marriage and some people gain the right to marriage.

Not unless what the thing is called is more important than what the thing is. Renaming something and redefining something are two different things.

From a purely practical perspective,[1] it doesn't matter what it's called, you can call it "marriage", "civil union" or "spunkgargleweewee", as long as it entails the exact same rights and benefits, as long as the definition thereof remains completely unmodified, it's still exactly the same thing.

So, do people want the word or do they want what the word means?

[1] Yay, alliteration

Xan Krieger:

Pluvia:
They do lose something. They lose the right to marriage.

There's another way of solving the situation without either side losing anything. There's a way to solve the situation where no one loses the right to marriage and some people gain the right to marriage.

They could call it marriage between themselves if they wanted, it just wouldn't appear that way on government forms. Everyone would have (legally speaking) a civil union, they can call it whatever they want between themselves.

One side doesn't want to lose the right to marriage, they just don't want others to have the right to marriage.

One side wants the right to marriage, they want to be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

If you remove the right to marriage it doesn't solve either situation. Saying that "You can call it mariage but in the eyes of the law it isn't" doesn't solve anything, because they're not married. You can call marriage Blue Nympth Fairy Blessing if you want, but if the law says it's called marriage, it's called marriage. No amount of pretending otherwise would change that.

Both sides want marriage. Not civil unions and no marriage; marriage. Pretending doesn't change the law.

Pluvia:

Xan Krieger:

Pluvia:
They do lose something. They lose the right to marriage.

There's another way of solving the situation without either side losing anything. There's a way to solve the situation where no one loses the right to marriage and some people gain the right to marriage.

They could call it marriage between themselves if they wanted, it just wouldn't appear that way on government forms. Everyone would have (legally speaking) a civil union, they can call it whatever they want between themselves.

One side doesn't want to lose the right to marriage, they just don't want others to have the right to marriage.

One side wants the right to marriage, they want to be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

If you remove the right to marriage it doesn't solve either situation. Saying that "You can call it mariage but in the eyes of the law it isn't" doesn't solve anything, because they're not married. You can call marriage Blue Nympth Fairy Blessing if you want, but if the law says it's called marriage, it's called marriage. No amount of pretending otherwise would change that.

Both sides want marriage. Not civil unions and no marriage; marriage. Pretending doesn't change the law.

I've just been trying to reach a compromise that helps people rather than some long (possibly endless) fight. You sound more the "all or nothing" type. At a negotiating table that's not exactly the best thing to be. You have to be willing to deal with people, lose a word but gain the benefits and the equality.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked