The costs of gay marriage

[Siro]

I haven't entered into this discussion because I haven't had time to read the whole thread and I don't really have time to type out a series of well thought-out posts, but this is completely wrong. Gays absolutely have the right to marry. They can marry someone of the opposite sex, just like anyone else. And some do. That's why this is absolutely NOT a discrimination issue, to me.

What gays do NOT have, is the right to marry anyone they want. But NO ONE has that right. For example, I cannot marry my sister or my daughter.



True.

My view, short take: Marriage is wrapped up in the concept of heterosexual sex and child bearing/raising. Evidence for this is vast. For example, infertility is one of the possible grounds for divorce in many states. Lack of [heterosexual] consummation is grounds for an annulment in many states. The reason I cannot marry my sister or my daughter is because of the possibility of conceiving a child. I could go on and on.

What homosexuals want is not related to any of that. They want SOME of what a marriage is, but by legal precedent and definition, not EVERYTHING of what a marriage is. So, let's call it something different. And let's let ANY two people enter into such a contract if they want, regardless of whether those two people are in a homosexual relationship or not.

That's funny. You speak as if marriage more than a cultural construct. Cultural constructs are meant to change with the perspectives that make them up. Even if marriage has been about, and only about, child rearing for the entirety of humanity's 250k year history, so what? Let's change "what marriage is" anyway.

 

[moevillini]

...From a Constitutional perspective, I think it's a state's right issue. But broadly speaking, society is now being forced to take a look at itself and decide if it will make a statement about homosexuality as being a valid and state-sanctioned lifestyle choice.

I think this is not really a civil rights issue, as homosexual couples do have civil rights under civil union. This is a question of whether states or the U.S. Constitution itself will make a codified statement in support of homosexuality and same-sex couples as a fully valid lifestyle. And this, as I undersand, is really what many in the homosexual community want. They want every reason to be proud of who and what they are, while minimizing or short circuiting other people's criticism.

individual states do not over-ride Federal tax policy so at least from that perspective, it is not a states' rights issue. Federal income taxes and estate taxes do not come under the purview of the states.

 

[candrew]

All the word barf in this thread gives me hope.

Let's face it 15 years ago half the posts in this thread would have been simple, blantant hatred agains them queerosexuals.

Disguising our hate is the first step towards actual progress.

 

[Sandy Braille]

I just can't wait to see all the butthurt go down when gay-marriage is legalized.


Then we can look back at all of these posts-- namely, ones with a link to "a gay guy AGAINST gay-marriage" (LOL) and someone putting homosexual marriage on the same level as incest or polygamy.



Gotta love progress, man. God bless Democracy.

 

[Sean]

I haven't entered into this discussion because I haven't had time to read the whole thread and I don't really have time to type out a series of well thought-out posts, but this is completely wrong. Gays absolutely have the right to marry. They can marry someone of the opposite sex, just like anyone else. And some do. That's why this is absolutely NOT a discrimination issue, to me.

What gays do NOT have, is the right to marry anyone they want. But NO ONE has that right. For example, I cannot marry my sister or my daughter.



True.

My view, short take: Marriage is wrapped up in the concept of heterosexual sex and child bearing/raising. Evidence for this is vast. For example, infertility is one of the possible grounds for divorce in many states. Lack of [heterosexual] consummation is grounds for an annulment in many states. The reason I cannot marry my sister or my daughter is because of the possibility of conceiving a child. I could go on and on.

What homosexuals want is not related to any of that. They want SOME of what a marriage is, but by legal precedent and definition, not EVERYTHING of what a marriage is. So, let's call it something different. And let's let ANY two people enter into such a contract if they want, regardless of whether those two people are in a homosexual relationship or not.

Incest is illegal in many states. Being gay is not. You can't compare the two. Your argument is false solely because it is denying the rights of individuals based on a specific point that does not exist. It would be no different than me denying you the right to marry because of your religion. I can't do that. The government can't step in and say, "well Mormons can't marry other Mormons..."

That would not fly and I doubt anyone on this forum would embrace such a backwards reading of any law. The point is - gay people are being denied a right afforded to straight people - and that is the right to marry someone they love.

You're using the same arguments that were used to deny the right for interracial marriage. A black person certainly had the 'right' to marry another black person, so, I guess, in your twisted logic, there was no denying of any rights when states outright banned interracial marriage - since a white person still had the rights to marry another white person and a black person still had the same rights to marry another black person - but they didn't have the right to marry one another.

We've already decided that being gay is not a crime. It is not illegal in America, or any state now for that matter, to be a homosexual. If you're legal in the eyes of the law - why can't you marry? If there is no crime being committed here - why can't they marry one another? That's the fallacy in your argument because every comparison you throw up is invalidated by the fact it's illegal.

You cannot legally carry on an incest relationship in almost every single state in the country. You cannot carry on any type of sexual relationship with your daughter, especially if she's underage, in any state in the country and doing so would put you in prison. Yet some states DO allow you to marry your cousin. Go figure! So, even the logic you apply here is limited because there are exceptions when you branch out further in the family line. But we have laws against incest, so therefore the legality of a marriage between a father and daughter is moot because the laws already dictate it's illegal. That point is no more applicable to this argument than suggesting you can't marry your car. We have certain laws in place that aren't there for gay relationships. You can carry on a gay relationship and not face prison time anymore - the Supreme Court ruled as much in Lawrence v. Texas from 2003.

Everything you mention has some set standard that makes marriage improbable. Those don't exist with gay marriage. Now unless you want to criminalize being gay, which I doubt you do, then you can't continue to hold up these straw man arguments that do nothing but compare being gay to the most vile aspects of our society (incest, pedophilia, bestiality, polygamy). If their lifestyle is legal in the eyes of the law, then the law should not step in and deny them the right to marry the person they love. That is what is happening. It is illegal for you to carry on a relationship with your daughter. It's not illegal for a gay man to carry on a relationship with another gay man. Therefore, it's pretty blatant why you cannot marry your daughter - because it's the whole relationship that is illegal. Not just the marriage.

You can pretend all you want they have the same rights as you do - but I don't remember the government ever deciding if you could marry your wife. You know what? They haven't. No one decided that except you and your wife. Gay people don't have that luxury. They're told flat out, in many states, including Utah, that they cannot marry the person they love. You can use contrived logic to suggest they can marry - but they don't get to choose their partner, even though we have already established they are doing nothing illegal. Their act is not illegal. Their lifestyle is not illegal. But their marriage in some states continues to be illegal - that has happened only a handful of times in our country and the last time was when we denied interracial marriage by using the same logic applied in this thread countless times. But unless they're breaking a law, as a man would be doing if he had any type of sexual relationship with his sister or his daughter, or an animal, you can't compare the two. They're the only group of individuals in this country breaking no laws who aren't allowed to marry each other.

Catholics can marry Catholics (no law on the book that says they can't).
Mormons can marry Mormons.
Mormons can marry Catholics.
Whites can marry whites.
Whites can marry blacks.
Blacks can marry Hispanics.
Hispanics can marry blacks.
You can marry a blonde.
I can marry a brunette.

But two gay men can't marry - even though we have decided what they are doing is not illegal. So, yes, the government is denying their right to marry - just as some states did back in the 50s and 60s when it came to interracial marriage. I mean, after all, blacks weren't denied the right to marry...they just couldn't marry whites. It didn't make it right, though, did it?

 

[Scat]

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/im-gay-and-i-oppose-gay-marriage/

In our sometimes misguided efforts to expand our freedom, selfish adults have systematically dismantled that which is most precious to children as they grow and develop. That’s why I am now speaking out against same-sex marriage.

By the way, I am gay.

A few days ago I testified against pending same-sex marriage legislation in Minnesota’s Senate Judiciary and House Civil Law Committees.

The atmosphere at these events (I’ve also testified elsewhere) seems tinged with unreality—almost a carnival-like surrealism. Natural law, tradition, religion, intellectual curiosity, and free inquiry no longer play a role in deliberations. Same-sex marriage legislation is defended solely on grounds of moral relativism and emotions.

Pure sophistry is pitted against reason. Reason is losing.

Here’s the problem: The national discussion of same-sex marriage treats the issue like a game of checkers, where opponents can quickly gain each other’s pieces without much forethought about the consequences. This unreflective view of the discussion has prevented any real debate.

In years past, defenders of marriage found it easy to win the battle on the checker board. Appeals to religion and tradition won hands down almost effortlessly. While same-sex marriage advocates argued for a more thoughtful consideration of the topic, they were mostly just bulldozed over.

The tide has turned. Same-sex marriage proponents now have all the “kings” on the board, and rule it. One only needs to consider media headlines from the last few weeks. We are bombarded with approvals of same-sex marriage. To the casual onlooker, not steeped in this issue, it would seem that conservatism has embraced same-sex marriage. Each day brings fresh news of Republican political elites, Fortune 500 companies, NFL members, and even Dirty Harry himself, Clint Eastwood, throwing their support behind genderless marriage.

The game we are actually playing is chess, not checkers. This sounds confusing, because chess and checkers are played on the exact same sixty-four square game board. Checkers is easy and it’s fast. It’s one of the first games children learn how to play. Chess is hard, requiring thought about the intended and unintentional consequences of every single move that may or may not be made.

In developing their goals for policy and law, politicians often look no further than the next election cycle. They’re concerned about votes. Supporting same-sex marriage now looks like a winner for them.

It also looks like a winner for media outlets, concerned about revenues and readership, and for large corporations, eager to polish their images and create goodwill. Few of these outlets are interested in playing chess because a quick win at checkers is more important to them.

The sense of urgency regarding same-sex marriage, now palpably frenetic, is in itself a sign of our national discussion’s devolution into nothing more than slogans and emotions.

Our nation’s individual state legislatures and courts—including the Supreme Court— need to apply the brakes. Now.

As in chess, the unintended consequences deserve sound consideration.

Genderless marriage now enjoys an aura of equality and fairness, which suggests that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had same-sex marriages in mind as they penned their magnificent giant leap forward for humanity. While this situation is highly unlikely, those who selfishly seek additional “rights” for themselves have found their justification in the penumbra they now sense surrounding legitimate civil rights.

Same-sex marriage will not expand rights and freedoms in our nation. It will not redefine marriage. It will undefine it.

This isn’t the first time our society has undefined marriage. No-fault divorce, instituted all across our country, sounded like a good idea at the time. Its unintended consequence was that it changed forever the definition of marriage from a permanent relationship between spouses to a temporary one. Sadly, children became collateral damage in the selfish pursuits of adults.

Same-sex marriage will do the same, depriving children of their right to either a mom or a dad. This is not a small deal. Children are being reduced to chattel-like sources of fulfillment. On one side, their family tree consists not of ancestors, but of a small army of anonymous surrogates, donors, and attorneys who pinch-hit for the absent gender in genderless marriages. Gays and lesbians demand that they have a “right” to have children to complete their sense of personal fulfillment, and in so doing, are trumping the right that children have to both a mother and a father—a right that same-sex marriage tramples over.

Same-sex marriage will undefine marriage and unravel it, and in so doing, it will undefine children. It will ultimately lead to undefining humanity. This is neither “progressive” nor “conservative” legislation. It is “regressive” legislation.

Nowhere on any marriage license application in any state are the applicants asked, “Do you love each other?” Yet this is the basis on which same-sex marriage proponents seek to change our laws. Is the state really in the business of celebrating our romantic lives?

The mantra I heard repeatedly in Minnesota was that “marriage is about love, commitment, and responsibility.” But these three things are not the state’s interests in marriage. Marriage, from the state’s perspective, is about kids. Period. That’s the reason the institution exists. We should tremble at and fear the notion of undoing it.

For a nation that has no trouble selfishly creating a seventeen-trillion-dollar (and growing) deficit it will soon hand off to its children and grandchildren, perhaps this is asking too much. But for the sake of all children and those yet to be born, we need to slow down and seriously consider the unintended consequences of undefining marriage. Otherwise, we risk treating our progeny as expendable pawns, sacrificed in the name of self-fulfillment. We can do better than that.

 

[babe]

"Undefining Marriage" figures like this.

Some kids in the gradeschool playground are playing marbles. There's some glass ones with cats' eyes inside, some actual marble ones, and some steelies. kids with possession of actual assets like these won't let you play their game.

you go cry to teach, saying they're bullies, they're playing by some rules. you want the rules changed. You want rocks to be good, and you want to use a slingshot instead of flip stuff from your knuckles. It's not fair. Teach should make them play by your rules. You scream louder, pout harder, and stomp your feet. You go get your parents to come get angry with teach.

Teach should just say other kids can play their own game the way they want. She doesn't make rules for them. You start your own game. . . . just go have some fun, leave the other kids to theirs. OK?

Government has taken an interest in legally protecting women and children. . . . and lately even men. . . .by recognizing an already common notion of marriage and what's been expected by the players in that game. Government and courts have considered it prudent to use marriage law to make sure kids are provided for at the expense of their parents first of all, if possible.

You gay guys want to build lives on some other values and have the same general treatment, fine. Get smart, and start pushing for your needs on some reasonable basis that doesn't and won't disrupt the heterosexual marriage game. Call it something else, whatever you like, but make it clear it doesn't affect the heterosexual marriage game. Have fun.

I am against government being the definer and regulator of personal lives. I would like to see some deconstruction of that government impulse for doing so. But I agree kids need protection by the larger society from unresponsible parents sometimes, and that people in relationships need some kind of legal referee when things go crazy.

 

[colton]

Incest is illegal in many states. Being gay is not. You can't compare the two.
...
The point is - gay people are being denied a right afforded to straight people - and that is the right to marry someone they love.

As you yourself just pointed out THERE IS NO SUCH RIGHT. Otherwise incest would NOT be illegal.

But anyway, I've considered all of the points that you brought up, many times, and I firmly believe here is no equivalence between the laws against interracial marriage and the laws in favor of traditional heterosexual marriage. In short, I find every single one of your arguments uncompelling. But that's OK, I fully understand that you find my arguments uncompelling as well. And in a forum like this it's very unlikely if not impossible that we're going to convince the other they are in error.

But calling me bigoted for my view (which is essentially what you did) is just plain wrong. That type of marginalization is just as wrong as when gays are put down and made fun of by heterosexuals because of their attitudes/lifestyle/opinions.

 

[UGLI baby]

I just can't wait to see all the butthurt go down when gay-marriage is legalized.

 

[Sean]

As you yourself just pointed out THERE IS NO SUCH RIGHT. Otherwise incest would NOT be illegal.

But anyway, I've considered all of the points that you brought up, many times, and I firmly believe here is no equivalence between the laws against interracial marriage and the laws in favor of traditional heterosexual marriage. In short, I find every single one of your arguments uncompelling. But that's OK, I fully understand that you find my arguments uncompelling as well. And in a forum like this it's very unlikely if not impossible that we're going to convince the other they are in error.

But calling me bigoted for my view (which is essentially what you did) is just plain wrong. That type of marginalization is just as wrong as when gays are put down and made fun of by heterosexuals because of their attitudes/lifestyle/opinions.

Incest has nothing to do with marriage. It's illegal on all grounds. Therefore, of course it would be illegal to marry your daughter. The idea does not apply to gay marriage, however, since there is no law that says homosexuality is a crime.

I don't care if you find it compelling or not because that really isn't my problem.

As for being called a bigot - cry me a river. When you're denied the right to marry your wife for a reason that is not illegal, we can talk. Until then, don't play the martyr. You just look foolish.

But I think this goes deeper to the point at hand - bigotry is perfectly tolerable in some instances to some groups of people. You found it perfectly okay to compare homosexuality to incest, which to me, is absolutely deplorable. Yet I doubt you'd be as easy going if someone compared Mormonism to a cult or something far worse. That disconnect with so many here in Utah who are LDS is absolutely appalling to me. They're a bunch of hypocrites. Here, for so much of their history, they were discriminated against because of something they believed and they have no problem applying that same discrimination to others - and it's not just in the form of gay marriage. Gay couples can't adopt. It's perfectly legal in Utah to fire someone for being gay. That's okay, though, because they're just gay.

It's perfectly acceptable to compare gays to pedophiles or incest or bestiality ... but dammit, don't you dare imply I'm a bigot for it!

Until you find an instance where the gay lifestyle is illegal, stop comparing their acts to things that aren't legal. That is absolute trash and bigoted ... whether you want to admit it or not.

It's a good thing society is more tolerant toward religion than religion has been toward society in the past.

We rail against calling a spade a spade but ignore just how awful religion has played a role in dividing us on almost every demographic line. You might not think it's similar, but then again, how the hell do you know? You're a white, male living in Utah. I wonder when the last time your personal rights were denied because of your faith or your color or your gender? Were you ever fired for being a Mormon? Were you ever denied the right to marry your Mormon wife? How many Mormon couples are denied the right to adopt or, at one point, serve in the military?

It's easy to hide under the banner of religion when you're not the one who's being persecuted against. But it always is faith, right? It was faith that denied blacks the Priesthood in the Mormon Church for how many years? It was faith that supported slavery. It was faith that said a woman shouldn't own property or vote. It was faith that taught racism was perfectly okay because, gosh, the Bible says blacks were cursed with the mark of Cain. That's how it works. Then society pushes and religion pushes back - they tell us we're being intolerant to their views without even a hint of irony.

It's easy to cry foul when you're not the one whose life is being disrupted. So what? You don't want two gay men marrying. Good for you - don't gay marry. It's not going to implode the social fabric no more than allowing divorce did. It's not going to make the heavens rain with fire and bring about eternal darkness. It's not going to impact you one bit. But it's easy to deny that right, to say, 'if they want to get married, they can...they just have to marry someone else' when you've got zero skin in the game. And face it, colton, you've got nothing in this argument. It's not impacting your life. It's not you who's being denied anything. It's always easy to dismiss something that isn't important to you and you can claim it is by bringing your faith into it - but I'm tired. I'm tired of religion dictating every goddamn thing in this country. Religion is just half of the equation here. The other is a civil marriage. And no matter what you say, or what you believe, it does not change the fact that two legal, consenting adults are being denied the right to marry in this country. You can compare it to the deplorable actions of incest and any other act, but you and I both know they're not comparable - no more than those who compare Mormonism with a cult. It's ******** and you know it. It's hateful ******** and it shouldn't be tolerated from anyone because I guarantee you, colton, whether you want to believe it or not, there is probably a member or two on this forum who is gay ... and there's probably a whole lot more who know someone who is. And when you compare their desire to marry to the desire of a father wanting to marry his young daughter...well that's just lousy...especially coming from a moderator.

But don't cry foul when someone hints at you being a bigot for thinking that way. I mean, wouldn't you think someone a bigot if they compared Mormonism to Jonestown? I would.

 

[UGLI baby]

For me its really not about the cost.

I wouldn't get gay married even if it was free.

 

[JJ Rage]

Whole lotta sheltered, closed-minded white folks on this board.


Nothing new really.