Anti-Gay Marriage

[BlueFire]

Legalizing gay marriage has been a pretty hot topic over the last few years in particular. I know of the pros to legalizing it, but have yet to find a strong argument against it.

One of my friends, who is a strong believer in Christianity, said it shouldn't be changed because of tradition. He compared it to legalizing murder and I counter-argued that by saying that murder hurts someone against their will. Two homosexuals marrying should not affect others against their will. Which brings me to the next point I heard.

I brought it up at work and someone around the age of 50 told me they're against it because they don't like seeing them in public because it disturbs them.

In a similar, but not as extreme, way to how children who grew up with blacks (generations ago) did not have the same hatred for them as their parents did, I see the view on homosexuals the same way. Generation Z sees it as "yeah gay people have always been around in my life."

In my opinion, the strong arguments for legalizing gay marriage are that they will gain equal tax benefits and legal hospital visits.

I have been wondering what the arguments against legalizing gay are. If you're informed on the subject, what are the cons to legalizing gay marriage?

[I.M. Gei]

I've heard "something something it's religious persecution against Christians" from some of the people gorging themselves on Chik-Fil-A last August. Didn't make any sense to me.

[Espinosa]

Demographics seems to be the most stressed argument expressed against it, but at this point nobody is persecuting people (legally or financially) for not bearing any children, in most countries anyway. Depending on the part of the world, people may also often express the view that marriage is union between one male and one female, not more and not with any other participants.

In the recent past, the USSR was a secular state and homosexuality was forbidden by law (the practice and behaviour itself; e.g. two straight musicians hugging each other in a 'suspicious' way could get them fired and persecuted), mostly based on the scientific view that it is unnatural, hinders the growth of human species, etc. etc. A lot of secular-minded people maintain the same view today and are more vocal when the opposite view becomes more public. And there's the opposite case when people take parts of the Old Testament very literally, but that is a rarity in most of the world (the US stands out with its largely fundamental Christian population).

An additional variable is whether gay couples can also adopt children in addition to marrying. The French have been favouring legalising gay marriages but when adoption was brought up, changed their minds against the homosexuals as such, so there's a bit of a conflict due to that in France right now, as well as surrounding European states.

[Rehab]

Conversation fodder: it's more costly and generally inconvenient for employers to be forced to keep track of a "two-tier" system.

It costs more money to provide health insurance for the spouse of a gay employee than it does other married couples, since that benefit is counted as "extra income" and taxed, alongside being monitored separately from the insurance afforded to the other couple and reported to the IRS differently. Some employers have decided to compensate and hold onto valuable people by upping the gay employee's salary to pay for the benefits other couples get free, which averages out to about an extra $1000 per employee. Which is obviously an extra pain in the ass, especially for smaller businesses.

In trying to attract foreign workers whose same-sex marriage is legal back home, companies in countries that don't recognize same-sex marriages also have to worry about that worker's partner not being afforded the shared-visa status that an other-sex spouse would get, causing further hiring headaches even for employers that choose to not give a shit about their gay employees otherwise.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Rehab

[Samias]

A lot of hate towards homosexuals stems from the inability to relate with a different mindset, and a fear that making gay marriage legal will somehow change the way things are for straight men and women as if what gay people do applies to them on a personal level. The arguments against homosexuality are largely lacking in empathy. So while the arguments can be dressed up in things like "Marriage is a tradition between one man and one woman", marriage is also a legal contract ultimately under the control of the government, whose job is to equally confer legal rights and protection to its citizens.

There's also the slippery slope argument that allowing consenting adults to marry will lead to allowing people to marry children or animals. Which doesn't make sense because there is no consent involved in the latter cases and we already have laws specifically addressing those things.

Some people will cite their religious beliefs, but the government and the church are ideally separated, because there are more than just Christians in the world, especially in North America. And not all people entrenched in religion believe that gays should have lesser rights. The Anglican Church of Canada is still split but a sizeable portion of the church will bless homosexual unions. It just makes sense for the church to embrace loving everyone, regardless of their gender, race, social standing, or sexual orientation, otherwise the number of non-religious people will only grow. Ultimately the Bible is written by humans and interpretation of those writings through our modern eyes can change.

Generally, the cons being argumented against legalizing gay marriage are very weak compared to the pros.

[Klokinator]

I've been seeing a huge shift in mindset towards gay marriage over the last 6 years. I estimate gay marriage will be legalized worldwide everywhere except in the most diehard religious locales by 2016. Seriously, nobody is affected adversely and a huge number of people are affected positively.

[Randa]

The only issue I have with legalizing gay marriage is the legalizing part. I believe in a separation of church and state and as such do not believe that the government can say that the church has to change one of its holy sacraments. I'm bisexual and if I every find true love with a dude domestic partnership would be the choice I would make. At the moment they are going about the whole situation wrong, they should be working to extend domestic partnership rights instead of creating a theocracy in America.

[Samias]

No one ever said the church has to marry people. While many people consider marriage a religious tenet, a marriage license is given out by the state, not the church. It is a government license and you can have marriages performed outside of a church and without a minister, instead substituting a civil servant.

[shadykid]

I've heard "something something it's religious persecution against Christians" from some of the people gorging themselves on Chik-Fil-A last August. Didn't make any sense to me.

oh yes, the HOW DARE YOU DISCRIMINATE AGAINST MY RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE stuff

@Rehab, DOMA getting repealed should fix some of that (especially regarding taxes and whatnot)

[Baldrick]

People who aren't Christian can get married, right? So how the church possibly have any say in how marriage works as a whole?

[Lord Raven]

I think mainly people don't want to vote in favor of gay marriage simply because many people know it is against their Bible to do so. They don't wish to support the union of two gay people simply because it's contradicted by their religious belief. The biological angle is fine too, but I mean it only should work as an argument imo if everyone were to become gay...

At any rate, I know my mom thinks that allowing gay marriage will cause a civilization to fall because of some story in the Quran. I wouldn't be surprised if many people think like this, and they're more paranoid that allowing it will cause something to that extent than something as simple as it going against their holy book.

[eclipse]

FIRST: This is a really interesting post, and is thus being moved to an equally interesting forum.

My mom's argument was, "I don't want other kids growing up thinking that same-sex marriage is moral." I disagreed with her, which led to a huge argument. I would much prefer if the religious part of "marriage" be thrown out of government entirely. The only issue I'm iffy on is how such a marriage would be annulled, and whether or not the courts would be prepared for those cases.

[Esau of Isaac]

The only issue I have with legalizing gay marriage is the legalizing part. I believe in a separation of church and state and as such do not believe that the government can say that the church has to change one of its holy sacraments. I'm bisexual and if I every find true love with a dude domestic partnership would be the choice I would make. At the moment they are going about the whole situation wrong, they should be working to extend domestic partnership rights instead of creating a theocracy in America.

Marriage is not a strictly religious concept, and never really has been. The church doesn't own the word, and its meaning is certainly not defined in a religious manner today anyways. The government would not be telling the church what to do by legalizing gay marriage, because the church has nothing to do with the legal process in the first place.

[bottlegnomes]

I'm going to use an analogy: legalizing gay marriage would be like legalizing heroin use or suicide. By doing so, the government is saying it's okay for people to hurt themselves.

That said, this a ridiculous analogy--there are tons of holes in it--and I in no way support the people opposed to gay marriage. But that's the thinking behind a lot of these people: they genuinely believe gay actions (if not the tendency to be attracted to people of the same sex) are harmful for those engaged in them and have a derogatory effect on society.

The weird thing is that most of these things are tied to religious concepts, e.g. eternal damnation, (there's absolutely no proof that a gay lifestyle has any affect on a person's health) and church and state are supposed to be separate. And while this concept has been absolutely mutilated recently, this is an example of what the founding fathers intended it to prevent: religious institutions' dogmas interfering with people's rights.

Edited April 30, 2013 by bottlegnomes

[Fenrir]

The only issue I have with legalizing gay marriage is the legalizing part. I believe in a separation of church and state and as such do not believe that the government can say that the church has to change one of its holy sacraments. I'm bisexual and if I every find true love with a dude domestic partnership would be the choice I would make. At the moment they are going about the whole situation wrong, they should be working to extend domestic partnership rights instead of creating a theocracy in America.

Hold on what the fuck. Separation of church and state would mean that gay marriage would be legal. Homosexuality is almost exclusively frowned upon by religious organizations. The Church does not have to change anything, they don't get any say on who gets a marriage license anyways.

But I'd like to comment back on OP.

I live in suburban Houston and go to a private school full of conservative, crazy fundamentalist people. There are some fucking insane people at my school, so I probably see the bigots you're talking about every damn day. I also want to add that I am a Christian who goes to Church every Sunday and thinks about God every day. (But, I'm also a fuckin teenager who resents the crazies of fundamentalism)

Arguments for gay marriage are usually pretty simple but they stem from one or all of these ideas:

1) Gay marriage is bad for family values because it will cause children to be raised by two women or two men and this fucks up American families.

2) There's a Bible verse.

3) Homosexuality is a sin and homosexual marriage is embracing sinning.

4) It's unnatural

5) People just don't like gay people because they don't understand them and are just uncomfortable around them and don't want their children to end up like them. Seriously, people overlook the pretty blatant bigotry.

Of course, these all have pretty simple counterpoints since they're complete bullshit.

1.1) Studies that have been conducted have shown this is total bullshit and not true.(Sorry, only link I got) Kids are supposedly fine. Which is very believable to me. I'm not under the impression that heterosexual parents are amazing anyways.

Also: same sex parents will have premeditated having kids 100% of the time.

2.1) I think it's more important to tolerate/accept people than be religiously legalistic. Maybe I'm wrong, but my own conscience tells me that

the other side is the inhumane one.

3.1) Separation of church and state and the above.

4.1) Going to space isn't natural, but America fuck yeah.(Isn't this whole point kind of stupid? what should the natural meter have to do with the way we apply logic?)

5.1) Assholes.

I hope I didn't say too much or too little on anything, and I probably left something off.

At least America is getting way better in the whole thing. The fact that these conversations are everywhere shows progress.

I do understand why people are against gay marriage though. I just believe that no matter what personal beliefs you have everyone should be allowed to do what they want if it makes them happy and makes other people happy while it doesn't mess with anyone's life.

Last thing, EVERYONE no matter what you believe should read THIS.

[Iridium]

The only issue I have with legalizing gay marriage is the legalizing part. I believe in a separation of church and state and as such do not believe that the government can say that the church has to change one of its holy sacraments. I'm bisexual and if I every find true love with a dude domestic partnership would be the choice I would make. At the moment they are going about the whole situation wrong, they should be working to extend domestic partnership rights instead of creating a theocracy in America.

Ah, but one thing.

Say we've got ice cream. Since I'm Texan, we'll assume this is delicious Bluebell Homemade-in-the-Shade ice cream, but you can replace that with whatever you want. So we've got ice cream. Oh, but here's the problem - ice cream is constitutionally banned. It's addictive, it's a drug, I don't know, the point is it's banned. You're not allowed to have it, ever. If we repeal that law, does that mean that every parent in the world needs to give their child ice cream for every meal? Not at all! Most meals probably won't even be ice cream, and doubtless there will be some people who swear off the stuff entirely. But some people will want to have ice cream, and now they will be able to.

People who don't like ice cream will still see it in the grocery store, but ice cream has always been there - it's just been previously delegated to shady black-market ice cream parlors. But that's the extent of the effect the law will have on them - they won't be forced to buy it if they don't want to, and it acts as naught more than another option freeing those who love ice cream so that they can have it.

The goal here is a very similar one.

Marriage is not a Christian institution. It has been around for a long time, and over time it has been applied to many different faiths - even Atheists can get married, if they so choose to do so. Hell, even if you're the sort of person who sacrifices goats to a primeval dread god, you could probably get married assuming you found someone who was cool with ritual sacrifice.

By implementing these laws, we're not forcing Christianity to change its tenets (which are themselves arguable) to account for something like this. If you're Christian, then sure, you have every right to not marry someone of your gender if you don't want to. But the fact of the matter is, not everyone is Christian. Just as the entire populace should not be deprived of delectable dairy due to the desire of despondent dieters, why should the entire populace be bound by a single tenet that doesn't constitute the entirety of the population but rather only the mistaken beliefs (e.g. that marriage belongs to them alone) of a single party.

Another, equally delicious analogy - should we ban pork because Islam (a belief in a deity that created many things, pigs being among them) forbids consumption of them?

1) Gay marriage is bad for family values because it will cause children to be raised by two women or two men and this fucks up American families.

This is my favorite point ever.

Considering that I've spent the last decade continuously descending into madness due the the behaviors of my bigoted, straight family... I find it sincerely hard to believe that I could do worse as someone who'd actually give a damn about the mental health of my kids.

Edited April 30, 2013 by Iridium

[Paulina]

No one ever said the church has to marry people. While many people consider marriage a religious tenet, a marriage license is given out by the state, not the church. It is a government license and you can have marriages performed outside of a church and without a minister, instead substituting a civil servant.

Absolutely.

Marriage is not a Christian institution. It has been around for a long time, and over time it has been applied to many different faiths - even Atheists can get married, if they so choose to do so. Hell, even if you're the sort of person who sacrifices goats to a primeval dread god, you could probably get married assuming you found someone who was cool with ritual sacrifice.

Yes.

So many anti-gay marriage Christians are too myopic for their own good. Marriage is in no way a Christian institution -- or even a religious institution. Almost every culture has some form of legally binding union for two individuals. As far as the U.S. goes, I am able to marry, even as an atheist -- I am not required to convert to any theistic religion. I feel so incredibly indignant when theists foist their dogma on the greater population.

[Djeets]

i don't mind about these gay marriage as long as said people both had feelings toward each other... it is rights after all... now imagine if there are a universe out there that had more than two genders in said universe (which can't be comprehended with human logics). would it be a severing restriction if marriage limited to only + and - genders in that world? what if the world filled with genderless people? wouldn't that be discriminating if people can't marry just because they all are genderless.. i'm talking about feelings here... if two people with same gender had two feelings toward each other.. should also they be united, right?

[shadykid]

I've heard "something something it's religious persecution against Christians" from some of the people gorging themselves on Chik-Fil-A last August. Didn't make any sense to me.

this is the best description ever for those guys

[Sublime Manic]

now imagine if there are a universe out there that had more than two genders in said universe (which can't be comprehended with human logics). would it be a severing restriction if marriage limited to only + and - genders in that world? what if the world filled with genderless people?

There are people in the world who identify as genderless. There are also arguments that more than two different genders exist (gender IS argued to be a social construction). Neither notion is incomprehensible with human logic.

As a flaming faggot, myself, I'm very much in favor of gay marriage. However, one argument against gay marriage that I haven't seen brought up yet, and that is actually argued BY a segment of the queer community is that gay marriage is heteronormative, that it ignores intersectionality (some arguing that it's more relevant to white, well off, cisgendered gays than other parts of the queer community), and is assimilation of gay culture into straight culture. Many proponents of gay marriage bring by equality, and, by extension, that gays ought be treated the same way as everyone else. Said portion of the queer community making this argument is trying to emphasize and embrace difference rather than similarity.

I can appreciate embracing gay culture, and it's an interesting argument, coming from a portion of the same community that has been fighting for years for marriage equality. But legalizing gay marriage would and will be a step in the right direction, and the argument's points are hardly grounds for not supporting it.

[Chiki]

I don't believe any government in the US defines marriage as something religious, for that would deny the separation of church and state.

[Agro]

as a gay man I support gay marriage but I won't push it in peoples' faces and tell them how wrong they are to oppose it because that would make me as bad as any other evangelical religious nut

[Paulina]

As a flaming faggot, myself, I'm very much in favor of gay marriage.

I don't think slurs like this are appropriate in SD. I'm heterosexual, and this triggered me. Just a friendly reminder.

[eclipse]

I don't believe any government in the US defines marriage as something religious, for that would deny the separation of church and state.

Now tell that to the myriad religious groups that oppose it. Then we'll get somewhere.

[shadykid]

Now tell that to the myriad religious groups that oppose it. Then we'll get somewhere.

you mean you'll get "DON'T MESS WITH MAH FREEDOMS" instead?