Question for those opposed to same sex marriage

[LightHorseman]

Wow, 681 posts! This is far and away the longest thread I've ever OPed.

Now, I've been away for a week... can anyone bring me up to speed? Anyone come up with a coherent reason to advocate against homosexual unions from a purely civil, secular standpoint yet?

 

[wanderingone]

Wow, 681 posts! This is far and away the longest thread I've ever OPed.

Now, I've been away for a week... can anyone bring me up to speed? Anyone come up with a coherent reason to advocate against homosexual unions from a purely civil, secular standpoint yet?

No... did you think there would be?

 

[CaptainNemo1138]

Wow, 681 posts! This is far and away the longest thread I've ever OPed.

Now, I've been away for a week... can anyone bring me up to speed? Anyone come up with a coherent reason to advocate against homosexual unions from a purely civil, secular standpoint yet?

"Think of the children!"

 

[LightHorseman]

No... did you think there would be?

I'm trying not to be too cynical about it. I DID set this thread up as a legitimate opportunity for anyone who has such a reason to condemn homosexual unions to come forward.

I admit their failure to do so thus far isn't encouraging though.

 

[LightHorseman]

"Think of the children!"

Yes, I'm seeing that... correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that all such "think of the children" rhetoric is built largely on assumption, no one has actually produced any actual evidence to support the idea that homosexuals present more of a risk to children than heterosexuals? Or a consistent reason why homosexual parents might be bad due to failure to provide an alternate gender role model, but single heterosexual parents are fine?

 

[Polycarp1]

The one quasi-legitimate argument I've ever seen is the point that it is a substantial change in the understanding of what comprises a valid marriage. Hpwever, just in my lifetime, I've seen a sea change in that understanding, and the same could be said for my parents and grandparents. So it is not a convincing one -- but I do have to concede that it is an argument founded on the understanding of the civil law, not on personal or denominational religious beliefs or on misunderstandings of what constitutes the gay community.

 

[tanzanos]

I'm trying not to be too cynical about it. I DID set this thread up as a legitimate opportunity for anyone who has such a reason to condemn homosexual unions to come forward.

I admit their failure to do so thus far isn't encouraging though.

Are you kidding? Anyone who even dares voice his opinion on gays is automatically branded a bigot, racist, child molesting, cross burning, warmongering, Staight white male (God forbid), destroyer of women, slayer of Africans, Slave trader, Taliban, Lousy cake maker, having the brains of a jelly fish, lowest form of life possible, AD INFINITUM!

I'm just here to see the show!

 

[LightHorseman]

The one quasi-legitimate argument I've ever seen is the point that it is a substantial change in the understanding of what comprises a valid marriage. Hpwever, just in my lifetime, I've seen a sea change in that understanding, and the same could be said for my parents and grandparents. So it is not a convincing one -- but I do have to concede that it is an argument founded on the understanding of the civil law, not on personal or denominational religious beliefs or on misunderstandings of what constitutes the gay community.

Personally, I don't disagree that it would be a significant change to the generally accepted inclussive list of what is meant by "marriage". But IMHO tradition by itself is no reason for anything, so tht really neither a good argument either for or against.

Just IMHO.

 

[wanderingone]

I'm trying not to be too cynical about it. I DID set this thread up as a legitimate opportunity for anyone who has such a reason to condemn homosexual unions to come forward.

I admit their failure to do so thus far isn't encouraging though.

To be fair back in the beginning Verv did present his usual notions about things falling apart when a society loses its "cohesiveness" The idea that endorsing what is not "the norm" will result in the fall of western civilization etc..

Personally I find that logic to be one that supports the control and exploitation of the community through endorsed/enforced social norms.. but perhaps I spent too much time on Gramsci and the whole hegemony thing in SOC 101; also the "norm" of refusing a legal insitution for something that obviously exists (same sex couples in committed relationships) parallel to something else that also exists has its own negative impact on the cohesiveness of the culture. "You reject me from YOUR culture... so I'll create my own"

 

[IreneAdler]

I'm anti gay marriage and anti marriage frankly... (any governmental participation in either) but then my opinions are strange. I think marriage is a church thing and should be handled by church bodies as they see fit. Period. However, cival unions should be legal for anyone, whether you're having sex or not. Just MHO.

 

[wanderingone]

Are you kidding? Anyone who even dares voice his opinion on gays....

How can one have an "opinion on gays"? It's like having an "opinion on whites".. an "opinion on Jews" an "opinion on blacks" do you really place groups of people in a box with your opinion label? I thought we learned not to do that kind of thing back in the 60's?

 

[IreneAdler]

lol. obviously not.

 

[wanderingone]

I'm anti gay marriage and anti marriage frankly... (any governmental participation in either) but then my opinions are strange. I think marriage is a church thing and should be handled by church bodies as they see fit. Period. However, cival unions should be legal for anyone, whether you're having sex or not. Just MHO.

Ummm.. and that's basically what we have now... civil and religious marriage. If I get married by a judge or other public official then I have a marriage without the higher power frosting, if I have get married by clergy I get the higher power frosting.

It's funny.. nobody seems to think I should call what my husband and I have a "Civil union" even though we got married at borough hall and not in a church.

 

[LightHorseman]

Are you kidding? Anyone who even dares voice his opinion on gays is automatically branded a bigot, racist, child molesting, cross burning, warmongering, Staight white male (God forbid), destroyer of women, slayer of Africans, Slave trader, Taliban, Lousy cake maker, having the brains of a jelly fish, lowest form of life possible, AD INFINITUM!

I'm just here to see the show!

Such was not my intention in setting up the thread.

However I'm sure you'll agree that if someone's views on the subject appear to be driven more by bigotry than rational or objective thought, then they should be called on it?

For the record, I accept that there MAY be a purely rational and objective reason to stop homosexuals from marrying. I just havn't heard it yet.

I'll go further and state for the record that I think people should be utterly welcome to hold whatever opinions on any subject they wish, be they bigoted or otherwise. I myself admit to having certain bigoted stand points. The issue is when people attempt to take their personal bigotries and implement public policies with them. I admit my bigotries, I admit they are what they are, and that they are not based on objectivity or evidence... so I do my best not to allow them to influence my thinking when it comes to others. I wouldn't for example, attempt to deny someone a basic right on the basis of my personal bigotry without a very compelling objective argument to go with it.

 

[wanderingone]

lol. obviously not.

Is that in response to this:

How can one have an "opinion on gays"? It's like having an "opinion on whites".. an "opinion on Jews" an "opinion on blacks" do you really place groups of people in a box with your opinion label? I thought we learned not to do that kind of thing back in the 60's?

Seriously though.. there are issues, and they may be most important at any given time to groups of people who share something like religion or ethnicity but when the opinions digress from "marriage" to general chatter about "gay people" (or women, or men, or white people or Asian people blah blah blah ) it kind of shows where our heads are really at ...

 

[IreneAdler]

Ummm.. and that's basically what we have now... civil and religious marriage. If I get married by a judge or other public official then I have a marriage without the higher power frosting, if I have get married by clergy I get the higher power frosting.

It's funny.. nobody seems to think I should call what my husband and I have a "Civil union" even though we got married at borough hall and not in a church.

No, not really. Clergy CAN legally cause a civil union. I think that should be done away with. The higher power mish mash is just jargon. The government shouldn't associate in any way with any religious institution as far as what is and is not a valid civil union. I don't think religious marriage should BE a civil union by church action alone. Sorry.

I do so I dont' think I fit in "no one" category. It's the whole seperation of church and state. The only reason not to offer male/male female/female civil unions is religion. Nix religion and there's no problem. Don't call it marriage and overly religious people can't have theirs ruined by association. Simple.

 

[IreneAdler]

Is that in response to this:



Seriously though.. there are issues, and they may be most important at any given time to groups of people who share something like religion or ethnicity but when the opinions digress from "marriage" to general chatter about "gay people" (or women, or men, or white people or Asian people blah blah blah ) it kind of shows where our heads are really at ...

yup. But not in a hostile way in your direction. Just a lol on the state of people being put in a box.

 

[wanderingone]

yup. But not in a hostile way in your direction. Just a lol on the state of people being put in a box.

Oh I didn't take it as hostile I was just making sure which post you were responding to..

 

[wanderingone]

No, not really. Clergy CAN legally cause a civil union. I think that should be done away with. The higher power mish mash is just jargon. The government shouldn't associate in any way with any religious institution as far as what is and is not a valid civil union. I don't think religious marriage should BE a civil union by church action alone. Sorry.

Church action alone doesn't cause anything... obviously in the US it differs from state to state.. but in general.. you get a marriage license.. and then you have the ceremony and then you submit proof the ceremony happened. If you don't get the license and then have the legally empowered person sign it you only have a ceremony with no legal backing.

Of course in some states living together "as" husband and wife can count as a marriage too, not in my state... and oddly nobody really minds calling those people married either.

The focus on the word "marriage" is purely nit picking on the part of those who insist it can only be a "religious" word. Until they contemplate same sex marriage most people don't protest the use of the word by people who are not religious at all. In general people I know who don't care who can marry who don't care if it's called marriage or not, they care that regardless of the term the individuals have the same legal rights and responsibilities from the state and the feds.

My cousin is legally married to his husband. In their state... the fact that it's called a marriage doesn't help him with rights outside of their home state... he wouldn't care what people with religious issues call his marriage - civil marriage, civil union, etc.. he would just like to be able to not have to go through all the extra legal garbage to make sure he and his husband have the same (or close to the same) legal rights and responsibilities toward each other as my husband and I have.

 

[IreneAdler]

Sure, you have to file paperwork.

My suggestion is seperate the two so there can't be this debate at all. Marriage = church (and some church bodies support gays and gay marriage)
Civil union = goverment and doesn't have to be about sex/sexuality but just union in a legal sense...
those who want both can have both (if they can find participating church bodies to do it)
and the government doesn't have to "force" marriage onto states which violates state rights.