Conservatives, a question for you

[DC_DEEP]

This may be an odd request, and beating the dead horse, but here goes.

I want to delve again into the issue of same-gender marriage, and get some views and intelligent debate. Liberals/supporters, please hold off on the replies for a bit, I want to get some anti views first. What is/are your main objection(s) to persons of the same gender having the legal right to marry? Only well-presented replies, please - no tirades.

 

[13788]

Krueger: Well, naturally Christians are against gay marriage, because it's viewed as sinful. So we want to stop others from doing it just like we'd want to stop others from doing all kinds of sin (eg murder theft, etc). For the fundamentalists who aren't Christian, gay marriage represents the breakdown of family values.
Really, a lot of Christians think that gay people getting married wouldn't really be marriage anyway. Sure, the government would say they were, but seeing that two men or two women would be outside the Biblical definition of marriage, they would see it as little more than living together with a government approved title and tax differences.
The fundamentalist non-Christians would see it as marriage. They, like Christians, would also see it as a bad influence. They might not have issues with the PEOPLE (and Christians *should* have that "do not judge lest ye put yourselves above the law" kinda thing in mind [love the sinner hate the sin, etc]), but they see the act of marriage and the growing acceptance of gay lifestyles to be harmful to traditional family structure and most view it as a gateway to other things they view as indecent. Way back when the marriage of two men or especially of two women would be not only absurd, but reason to cause serious harm to the would-be fiancées. Yet it's acceptable(ish) now. So, by following logic, they fear that condemned acts today (eg pedophilia or bestiality) which exist but are extremely frowned upon to say the least will follow suit and become increasingly more accepted, causing the ethical breakdown of the country. So they think it's like extinguishing the ember, not waiting for the full fire to burn. And I guess I can see the logic there.
By the way, feel free to respond, but I beg, keep the hating to a minimum. The opposing side was requested after all, and I tried to keep my side without prejudice or malice.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Originally posted by Krueger@Jul 7 2005, 11:58 AM
Well, naturally Christians are against gay marriage, because it's viewed as sinful. So we want to stop others from doing it just like we'd want to stop others from doing all kinds of sin (eg murder theft, etc).

[post=327355]Quoted post[/post]​

Krueger, thank you, this is exactly the type of post I was looking for. You must not read many of my posts, because attacking the person rather than the post is not my style. My response to your first point is this: If christians are against gay marriage, then they should not engage in gay marriage. Not every person in our pluralistic society has the same concept of what is and what is not sin. Why the compulsion to force others to ACT within the confines of their beliefs? Murder and theft are not the same, as they both involve the harming of another person.

For the fundamentalists who aren't Christian, gay marriage represents the breakdown of family values.

How so? It would seem to me that divorce is more of a breakdown of family values, than is allowing two people who love each other to marry.

Really, a lot of Christians think that gay people getting married wouldn't really be marriage anyway. Sure, the government would say they were, but seeing that two men or two women would be outside the Biblical definition of marriage, they would see it as little more than living together with a government approved title and tax differences.

I have no problem with persons of ANY faith deciding among themselves what is and is not acceptable as marriage. How can you, in good faith, defend this position in light of my 1st Amendment right to worship freely (as in, the way my faith defines it, not the way your faith defines it...)

The fundamentalist non-Christians would see it as marriage. They, like Christians, would also see it as a bad influence. They might not have issues with the PEOPLE (and Christians *should* have that "do not judge lest ye put yourselves above the law" kinda thing in mind [love the sinner hate the sin, etc]), but they see the act of marriage and the growing acceptance of gay lifestyles to be harmful to traditional family structure and most view it as a gateway to other things they view as indecent.

I still do not understand why anyone other than myself and my partner should have any vote in whether or not we are allowed to marry. Once again, I ask, is divorce not more harmful to the traditional family structure? Why no push for a constitutional amendment banning divorce? There are many things, even in many churches, that I view as "indecent." Does that give me a right to forbid ALL other people these things? Of course not. By the way, my "gay lifestyle" consists of waking up in the morning, haviing breakfast, going to work, coming home, having dinner, watching a little TV, and going to bed. Throw in a bit of housecleaning and taxpaying once in a while. How is that harmful to society at large?

Way back when the marriage of two men or especially of two women would be not only absurd, but reason to cause serious harm to the would-be fiancées. Yet it's acceptable(ish) now. So, by following logic, they fear that condemned acts today (eg pedophilia or bestiality) which exist but are extremely frowned upon to say the least will follow suit and become increasingly more accepted, causing the ethical breakdown of the country. So they think it's like extinguishing the ember, not waiting for the full fire to burn. And I guess I can see the logic there.
By the way, feel free to respond, but I beg, keep the hating to a minimum. The opposing side was requested after all, and I tried to keep my side without prejudice or malice.

The big difference I see here is that neither a child of minority age, nor an animal, can really be considered to be a "consenting adult." So if my beloved is a consenting adult, how does that affect anyone but the two of us? And "would-be fiancees"? That hints of arranged marriages, something most Americans find abhorrant. Besides, although you didn't say so explicitly, the tone and reasoning of your post would suggest that same-gender couples have nothing in common other than sex. My partner and I love, and care about, each other very deeply. We talk about how our day went, we discuss politics, we work in the yard together, we go shopping (and spend money, real, hard-earned, taxed, money, so I would argue that we actually help the economy and therefore are beneficial to society.)

I hope I followed your request in keeping the hating to a minimum. Please, do follow up on this. I'm just trying to follow the logic here.

 

[Shelby]

Don't the lawyers, judges, social workers, et al., ad nauseam who make their living sucking the blood of people seeking divorce (upwards of 50% of all marriages) make enough?

Why should homosexuals be added to their list of victims?

 

[DC_DEEP]

Originally posted by Shelby@Jul 7 2005, 01:31 PM
Don't the lawyers, judges, social workers, et al., ad nauseam who make their living sucking the blood of people seeking divorce (upwards of 50% of all marriages) make enough?

  Why should homosexuals be added to their list of victims?

[post=327381]Quoted post[/post]​

Because we are the last minority group who still have no legal protections against discrimination. Oh, wait a minute, stupid me, that is not right. We are the last minority group against whom discrimination is written into law. Queer-bashing is not just legally protected, it is encouraged openly. I started a thread about THAT elsewhere.

And although I appreciate your post, I was hoping to hear from a few more "anti" folks, before the "pro or at least supportive" ones start posting.

 

[prepstudinsc]

I have no problem with people having equal rights, I just have a problem calling it "marriage." If two gay people want to have some sort of domestic partnership, draw up a legal agreement recognizing the partnership so the two can do benefits of insurance, make healthcare decisions, etc. I don't think that it should be recognized by the church as a legal ceremony, however, since that is a blessing that is bestowed on a man and a woman. Not everything in life is meant to be fair and not everyone deserves to have everything, but I do think that people who are going to be in relationships for the long haul--more than a 3 month fling (straight or gay)-- should be entitled to equal benefits under the law.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Originally posted by prepstudinsc@Jul 7 2005, 01:56 PM
I have no problem with people having equal rights, I just have a problem calling it "marriage." If two gay people want to have some sort of domestic partnership, draw up a legal agreement recognizing the partnership so the two can do benefits of insurance, make healthcare decisions, etc. I don't think that it should be recognized by the church as a legal ceremony, however, since that is a blessing that is bestowed on a man and a woman. Not everything in life is meant to be fair and not everyone deserves to have everything, but I do think that people who are going to be in relationships for the long haul--more than a 3 month fling (straight or gay)-- should be entitled to equal benefits under the law.

[post=327389]Quoted post[/post]​

So you have a problem with calling it "marriage" - your understanding of linguistics and semantics does not have a direct bearing upon me. I want to understand how my relationship with my partner has any direct, tangible effect upon you or anyone else. If it does not have any direct, tangible effect on you, then why should your opinion be binding upon me? No, not everything in life is meant to be fair, and not everyone deserves to have everything. But if I am paying taxes (read that as "lawmakers' salaries) why should I not be given my 14th Amendment guarantee of EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW? What the church does or does not recognize concerns me not in the least. But the church is not supposed to be ruling and governing our nation.

 

[Pecker]

Originally posted by DC_DEEP@Jul 7 2005, 11:17 AM
This may be an odd request, and beating the dead horse, but here goes.

I want to delve again into the issue of same-gender marriage, and get some views and intelligent debate. Liberals/supporters, please hold off on the replies for a bit, I want to get some anti views first. What is/are your main objection(s) to persons of the same gender having the legal right to marry? Only well-presented replies, please - no tirades. (emphasis added)

[post=327343]Quoted post[/post]​

DC, sorry but you ignored your own rule and jumped in right after the first response.

The way I see conservative/liberal reaction to life is this: it's balanced. For every idea that attracts the liberal there will be at least equal opposition from the other side of the aisle. It's always worked this way. Some see it as evil vs. good: one is necessary for the success of the other.

If we could see this politically we'd be more willing to accept that some folks will just plain never agree with us.

Left and right. Yin and yang.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Originally posted by Pecker+Jul 7 2005, 03:00 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pecker &#064; Jul 7 2005, 03:00 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-DC_DEEP@Jul 7 2005, 11:17 AM
This may be an odd request, and beating the dead horse, but here goes.

I want to delve again into the issue of same-gender marriage, and get some views and intelligent debate.  Liberals/supporters, please hold off on the replies for a bit, I want to get some anti views first.  What is/are your main objection(s) to persons of the same gender having the legal right to marry?  Only well-presented replies, please - no tirades. (emphasis added)

[post=327343]Quoted post[/post]​

DC, sorry but you ignored your own rule and jumped in right after the first response.

The way I see conservative/liberal reaction to life is this: it&#39;s balanced. For every idea that attracts the liberal there will be at least equal opposition from the other side of the aisle. It&#39;s always worked this way. Some see it as evil vs. good: one is necessary for the success of the other.

If we could see this politically we&#39;d be more willing to accept that some folks will just plain never agree with us.

Left and right. Yin and yang.

[post=327405]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
Pecker, you didn&#39;t understand the point of the thread, perhaps I should take up a lot more space by adding the ellipsis to the statement:
Liberals/supporters, please hold off on the replies for a bit, I want to get some anti views first and respond to them logically, before I get responses that concur with my postings. I also want to try to keep this post on topic at least until I see some of the responses I expect. Most of the debate I have heard so far on this issue does not address what I consider to be some salient points; so thank you for holding off with the "pro" replies for at least a page or two, then let me know what you think of the discourse.

I was not looking for a meaning of life discussion in this thread. Regardless of whether or not any given issue has two sides, that is not the point. My request was for well-wriiten views against same-gender marriage. My goal is to find any that really make any sense of someone&#39;s view that they should have any vote in who I may or may not marry. My point so far is, if your only reasoning is "I think it is wrong," then by all means you shouldn&#39;t do it, but that does not give you the right to deny me. Comparing same-gender marriage to sexual assault on a child or animal is just inane. I am looking for a well-reasoned, well-written post that is not in favor of same-gender marriage.

 

[jonb]

I can see the logic about "gay marriage will lead to pedophilia".

 

[Dr Rock]

I seen them queers on th&#39; pitcher-box. homersexshuls gettin&#39; married? thass the plum-dumbest thing I done heard since Lincoln freed th&#39; nee-groes&#33;

 

[DC_DEEP]

Gentlemen,
tugtseseilrhieisenhohcuannadthegse

 

[faceking]

hmmm... nice reach out to conservatives, replete with jabs against those who live in teh South, maturity is astounding at times here... how bout asking the high percentage of liberals as well...

 

[absinthium]

This struck a chord with me, as I watched a special just this morning about gay marriage. I listened very carefully to what the more conservative folks had to say... It all seemed to come back to religion. Because certain passages of the Bible have been interpreted to suggest that same-sex relations are sinful, they are against making a marriage between such couples legal. I really didn&#39;t hear much else in the way of a reason. Most of those interviewed just said they saw it as "wrong" and didn&#39;t go into much detail.

It&#39;s my personal opinion that this is just another issue blown out of proportion to divide Americans (like we need any help with that). Someone stands up and says the Bible supports something, and people who simply want to be good Christians, and do what they feel will help their church, go along with it. I don&#39;t fault most people who fall into this category; they&#39;re generally simple, kind-hearted people who have been bullied into believing something.
Before anyone accuses me of having no foundation for these ideas, I will point out that I used to go to church for years, and, yes, I bought into a lot of things at the time that I no longer think are true... Despite my church being a very open, laid back place in a lot of ways, the pastors made it clear that they were against homosexuality. It broke my heart. I didn&#39;t understand why it was okay for lechers, thieves, liars, and other sinners to attend, but not gays. We&#39;re told God loves all of his children, but apparently we don&#39;t have to show love to our brothers if their "lifestyles" don&#39;t agree with our concept of what they should be.

...If I may go just a bit off topic here, I was struck with a thought today that really made me tear up. I thought to myself how outraged I would be if I heard a bill was being enacted that would prevent Conservatives from getting married. As much as I joke about not wanting "those people" to breed, it&#39;s all a tongue-in-cheek response to a lot of the anti-gay sentiment I&#39;ve heard. I think it&#39;s important for all Americans to support the rights of people who just want to live their life free of oppression. That&#39;s what this country was supposedly founded upon, and what used to make it great.
...Now, I&#39;m really not so sure about this place.


Sorry, DC. Hope someone who doesn&#39;t have such a big mouth can help you out.

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

Originally posted by DC_DEEP@Jul 7 2005, 10:40 AM

Because we are the last minority group who still have no legal protections against discrimination. Oh, wait a minute, stupid me, that is not right. We are the last minority group against whom discrimination is written into law. Queer-bashing is not just legally protected, it is encouraged openly. I started a thread about THAT elsewhere.

At the risk of nitpicking, this isn&#39;t true. Numerous states have anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation. In California, gay couples have rights that are about as close to marriage rights as possible without an explicit law or federal government intervention. This doesn&#39;t mean that gay marriage isn&#39;t worth fighting for or worth demanding, but your claim is a bit of an exaggeration. Be careful, since it would be a lot more embarrassing if a homophobe points it out to you.

 

[DC_DEEP]

faceking and chimera, goddammit, just ignore the stupid shit and answer my fucking question please, ok? This is exactly the kind of shit I was hoping to sidestep before page two, when I posed my original post the way I did. Thank you.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Absinthium, thank you, you illustrate, in a slightly different way, exactly what I was getting at here. And I&#39;m sure you have a lovely mouth, regardless of its size; size isn&#39;t everything, you know.
B_C, that&#39;s another point I&#39;m making, thanks. It really isn&#39;t anyone elses&#39; business.

At the risk of nitpicking, this isn&#39;t true. Numerous states have anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation. In California, gay couples have rights that are about as close to marriage rights as possible without an explicit law or federal government intervention. This doesn&#39;t mean that gay marriage isn&#39;t worth fighting for or worth demanding, but your claim is a bit of an exaggeration. Be careful, since it would be a lot more embarrassing if a homophobe points it out to you.

Aloofman, yes, it is true. Regardless of what any state has done, congress saw fit to defy the "full faith and credit" of the US Constitution, and pass the so-called "defense of marriage act," in which it SPECIFICALLY states that in the case of same-gender marriage, any state may make an exception to the full faith and credit clause, and choose not to honor the marriage laws of another state. And the federal government itself will not recognize a legal same-gender marriage. If I were to go to one of the "marrying states", get married, then try to file a 1040 in the status "married, filing jointly" the IRS would NOT process it as such. Be careful, it would be embarrassing to have an IRS agent point out to you the conflicts between laws on the books and our guaranteed rights in the Constitution.

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by faceking@Jul 8 2005, 02:09 AM
replete with jabs against those who live in teh South

[post=327518]Quoted post[/post]​

hey, if they don&#39;t want people to laugh at them, they shouldn&#39;t elect conservative politicians.

 

[Freddie53]

First to Juliana,

Juliana,

I hope I have your name spelled correctly. I am so sorry that you had a pastor who did not make you feel welcome in your church. Jesus said, "Come unto me all ye who are heavy laden and I will give you rest." Jesus didn&#39;t not exclude anyone. He made it a point to eat and mingle with every downtrodden part of the society of his day. I am convinced that had you heard him preach, you would have felt restful after meeting and hearing Jesus. To me when you read between the lines and look at the background for everything Jesus said a picture is formed and that is that loved everyone and everyone meant everyone. And that characteristics of love, honor, unselfishness, devotion, giving forgiveness, compassion, integrity, and all those attributes are what Jesus was looking for and strived to get his diciples to see. As for sins. He forgave them all. Wish my bank would do that for my loans. Jesus never condemned homosexuality. In fact, through the centuries some historians have hinted and wondered if in fact Jesus was gay. It is irrelevent

Juliana, I have no doubt that a marriage between a man and a woman is scared because it is the basis for family. The purpose of marriage was for protection of children first and protectoin of the wife second. In ancient times, women had almost no rights except through her husband.

From both a civil and religious historical prespective, there is no basis for anything but a man and a woman marriage because the woman produced and raised kids and ran the house and the hustband worked in the field by himself if he was poor and sometimes the wife had to work in the fields also. If he had some money then he might have slaves, servants or hirred hands. For all those who think the good old days when the wife stayed home and......Not me. Thank God my wife works in airconditiong where she uses her brain to work and make money. I certainly am thankful that she doesn&#39;t have to work at home pulling a plow.

Now history is fine. But.....Just because it is history is not enough of a reason to continue doing it like we always have done. Techonology changes, cultures change, religions change, in a word everything changes. We can&#39;t prevent change and when we try we end up bitter sore losers.

Julianna. God loves you. Jesus loves you. All God every wanted was to be in communion with his children. God welcomes everyone into his house, everyone. That pasor was just blowing smoke. I am sure he meant well and truly believed what he was saying. I believe he was wrong, terribably wrong.

So Juliana, let Jesus speak for himself.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Originally posted by Freddie53@Jul 8 2005, 11:15 AM
Juliana, I have no doubt that a marriage between a man and a woman is scared because it is the basis for family. The purpose of marriage was for protection of children first and protectoin of the wife second.

From both a civil and religious historical prespective, there is no basis for anything but a man and a woman marriage because the woman produced and raised kids and ran the house and the hustband worked in the field by himself if he was poor and sometimes the wife had to work in the fields also

Now history is fine. But.....Just because it is history is not enough of a reason to continue doing it like we always have done.

[post=327632]Quoted post[/post]​

Excellent, Freddie, thank you. This is almost exactly the kind of post I was hoping for. Now the next question is, if marriage is to primarily protect children... should the prospective couple be required to bear child(ren) before they can marry? Should a fertility test be required in order to get a marriage license? What should be the time limit on how long a married couple may remain childless, and still fit this "protection of the children" definition? Should the legal definition also include minimum and maximum numbers of children? But best of all, if you have no doubt that "a marriage between a man and a woman is sacred" is this the purview of the church, the government, or both?