Is there an argument against gay marriage that isn't faith based?

[PiCO]

PiCO....if a homosexual couple wanted to get legally married in a church, do you think the couple could force a church to host a wedding? I mean, if the couple wanted to get married in XYZ Church, and the church didn't believe in homosexual marriages, would the pastor be obligated to perform the ceremony? Or would it be discrimination if he didn't?

 

Any thoughts?

 

No- I think churches should be able to function within their own beliefs.

(I also think they should be subject to property taxes, just like everyone else.)

 

Back to marriage- in my view, it should be a religious ceremony just like the various naming ceremonies, coming of age ceremonies, etc- not legally binding in the secular world. Purely a religious ceremony.

[StephinAL]

I didn't read all 18 pages, but how about because it is bad for your health? It isn't healthy for you?

 

Research gathered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC, has found significantly higher rates of rectal gonorrhea, HIV/AIDS and all three strains of Hepatitis among homosexuals. Other studies have likewise linked homosexuality with increased rates of Human Papillomavirus (the leading cause of cervical cancer worldwide), and anal cancer. Although self-identified homosexuals for less than 5 percent of the American population, they are the carriers of over 50 percent of HIV/AIDS cases.

 

 

Risky behaviors – Campaigns to foster so-called "safe sex" among homosexuals have done nothing to reduce risky behavior. A 1997 CDC report found that among homosexuals who had unprotected anal intercourse and multiple sexual partners, 68 percent were entirely unaware of the HIV status of their partners.

 

Promiscuity – A large percentage of homosexual men have hundreds of sexual partners throughout their lifetime. According to a profile of 2,583 homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, only 2.7 reported having had sexual relations with only one partner, compared to the largest percentage that claimed to have had between 101 and 500 partners over their lifetime. Compare that to the markedly lower promiscuity rates among married heterosexual couples. According to the latest statistics from the CDC, 92 percent of married males and 93 percent of married females reported having had only one sexual partner over the previous twelve months (presumably their spouses).

 

 

Domestic abuse – A survey conducted by the Journal of Social Service Research found that more than half of lesbian respondents reported having been abused by a female partner or lover. Conversely, research has found that married heterosexual women experience the lowest rates of domestic abuse compared to other types of relationships.

 

Life span – A 1997 study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology found that even under "the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban center are now experiencing a similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871." The same study estimated that homosexual behavior reduces the lifespan of males by eight to 20 years. Comparatively, the CDC has found that male and female smokers lose an average of 13.2 to 14.5 years of life, respectively.

Article about their life expectancy:

 

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/apr/07040309.html

 

More info about why it is bad for your health:

 

http://www.redcounty.com/sarasota/2008/12/homosexuality-causing-health-c/

 

Article about more mental health problems:

 

http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html

 

The way I see it, is God doesn't withhold things or forbid things unless it is for our own good. He outlined things we should eat (whole 'nother box to open there, I know) because he knew what was good for us. People can not ignore the health hazzards of that lifestyle just because they want to justify their lifestyle. We wouldn't promote smoking, alchoholism and eating Big Macs everyday, and we shouldn't promote a lifestyle plagued with mental and physical health problems either.

 

I think it is just weird. If I saw two female (or male) dogs trying to mate, I would think something is wrong with them. Sorry, if that offends, but I believe it goes against nature.

 

Both of the gay guys that live next door to us were sexually abused as children, one horribly so.

That has been my experience also. We have two homosexual family members and both suffered abuse as a child. Edited August 7, 2009 by StephinAL

[KarenNC]

No- I think churches should be able to function within their own beliefs.

 

I think it's important for this conversation to point out that *they already do*. They are *already* free to either provide or deny religious services to anyone that they so choose, regardless of legal standing. I see no reason to believe that changing the legal status of same sex marriage would change this. I am not aware of any legal precedents for any religious organization being required to provide specifically religious services against their will.

 

Back to marriage- in my view, it should be a religious ceremony just like the various naming ceremonies, coming of age ceremonies, etc- not legally binding in the secular world. Purely a religious ceremony.

 

Sounds reasonable to me.:)

[patchfire]

Back to marriage- in my view, it should be a religious ceremony just like the various naming ceremonies, coming of age ceremonies, etc- not legally binding in the secular world. Purely a religious ceremony.

 

:iagree:

 

I firmly feel that most of the difficulty is that our society has made a mish-mash of a legal institution and a religious one, and that we need to separate the two for *everyone*.

[justamouse]

Polygamists might not see it as differently as you do. Don't think they won't see gay marriage as an open door. They will fight for their "rights".

 

I don't draw the line at this, either. As long as they are sane consenting adults, I really don't care what they chose to do. Their love life and their household arrangement doesn't affect me. I know a few poly relationships that are just agreements between three people grown up people. I am not their judge. It is just my job to love them.

 

Now, after being married to my Dh for 15 years, with 7 kids, I really wish we never got married in the church. I don't think it added one whit of ceremony, or faith. Let's face it, marriage is made in the years and the conflicts. I almost laugh when I see these rose colored glasses affianced thinking that their *Marriage* is going to take place on *one* day. Marriage takes place every day you wake up and choose to be with that person next to you for another day, through thick and thin. I could have gotten married in a rest stop of a gas station had I pledged myself and my heart to my Dh, and I don't think God would take my commitment any less seriously. If I were to do it over I would say my vows with my husband to him alone and go from there. Go down to the courthouse and sign the papers. Done. Denying anyone else the right to do the same is prejudice.

 

Gay marriage is a civil rights issue, not a religious one.

 

And I think Christian gays should be given a religious ceremony if they want. We are all born in a state of sin, and one sin is not greater than the other. If they confess Christ then they are His children and they should be allowed a Christian ceremony. To take the argument of "you should repent and turn away or you haven't REALLY..." Again, I am not their judge, and I woke up with the same weaknesses I went to bed with and God isn't kicking me out of the kingdom. Judging others is just as much as sin as anything. So before you ask a person to stop being gay, you should really stop judging them.

 

Which brings us back to the blood of Christ and how God sees us as perfect when we accept him. And so we can walk in that love, and that assurance that there is NOTHING that can separate us from the love of Christ. Not our race, not our sexuality. Our judgment or proclivity to gossip. Or our gluttony. Nothing. Christ is all inclusive, we just have to accept that he died on the cross and is the Messiah.

Edited August 7, 2009 by justamouse

[Mommy22alyns]

I didn't read all 18 pages, but how about because it is bad for your health? It isn't healthy for you?

 

 

 

This is just highly insulting. Maybe the risky behavior is because there is no safe, legal outlet for them to be united forever? Because they've been shunned, teased, dragged around and humiliated, rejected by their families and vilified by churches (purported havens of love)? I just find it repulsive to start talking about risks of specific homosexual behavior - heteros do plenty of vile and unnatural things too - you wanna start outlawing fraternity hazing, football tailgating, and everything but missionary s*x? Not. Our. Business.

 

You could also work on the promiscuity bit - how about digging up the voting records of the last, say, ten politicians exposed for cheating on their wives. My bet is 100% of them are against gay marriage and want to make marriage defined as "one man, one woman." Very nice, considering they don't want to be under those restrictions themselves. :glare:

 

 

I don't "get" attraction to other women, but I'm not gay. That's not a good enough reason.

 

I don't care if polygamists want to have rights - if everyone in the relationship is an adult and knows what's going on, how does it affect MY house? It doesn't. Incest and bestiality don't have legs to stand on as they do not involve all consenting adults. That's the key - consenting adults.

 

Mental problems? So nobody with depression should get married? Have kids? Just wait until we start requiring mental health screens before people can get pregnant. That is a highly disturbing development in society, people.

[Joanne]

Now, after being married to my Dh for 15 years, with 7 kids, I really wish we never got married in the church. I don't think it added one whit of ceremony, or faith. Let's face it, marriage is made in the years and the conflicts. I almost laugh when I see these rose colored glasses affianced thinking that their *Marriage* is going to take place on *one* day. Marriage takes place every day you wake up and choose to be with that person next to you for another day, through thick and thin. I could have gotten married in a rest stop of a gas station had I pledged myself and my heart to my Dh, and I don't think God would take my commitment any less seriously. If I were to do it over I would say my vows with my husband to him alone and go from there. Go down to the courthouse and sign the papers. Done. Denying anyone else the right to do the same is prejudice.

 

My sister (married 25+ years) has a side business as an event planner. She told her clients (most of whom were too giggy and caught up in the hoopla to hear) "Spend more time on your marriage than you do planning your wedding".

 

While I don't recommend having "another" marriage to understand, I can say that my second *wedding* was tangent to the RELATIONSHIP it was legally sealing.

[pqr]

The breakdown thing may still simply be a perception.

 

Your statistic only speaks to out-of-wedlock childbirths. I assume "breakdown" would entail something more then that. Huge numbers of dysfunctional families, through-the-roof crime statistics, crumbling infastructure, maybe a plague or two. Surely just an increase in out of wedlocks births can't constitute a whole societal breakdown on it's own.

 

That's rather like saying a cough constitutes a case of pneumonia.

 

 

I was giving one of a score of symptoms. By the way we also have "Huge numbers of dysfunctional families, through-the-roof crime statistics, crumbling infastructure, maybe a plague or two"

[Joanne]

Conversely, research has found that married heterosexual women experience the lowest rates of domestic abuse compared to other types of relationships.

 

Compared to what "other relationships"? I find this statement suspect.

[pqr]

Compared to what "other relationships"? I find this statement suspect.

 

 

I would suspect that it is compared to "shacking up" and/or moving from boyfriend to boyfriend.

[StephinAL]

This is just highly insulting.

Sorry, I didn't create the statistics.

 

The OP asked for reasons besides Faith based and I think those are legitimate reasons to consider.

 

Because they've been shunned, teased, dragged around and humiliated, rejected by their families and vilified by churches (purported havens of love).

I don't know anyone in my church who would do that. Just because they don't agree with their lifestyle doesn't mean they don't love them. I find it offensive that people label Christians as hate filled bigots because we disagree with their lifestyle. Where is the tolerance that homosexuals are always asking for?

 

Gay marriage is a civil rights issue, not a religious one.

 

I think that is an insult to all blacks who have been told to sit at the back of a bus, forbidden to drink from certain water fountains or use certain bathrooms, attend certain schools, pools, the list could go on forever. If people think gay marriage should be permitted, then fine, just don't call it a civil right. People can and have chosen to leave the gay lifestyle, but I don't know any black people who can wake up and say "I will not be black anymore".

 

That's the key - consenting adults.

No, that is not the key. The institution of marriage could be redefined in many ways with that reasoning. A grown mother and son, three adults, siblings, etc.

[Joanne]

People can and have chosen to leave the gay lifestyle, but I don't know any black people who can wake up and say "I will not be black anymore".

 

The content of your reply demonstrates that there is no point in discussing the issue further because we come from completely opposing paradigms on this one.

 

I did want to point out, however, that while people can and do abstain from sexual homosexual behavior, they can not decide not to be *gay* anymore.

 

Just as I could stop having sex with my husband, I still can not shed my heterosexuality. I could even has sex with a woman and I'd still be heterosexual.

[Haiku]

As a woman - I feel like there are emotional and physical (and maybe something else) things that I can only get from a man... I don't know quite the best way to explain what I mean. I just feel like I wouldn't feel as fulfilled in various parts of my life if I was just with another woman... That's my opinion though.

 

 

And that's exactly why you are straight. Were you a lesbian, you would feel exactly the same way about getting what you need and want from a woman.

 

Tara

[Haiku]

It does matter because the traditional family is a building block of society, even if there are no children. A husband and wife make up that building block.

 

Proponents of homosexual marriage are attempting social engineering. They attempt to make society accept something that many find objectionable, they are attempting to redefine a term (marriage) that has lasted for thousands of years in the interests of a small minority.

Where do we stop? If homosexual marriage is accepted how about polygamy, incestuous relationships?

 

Why are we even going down this path? What benefit is there? If homosexuals wish a relationship they are free to have one, but do not attempt to re-engineer society and redefine a term and a system that has served so well.

 

Not so long ago, everything you said would have applied to my kids ... if they wanted to marry a white person.

 

Tara

[Guest Cindie2dds]

Not so long ago, everything you said would have applied to my kids ... if they wanted to marry a white person.

 

Tara

 

Very powerful and true, thank you.

[pqr]

Originally Posted by pqr

It does matter because the traditional family is a building block of society, even if there are no children. A husband and wife make up that building block.

 

Proponents of homosexual marriage are attempting social engineering. They attempt to make society accept something that many find objectionable, they are attempting to redefine a term (marriage) that has lasted for thousands of years in the interests of a small minority.

 

Where do we stop? If homosexual marriage is accepted how about polygamy, incestuous relationships?

 

Why are we even going down this path? What benefit is there? If homosexuals wish a relationship they are free to have one, but do not attempt to re-engineer society and redefine a term and a system that has served so well.

 

Not so long ago, everything you said would have applied to my kids ... if they wanted to marry a white person.

 

Tara

 

 

That is a weak argument as it is simply not what I stated. There have been recognized interracial marriages for millenia. Look at Rome and Greece, look at the Arab World.

 

Do you honestly wish to compare a man and a woman of different races marrying each other and two men???

 

As I said a weak and distorted argument that simply does not hold water as your historical basis is wrong.

 

If anything some of the people who opposed interracial marriage did so because they COULD have children.

Edited August 7, 2009 by pqr

[Joanne]

Do you honestly wish to compare a man and a woman of different races marrying each other and two men???

 

The comparison isn't gay/race/ethnicity.

 

The comparison is culture and society's response to gay/race/ethnicity.

[PiCO]

I am not aware of any legal precedents for any religious organization being required to provide specifically religious services against their will.

 

Me either. Another poster asked if I thought churches should be required to perform gay marriages, and I said no. (Just to be clear.)

[Laura Corin]

 

i agree that there's plenty of examples of gay behavior in nature. But the fact that we find examples of it still doesn't negate that the male/female role is way, Way, WAY more predominant.

 

I was only illustrating that gay behaviour is natural (as it had been suggested that it wasn't). I never said that it was predominant or (in the statistical sense) normal. I am also happy for you to decide for yourself whether you like it or not.

 

Laura

[Desert Rat]

I've asked.

[Laura Corin]

To me it is a family issue...gay couples cannot expect to have a married life and have it be "normal" like a man and woman. It just won't work. Even if it were legal it will never be the same. Because of that there will always be tension between them. It is doomed from the start.

 

Laura

[Laura Corin]

Research gathered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC, has found significantly higher rates of rectal gonorrhea, HIV/AIDS and all three strains of Hepatitis among homosexuals. Other studies have likewise linked homosexuality with increased rates of Human Papillomavirus (the leading cause of cervical cancer worldwide), and anal cancer. Although self-identified homosexuals for less than 5 percent of the American population, they are the carriers of over 50 percent of HIV/AIDS cases.

 

 

Most of the conditions you mention are infectious and better confined to a couple, neither of whom, if we are talking about gay men, will have a cervix.

 

Laura

[Haiku]

 

Do you honestly wish to compare a man and a woman of different races marrying each other and two men???

 

 

 

My comparison is between society saying "Black and white people shouldn't get married because we don't like it" and society saying "Gay people shouldn't get married because we don't like it." Both things have/are happening in America today. (I realize you live elsewhere.)

 

Tara

[Laura Corin]

I was giving one of a score of symptoms. By the way we also have "Huge numbers of dysfunctional families, through-the-roof crime statistics, crumbling infastructure, maybe a plague or two"

 

But I just can't make the connection.

 

Seriously: society has changed, but whether the relationship between less stable marriages and crumbling infrastructure (?) is causal or simply a correlation is simply unknowable.

 

Laura

[pqr]

But I just can't make the connection.

 

Seriously: society has changed, but whether the relationship between less stable marriages and crumbling infrastructure (?) is causal or simply a correlation is simply unknowable.

 

Laura

 

I would hope that it is somewhat self evident that stable marriages generally increase the chances of children growing into responsible adults and that responsible adults are more likely to be valuable members of society who produce rather than take.

Conversely crumbling marriages, children born out of wedlock, mothers who shack up all are more likely to produce adults who are a drain on society. With the additional burden of people who are a drain on society there is less funding for infrastructure, education, etc.

I would therefore argue causal.

[pqr]

My comparison is between society saying "Black and white people shouldn't get married because we don't like it" and society saying "Gay people shouldn't get married because we don't like it." Both things have/are happening in America today. (I realize you live elsewhere.)

 

Tara

 

...but it is simply an incorrect observation. Interracial marriage has been a factor in world society for millennia, some do not like it but nevertheless it is widespread. One cannot make the same argument for homosexual marriages.

 

Even in some of what many would deem the most intolerant societies in the world (Islamic societies) there is widespread acceptance of interracial marriages. In Japan which has a reputation for xenophobia there are still many interracial marriages.

 

I ask you where can you point to a long tradition of homosexual marriage.

 

Many who oppose it do not do simply because they dislike it, they do so because they believe it is a detriment to society and serves no positive purpose. They believe that it damages and twists the understanding of an institution that has served well and that this is done in the name of giving a tiny minority SPECIAL rights.

Edited August 7, 2009 by pqr

[StephinAL]

we come from completely opposing paradigms on this one.

Not necessarily. I believe people can be born with certain tendancies that given the right (or wrong) set of circumstances would propel them into that lifestyle. So in essence, I do believe that some people are born that way.

Just as I believe we were all born liars, adulteres, murderers, theives and basically...sinners. We all have sins that so easily beset us and have to make the choice whether or not we continue to live in that sin. The difference is, once we confess and receive forgiveness, that bond of sin is broken. It may always tempt us, but we are no longer bound. I think drug addicts, even when clean, will always be tempted and continue to have to make that choice to abstain. I think it will always cross the mind of a shoplifter to steal, but they have to make a choice not to. An angry person may have to count to 10 everytime they are provoked. Yes, it goes against our fleshy nature to abstain from sin, but it is a decision we all have to make (or not).

[Laura Corin]

I would hope that it is somewhat self evident that stable marriages generally increase the chances of children growing into responsible adults and that responsible adults are more likely to be valuable members of society who produce rather than take.

 

I would contend that offering to gay people, many of whom have children of their own, the opportunity to make a marriage commitment in the face of society, must be to the good.

 

Laura (product of periods spent growing up with two married people, two people of opposite sex not married to each other, and two people of the same sex not married to each other)

Edited August 7, 2009 by Laura Corin

[Melinda in VT]

Not necessarily. I believe people can be born with certain tendancies that given the right (or wrong) set of circumstances would propel them into that lifestyle. So in essence, I do believe that some people are born that way.

Just as I believe we were all born liars, adulteres, murderers, theives and basically...sinners. We all have sins that so easily beset us and have to make the choice whether or not we continue to live in that sin. The difference is, once we confess and receive forgiveness, that bond of sin is broken. It may always tempt us, but we are no longer bound. I think drug addicts, even when clean, will always be tempted and continue to have to make that choice to abstain. I think it will always cross the mind of a shoplifter to steal, but they have to make a choice not to. An angry person may have to count to 10 everytime they are provoked. Yes, it goes against our fleshy nature to abstain from sin, but it is a decision we all have to make (or not).

 

This makes it a religious argument, right?

[pqr]

I would hope that it is somewhat self evident that stable marriages generally increase the chances of children growing into responsible adults and that responsible adults are more likely to be valuable members of society who produce rather than take.

 

I would contend that offering to gay people, many of whom have children of their own, the opportunity to make a marriage commitment in the face of society, must be to the good.

 

Laura

 

There we differ because by allowing "homosexual marriage" we change the meaning of marriage, we twist it and we attack that very building block of society that is so needed.

 

I ask you if you would allow homosexuals to marry would you allow brother and sister, mother and son, father and daughter. I would hope the answer would be No. This is because just as two men claiming the right to marry, none of the aforementioned meet the basic criteria for marriage.

 

Further you would have them do this "in the face of society" and by doing so cause rifts in that society. There are many who will never accept this, why are we forcing a schism?

[StephinAL]

This makes it a religious argument, right?

Yes that was. But I was agreeing that they are born that way. My opinion was reached through biblical teaching though.

 

However, I don't believe it justifies their lifestyle by agreeing that they were born that way (based on relegion or not). I heard that people who commit adultery commonly have a certain genetic makeup. Does that mean they were born to cheat? Afterall, they are two consenting adults who may love each other.

[stripe]

Pqr - I'd be interested to know your thoughts about Ancient Greece. They were known for their fascination with young men. As far as I know, those homosexual activities were for fun, while marriage to women was needed for procreation purposes. I guess that's why marriage wasn't the point, but the relationships itself were fine. Not exactly my definition of appropriate behavior, but there you are.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

Pqr - I'd be interested to know your thoughts about Ancient Greece. They were known for their fascination with young men. As far as I know, those homosexual activities were for fun, while marriage to women was needed for procreation purposes. I guess that's why marriage wasn't the point, but the relationships itself were fine. Not exactly my definition of appropriate behavior, but there you are.

 

 

So are you saying that sexual relations are only acceptable within marriage, whether or not that is a hetero- or homo- sexual marriage?

[pqr]

Pqr - I'd be interested to know your thoughts about Ancient Greece. They were known for their fascination with young men. As far as I know, those homosexual activities were for fun, while marriage to women was needed for procreation purposes. I guess that's why marriage wasn't the point, but the relationships itself were fine. Not exactly my definition of appropriate behavior, but there you are.

 

 

It rather brings to mind the old joke where the Greek and Italian were debating the advances from their respective civilizations. The Greek claimed that the Greek Empire invented s*x and the Italians replied that this was true but that the Roman Empire invented s*x with women.

 

Anyway regardless of the odd proclivities of the ancient Greeks they still recognized the need for a family composed of a man and a woman as the building block of society. If anything their behavior makes the case for not allowing homosexuals to marry.

[theresatwist]

It rather brings to mind the old joke where the Greek and Italian were debating the advances from their respective civilizations. The Greek claimed that the Greek Empire invented s*x and the Italians replied that this was true but that the Roman Empire invented s*x with women.

 

Anyway regardless of the odd proclivities of the ancient Greeks they still recognized the need for a family composed of a man and a woman as the building block of society. If anything their behavior makes the case for not allowing homosexuals to marry.

 

There are countless homosexual couples already living together, many of whom have been doing so for decades. They act like a married couple in innumerable ways. Legalizing gay marriage is simply a public recognition of their commitment to each other. Doing so does not open the door to people demanding the right to marry their brothers or mothers. As I said earlier, we already have a legal relationship with our family members. There is no reason why we need a second.

 

I think homosexuals would tell you that they can have sex just fine, thank you very much. I would argue that the reason that family units (through marriage) make society more stable is because a spouse gives you an additional source of support (emotional, mental, and physical). I don't think it matters if that support comes from somebody of the same sex or somebody of a different sex. No, they can't reproduce, but they can raise children. A child raised in a stable, loving homosexual home is a blessed child. Too few children are raised in stable, loving homes.

 

The ancient Greeks and Romans also had slaves. We have made so many societal advances since that time. Women have only had the right to vote for what in historical terms is a very short period of time. Just because something has been the norm for most of time doesn't make it right. We need to consider these questions on a case to case basis.

 

People are born homosexual. Homosexuality is not contagious. I lived with someone homosexual most of my life, and had (and continue to have) a very close relationship, and I couldn't be more straight.

 

Love is love. I don't believe there's a hierarchy. Why should our laws pretend that there is?

[theresatwist]

War is fueled by hatred, envy, etc. ---negative feelings. Those negative feelings lead to instability in society, whether in the home or in the battlefield. Why should love be any different? It doesn't matter who you love. Where love is present we find stability and peace.

 

As they say: "What's so funny 'bout peace, love, and understanding?"

[Sara R]

If this it the case, wouldn't you want to strengthen gay monogamy through marriage?

 

As discussed earlier in this thread, the studies and articles I've read (linked and quoted above) assert that most gay men don't see sexual exclusivity as an essential part of a committed relationship/marriage. The differences in numbers of sexual partners between male homosexuals and heterosexuals was huge; I believe the average number of partners for male homosexuals is 100-500, many of those strangers. The numbers just aren't comparable; statistically, it's a different kind of relationship. If what I understand is correct, on a mass scale (with exceptions for some individuals and relationships), male homosexuals go into marriage without the expectation of sexual exclusivity.

[Marylou]

Just because something has been the norm for most of time doesn't make it right.

 

Exactly!!!!!!! I wish my fellow Christians would throw out the "it's worked like this just fine for years" We are not PRAGMATISTS hermanos!

 

But it is interesting that you use the word "right". Now who decides what right is? THAT is why there is no secular argument that makes the case against homosexual "marriage".

[Joanne]

Anyway regardless of the odd proclivities of the ancient Greeks they still recognized the need for a family composed of a man and a woman as the building block of society. If anything their behavior makes the case for not allowing homosexuals to marry.

 

Point of clarification and distinction.

 

IMO, "marriage" transcends paper. There are relationships that are true marriages that never signed a license and there are people who have their marriage license neatly filed away for decades that do not have a marriage.

 

Therefore, homosexuals are not "not allowed" to marry.

 

What many would like, however, are the legal (and cultural) benefits offered heterosexuals.

[Haiku]

Interracial marriage has been a factor in world society for millennia, some do not like it but nevertheless it is widespread. One cannot make the same argument for homosexual marriages.

 

No, but there are many things that were the way they were for eons that we have now realized are wrong. Slavery would be the most obvious example. I don't buy the idea that just because something has been the way it is for a longlonglonglong time, and some people want it to stay that way, means that we can't and shouldn't change it.

 

Tara

[theresatwist]

With convictions like that I am surprised you bother with discussion boards.

 

Do you argue with the facts:

 

that this generates an unnecessary societal schism,

that it twists the definition of a word and a cultural norm,

that it opens the door to other forms of "marriage,"

that it has huge economic and legal implications

 

None of these make a case?

 

1) Unnecessary societal schism? No. What seems unnecessary to you, may seem necessary to others. A majority of Americans now support civil unions. Does a majority supporting something make it right? No, not necessarily. But you could argue that it's the dissenters who are now causing the schism, not the supporters of civil unions.

2) Twists the word and cultural norm? You seem to see cultural norms as being static. I see them as being dynamic. Being too attached to norms strikes me as dangerous. There are plenty of old cultural norms out there that we've since departed from that I bet you wouldn't want back.

3) Opens the door to other kinds of marriage? I think I've addressed this question in about 15 different posts. I haven't heard any real rebuttals.

4) Has huge economic and legal implications? Yup. I believe they would be for the better.

[Erica in PA]

No, but there are many things that were the way they were for eons that we have now realized are wrong. Slavery would be the most obvious example. I don't buy the idea that just because something has been the way it is for a longlonglonglong time, and some people want it to stay that way, means that we can't and shouldn't change it.

 

Tara

 

If something has been a certain way for a long time, and if it has had a strongly positive effect on society (as marriage undeniably has), then there should be a compelling reason to change it, and careful consideration should be given to the possible ramifications of doing so. In this thread, not to mention the larger discussion in our society, I have not heard a compelling reason that convinces me that is in the best interest of society to change marriage to include same sex couples. Most of the "discussion" of the past few years in the US hasn't even touched on the few things we have discussed here. I haven't heard any real consideration of the pros and cons publically-- marriage has simplly been declared "a right"-- and as such, there can be no objection to marriage for anyone who wants it. Very bad way to make changes to such a long-standing and important institution as marriage, imo.

[Peek a Boo]

[/b]

Peek a Boo: I'm sure you have other reasons too, however I'm not sure you want to use predominance as an argument. Only about 10% of the population are left-handed. It is estimated that a similar percentage of the population is gay.

 

These other examples such as cannibalism I find week as well. How is cannibalism analogous to two people who love each other deeply and want their committed relationship recognized by society?

 

that was part of my point ;)

the fact that it is found in nature is a poor, week argument for making the legal allowance.

 

Since the post in question mentioned predominance of sexual activity in nature ["it's not natural"], the male-female role in mammals is overwhelming and actually makes a pretty good secular case for [continuing to support] a male-female legal union.

 

Now if we're talking about whether to legislate jobs that are done by left-handed or right-handed folk, then predominance of other issues [like handedness] will come into play.;)

[pqr]

No, but there are many things that were the way they were for eons that we have now realized are wrong. Slavery would be the most obvious example. I don't buy the idea that just because something has been the way it is for a longlonglonglong time, and some people want it to stay that way, means that we can't and shouldn't change it.

 

Tara

 

 

There are also "many things that were the way they were for eons that" are right. Marriage and the traditional family would be an obvious example. If you are agruing for tearing the fabric of society and twisting the meaning of long established terms it is incumbent on you to show why. As of yet I have seen no compelling argument.

[theresatwist]

As discussed earlier in this thread, the studies and articles I've read (linked and quoted above) assert that most gay men don't see sexual exclusivity as an essential part of a committed relationship/marriage. The differences in numbers of sexual partners between male homosexuals and heterosexuals was huge; I believe the average number of partners for male homosexuals is 100-500, many of those strangers. The numbers just aren't comparable; statistically, it's a different kind of relationship. If what I understand is correct, on a mass scale (with exceptions for some individuals and relationships), male homosexuals go into marriage without the expectation of sexual exclusivity.

 

How many heterosexual marriages suffer from adultery? Plenty of heterosexuals engage in casual sexual relationships. I don't think the ability to be loyal to someone is the monopoly of heterosexuals.

[Marylou]

With convictions like that I am surprised you bother with discussion boards.

 

Do you argue with the facts:

 

that this generates an unnecessary societal schism,

that it twists the definition of a word and a cultural norm,

that it opens the door to other forms of "marriage,"

that it has huge economic and legal implications

 

None of these make a case?

 

Ha ha! I wonder sometimes, too.

 

No, I do not argue with the facts, but those are not, and never will be the ULTIMATE reason homosexual "marriage" is wrong. If we can't use the "G" word, we just talk in circles--"statistics say, my BIL yada, yada, I once had a friend who . . . and on and on and on. Those reasons do not mean a hill of beans if a person thinks she is the ultimate authority in her life. And if I were desiring to behave in a homosexual manner I don't think I would care about all that either. I AM NOT saying I don't like to learn about implications, I do. But just because something has been done one way for years doesn't mean it is right. Actions are right or wrong for much more weightier reasons (which many folks want to pretend don't exist) And I am NOT talking about the OP--I think her OP was excellent.

[theresatwist]

that was part of my point ;)

the fact that it is found in nature is a poor, week argument for making the legal allowance.

 

Since the post in question mentioned predominance of sexual activity in nature ["it's not natural"], the male-female role in mammals is overwhelming and actually makes a pretty good secular case for [continuing to support] a male-female legal union.

 

Now if we're talking about whether to legislate jobs that are done by left-handed or right-handed folk, then predominance of other issues [like handedness] will come into play.;)

 

I'm not sure I understand your argument. If there are a lot of people who are one way then we have a good reason for granting them certain rights. But forget about the minority they are obviously aberrations? You seem to be assuming that predominance equals correctness.

[theresatwist]

There are also "many things that were the way they were for eons that" are right. Marriage and the traditional family would be an obvious example. If you are agruing for tearing the fabric of society and twisting the meaning of long established terms it is incumbent on you to show why. As of yet I have seen no compelling argument.

 

The fact that this is such a hotly debated issue in the US and on these message boards I think suggests pretty darn strongly that traditional marriage is not an obvious example.

[pqr]

1) Unnecessary societal schism? No. What seems unnecessary to you, may seem necessary to others. A majority of Americans now support civil unions. Does a majority supporting something make it right? No, not necessarily. But you could argue that it's the dissenters who are now causing the schism, not the supporters of civil unions.

2) Twists the word and cultural norm? You seem to see cultural norms as being static. I see them as being dynamic. Being too attached to norms strikes me as dangerous. There are plenty of old cultural norms out there that we've since departed from that I bet you wouldn't want back.

3) Opens the door to other kinds of marriage? I think I've addressed this question in about 15 different posts. I haven't heard any real rebuttals.

4) Has huge economic and legal implications? Yup. I believe they would be for the better.

 

 

1.Switch and bait....The topic is MARRIAGE and most Americans even in California oppose this.

2.Nevertheless it is still twisting a definition.

3. You have not adequately addressed this issue. In a point form please explain by what basis you would twist the definition of marriage to include two men or two women and not allow three men, six women, a mother and son, a grandfather and granddaughter. In each case they could argue consenting adults, love, meaningful relationship blah blah blah (none of which I accept by the way)

4. Legal implications would tear churches apart (as we currently see in the Episcopal Church) impose additional costs on companies, and many other things and this is for the better? Wow!

[Peek a Boo]

Love is love. I don't believe there's a hierarchy. Why should our laws pretend that there is?

 

Because our laws do not and cannot regulate love.

Our laws merely regulate the legal ramifications and contracts/actions between people, whether they love each other or not.