How to counter the top 4 arguments against gay marriage. (1 Viewer)

[The Pi Pirate]

OK, this issue has probably been beaten to death but...
My feeling is that there are two kinds of marriage - marriage as seen by the state, two people living together, presumably supporting each other, and therefore deserving of tax breaks/hospital visitation/etc. The second is marriage as seen by the individual, the religious/philosophical/emotional side. Now, you can't do anything about that second side. My friends Alfred and Bob (names changed) are going to get married in their UU church whether you like it or not.

Now, without further ado, how to counter the top 4 arguments (that i've encountered) against gay marriage:

1) Marriage is between one man and one woman
Well, says who? Who gets to define it? Can you come up with a good reason why there should NOT be a marriage between a man and a man?

2) What about the children? You can't raise children in an gay environment! (This applies more to gay adoption)

http://www.bidstrup.com/parenbib.htm
ALL those studies showing that children who grow up in a gay household are not much different.

3) Threaten the institution of marriage
... By allowing people to marry? Will Alfred and Bob getting married make Cindy and Dagwood down the street get a divorce magically?

4) The "slippery slope" argument
Why don't all the dire predictions sure to follow appear in countries where gay marriage exists already?

I paraphrased some of this from elsewhere.

 

[Schweddy]

1) Marriage is between one man and one woman
Well, says who? Who gets to define it?

The state where one wishes to marry. It is not a right, it is a priviledge.

 

[Captain America]

The state where one wishes to marry. It is not a right, it is a priviledge.

That's debatable. :rofl Although, with my current wife, I can agree it's a priviledge. (In case she happens to read this.:shock: )

So. Who does own marriage? The gov't? The church? Humanity? The state? The county? You?

I truly don't see it as neither a right or a privelege. I look at it more like the air. It's just there. It belongs to everybody. Breath it if you want to. Don't breath it if you don't. I don't own it. It's not mine so who am I to tell you not to breath it? It's not his either, no matter what he says, so you'd be a fool for letting him stop you from partaking.

But that's just me.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Since when we're talking about "gay marriage" we're really talking about "State recognition of gay marriage", I think that the State is completely justified in setting the terms and conditions under which it will recognize a marriage, just as it is justified in setting the terms under which it will allow one to be dissolved.

I think it would be morally consistent and socially advantageous to allow committed homosexual couples to have State-recognized marriages, especially since homosexual couples have begun openly raising children.

I don't care about religious arguments against it, because churches are free to set their own standards for which relationships they will or will not recognize-- and some churches have already been performing wedding ceremonies for homosexuals for years.

As far as "the slippery slope"... that's a useless objection. All slopes are slippery, and all laws we have now are subject to change in the future; digging in our heels now won't change whether or not the laws change ten years from now.

 

[FallingPianos]

OK, this issue has probably been beaten to death but...
My feeling is that there are two kinds of marriage - marriage as seen by the state, two people living together, presumably supporting each other, and therefore deserving of tax breaks/hospital visitation/etc. The second is marriage as seen by the individual, the religious/philosophical/emotional side. Now, you can't do anything about that second side. My friends Alfred and Bob (names changed) are going to get married in their UU church whether you like it or not.

Now, without further ado, how to counter the top 4 arguments (that i've encountered) against gay marriage:

1) Marriage is between one man and one woman
Well, says who? Who gets to define it? Can you come up with a good reason why there should NOT be a marriage between a man and a man?

2) What about the children? You can't raise children in an gay environment! (This applies more to gay adoption)

http://www.bidstrup.com/parenbib.htm
ALL those studies showing that children who grow up in a gay household are not much different.

3) Threaten the institution of marriage
... By allowing people to marry? Will Alfred and Bob getting married make Cindy and Dagwood down the street get a divorce magically?

4) The "slippery slope" argument
Why don't all the dire predictions sure to follow appear in countries where gay marriage exists already?

I paraphrased some of this from elsewhere.

I posted the following in the "same sex 'marriage'" thread:

I certainly don't agree with the arguments against same-sex marriage, but I could summarise a few of them:

1. "marriage is between a man and a woman by definition, and you cant change the definition of marriage"

my response is "says who?" and "why not?"

arguing over semantics is pretty pointless.

2. "gays do have the same legal rights. a gay man legally can marry a woman just like a straight man can."

thats true, but not relevant sinse we're not fighting for gays to have the right to marry people of the opposite sex. we're fighting for the legal right for gays (and technically for straights as well) to be able to marry people of the same sex

3. "homosexuality is a sin, and there should be no law that endorses it."

who says its a sin?

"God does"

I don't care what your God says.

4. "why should I have to pay for something that I think is immoral through government benifits?"

because it's inherent in any sort of democratic government that sometimes individuals will disagree with either the majority of the populace, or the majority of their representatives. no one gets tax cuts because they oppose something the government is doing



anyway, those are the main arguments I see, though im sure there must be others. my own opinion, is that the best solution is to get the government out of marriage entirely. eliminate monetary benifits to married couples, and allow the legal benifits to be done through private contract.

some people say that gay marriage degrades the inherently religious institution of marriage. I say that if marriage is a religious institution, then government involvement degrades it.

 

[The Pi Pirate]

@vague:
1) well, the state is really a representitive of the people... so in the end, are you saying its the people who should decide on gay marriage?

2) driving is a privledge, not a right. but we wouldn't have a state law banning gays from driving.

@star:
Hmm.. I didn't see that. I confess I find it difficult to go into large threads... especially as they are often waaay off topic.

@korimyr:
The only thing is, by only recognizing straight marriages, the state is in effect giving you money for being straight... which seems inherintly unfair to me. Thus they are morally obligated (imo) to recognize both or neither, unless there is some other justification for not recognizing a gay marriage.

 

[GarzaUK]

The state where one wishes to marry. It is not a right, it is a priviledge.

But why should straight people have that priviledge?? What have we done different to deserve marriage? Just because we're straight?

 

[SixStringHero]

"My friends Alfred and Bob (names changed) are going to get married in their UU church whether you like it or not."

^

What is UU?

 

[jallman]

"My friends Alfred and Bob (names changed) are going to get married in their UU church whether you like it or not."

^

What is UU?

Uniterian Universalist...church for atheists who havent broken the habit of going to church. :mrgreen:

 

[shuamort]

The state where one wishes to marry. It is not a right, it is a priviledge.

Uh-oh. That's a can of worms there. Well, let's start off with the easy part first.

Loving V Virginia.

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

It looks like marriage is being defined as a right and not as a privilege.

But, let's just call it a privilege for sake of argument.

Is there a legal distinction between rights and privileges?

No, not per Goldberg v. Kelly, Furman v Georgia, Graham v Richardson and Rutan vs Republican Party.

Goldberg v Kelly in 1970 finally defined it:

Before Goldberg v. Kelly, particularly during the era of McCarthyism and disloyalty accusations, these distinct questions were conflated and answered as one, and the answer was fairly clear and uncluttered. There was liberty or property requiring a full adversary hearing whenever the individual interest amounted to a right under traditional common law understandings of liberty or property. Other individual interests were mere privileges insufficient to trigger due process safeguards.

The rights-privilege doctrine waned in the 1960’s and received its official burial in Goldberg v. Kelly, which held that welfare benefits constituted property warranting a full measure of due process protection. Perhaps because the defendant did not seriously argue against welfare as property, the Supreme Court was both cryptic and ambiguous in its explanation for this far reaching conclusion.

 

[FallingPianos]

But why should straight people have that priviledge?? What have we done different to deserve marriage?

thats what i'd like to know...:roll:

 

[FallingPianos]

Since when we're talking about "gay marriage" we're really talking about "State recognition of gay marriage", I think that the State is completely justified in setting the terms and conditions under which it will recognize a marriage, just as it is justified in setting the terms under which it will allow one to be dissolved.

I could accept that argument if marriage had no legal or financial benefits to the couple, but given that it does, these rights should be given to all couples. especially the ones that cant even be granted through private contract.

 

[Blue Collar Joe]

@vague:
1) well, the state is really a representitive of the people... so in the end, are you saying its the people who should decide on gay marriage?

They have let the people decide in a lot of states. The homosexual community fought like wild to get it on the ballots. They got their wish, and did not get it approved in one single state.
It took legislatures to force it in Mass. Most politicians test the water, and they know that this is one issue that can definitely cost them a lot of votes.

 

[shuamort]

They have let the people decide in a lot of states. The homosexual community fought like wild to get it on the ballots. They got their wish, and did not get it approved in one single state.

Actually, it was the heterosexual community that forced the ballot votes.

It took legislatures to force it in Mass. Most politicians test the water, and they know that this is one issue that can definitely cost them a lot of votes.

Actually, it was the judiciary that "forced" it in Mass. They ruled that the legislature wrote unconstitutional laws that barred homosexuals from marrying.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I could accept that argument if marriage had no legal or financial benefits to the couple, but given that it does, these rights should be given to all couples.

I agree, and I am in favor of State-sanctioned homosexual marriage. I just find arguments that "the State has no business deciding who can or can not get married" to be absolutely ridiculous.

It's like people who argue that the State has no business in how corporations are organized or operated-- when the corporation is itself the State's recognition of a business.

 

[FallingPianos]

I agree, and I am in favor of State-sanctioned homosexual marriage. I just find arguments that "the State has no business deciding who can or can not get married" to be absolutely ridiculous.

ah. similar to people that make the argument "why should I have to pay for what I believe is immoral?" argument?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

ah. similar to people that make the argument "why should I have to pay for what I believe is immoral?" argument?

Exactly. If you think that what the State is paying for is too immoral for you to tolerate, either find a way to convince the State to stop paying for it, or find a different State to live under.

It applies whether you're a pacifist opposed to military spending or a pro-lifer opposed to subsidized abortion.

 

[steen]

The state where one wishes to marry. It is not a right, it is a priviledge.

But does the State have the right to discriminate? If it allows one couple to marry, does it have the right to deny another couple? After all, this was the situation when there were bans against interracial marriages, a situation very much alike to the current one.

 

[steen]

They have let the people decide in a lot of states. The homosexual community fought like wild to get it on the ballots.

No, it was the hate mongering fundamentalists who tried to force this issue. No different than the bigots who way back when got it passed by law that interracial couples couldn't marry.

 

[kal-el]

Ahh, I think marriage is a stupid ritual. But anyone has the choice to marry. If 2 homosexuals want to wed, so be it, I don't give a ****.

 

[mikhail]

I guess really marriage is a religious ceremony.

however atheists get married surely if gays shouldnt be able to marry neither should atheists.For me marriage is merely a case of legal status between 2 people if two men or women become life partners then surely they are acting in the same way as a straight couple therefor they deserve the same legal rights.

 

[jamesrage]

That's debatable. :rofl Although, with my current wife, I can agree it's a priviledge. (In case she happens to read this.:shock: )

So. Who does own marriage? The gov't? The church? Humanity? The state? The county? You?

I truly don't see it as neither a right or a privelege. I look at it more like the air. It's just there. It belongs to everybody. Breath it if you want to. Don't breath it if you don't. I don't own it. It's not mine so who am I to tell you not to breath it? It's not his either, no matter what he says, so you'd be a fool for letting him stop you from partaking.

But that's just me.

As long as the government gives you benifits for marriage, the government as in we the tax payer can demand that certian requirements be met for marriage..

 

[Blind man]

As long as the government gives you benifits for marriage, the government as in we the tax payer can demand that certian requirements be met for marriage..

ROFL, talk about putting the cart before the mule. Try this

As long as the government gives benefits (see i actually spelled it correctly) for marriage, the government, as in we the taxpayer demand that all citizens of this country be treated equally and without prejudice.

 

[jamesrage]

ROFL, talk about putting the cart before the mule. Try this

As long as the government gives benefits (see i actually spelled it correctly) for marriage, the government, as in we the taxpayer demand that all citizens of this country be treated equally and without prejudice.

They are being treated equal.If any man reguardless of race religion or creed wishes to marry any woman reguardless of race,religion or creed he may do so as long as they are not related or under age.

 

[FallingPianos]

They are being treated equal.If any man reguardless of race religion or creed wishes to marry any woman reguardless of race,religion or creed he may do so as long as they are not related or under age.

any race, religion and creed, yes. but not sex.