S/O Gay Marriage Poll

[tribe pride]

When someone who is opposed to gay marriage is willing to talk about why.

I thought several people have been willing to talk about it? I've tried to explain my concerns with legalizing same-sex marriage, and to generally do so from logical and legal point of view, rather than just citing morals/theology/etc. Apparently I haven't done a very good job of it!

In a nutshell (and this is probably going to be lame, because the argument is really complicated, and I have a tendency to get long-winded), I think that we need to either define marriage as between one man and one woman, or if we're going to redefine it and say same-sex couples can marry, then marriage needs to be opened up to everyone. Polygamous couples, cousins, brothers and sisters, etc. I just don't think you can have it any other way. People are arguing that people should be able to marry the person they love. Okay, then why can't close relatives get married? Why should society put restrictions on THEM- isn't it discrimination? They're only two people, not a polygamous relationship, so there shouldn't be all of the legal issues posters have cited regarding multiple spouses, inheritance laws, etc. It is legal in France, Portugal, Sweden, and I don't know where else.

It seems to me that either marriage should be open to everybody, so people can marry whomever they like, or we define marriage as it has historically been defined- between one man and one woman for the joint purposes of mutual fulfillment (ie love) and of raising children together. This is essentially what I was trying to argue upthread, and I think gatorsmom and a few other posters (can't remember who- maybe even you, Wellyes?) were also trying to point out.

However, I also think that in this day and age, it is really hard to argue for this traditional position, largely due to the fact that children no longer need be a natural result of marriage and sexual relationships. Birth control enables couples to avoid having children, and couples with fertility difficulties are able to take advantage of reproductive technologies enabling them to have children. Please understand that I don't think that all of things are inherently bad- I'm very thankful that people, several whom I know and love, are able to have children because of advances in reproductive technology.

HOWEVER, one consequence of this is that in many ways, having children has essentially become optional and/or self-determined for married couples. Couples can decide not to have children, or couples can become parents without going the "traditional" route. Because simple biology isn't as much of a factor anymore for when/if a couple has children, the bond between the unitive and reproductive aspects of sex is eliminated. Sexual pleasure itself becomes the main purpose and goal of sex, and the other natural, biological purpose- having children- is irrelevant. Thus marriage, which has historically been a vehicle for the begetting and raising of children, for the good of society, has come to be seen as a union based on affection and mutual fulfillment. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that we live in a time and place where people generally do love the person they are marrying. But when you take children out of the equation and make them optional, then I do believe it is much more challenging to argue for traditional marriage.

That probably didn't make any sense. Like I said, I tend to be long-winded. But all that to say, I think that you either need to take the traditional view of marriage (which as I tried to explain at the end, is challenging to argue for when you take children out of the equation and make marriage based solely on feelings and personal fulfillment), or you need to open up marriage to anyone and everyone. I see it as all or nothing.

ETA: I'm done with this discussion. I've been glad to be a part of it, but at this point I'm just feeling drained and nitpicked, and I've got other things I need to do today.

[cuca_]

In a nutshell (and this is probably going to be lame, because the argument is really complicated, and I have a tendency to get long-winded), I think that we need to either define marriage as between one man and one woman, or if we're going to redefine it and say same-sex couples can marry, then marriage needs to be opened up to everyone. Polygamous couples, cousins, brothers and sisters, etc. I just don't think you can have it any other way. People are arguing that people should be able to marry the person they love. Okay, then why can't close relatives get married? Why should society put restrictions on THEM- isn't it discrimination? They're only two people, not a polygamous relationship, so there shouldn't be all of the legal issues posters have cited regarding multiple spouses, inheritance laws, etc. It is legal in France, Portugal, Sweden, and I don't know where else.

I gather from your posts that at present you are opposed to gay marriage. But from your explanation above, it seems that if incest and poligamy were legal, you would feel different. Is that the case?

I've found this thread really frustrating, because the issue is gay marriage, not poligamy, not marriage to dolphins, etc... And honestly I would rather hear someone say that they think homosexuality is immoral and wrong (even though I disagree with this), than use their concern about polygamists and animals as a justification for their position on the issue. Because honestly the other reasons don't ring true or valid to me. And I honestly don't think a lot of the people who oppose gay marriage, would really feel better about it if the type of unions that they are bringing up were legalized.

[kijip]

if we're going to redefine it and say same-sex couples can marry, then marriage needs to be opened up to everyone. Polygamous couples, cousins, brothers and sisters, etc.

My issue with this is that it says that my brother marrying his partner of 7+ years, who he has 2 daughters with, is equivalent to my brother marrying me. Gay marriage is not incest.

Siblings who are raised together have a near universal aversion to the idea of marrying each other...this is not unique to our culture. As for 1st cousins marrying, it is actually legal in a large number of states. 2nd cousins can already marry in all states.

[smilequeen]

My issue with this is that it says that my brother marrying his partner of 7+ years, who he has 2 daughters with, is equivalent to my brother marrying me. Gay marriage is not incest.

Siblings who are raised together have a near universal aversion to the idea of marrying each other...this is not unique to our culture. As for 1st cousins marrying, it is actually legal in a large number of states. 2nd cousins can already marry in all states.

I am for equal rights.

And I am late to this, but this is how I feel. This is why the "slippery slope" argument is both weak and prejudicial. Comparing a gay couple to incest, polygamy, marrying an animal? Seriously insulting and seriously homophobic. It is a couple...2 people...in love. It is far more like a male/female marriage than any of the slippery slope relationships it is being compared to.

[arivecchi]

Actually, I'm not using polygamy to prohibit gay marriage. What I'm trying to do is point out to some very angry liberals who say terrible things about the conservatives being bigots and idiots when in denying polygamists their way of life those same liberals are doing the same injustice.

I don't have an answer to this question. I don't think that it's right to limit some people and not others from doing what they think is right. I don't know where the line should be drawn.

I have not seen any "angry liberals" in this thread - maybe frustrated liberals - because of the conflation of completely irrelevant topics to the subject of gay marriage.

I actually do not really care much about polygamy either. To be honest, I have not thought much about it. But as others pointed out, it is a completely different issue. You are granting additional rights and creating a wholly new marital structure as opposed to simply lifting a restriction that only deprives certain individuals of a right.

As I said before, the fact that posters here suffer from some perceived or real injustice does not mean therefore mean that justifies discrimination against homosexual individuals.

I honestly find the whole contraception issue completely irrelevant. That's an employment law issue. If one disagrees with employment law, one should not hire people. As an employer, you cannot cherry-pick those aspects of the law that you like and refuse to abide by those you don't like.

[fortato]

I guess my opinion is, unless it impacts you directly, then it's none of your damn business who I marry. If a relationship between 2 people is based on love and trust, the those two people should be allowed to be together. End of story.

[waver]

I support civil unions and marriages for gay people.

The "slippery slope" scare tactic is one of the primary reasons for the successful ban on same sex marriages in CA.

But the voters weren't worried about polygamy, bestiality.

If gay marriage were to be approved, voters became afraid that they would lose their rights to practice/voice their beliefs that homosexuality is immoral. They worried that legalizing gay marriage would lead to the legalization and enforcement of other gay issues.

For example, they were afraid that their children would be forced to accept an openly gay teacher, or have gay rights' issues/history taught in schools, or forced to have a gay scoutmaster, etc.

The majority of Californians actually supported legalizing gay marriage until the opposing side aired a bunch of slippery slope ads, including a notable one scaring viewers that approving gay marriage would lead to gay rights/history being taught in PUBLIC schools.

Another famous one showed the mayor of SF (Gavin Newsom) loudly boasting about gay marriage: "This door's wide open now. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not."

These kind of slippery slope ads worked. Sadly, support for gay marriage slipped in our state.

[dogmom]

As a personal aside I have to say that the Catholic Church lost all moral standing as far as I was concerned to comment on what is and what is not marriage when they decided to issue a statement, without ever talking to me, that I was not in full understanding of the nature of my vows for my first marriage and therefore it was invalid. There are many things the Catholic Church does that is good, and I do defend them at times. However, given their Byzantine and convoluted rules about annulment I really have trouble with them commenting on who should and should not get married.