Why Is Gay Marriage Wrong?

[BVS]

OK - here it is the truth as I see it - If I were living in bizzaro world and my wife said hey, know what I am bisexual and I want to invite someone into our lives of the female persuasion to enter into a marriage - I would think about it for a few minutes and then come to the conclusion that there was NO WAY IN HELL I could handle two women for more than two minutes hehe.....and then in the words of Kramer - I;m out!!!!

Exactly. In fact most bisexuals I know are the same way, one is sometimes even more than they can handle. Just because you are attractive to both, doesn't mean you need both to be emotionally or even sexually fulfilled, and just because you are attracted to both surely doesn't mean you can handle both at the same time...

 

[Irvine511]

i guess what's concerning me in this discussion is the assumption that the removal of the requirement of opposite-gendered pairings for the status of marriage necessitates the removal of any other standards so that all constructions of relationships be given equal weight to a marriage.

certainly, this is the conservative straw man argument. if that once you let Joe and Jim marry, then Joe and Jim and Jane and Fido the dog can all get married. and i hope this discussion has elucidates exactly why that's not the case at all.

i think there's a discussion to be had on polygamy, and this idea that it's the only way for a bisexual to be happy is one point of consideration amongst others. but i hope we've amply demonstrated why the one-on-one pairing of a marriage is critical to the definition of a marriage in the way that opposite-sexed pairing isn't.

do we all buy that? or can someone make the argument that if you allow Memphis and i to marry, then you have to let Jack and Jane and Jill get married.

am curious.

 

[diamond]

Just as an aside, the majority of the posters favoring changing the meaning of the word "marriage" would be ok with not violating the civil rights of this gentleman depicted in this true life documentary, correct?

Zoo" is an extraordinary glimpse into the life of a seemingly normal Seattle family man whose secret sexual appetites led to his shocking death. Directed by acclaimed filmmaker Robinson Devor ("Woman Chaser," "Police Beat"), the film explores the ensuing media coverage and public outcry that uncovered a secret community of zoophiles, who call themselves "zoos." This expressionistic rendering of how apparently upstanding citizens banded together and videotaped their journey into the most taboo realms of behavior, reveals the enormous gulf between what we appear to be and who we really are.

 

[melon]

Just as an aside, the majority of the posters favoring changing the meaning of the word "marriage" would be ok with not violating the civil rights of this gentleman depicted in this true life documentary, correct?

<insert bullshit, etc.>

When you can get an animal to develop consciousness, free thought, and language to express those feelings, then we can talk.

Until then, it is no different than rape, and your entire argument is--as expected--offensive, illogical crap.

 

[martha]

Yay! The old "gay marriage means animal marriage" argument!

You never disappoint db. We can always count on you to offend and disgust.

 

[redhotswami]

i'm surprised it took him 17 pages to bring it up

 

[martha]

Well, the stories about how hot gay men are for him didn't really work, and nobody was responding to anything else he tried.

 

[diamond]

When you can get an animal to develop consciousness, free thought, and language to express those feelings, then we can talk.

We weren't talking about the animal, rather the man and his civil rights, please stay on topic.

<>

 

[Diemen]

Don't even try and act like you have a legitimate argument, here, dbs. The man had sexual appetites for creatures that could not express consent, and certainly didn't share his sexual attraction.

It's a bogus argument and you know it.

 

[diamond]

Don't even try and act like you have a legitimate argument, here, dbs. The man had sexual appetites for creatures that could not express consent, and certainly didn't share his sexual attraction.

It's a bogus argument and you know it.

Whose rights supercede who's in your world?

<>

 

[Diemen]

I refuse to engage you any further on this. Your argument is offensive and completely without merit.

 

[diamond]

Back to the topic at hand, I submit the fidings from the very capable poll taking folks in whom the liberal media hold in highest esteem.:

Stable Majority: Most Americans Still Oppose Same-Sex Marriage

Special Report: The Same-Sex Marriage Debate

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Overview of the Same-Sex Marriage Debate
The Constitutional Dimensions of the Same-Sex Marriage Debate
A Stable Majority: Most Americans Still Oppose Same-Sex Marriage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Resources
Map: State Policies on Same-Sex Marriage
Religious Groups' Official Positions on Same-Sex Marriage
Same-Sex Marriage Candidate Comparison
Same-Sex Marriage in California
Redefining Marriage Around the World
Same-Sex Marriage Timeline

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Return to the gay marriage issue page

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More: Research, news, blogs
April 1, 2008

In the time since the Massachusetts high court declared the state’s ban on gay marriage unconstitutional in 2003, public opinion on the issue has remained relatively stable. Indeed, majorities of Americans have consistently opposed legalizing same-sex marriage – from 53% opposed in a summer 2003 survey conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, to 55% opposed in an August 2007 Pew survey. The 2007 poll found 36% of the public in favor of allowing gay and lesbian couples to wed, about the same as in 2003. (See An Overview of the Same-Sex Marriage Debate.)

As with many other social issues, opinions about same-sex marriage are closely linked with partisanship, ideology and religion. For instance, opposition to gay marriage is lowest among self-described liberal Democrats (26%) and highest among conservative Republicans (83%), with other ideological and partisan groups falling in between. Those who identify themselves as independents are roughly divided on the issue, with 49% opposed to same-sex marriage and 41% in favor of it.


Religion also plays an important role in determining the public’s views on the issue. Those who attend worship services once a week or more are much more likely to oppose same-sex marriage (73%) than those who attend less often (43% opposed). Opinion also varies quite dramatically across religions. About eight-in-ten evangelicals (81% of white evangelicals and 79% of black evangelicals) oppose gay marriage, while Catholics and mainline Protestants are much more divided on the issue. Indeed, the proportion of white, non-Hispanic Catholics and white mainline Protestants who oppose gay marriage (49% and 47%, respectively) is significantly smaller than among the population as a whole (55%). Hispanic Catholics’ opposition to gay marriage is similar – at 52%. (Compare public opinion with religious groups’ official positions on gay marriage.)

Age is another demographic characteristic that affects attitudes on this issue. Opposition to gay marriage is most pronounced among older Americans, with more than two-thirds (67%) of those age 65 and older opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage. On the other hand, roughly half of all adults under age 30 (49%) favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to wed.

While a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, a similar majority supports civil unions (which grant gay couples most of the legal rights of marriage without the title of marriage), by a 54% to 42% margin, according to a Pew poll from August 2006.


Even opponents of gay marriage are divided on whether it would be a good idea to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. When asked in the 2006 Pew survey whether a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage is a good idea or a bad idea, only about half of those who oppose gay marriage said it is a good idea.



This report was written by David Masci, Senior Research Fellow, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.


Related Articles

 

[diamond]

I refuse to engage you any further on this. Your argument is offensive and completely without merit.

 

[melon]

Stable Majority: Most Americans Still Oppose Same-Sex Marriage

In other news, this is completely irrelevant. The mob also hates Mormons; yet, I don't see you changing your faith for the whims of the "majority."

 

[yolland]

diamond, I seem to recall warning you both publically and via PM back in February that you would be suspended from FYM if you continued to make posts for no other purpose than attempting to get a rise out of people. There's jokingly needling one another to break up the tension, then there's gratuitous flat-out trolling and we all know the difference.

I will not warn you again.

 

[diamond]

In other news, this is completely irrelevant. The mob also hates Mormons; yet, I don't see you changing your faith for the whims of the "majority."

define "mob"
are you talking about the Mafia?

Or are you infering that the will of the people as equivilent to "The Mob"?

And what does that have to do with Freedom of Religion in our country?

And how does sexuality equate to one's religious convictions or the definition of the word "marriage" figure into this at all?

I've stated that I'm ok Gay unions so what's the fuss?

That's right until you change or redefine the meaning of a certain word -your movement is stalled.

Kind of stupid -don't you think?

So, is this more about having your civil rights or a tantrum over the meaning of a word that you can't accept?

<>

 

[Irvine511]

this exhausts me, but if you switch the poll question slightly and throw civil unions into the mix, you get a majority of Americans who support legal recognition for gay relationships.

the mainstream, all-American position is that gay people should have access to a civil union that would contain the same rights as marriage.

and here's the critical point in that poll:

[q]Opposition to gay marriage is most pronounced among older Americans, with more than two-thirds (67%) of those age 65 and older opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage. On the other hand, roughly half of all adults under age 30 (49%) favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to wed. [/q]

i'm sorry you're, again, on the wrong side of history and humanity, diamond.

 

[diamond]

this exhausts me, but if you switch the poll question slightly and throw civil unions into the mix, you get a majority of Americans who support legal recognition for gay relationships.

hug:

Which I said i was ok with.

So the problem is you demand that the gay nupitals be called "marriage" when the majority of citizens are more comfortable calling it a "union".

So, what's the issue?

The issue is your folks aren't after anything more than an agrument over the meaning of the word marriage.

<>

A Vespa isn't a motorcycle no matter how close you want to argue the 2 are.

<>

 

[Irvine511]

Which I said i was ok with.

So the problem is you demand that he be called "marrige" when the majority of citizens are more comfortable calling it "union".

So, what's the issue?

The issue is your folks aren't after anything more than an agrument over the meaning of the word marriage.

<.

the issue is we want to have the same tools to build strong relationships and families that you do. a civil union is one way, but marriage is a better way. why make such a distinction? why is that so precious to you? why are you so insecure about it? what's going to happen if two men become married? what worries you so much, my pet?

the issue is that you people seem to need yet another way to make yourselves feel better about your shortcomings and failures, and so, you choose to kick an already marginalized group, and then ask them to thank you for not stepping on their throats, as if i should be so grateful to you for not letting me have ice cream, but here you go, pet, have a peppermint patty.

what else do you want? sure, you can have a ceremony, but absolutely no clinking of the wine glasses lest the two men kiss. that's only what *married* people are allowed to do. and none of this "first dance" stuff either -- it's weird for us to watch two women dance cheek-to-cheek, and then what do they do? do the brides then dance with each other's fathers? what about the mothers! just too strange -- so, no, let's ban that.

could you write out a list of things i am and am not entitled to? after all, they are yours to give me.

thanks, sweet pea.

 

[diamond]

the issue is we want to have the same tools to build strong relationships and families that you do. a civil union is one way, but marriage is a better way. why make such a distinction? why is that so precious to you? why are you so insecure about it? what's going to happen if two men become married? what worries you so much, my pet?

the issue is that you people seem to need yet another way to make yourselves feel better about your shortcomings and failures, and so, you choose to kick an already marginalized group, and then ask them to thank you for not stepping on their throats, as if i should be so grateful to you for not letting me have ice cream, but here you go, pet, have a peppermint patty.

what else do you want? sure, you can have a ceremony, but absolutely no clinking of the wine glasses lest the two men kiss. that's only what *married* people are allowed to do. and none of this "first dance" stuff either -- it's weird for us to watch two women dance cheek-to-cheek, and then what do they do? do the brides then dance with each other's fathers? what about the mothers! just too strange -- so, no, let's ban that.

could you write out a list of things i am and am not entitled to? after all, they are yours to give me.

thanks, sweet pea.

have your holy matrimony ceremony anyway you see fit.

the grooms exchange rings, do a first dance, i will do the toast etc etc etc.

the reason i won't call it something that's not is the same reason i wont call a zebra a horse.

also it's for the margialized cpls' own protection.

if gay cpls are being discriminated against it will be easier to track if they have or have not the exact same govt benefits afforded to traditional married folk.


if everbody is "married" then ppl will have to start proving if they are gay or not and once they prove their gayness then they will have to establish how they were shorted benifits.

I'm trying to streamline future headaches.

If out of the box we understand it's a gay partnership from the get go, by calling it something other than marriage it will save a lot of time if there is a claim of withholding of govt benifits.

<>

 

[diamond]

Also to make it easier on the Govermental Census Bureau.


You guys are out of the closet, so call it what it is- instead of what it isn't and that way the govt will be able to assist you more-if needed.

That is what you want, protection of your rights, correct?

How can they help protect you when you're claiming something that you're not-a male and female by camouflaging your uinon with a word it is not?


<>

 

[maycocksean]

This entire "bisexual polygamy" argument ignores one factor:

It's incredibly insulting to bisexuals.

That is, they're often looked upon with great suspicion that they are incapable of being monogamous by both the gay and straight communities. To argue that bisexuals can only be served properly through polygamy is truly insulting to those who are bisexual and are very capable of being monogamous to whichever partner they choose to be with. I haven't seen any indication that even a sizable minority of bisexuals are interested in a polygamy.

:Yes:

Isn't it kind of like arguing "Well, I like brunettes AND blondes, shouldn't I then be able to marry both?"

Just because someone is attracted to more than one kind of person (whatever that might mean up to and including different gender) that in no way makes them bound to marry both (or more) of those kinds. Marriage is about CHOOSING ONE person and choosing to disregard attractions to others from there on out.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

No answer

Oh well..

Also I can't believe so many of the things you have posted here diamond

 

[BVS]

The issue is your folks aren't after anything more than an agrument over the meaning of the word marriage.

This is all you have, a definition, something you refuse to acknowledge can and has been changed.

As for your other "attempts" at arguments, absolutely discusting. You should be ashamed, I hope you are...

 

[martha]

also it's for the margialized cpls' own protection.

 

[melon]

define "mob"
are you talking about the Mafia?

Or are you infering that the will of the people as equivilent to "The Mob"?

"The Will of the People?" Well, aren't you the Marxist populist, all of a sudden.

An advanced democracy balances the inalienable rights of the minority with the will of the majority. Those that don't end up being repressive nations with sectarian problems, no matter how many "elections" they hold.

And what does that have to do with Freedom of Religion in our country?

And how does sexuality equate to one's religious convictions or the definition of the word "marriage" figure into this at all?

I see how it goes. You hide yourself in "Freedom of Religion," because you have no other way around the fact that the mob hates Mormons, and if they had their way, would probably ban them as heretics. The mob also doesn't think that you're Christian either.

But isn't that how it goes? One hated minority doesn't use their shared experience of prejudice to help out other minorities. No, instead, they try and make an appeal to the ruling hegemony by saying, "See? We hate most of the same people you hate too, so let us play too!"

I've stated that I'm ok Gay unions so what's the fuss?

That's right until you change or redefine the meaning of a certain word -your movement is stalled.

Kind of stupid -don't you think?

So, is this more about having your civil rights or a tantrum over the meaning of a word that you can't accept?

"What's the fuss?" Gee...I'm sorry if I confuse that "support" with downright hostility. You have a pattern of saying that you're supportive then coupling it with bigoted comments that include the worst of offensive stereotypes.

You don't know how many times I'd like to tell you to go fuck yourself every day.

But no, the way the moderators rule around here, somehow that four letter word carries more weight than post after post after post of offensive homophobic bullshit. So, for the official record, I'm not going to say it.

 

[melon]

Also to make it easier on the Govermental Census Bureau.


You guys are out of the closet, so call it what it is- instead of what it isn't and that way the govt will be able to assist you more-if needed.

That is what you want, protection of your rights, correct?

How can they help protect you when you're claiming something that you're not-a male and female by camouflaging your uinon with a word it is not?

Nope, I'm not going to say it at all.

 

[diamond]

Feel better?

Plus it's no secret that you despise Chritianity and other sects of Unorthodox Christianity such as Mormons that don't think *exactly* the way you think -based on your posts.



You've even tried to use Mormons as a correlation for your cause, when in fact you despise them.

So Melon, who's the hater ?

<>

 

[melon]

Feel better?

I'd feel much better if you were banned for the troll that you are.

 

[melon]

Plus it's no secret that you despise Chritianity and other sects of Unorthodox Christianity such as Mormons that don't think *exactly* the way you think -based on your posts.

So Melon, who's the hater, who's the bigot?

There's a rather conservative book out there called, "The Closing of the American Mind," by the late Allan Bloom. It was written over 20 years ago at this point, but it's funny how most of its observations about the decay of America and American education are still very relevant.

One contention that I very much agree with is the absolute nonsense of moral and ethical relativity, inasmuch as it creates logical paradoxes. One of the most prominent, as Bloom writes, is the illogic of "tolerance." As defined by relativism, one is expected to "tolerate intolerance," or otherwise, they're not a very good liberal. But, if you are capable of reasoning (which I think is questionable, at this point), I'm pretty sure you can see that "tolerating intolerance" is reprehensibly inane.

As such, I do not tolerate religious organizations that hold positions of sheer homophobia and bigotry. And why should I? You've certainly proven yourself, as a Mormon, of being completely incapable of looking at homosexuals in a non-offensive light. And, not only that, but you seem to be proud of it! That, as a given then, how the hell do you have the gall to try and argue that you, instead, are the victim here?

So, go ahead, try and bullshit your way out of this one. But let's get one thing straight: if we strip out all the moral and ethical relativity here and remove the cloak of "religious freedom" that you so tightly wear to justify and excuse away your prejudices, that's when it becomes completely unavoidable that you're a bigot.

And I'm sorry. It is my moral and ethical imperative not to tolerate bigotry. Period.