Why Is Gay Marriage Wrong?

[melon]

 

[diamond]

What would you say is the main reason?

The main reason for 2 people of the opposite sex to get married thru the last 6000 years is:


To be able to consummate their love first thru hetrosexual intercourse and then create a family by said intercorse by first entering into religious sacrament and or a covenant/contract between 2 people of the opposite sex.

This is the defintion of the word marriage for most people in America, but not most ppl in FYM

<>

 

[yolland]

The main reason for 2 people of the opposite sex to get married thru the last 6000 years is:


To be able to consummate their love first thru hetrosexual intercourse and then create a family by said intercorse by first entering into religious sacrament and or a covenant/contract between 2 people of the opposite sex.

But this is simply wrong. Marriage based on romantic love between two individuals freely choosing one another as spouses is a quite recent and distinctly Western innovation. In Biblical times (and for centuries afterwards) marriages were arranged by parents, usually in the couple's early teen years if not before, primarily on the basis of socioeconomic considerations and of course with the woman being legally conceived of as property to be transferred from father to husband. The point was to ensure that young people assumed the expected responsibilities of adults, which included (for women) bearing and caring for children and (for men) fathering children and providing for them and one's wife/wives, while creating socially and economically useful enhanced ties between their families of birth in the process. That's not to say that the emotion we now call 'falling in love' was unknown, or that the occasional lucky couple didn't get to marry based on that thanks to sympathetic parents, or that especial tenderness and compassion towards one's spouse weren't important moral ideals; but "consummating" romantic love and honoring it as the basis for lifelong personal commitment wasn't at all the point.

We're lucky enough today to enjoy that privilege (or more correctly, heterosexuals are), so already we've made at least one radical readjustment to the definition. Actually, make that four--because now marriages require the imprimatur of the state, in fact they may be granted directly by the state; because women are now legally equal parties to their spouses; and because effective contraception is now widely available and the state doesn't take a couple's intention to have children (or not) into account when bestowing 'married' status. According to the (US) Census Bureau, as of 2006, 27% of all married couples under 50 had no children--not exactly a typical-of-the-last-6000-years statistic. (Adoption, of course, always was and still is a legally available option for infertile married couples.)

It doesn't seem that we (heterosexuals) have any problems with these changes to the definition of marriage or the expectations placed on married couples when they're made for our benefit. For all the huffing about 'natural order' and 'scripture says,' we don't seem to mind radically redefining the expectations of 6000 years ago where heterosexuals' love lives are concerned. So why the squeamishness about honoring gay couples' love and, where applicable, desires to create families through adoption? Why do we claim for ourselves the legal right to choose whether and whom to marry, and whether or not to have children, and we're fine with those 'little' modifications, but then when it comes to gay couples, it's conveniently all-or-nothing--and since they can't manage the children-through-intercourse part, no dice? I see nothing honorable or worthy in this.

 

[A_Wanderer]

i will ignore the predictable posters who result to name calling.

fresh take, VPunk.
i turned down money for sex with men a few times in my youth, what's that make me?

discretionary?
choosey?
prigish?
a bigot?



<>

Afraid of the AIDS?

 

[jonnytakeawalk]

My gut reaction to that article? He's totally closeted and in denial.

I thought being gay was not a choice- something that is inherent. You don't choose to be gay much the same as you don't choose to be straight-You just are. However some of you are suggesting that this guy is a closeted homosexual who has chosen to be straight.

I guess what I'm asking is- for something that is so inherent and so much a massive part of who you are how is at all possible to 'surpress' your sexual orientation. I myself could never make a decision to form relationships and sleep with the same sex because it's just not who I am. I thought it was much the same for gay people.

Social pressures aside if being gay is so much a part of who you are how is it at all possible to surpress it at all?

 

[A_Wanderer]

See my census reason.

Don't call it marrige because that denotes something else.

So the Govt can track all subgroups fairly (who are bethrothed-straightly or gayly) and be sure all ppl receive benefits equally this way there would be automatic checks and balances for sub groups.


How's that for my secular progressive open minded some what religious govt loving agency folk?

<>

Why don't you do something conservative... cut back the marriage benefits to avoid scams.

Or allow gays to adopt and lesbians buy their way to reproduction with IVF; thats achieving parity. Or remembering that marriage is not a contract to have kids, one may have a child without marrying just as one can freely have sex out of wedlock (which is a very good thing, it stops people marrying young and gives some women a shot at a career that they otherwise wouldn't get).

Opposition to the secular agenda and the establishment clause is anti-American in the truest sense of the word, it goes against the founding principles of the state and what those principles guarantee; freedom for faggotry

 

[jonnytakeawalk]

just as one can freely have sex out of wedlock (which is a very good thing, it stops people marrying young and gives some women a shot at a career that they otherwise wouldn't get).

I agree absolutely. Not sure I understand your 'gives women a shot at a career' argument though but anyway I guess that discussion is for another thread.

 

[A_Wanderer]

In a world where women are expected to marry young and have kids early the proportion half the populations options are severely curtailed.

 

[Irvine511]

I thought being gay was not a choice- something that is inherent. You don't choose to be gay much the same as you don't choose to be straight-You just are. However some of you are suggesting that this guy is a closeted homosexual who has chosen to be straight.

you have heard of the term "the closet," yes?


[q]I guess what I'm asking is- for something that is so inherent and so much a massive part of who you are how is at all possible to 'surpress' your sexual orientation. I myself could never make a decision to form relationships and sleep with the same sex because it's just not who I am. I thought it was much the same for gay people.[/q]


erm, i suppressed being gay for a long time. it was called being in the closet. would you like a list of people who have tried hard to be straight, gotten married, had children, and yet lived lives of psychological torment because they were unable to come out of the closet for a variety of reasons? you act as though there are no consequences to coming out, and there are. huge ones. kids are kicked out of homes. parents disown you. so people stay in the closet and feign heterosexuality in order to avoid these homophobic consequences. the impulse to love someone of the same gender will never go away, but it is possible to live a life of denial.

Social pressures aside if being gay is so much a part of who you are how is it at all possible to surpress it at all?

have you ever watched the news? have you ever heard of Larry Craig? have you ever heard of Mark Foley? have you ever heard of Roy Cohn? have you ever heard of J. Edgar Hoover?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

The main reason for 2 people of the opposite sex to get married thru the last 6000 years is:

To be able to consummate their love first thru hetrosexual intercourse and then create a family by said intercorse by first entering into religious sacrament and or a covenant/contract between 2 people of the opposite sex.

This is the defintion of the word marriage for most people in America, but not most ppl in FYM

Really? So sexless marriages (for whatever reason-physical, psychological) are invalid, non-religious ceremonies and marriages between non-religious people are invalid, childless marriages are invalid. Anything else? Lots o' heterosexual intercourse and lots'o kids= wonderful marriage-right? Haha, if only.

Sometimes "definitions" have to be redefined. It's called progress for the good of all humanity, in the name of human equality. Name one perfectly valid way in which any homosexual marriage has any negative effect on your marriage.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

By AP/ALLISON HOFFMAN

(SAN DIEGO) — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Friday that he would fight an initiative to amend the California Constitution to ban same-sex marriage if it qualifies for the November ballot.

Schwarzenegger has vetoed bills that would allow gay marriage but said he opposes the sort of amendments that are being proposed by two competing groups. Such amendments are already on the books in 26 states, but the governor said it would be a "waste of time" to pursue one in California.

"I will always be there to fight against that," Schwarzenegger said, prompting loud cheers and a standing ovation from about 200 people at the annual convention of the Log Cabin Republicans, the nation's largest gay Republican group.

The Austrian-born governor immediately cracked that he wished activists would instead focus on passing an amendment to allow naturalized citizens to run for president.

Both proposed initiatives would limit marriage to heterosexuals, and one measure would revoke the spousal rights and tax benefits currently extended to same-sex couples under state laws.

Schwarzenegger supports the current benefits for same-sex couples. In vetoing bills that would have legalized gay marriage, he has said he thinks the question should be up to voters or the courts, not lawmakers.

Geoffrey Kors, executive director of the gay rights group Equality California, said Schwarzenegger's opposition could help defeat a marriage ban or even prevent it from getting enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.

"We were thrilled. We have been asking him to do this," said Kors, whose group's volunteers have been working to persuade people not to sign petitions for the proposed initiative. "The governor's support to defeat it is critical."

Kors said Schwarzenegger's stand has precedent. In 1978, former Republican Gov. Ronald Reagan came out against a ballot initiative that would have made it illegal for gay men and lesbians to work as teachers in California public schools, an act that "made gay rights issues nonpartisan," Kors said.

Proponents of the initiatives said Schwarzenegger is risking the ire of conservative voters.

"He says he'll veto legislation redefining marriage but now he says he'll fight a ballot measure protecting marriage," said Randy Thomasson, of VoteYesMarriage.com, whose amendment would revoke domestic-partnership benefits including hospital visitation, community property and child support. "He's pandering to this group."

Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for ProtectMarriage.com, said the intention of his group's less far-reaching amendment was simply to keep the existing definition of marriage approved by the Legislature from being overturned by the courts.

Both groups have until April 28 to gather signatures from 694,354 voters to qualify the measures for the November election.

Schwarzenegger is a defendant in a group of lawsuits brought by same-sex couples seeking to overturn the state's longtime statutory ban on gay marriage. A ruling in the case is expected soon from the California Supreme Court.

 

[BVS]

The main reason for 2 people of the opposite sex to get married thru the last 6000 years is:


To be able to consummate their love first thru hetrosexual intercourse and then create a family by said intercorse by first entering into religious sacrament and or a covenant/contract between 2 people of the opposite sex.

This is the defintion of the word marriage for most people in America, but not most ppl in FYM

<>

You couldn't be more wrong...

Show me where this definition exists outside of FYM...

 

[A_Wanderer]

Religious institutions hold that definition quite a bit, in a secular liberal democracy (a country that protects individual liberty in the confines of elected systems of government) the argument has no place.

This thread just clarifies for the n-th time that the secular arguments against it are few and far between and seem to rest solely on the artifacts of the status quo as retroactive justification for contemporary bigotry.

Although I would love to know how this one man for one woman argument for marriage is getting justified by somebody who's randy prophet had a conveniently sexy revelation for polygamy; I understand that the church changed it's position but that really undercuts those slights that science is useless because it doesn't give absolute truth.

 

[martha]

Although I would love to know how this one man for one woman argument for marriage is getting justified by somebody who's randy prophet had a conveniently sexy revelation for polygamy

 

[acrobatique]

Just a question on "choice":

Do people posting here - gay or straight - believe that it is possible for a straight person to enjoy gay sex, yet still consider themselves "heterosexual" in terms of not being romantically attracted to the same sex? Ie, they could not date or be overly attracted to the same sex in a romantic or relationship sense, but in the throes of passion enjoy the lesbian/gay sex act?

Or do they feel that person is 'closeted' or 'in denial'?

I don't think enough weight is given to 'choice' to be honest. I agree with 'it just is' or 'I just am', however some people have done both and like both and simply choose to let one figure more prominently in their lives..a great reason would be a strong desire to bear offspring that are your own and raise them with their father/mother, who you love.

Here's another question: if we call all unions 'marriage', can a person marry both a man and a woman? Have a three-part marriage? Why or why not? What difference does it make?

 

[diamond]

But this is simply wrong. Marriage based on romantic love between two individuals freely choosing one another as spouses is a quite recent and distinctly Western innovation. In Biblical times (and for centuries afterwards) marriages were arranged by parents, usually in the couple's early teen years if not before, primarily on the basis of socioeconomic considerations and of course with the woman being legally conceived of as property to be transferred from father to husband. The point was to ensure that young people assumed the expected responsibilities of adults, which included (for women) bearing and caring for children and (for men) fathering children and providing for them and one's wife/wives, while creating socially and economically useful enhanced ties between their families of birth in the process. That's not to say that the emotion we now call 'falling in love' was unknown, or that the occasional lucky couple didn't get to marry based on that thanks to sympathetic parents, or that especial tenderness and compassion towards one's spouse weren't important moral ideals; but "consummating" romantic love and honoring it as the basis for lifelong personal commitment wasn't at all the point.

We're lucky enough today to enjoy that privilege (or more correctly, heterosexuals are), so already we've made at least one radical readjustment to the definition. Actually, make that four--because now marriages require the imprimatur of the state, in fact they may be granted directly by the state; because women are now legally equal parties to their spouses; and because effective contraception is now widely available and the state doesn't take a couple's intention to have children (or not) into account when bestowing 'married' status. According to the (US) Census Bureau, as of 2006, 27% of all married couples under 50 had no children--not exactly a typical-of-the-last-6000-years statistic. (Adoption, of course, always was and still is a legally available option for infertile married couples.)

It doesn't seem that we (heterosexuals) have any problems with these changes to the definition of marriage or the expectations placed on married couples when they're made for our benefit. For all the huffing about 'natural order' and 'scripture says,' we don't seem to mind radically redefining the expectations of 6000 years ago where heterosexuals' love lives are concerned. So why the squeamishness about honoring gay couples' love and, where applicable, desires to create families through adoption? Why do we claim for ourselves the legal right to choose whether and whom to marry, and whether or not to have children, and we're fine with those 'little' modifications, but then when it comes to gay couples, it's conveniently all-or-nothing--and since they can't manage the children-through-intercourse part, no dice? I see nothing honorable or worthy in this.

You asked why people get "married". In my view the other items you listed are why some people co-habitate.

The ppl that want a legal contract want one so they don't appear to be shacking up.

I disagree, there's no squiminess.

Let's try this example:

If I have Harley parked in my garage because I desired a motorcycle it would be accepted that I have a mortorcycle.

Well say if a fellow named Demetre' moves in across the alley from me and says he has a motorcycle too and would like to show me his and I agree and then he whips out a Vespa Moped and I try to explain to my new friend that a Vespa Moped isn't quite a "motorcycle" but very similar and you can enjoy the same benifits there shouldn't be an issue, and I think he wouldn't have a fit aand want to write Oxford, Webster's or Meramim dictionary services to demand a change in the meaning of the word "motorcycle", ok?

Illustrations:

Motorcycle:

Not a motorcycle:

Marriage:

Civil Union or Male Matrimony:

This whole thread is a facacta idea.

<>

 

[diamond]

Why don't you do something conservative... cut back the marriage benefits to avoid scams.

Let's not be an interloper, we're making real progress here my friendly lad from Oz.

<>

 

[diamond]

Really? So sexless marriages (for whatever reason-physical, psychological) are invalid,.

shrillness aside, I listed the "main" reason.

<>

 

[diamond]

You couldn't be more wrong...

Show me where this definition exists outside of FYM...

Genesis 2:24

 

[diamond]

.

Although I would love to know how this one man for one woman argument for marriage is getting justified by somebody who's randy prophet had a conveniently sexy revelation for polygamy; I understand that the church changed it's position but that really undercuts those slights that science is useless because it doesn't give absolute truth.

For the fundementalists that insist on practicing who are excommunicated it-it should be called
something other than marriage.

<>

 

[Irvine511]

This whole thread is a facacta idea.

<>

your whole premise is based in ignorance and prejudice.

you're arguing that at it's core, at it's essence, in it's very definition, that heterosexuality is always superior to homosexuality.

it doesn't matter what Britney Spears does or how many marriages Elizabeth Taylor has, each and every marriage a straight person has is going to be superior to the single marriage a lesbian couple has that lasts 35 years.

truly, you are judging people by their form, and not their content.

you, sir, are, yes, a bigot.

which is hilarious, in so many ways. i stand here and defend you and your religion from the protestant fundies, and then you turn around and use the very arguments they put upon you -- it's not *real* -- to use against other people?

 

[diamond]

your whole premise is based in ignorance and prejudice.

you're arguing that at it's core, at it's essence, in it's very definition, that heterosexuality is always superior to homosexuality.

it doesn't matter what Britney Spears does or how many marriages Elizabeth Taylor has, each and every marriage a straight person has is going to be superior to the single marriage a lesbian couple has that lasts 35 years.

truly, you are judging people by their form, and not their content.

you, sir, are, yes, a bigot.

which is hilarious, in so many ways. i stand here and defend you and your religion from the protestant fundies, and then you turn around and use the very arguments they put upon you -- it's not *real* -- to use against other people?

i have gay friends here, in my church and outside of my church.

i'm not known as a bigot by them.

<>

 

[Irvine511]

i have gay friends here, in my church and outside of my church.

i'm not known as a bigot by them.

<>

the arguments you put forth against gay marriage are rooted in bigotry.

that at all times, in all ways, one form of relationship is by definition superior to the other.

would it not be bigoted of me to say that all white/white relationships are better at all times than any mixed race relationship?

 

[BVS]

Genesis 2:24

That passage says nothing about, the reason people get married is to have sex, which is basically what your definition says.

 

[acrobatique]

If you guys wanted a secular debate, why do you insist on addressing someone who is so clearly rooted in a theological opinion? Let him be, you're arguing about something that some men wrote thousands of years ago. Even if the bible did out and out condemn it, who cares?

My questions on page 5 are more philosophical/existential than anything but to me that discussion would be infinitely more interesting than bickering about scriptural interpretation...

 

[Irvine511]

Just a question on "choice":

Do people posting here - gay or straight - believe that it is possible for a straight person to enjoy gay sex, yet still consider themselves "heterosexual" in terms of not being romantically attracted to the same sex? Ie, they could not date or be overly attracted to the same sex in a romantic or relationship sense, but in the throes of passion enjoy the lesbian/gay sex act?

Or do they feel that person is 'closeted' or 'in denial'?

it's a complex thing, and a mistake i think you're making is that homosexuality is only about sex. the definition of being homosexual is when you are physically and emotionally attracted to someone of the same sex. there are people who are able to form these kinds of sexual and emotional attachments with both genders, and they are probably best described as bisexuals. there are gay people who are "able" to have sex with straight people, and vice versa, but the core of sexual orientation goes far beyond being able to use another body for sexual gratification.

there is some suspicion, often with gay people, towards those who claim bisexuality, that it's a way to sort of be gay without having to deal with some of the social consequences of being gay. like a guy who says that he's not gay, he just likes to perform oral sex on other men. it may well be that he doesn't identify as gay, but that probably does mean that he's not straight either.

these identities are political and contested, and so in the end it's best to let each individual decide what suits them best. i think you'll find that most people fall comfortably into either gay/straight, and despite some transgressions (usually while one is younger), the orientation is lived out in a very complete, consistent way, in a way that feels natural to that person.

Here's another question: if we call all unions 'marriage', can a person marry both a man and a woman? Have a three-part marriage? Why or why not? What difference does it make?

but we're not calling all unions marriage. we're calling the union between two men and two women a marriage. if you want to argue that polygamist marriages should be legal, by all means, go ahead and do so. just don't lump that in with marriage equality. polygamy has been made illegal for reasons that have nothing at all to do with gay people. argue polygamy on it's own merits, don't be lazy and assume that just because now gay people can get married, i can marry my pet rock.

 

[Irvine511]

[q]Gay couples face higher tax bills


MOUNT LAUREL, New Jersey (AP) -- For gay couples, the April 15 tax filing deadline can be a reminder of the disparities they face, even in a nation that is becoming more accepting of same-sex couples.

Gay couples often pay higher taxes because they don't get the federal tax benefits that go with marriage. And for couples in state-sanctioned domestic partnerships, civil unions or same-sex marriages, filing federal income taxes can involve doing three sets of paperwork instead of one.

"It's a significant financial disability," said Beth Asaro, who last year entered into one of New Jersey's first legally recognized civil unions.

While the debate over government recognition of gay marriage is a political hot-button with arguments about morality, civil rights and tradition, the tax issue is a mostly practical one for hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples.

Most states ban gay marriage and don't recognize same-sex unions in any way. Only in Massachusetts can gay couples legally marry. Since 1997, nine other states and Washington D.C. started offering civil unions or domestic partnerships that give some or all the legal protections of marriage.

Those protections include allowing gay couples to file state taxes jointly -- and potentially save them money. But they can also make tax filing more complicated for the couples.

That's because the state protections do not help with federal taxes. Under the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, the government defines marriage as being allowed only between a man and a woman.

"You're running one household," said John Traier, a partner in the Butler, New Jersey, accounting firm Hammond & Traier. "But the federal government and a lot of states treat them as two households."

The same is true for straight unmarried straight couples who are living together.

There are two main effects of the different treatment under federal law.

One is the tax rate. Take two couples where one partner has a taxable income of $20,000 and the other makes $40,000. If they can file their federal taxes jointly, the tax bill would be $8,217.50. Filing separately, the combined bill would be $9,032.50 -- more than $800 higher.

Another disparity comes with the federal government's treatment of employer-provided health insurance, which also affects unmarried heterosexual couples.

For example, Dan Jessup is a project manager at JPMorgan Chase in Indiana. His partner, Bob Chenoweth, is self-employed, running two businesses out of the couple's Mooresville, Indiana, home. So Chenoweth gets health insurance through Chase.

But Jessup is required to count the company's cost of his partner's benefits as additional income for tax purposes.

State and federal taxes on those benefits cost about $1,800 per year, Jessup said.

"I certainly think about it every payday," when the extra withholding is taken from his paycheck, he said. "If you think about 10 years, $18,000 is a lot of money. That could buy me a pretty nice car."

The tax on benefits for domestic partners also applies to employers. Companies including Chase are endorsing the Human Rights Campaign's push for a bill that would end the tax on health plan benefits for people who are neither the spouse nor legal dependent of the employee. Versions of the bill have been introduced in Congress in the last three sessions, but have never moved out of committee.

A government analysis estimated the bill would cost about $10 billion in lost federal tax revenue over 10 years. Advocates for the bill say it would create savings elsewhere, including reducing the Medicaid rolls.

Ryan Ellis, the tax policy director for Americans for Tax Reform, said his group supports the concept, but not the specific language of the bill, because it does not propose increasing how much domestic partners could put into health savings accounts.

It's not just the higher bills that can be frustrating for same-sex taxpayers; it's also the process of filing taxes, particularly in states that offer some joint benefits to gay couples.

"I don't want to say it's chaotic, but it's very difficult for a lot of reasons," said Traier, the accountant who is in a civil union partnership himself.

In New Jersey and the other states where same-sex unions are formally recognized, couples can file their state taxes jointly, but they must file their federal tax returns as individuals.

That means doing income calculations twice. Many tax programs such as Intuit's TurboTax are set up to deal with that extra math.

But there are other issues where even up-to-date software might not solve.

These issues also affect unmarried straight couples.

For instance, couples with children must decide which partner gets to claim them as dependents for tax purposes on federal returns and returns in states that don't recognize same-sex unions. Similarly, couples who own homes together have to sort out how much of the mortgage interest payments each partner gets to use as a deduction, said Lara Schwartz, the Human Rights Campaign legal director.

"If you are not a different sex," from your partner, Schwartz said, "you are strangers, basically, under federal law."[/q]

 

[diamond]

.

would it not be bigoted of me to say that all white/white relationships are better at all times than any mixed race relationship?

yes, and i don't think ppl of a different skin pigmentation should be used to advance an agenda.

<>

 

[diamond]

That passage says nothing about, the reason people get married is to have sex, which is basically what your definition says.

it's one of the main reasons, religious and personal values are another.

btw what do you think

"one flesh" means in that verse ?

I think it could mean touching pees pees w your new spouse.


<>

 

[martha]

So, to recap again:

1. Dictionary definitions is it.

That's all anybody has to defend a bigoted stand against equal protection and access.

Well done.