Why is gay marriage such a lightning-rod topic?

It's been shown through studies that children adopted into same sex homes do just as well, if not better than children born in traditional homes.

I don't think there is a way to "dumb you down" to understand the thinking of people who try and convince us all that it will damage America some how or destroy the sanctity of marriage. The heterosexual couple next door doesn't affect my marriage or my life or my religion or anything else in any way so why should the gay couple? But of course, the nay sayers can't see past their own backyards so they don't stop to rationalize this.

0 Replies

Yet despite this, adoption agencies (at least in my state) require a copy of a marriage license for your file.

The agency we're using represents many single and gay people looking to adopt.

I'm not exactly sure how this works.

But I'm really just bookmarking in case someone can explain the hidden dangers to me if homosexuals are allowed to marry.

0 Replies

I generally think it's because it's an argument founded on religion.

Whether your for, against, or unsure about religion, it's pretty clear that when someone is motivated and that motivation is based on something they have placed their faith in, it's pretty much a done deal. There's little point in trying to get them to change their mind on it.

With more and more studies showing that sexual orientation is generally something that a person is born into, it's upsetting to see that there is still such a strong movement not to allow people to live as the person they were created to be (with the ability to live their life with someone they love, even if it's a member of the same sex). Oh well.

0 Replies

It's not a big deal to me; and, of course, i understand that it is for others. So i cannot say why it is a lightening-rod issue. I'm just watching the thread.

0 Replies

This was on Best-of-Craigslist some time ago. Nos. 5 and 7 are my favorites.

Quote:

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

0 Replies

My grandfather was a harness maker. He made custom fitted harness for carriage horses--the best carriage horses.

Henry Ford put him out of business.

My parents could remember Civil War Veterans marching in Memorial Day parades. Eventually they rode in carriages, then cars.

One of my sister's classmates was sent to the Principal's Office for insubordination and impudence in the early '50's. His crime was to insist that someday man would land on the moon.

For the last 120 years the world has been changing both drastically and quickly. Change is difficult. Change can be frightening. The Man-Woman Marriage Crowd is trying to hold onto the Eternal Verities--whether the Eternal Verities are Everlasting or True.

Unsophisticated and frightened people have always appreciated a "inferior" sort of people to demonize. These Inferior--but Powerful--Demons can be held responsible for the drug problem and the crime problem and the terrorist situation. "Them Queers is the ones causin' all the trouble, ya know."

Even more frightening is that the fears of the unsophisticated are manipulated by the politically savvy for their own ends.

Like most problems the antipathy to Gay Marriage can only be solved through education. Change by technology can be incredibly fast. Change by education is slow, slow, slow opening one closed mind a a time.

0 Replies

Let me turn the question a bit. What does it matter and why do you wish to make it a big deal if someone campaigns to keep the historical definition of marriage the same? People have different opinions about everything. In our society, all are free to voice their opinions and to campaign to shape our society into what one thinks is best. In the end, all we can ask is that the will of the people prevail.

I could give you a decent line of reasoning for why many believe marriage should be strictly between a man and a woman. But there have been other threads that have done that and it makes no sense to rehash it again, especially since it is unlikely to convince you. (And the reasoning has nothing to do with how it would impact your marriage, because it wouldn't, and I know of nobody who has argued that it would)

There are way too many hot-heads on both sides of this issue in the general public and here on A2K who refuse to see the other side and who continually resort to name calling. I guess they have a right to do so, but their arguments tend to fall on deaf ears. Both sides of this issue have some valid arguments, just as other arguments pro and con are worthless rhetoric.

0 Replies

If your husband wants to leave you for another male, why should I worry? Laughing

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

What does it matter and why do you wish to make it a big deal if someone campaigns to keep the historical definition of marriage the same?

It is true, the "historical definition" matters little. What does matter is the legal definition and, more to the point, the financial benefits this definition provides for some members of the population but not others.

0 Replies

Well put, Shapeless!

My own modest proposal is that gov't get out of the marriage business and leave it to the churches. Gov't would hand out the benefits equally to hetero and homo domestic unions.

The churches can be as inclusive or exclusive re marriage as they already are in other regards.

I have spoken...

0 Replies

Shapeless wrote:

This was on Best-of-Craigslist some time ago. Nos. 5 and 7 are my favorites.

Quote:
10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

THat was a brilliant piece of writing.

Laughing

0 Replies

And as society has ADAPTED to SIN ...

0 Replies

Crime is a transgression against society--we can see society around us, and can easily learn of the penalties for transgressing against society.

Vice is a transgression against oneself--defining vice is the more difficult, and the bad effects are putative--generally vice is in the eye of a religiously fanatical observer, which leads us to . . .

Sin, which is an offense against "god." Why should anyone believe it were possible to transgress against your imaginary friend?

0 Replies

It's a "divide and conquer" issue.

Just as people in the past believed it was "wrong" and "immoral" to allow a black person to marry a white person---there are people in the present who believe it is "wrong" and "immoral" to allow a gay person to marry a person of the same sex.

These people are close-minded bigots who allow their prejudices to prevail over common sense. Of course, they deny that they are bigoted or prejudiced. They claim that they have "valid arguments" for opposing gay marriage. "I'm not against gays, but ______."

These people are incapable of understanding the wrongfulness of imposing their beliefs on others when doing so deprives others of equal rights under the law and relegates others to the status of second-class citizens. They cannot be persuaded that there is no legitimate state purpose in denying homosexuals the right to marry the person of their choice (a person of the same sex) when the state grants heterosexuals the right to marry the person of their choice (a person of the opposite sex).

These people are incapable of understanding 1) that their beliefs are the product of bigotry and prejudice; and 2) that imposing their beliefs on others through the operation of laws is both wrong and unconstitutional. Accordingly, the issue of gay marriage is a divisive issue. It is also a distracting issue.

Here's a satire of how the neo-conservative politicians use divisive, distracting issues to win votes:

Quote:

Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Tales of Horror from Dr. Distracto

JB

Dr. Distracto: All right, children, it's 6/6/06, the day of the Beast, so gather round, while I regale you with tales of horror that are sure to curdle your blood!

Children: Yippie! Tell us the one about the big flood that destroyed New Orleans! Tell us the one about the deficit that ate the economy! Tell us the one about the war in Iraq!

Dr. Distracto: No, children, I don't want to talk about those things right now. I have something *much* scarier.

Children: Hurray!

Dr. Distracto: If you don't vote Republican in the next election, gay couples will burn American flags at their weddings!

Children: Noooooo!

Dr. Distracto: Then they will drive Mexican nationals across the border in hybrid cars!

Children: Noooooo!

Dr. Distracto: And then they will take all the Mexicans to abortion clinics, and force them to watch Al Gore's documentary on global warming!

Children: Oooooh, that's so scary, Dr. Distracto. I'm so frightened I can't think about anything else!

Dr. Distracto: Mission Accomplished.

Children: Oh no, not those words! Now you're scaring me again!

http://balkin.blogspot.com/

Fortunately for America, the persons who are bigoted and prejudiced against gay persons are a dying breed. As time passes, political attacks upon gays will be less and less effective. Today, it would be political suicide for a candidate to run for office on a platform that includes banning interracial marriages. The same will hold true for present-day and future politicians who run for office on a platform that includes banning gay marriages. The political tide is turning against those who still hold those bigoted and prejudiced viewpoints against gays.

Future politicians will be forced to identify and pursue other divisive and distracting issues.

0 Replies

Shapeless wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:
What does it matter and why do you wish to make it a big deal if someone campaigns to keep the historical definition of marriage the same?

It is true, the "historical definition" matters little. What does matter is the legal definition and, more to the point, the financial benefits this definition provides for some members of the population but not others.

So I take it that you would be less likely to support gay marriage if the financial benefits were available to all? Even people who choose to remain single? After all, they too are denied many financial benefits available to married couples.

The problem is, many who oppose gay marriage would be all in favor of giving gays the benefits available to married couples. But the gay community does not wish to compromise. They don't want a partnership document (as opposed to a marriage document), but insist they be allowed to marry. This leads many to question that their motives are much more than just gaining the financial benefits of marriage.

Anyway, just for the record, I agree that the financial benefits of marriage should be available to gay partnerships and would fully support efforts in that direction.

0 Replies

D'artagnan wrote:

Well put, Shapeless!

My own modest proposal is that gov't get out of the marriage business and leave it to the churches. Gov't would hand out the benefits equally to hetero and homo domestic unions.

The churches can be as inclusive or exclusive re marriage as they already are in other regards.

I have spoken...

Even I would go along with you on this one D.

Sadly, this is one compromise the gay community seems unwilling to make.

And Debra, once again you prove my point that those who argue for gay marriage cannot see past their own views and admit the others can hold a particular view of their own without actually being bigoted or prejudiced.

0 Replies

If financial benefits were available to all (or none), then I probably wouldn't have an opinion on gay marriage one way or the other; it would become a mostly administrative issue that really wouldn't ruffle my feathers.

But I disagree with the claim that "the gay community refuses to compromise," mostly because I know of many exceptions but generally because it'd be silly to think "the gay community" represents one unified opinion on the matter... just as it would be silly to think that "the left" and "the right" do as well.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

D'artagnan wrote:
Well put, Shapeless!

My own modest proposal is that gov't get out of the marriage business and leave it to the churches. Gov't would hand out the benefits equally to hetero and homo domestic unions.

The churches can be as inclusive or exclusive re marriage as they already are in other regards.

I have spoken...

Even I would go along with you on this one D.

Sadly, this is one compromise the gay community seems unwilling to make.

.............................................................................
You're kidding aren't you? HAve you forgotten all the sexual abuse cases against Roman Catholic
priests that have appeared over the past decade? Before they evaluate the actions of others, let the Churches clean up their
own PEWS.

Quote:

gov't get out of the marriage business and leave it to the churches.

0 Replies

Shapeless wrote:

If financial benefits were available to all (or none), then I probably wouldn't have an opinion on gay marriage one way or the other; it would become a mostly administrative issue that really wouldn't ruffle my feathers.

But I disagree with the claim that "the gay community refuses to compromise," mostly because I know of many exceptions but generally because it'd be silly to think "the gay community" represents one unified opinion on the matter... just as it would be silly to think that "the left" and "the right" do as well.

You're right and I did not mean to imply that the entire gay community has a unified opinion on the matter. Sorry. But I do believe the gay organizations out there making the most noise will settle for nothing less than marriage.

0 Replies

Why is gay marriage such a lightning-rod topic?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know