Has anyone heard a good argument against same sex marriage?

[humble truth]

I'm still pretty new here, so I hope it's okay for me to start a new thread on this.

I've debated same sex marriage with many people. I've gone through literally dozens of threads and hundreds, maybe thousands of posts, and I have not heard one reasonable argument for banning same sex marriage that carries any weight legally. Not one.

This is a serious request. If anyone has heard even one legitimate reason to ban same sex marriages, I'd like to hear it. I'd wager there aren't any. What's worse than the usual made up arguments is the earnestness with which some people present them. I feel some pity for the poor souls who actually believe some of the arguments, but the ones who hide their bigotry behind “legitimate” sounding arguments tick me off.

So, any real arguments out there?

[wryter2000]

1. Nope

None that I ever heard.

[wryter2000]

2. And Welcome to DU

:hi:

[Tiberius]

3. here's one

And I'm not saying I agree with it, but-- if you broaden the definition to include same sex partners, who are certainly consenting adults, wouldn't you then have to broaden the definition to include polygamous marriages?

After all, if four wives consent to be married to the same husband, and they are all of sound mind and legal age, shouldn't they be allowed a structure by which to enjoy the legal rights of married couples?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

9. people act as though they have no control

god is not gonna come down and magically change the definition of marriage: WE ARE. its not as though one leads to another automatically. Vote against Polygamy should it bother you that much but dont pretend it'll just happen to you and your country one bright morning.

Fear is not a good reason to deny people their rights.

[tom2kpro]

22. You hit on the strongest argument I have run across

"Vote against Polygamy should it bother you that much but don't pretend it'll just happen to you and your country one bright morning."

You hit on a potential argument right there. You cannot VOTE for or against polygamy at all, or for or against any other matter involving sexual matters among consenting adults, because it is all now within the Constitutional zone of privacy. The changes are being done by tests to laws, with courts deciding whether something is okay or not.

Perhaps I am expanding the meaning of the recent US S Ct case which finally put to rest all the old anti-sodomy laws, but it is inevitable that this case will eventually be read to mean that a State cannot pass judgment in any way on anything sexual involving consenting adults. No State will be able to refuse to recognize a gay marriage from another State based on the idea that gay marriage offends a strong public policy of that State, because that public policy went out the window with the recent US S. Ct. case.

Of course, we can simply say that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds and say that gay marriage is desirable, for which there are many excellent arguments, but marriage among three people is disgusting and absurd, but this would involve making a judgment about what is desirable as a matter of taste or public policy or morality or what have you, and then we sound like the homophobes telling people what they like or don't like. Some of the homophobes would probably go for polygamy in a minute (think Utah), yet most of us will say polygamy should not be permitted because it usually works against women. All of this a a policy argument, and the courts have taken the whole area out of the realm of policy arguments or debate or voting. Of course, the flaw in this is that I am probably reading too much into the recent US S Ct decision.

[BootinUp]

11. Its not though

The real reasons against these two examples are completely different.

[arewethereyet]

32. not really

and neither is adults marrying children, children marrying children, adults marrying livestock or trees or thenselves.

[BootinUp]

37. The only harm done by

Gay marriage is to the sensitivities of small minded people and religious fundies. (did I just say the same thing twice?) There are other arguments that can be made against polygamy. For instance, that children resulting from multiple legalized relationships will not be provided for satisfactorily with sufficient financial support, emotional support etc. The same could be said of the spouses too.

[av8rdave]

34. The polygamy argument is easy to kill...

Most polygamous relationships are heterosexual in nature. Therefore, legal heterosexual marriage is far liklier to take us down the slippery slope to polygamy!

How's that for an almost presidential application of logic? :)

av8rdave

[tom2kpro]

59. Actually, polygamy is way back on the path from which marriage came

I mean, the ancients in the Middle East had de facto polygamy long before anyone decided that it would be a good idea to limit one man to one wife.

Polygamy is about as old-fashioned as anything can get. I would imagien that there are some very conservative Mormons who would just love to bring back the family structures of 2500 B.C.E Middle East (or current Saudi Arabia).

[buckeye1]

42. No one seems to want it.

There was that wacko in Waco and some fringe Mormons,but that is not consenting. Who is clamoring for polygamy?

To really strengthen marriage,let's outlaw divorce. Watch them run from that!

[knight_of_the_star]

52. Here's a REALLY good counter-argument

If they want to say they want to "protect the sanctity of marriage" pop them with this one:

OK, obviously due to many factors in society, it is impossibly to have a marriage that is truly sacred. Therefore, how about we ban future marriage? That will allow for the current marriages to exist in sanctity as they would obviously make an effort to be sacred in nature.

I wonder how they would like that one.

[mac2]

63. Go to a RW web site...there will be plenty

It-g's against the Bible..Christain concept of marriage, etc. I'm just plain hateful of anyone different seems to be the best reason.

[foreigncorrespondent]

50. I really hope you don't believe in that one.

Gay marriage is talking about TWO concenting adults, who have fallen in love with one another, who want to marry and make a proper life together.

Marriage as it is right now, is talking about TWO concenting adults, who have fallen in love with one another, who want to marry and make a proper life together.

Polygamy is talking about THREE or MORE concenting adults. There is no comparison between gay marriage and polygamy marriage. Just like there is no comparison between marriage (as we know it now), and polygamy marriage.

[NicoleM]

53. The state has an interest

in *not* allowing polygamy. For one thing, we would have to pay out survivor's benefits to multiple spouses rather than just one. For another, how would we decide which spouse gets to make medical decisions for the others? Do they appoint someone? Do they take a vote? What if one of them wants to get a divorce--how do you divide the property?

I think you can make a good argument for not allowing polygamy, but I see no argument at all for not allowing gay marriage.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

4. I've not heard any good arguments-not on DU, not in Boston

where it will be debated again on March 11th.

People hide their bigotry behind their religion and supposed "family values". Even here on DU.

[salinen]

5. There should be a constitutional amendment banning

marriage to animals, cars, toasters, and house plants. Then those POS alarmists can go back into their caves.

[drdigi420]

6. there are none

Mostly it comes down to one or both of the following:

bigotry and/or religion

Some ppl resist gay's right to marriage because they simply hate gay people and do not want them to be accepted as equals

others would deny gay people the right to marry based on religious beliefs

neither is a valid argument

i personally wish all the people trying to force religion on everyone would move to a place and call it Christianland and leave the rest of us alone

then they can be as bigoted, racist, ignorant, and homophobic as they want to be

[La Lioness Priyanka]

7. nope!

not one

[wellstone_democrat]

8. Yes

I've heard any number of people on DU and in my office say that a perfectly good reason to oppose it is...

they don't feel comfortable with it or they don't like it.

Moronic reasoning, but there ya go. What passes for a good argument to some in the US.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

12. thats not a GOOD argument

its a bad argument!

[wellstone_democrat]

21. it was meant to make a point about irony

in this situation. That this is what is passing for "good argument" right now in many public venues (like the workplace).

[La Lioness Priyanka]

31. sorry

i am very cranky today...the polygamy arguments dont help :)

[wellstone_democrat]

45. yeah, its getting nuts

I live in Freeper central so I'm on edge as well.

I think people are becoming insane---all of 'em

[La Lioness Priyanka]

46. its nuts in here as welll

someone just tried to tell me that the popes stance on homosexuals is not homophobic ...

[Bill33614]

10. "Has anyone heard a good argument against same sex marriage?" cont'd

I guess I could make a couple of jokes on Gay Marriage and the gays would be so busy with their own lives there would be no more "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" and who would there be to make all these straight guys attractive to the straight woman? What would happen to the marriage ceremony itself - no florists - event planners - designers - haridressers - chefs?
The fact is and it for one is a simple thing - if a gay partner of may years is sick and is in the hospital are you aware their partner now cannot visit them - they are not "family".

[noiretextatique]

13. no...i haven't heard a single one

because i don't like it or it makes me uncomfortable
because it's against my religion
because marriage is one man, one woman (at a time)

these seem to be the standard ones.

[knight_of_the_star]

57. Here's one I've heard

They shouldn't be able to adopt because if they adopt kids their kids will hate heteros.

Oh, and that gay relationships are naturally unstable anyway.

Moronic, based on poor information at best. Yet that passes for an argument in this country outside of a philosophy classroom or a political forum.

[Cleita]

14. None. I haven't heard a good argument for marriage either

except that it confirms a certain level of commitment to a relationship. Many couples have raised families and remained together for years without the benefit of nuptials. Eventually, they do have to do it though because of the conventions of our society and it really makes good business sense to preserve your monetary investment in a relationship, like property and of course the welfare of the children.

[NC_Nurse]

15. No

just fear-mongering and stupidity (fear of the unknown, I guess).Personally, I don't see why anyone cares who someone marries, as long as they are consenting adults.:wtf:

[SalParadise]

16. It makes baby Jesus cry?

n/t

[Hell Hath No Fury]

God will go...

on a kitten-killing rampage if we let gays marry! :eyes:

[mike1963]

29. Or gives Jerry Foulball a woody...?

:evilgrin:

[kayell]

60. EEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!

:puke:
That (almost) convinced ME.

[iamjoy]

17. Excuse Me if This Sound Cynical...

Have you been paying attention to all the discussions these past several years about the solvency of Social Security?

If gays could get married, they'd be entitled to each other's Social Security Survivor benefits and we can't afford that.

:eyes:

No really, I think it is this (in addition to the other posts): these people believe homosexuality is a choice and if you choose a decadent life style, you sacrifice certain rights and privileges. They further believe that if they accept sin in society, they will some how be judged for it.

[noiretextatique]

19. that and fear of homosexuals getting health insurance

in other words $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
i haven't heard anyone come right out and say this though.

[Cleita]

23. So if homosexuals became heterosexuals wouldn't that still

be the same health insurance. I mean is there an extra person in there I'm not seeing? :hi:

[noiretextatique]

26. some lunatic wrote a screed about homosexuals

getting married just to get health insurance and :scared: possibly even get treatment for AIDs and STDs :wow: according to him, there would be an epidemic of marriages just for this purpose...moran! as if insurance companies will be more accepting of terminally ill gay folks than they are of terminally ill straight folks.

:scared: the thought of homosexuals :scared: getting health insurance :scared: like heterosexuals :scared: sent this nutcase over the edge :scared: LOL :hi:

[Milspec]

65. Food for thought?, at one time I considered marrying my sister, Really!

For health insurance... now for some background

First of all my "sis" (Sweetpea to me) and I are in no way, by biology or legally "brother & sister". My father & her mother "knew" each other, briefly, 15 years after I came into this world & when "Sweetpea" was only very a little girl. Through some odd twists of fate I met "SP" when she was 21 years old, and in the intervening years have bonded totally, at least in "the spirit world" as brother & sister. We have been bonded in this manner in thick & thin for the intervening years, we are very, very close.
Now flash forward to 2001. Sweetpea was in a relationship with a guy that "loved her beyond word, your my princess, can we spend the next 50 years together..."WHAT your pregnant" Oh don't think I like this idea very much, see ya."
Sweetpea, at the end of here rope, calls Bro & asks for help. Bro leaves a job (good) in northern CA to relocate back in LA, sets up household with "SP" & ultimately forks up for a very easy (thank G*D) delivery of a beautiful little boy & I regret not a moment or a Dollar of it.

BUT, a loveless marriage (in the marriage sense) would have offered huge finical benefits insurance wise. We did not go down that path because, our (personal standards , while quite low (tee hee), could not go down that path.
However NEVER forget what people will consider in the manipulation of law to gain getting health insurance

[Scottie72]

64. I really wish

that there was a way for me to extend to my partner my Health Coverage. His place of employment just raised his contribution and now he actually has a less coverage plan. He is an HMO with a product15. He has a $150 deductable for perscriptions (I am not sure about the co-pays after that).. $1000 co-pay for IN patient.. It is jus outrageous.

I have a product 10 with the same company.. I would love to be willing to add him to my insurance policy.. (of course I would be paying mine + spouse premiums )



I have a question about common law marriage. He and I have a membership to Costco, he is listed as the main card holders and I am listed as his spouse. If gay marriages actually become recongnize does this qualify? We have been living together now for 3 years.

[Cleita]

20. Oh bull.

If a person takes spousal benefits, it's possible, but I don't and I am heterosexually married. You wanna know why? Because you can choose to take spousal benefits or if you worked all your life, you can choose your own. I chose my own because it was more than the spousal benefits. Most gay couples both work so there would be no more SS handed out than normally.

Also, what if they did marry people of the opposite sex, wouldn't this cause SS to be paid out too? Your argument arithmetically doesn't add up.

[John_H]

27. You want Universal health care, right? People get insured anyway.

Regandless of their sexual orientation.

[Sterling]

36. Yes but more gay couples means less kids = less SS and waste.

And gay couples can adopt all those unwanted children we can't feed. I am sure that is ok with you.

[humble truth]

18. These are the arguments I usually hear

except from GOPers it's with so much earnestness. "It makes me uncomfortable" is a valid reason to stop two strangers from getting married, apparently.

[axeburn]

25. No

The reasons I have heard are not legitimate. Mostly religious reasons, but that's a bunch of crap. We live in so-called democracy, not theocracy. Religion has nothing to do with it, it's about equal rights.

[salin]

44. welcome to DU, axeburn

on some folks - they just don't get that many folks ran (figuratively) to this country in order to get away from a dominant religious group that imposed their beliefs (and behaviors) upon others. That part of US history seems to have been lost on a whole lot of folks. And that side of the aisle talks about our side using "revisionist history"... shheeez.

[jansu]

38. Constitution does not say that I have a right NOT to be offended!

Good point you make! It's about the licenses! Since the State gives licenses to marry, what other licenses do they withhold based on sex? Drivers license, real estate license?

[blondeatlast]

24. No. There are none.

[mike1963]

28. No logical reason, but I think you got a word wrong:

" have not heard one reasonable argument against banning same sex marriage that carries any weight legally."

Didn't you mean "...not heard one reasonable argument FOR banning..."?

No big deal, we all, I think know what you're saying. Welcome to DU!
:toast:
:D

[humble truth]

30. Whoops!

Thanks for the correction!

[proud patriot]

33. No

I haven't .

[Iris]

35. It's against the Bible!

Just kidding.

[Iris]

61. Last night I was watching the news and here in Georgia

the House of Reps. failed to pass a bill that would put an ammendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage on Nov.'s ballot.

They interviewed a woman who said she didn't agree with this and, this is why - "If they have to vote on something like that then that's just proof it's wrong!"

I'm not kidding.

So, according to her, any issue that needs to be voted on is just wrong.

[BootinUp]

62. ????

Oh dear, and I live in the same state too.

[jansu]

39. Welcome to DU and good post!

What other license is not given based on sexual preference? Drivers license, real estate license, Doctor's license? It is a civil affair, as the state gives you a license and then you can choose where you go to marry. It is not religious, as you can not get marry even in a church without the civil license!

[buddhamama]

40. nope

i haven't heard a single good argument against.

[depakid]

41. Nope- though the same arguments against marraige in general

still apply :evilgrin:

[gulliver]

43. I don't do oppo research for the GOP, thanks.

This kind of thread, regardless of the poster's intention, does nothing but hone the wedge the GOP wants to use to divide us.

I have nothing to say about it other than that it disgusts me that Bush has decided he wants to change the Constitution as a first resort. Bush and people like Bush drag down America. Bush does it for money; others for racism; others for sexism; others for religious zeal. When will someone heal our country instead of feeding on its open wounds?

[E-Z Rider]

47. one-dimensional thought is unproductive

You should welcome challenges to your thinking.

[gulliver]

51. Fine.

But I don't see you offering one.

[tom2kpro]

58. No. It hones our own arguments.

Some people actually want to be able to respond to the other side with arguments that will be persuasive to them, or at least cause them to shut up for a minute as they ponder how to respond.

If you only hang around people that agree with you 90 percent or more, you will not develop any debating skills. No, it is not enought to respond, as one caller did to a right-wing talk-radio host, that "polygamy is disgusting." We are now moving beyond the point where people can dictate the boundary's of other people's lives based on what they personally find desirable or disgusting.

[MAlibdem]

48. I was informed this summer at political boot camp (JSA)

That personal religious arguments are valid arguments...

I tend to disagree.

[Vas Liz]

49. I have only heard three arguments

And they are all pathetic with out substance.

1. It is against <insert religion here>.
2. Personal (and nothing else) dislike of gays.
3. No reason at all, but it's fun to be a lemming.

[distortionmarshall]

54. nope - can you hum a few bars? :) /eom

[Sufi Marmot]

55. Two's a marriage, three's a corporation...

To counter the slippery slope argument of "Accepting gay marriage means that we have to accept polygamy":

It seems to me you can split the concept of polygamy into two components: sexual freedom and civil benefits.

1) Adults can shack up and sleep with whomever they want and the government has no business regulating this. I think most people would agree, even if they themselves are personally uncomforable with the concept of polyamory/polygamy. Any budding polygamist can legally marry his first wife and shack up with as many additional spouses as he sees fit. In fact, if their religion sanctioned it, they could even all be "married" in a religious sense, just not civilly.

2) In terms of civil benefits, why should polygamous people be able to collect benefits from more than one partner? Why should a benefit-granting entity (such as an employer) be forced to grant benefits to extra people? The deal should be: for benefits and other legal concens you have to pick one person (gay or straight). I don't think that benefit granting entities should have to do reductionist accounting: "Ok, Bob has three wives, so they each get 1/3 medical coverage" That isn't going to work. Just go form a corporation and screw the system legally...

This approach of course pares down the concept of binary heterosexual and homosexual "marriages" to strictly legalistic, non-religious terms, fiduciary (is that the right word?) terms.

-SM, who supports legally defining marriage as "between TWO people", regardless of sexual orientation...

On edit - Is there ever a situation where an argument for "daisy-chaining" of benefits could be made in support of legal recognition of polygamy? That is: Bob, who has medical coverage and dental coverage is married to Carol, who does not have medical, but has dental. Carol gets her medical from her marriage to Bob, but wants to also "marry" Ted who doesn't have dental. Can Ted then "marry" Alice for tax purposes? Does it make a difference whether they all live together or are sharing the same bed? Does receiving benefits from an entity which recoginzes and allows them to transfer to a partner mandate that they can be transfered to ANY partner, regardless of what other legal relationships exist?

[Milspec]

56. No, not against.. but......

there will have to be an adjustments in a significant body of civil law and the ability of judges to use precedence in dissolution of marriage. Current case law in most states subscribe certain, almost automatic judgment's in the case of divorce (esp in terms of long term marriage's) based on biology. Items like child custody, support & alimony.

[Hammie]

66. Not really...

As a point of order, is posting while intoxicated against the board rules?

Anyone?


Hammie the (DUWI) Tech out.