Serious question about opponents to equal rights marriage:

[marbuc]

They claim same-sex marriage weakens marriage in some way. What justification do they use to support this? I'm really trying to understand that mind-set, but this claim has me befuddled, I see no logic at all.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. You got me

Nothing the two guys across the street do has anything to do with me as long as they keep their grass cut, their dog on a leash and don't put a couch on the front porch.

[Vincardog]

2. no logic at all BINGO they would rather believe than think

[BattyDem]

3. The same justification they use to support all of their positions ...

NONE!

They pronounce something to be true, but don't back up their claims with facts or common sense because the sheeple don't demand it of them - they simply fall in line and accept those beliefs. Why think for yourself when someone else can do it for you? :eyes:

[mattomjoe]

4. For them, it just HAS TO weaken marriage.

Homosexuality is an abomination, after all. Everything works backwards from that.

[Bunny]

5. I think it has something to do with the traditional view that

marriage is for procreation. And since homosexuals cannot procreate, they are making mockery of marriage. And, if we let the gays marry, who is to say that a man won't want to marry a box turtle, or something?

Mind you, a homosexual has every bit the ability to procreate as a heterosexual, and no one has yet proposed some sort of box turtle marriage, but you did say there was no logic involved. And you were right.

[marbuc]

8. The ability to procreate cannot alone validate marriage

what about those who can't or don't want to reproduce. Are these marriages not valid?

[Bunny]

26. Good question. You'll have to ask the kooks about that.

[marbuc]

28. I will

but they don't often come around Casa Marbuc.

[napi21]

6. Why are you looking for logic?

I haven't seen anything logical from the Pubs in so long I forgot it was a word!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

7. The only thing that weakens marriage

is divorce, or the concept that heterosexual couples can live together and even have children without any stigma. Neither of these activities have anything to do with homosexuals marrying. To imply that same-sex marriage would somehow weaken marriage in general doesn't make sense.

[Lerkfish]

9. er...your first mistake is trying to apply logic.

its not logical. Its a made up wedge issue anyhow, and unfortunately encourages more homophobic bigotry. The ENTIRE POINT of bringing up same sex marriage was to bring the fundies out to vote. It was a ploy, and one in which targeted groups suffered, but republicans gained.

But here's how madeup wedge issues work: you create some sort of "threat" to things people hold dear. If a threat is not handy, you make one up:

a good case in point is the fake "threat" that the ACLU wants to remove "in god we trust' from currency. its not true, but it whips up the fundies into a feeding frenzy...HOW DARE THEY threaten the god-fearing principles this country was base on...yadda yadda yadda. By now, with able assistance from complicit RW clergy, they have whipped up the fundies to the point that they don't even bother to check whether the threat is accurate or even feasible.

Same with same-sex marriage, They couldn't package it as "lets restrict the civil rights of another group of people wantonly and without provocation"...even some fundies would stop and think about that. No, they had to package it as "Queers is gonna ruin marriage, in front of God and everywun!" Get that old "threat" thing going, get people running around in circles, and then they never try to sit down and figure out if the threat is plausible or accurate.

Obviously, same sex marriage is no threat to anyone whatsoever. It would be no different, really, from cohabiting gay couples that exist now. The ONLY difference would be to share benefits, and custody of shared children if a spouse dies, that sort of thing.

[marbuc]

10. I always try to understand the other side of the argument.

Usually, even with RWers, I can understand the basis for their argument, even if I disagree. In this case I cannot.

[Lerkfish]

19. I wasn't cutting you down, I hope you didn't think so..

I meant there is no logic to find, not that it was stupid to look for it.

[Ian David]

23. Phase 1: Gay Marriage

Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Nazis riding dinosaurs

[BattyDem]

13. "It would be no different from cohabiting gay couples that exist now"

EXACTLY! :toast:

I've said this to people before:

Gay couples exist and are ALREADY buying homes together, raising children and sharing their lives. That sounds like marriage to me. The ONLY thing "real" marriage would change is their legal status. How does that hurt anyone else? :shrug:

[unblock]

11. it all makes perfect sense when you start from a position of blind hatred

if you blindly hate gays, then anything that is mean to gays makes perfect sense.

given the choice of having the bulk of the gay population as single and promiscuous versus married and committed, people who are actually opposed to homosexuality would prefer married and committed.

but that's not the way they think. this is the way they think:

if gays want to get married, then fuck 'em, we're making marriage illegal.

that's it, that's the logic.

[converted_democrat]

12. I am lost on their logic as well, but I think they push this issue hard

because it serves them well. Abortion isn't as "hot" for them as it has been in the past, so they needed something new. I know scores of pukes that have turned cold on the abortion issue, though not in public, because so many of them have had a close family member, or friend that had one. The public polls say something like 66% of Americans are pro-choice. It just isn't the hot topic that it used to be, so they had to create another one. This issue of Gay Marriage is a two'fer for them, they get all the ignorant homo-phobics, and anyone that can be manipulated by the church.

[JuniorPlankton]

14. Here is one argument:

The institution of marriage has been defined (historically) as man/woman thing. Once go beyond it, by saying that if these people love each other, they should be allowed to marry there is no stopping it. It would imply an ability to marry for mother/daughter, 16 people including 7 senior citizens, etc.

(Please, please, please: do not argue with ME, I am just relaying the message)

[marbuc]

15. I guess I've heard that

but dismissed it as irrational. Thanks.

[BattyDem]

17. They always take it to extremes

"If gay people get married, then what's to stop my neighbor from marrying his dog?" :eyes:

They create a ridiculous circumstance so you're forced to go on the defensive and you end up talking about the extremes instead of the real issues.

The bottom line is this:
Would people allow the government to choose the race, age, nationality, political affiliation or religion of their spouses? Of course not! So why should the government choose the gender?

Right now, there is one set of rules for a male/female couple and another set of rules for a same-sex couple. That's not fair. The law is not being applied equally solely because of the genders of the couple. Any ADULT should be allowed to be married to one other ADULT at any time, regardless of gender. That puts EVERYONE on equal ground. NO ONE can marry multiple people. NO ONE can marry their children, parents, siblings, etc. NO ONE can marry outside of the human species.

Why do they have such a problem with it? What are they afraid of? :shrug:


edited: typo :blush:

[JuniorPlankton]

20. I think the real problem is lack of church/state separation

There should be NO CIVIL marriage. Only religious.
The "lay" version could be called a civil union or whatever else.
That would create (truly) equal rights for gays, and avoid some of the issues with the church. (If your church doesn't accept homosexual civil union and doesn't want you to be "religiously" married, then maybe you should view as another reason to be less religious :))

[BattyDem]

21. I agree

Since most people who condemn gay marriage use God as an excuse to discriminate, then let them have marriage all to themselves. Make it a religious event. Civil unions for all.

Unfortunately, many people would be freaked out by this suggestion. :-(

[Ian David]

25. Then marriage should be defined as..

"A legal union regulated by the state between two consenting adult human beings who are no more closely related than first cousins, neither of whom are married to anyone else."

Or I suppose it could be 2nd cousins, depending on what all the other states are doing.

[K8-EEE]

16. Because They Are Not Happy Unless "Persecuted" & "Attacked"

All the while of course, they are the ones that are persecuting and attacking, as nobody is telling THEM they can't be married.

The "Christian Persecution Complex" seriously makes me hurl. You can't even get elected to National office in this country without being an Xtian churchgoer so how is it THEY are being persecuted??

[Sinti]

18. Tolerance is threatening

If gay marriage is made into law, thus rendering all people equal on the marriage front, then it would be infinitely more difficult for the radical Christians to maintain their ignorant prejudices against gay people. It would in essence normalize gay persons in society, which is already happening. The hetero-married couple would soon no longer be the epitome of moral living, and they would lose power, power they gained by enabling hatred and inspiring fear of "hell for all of eternity" in the hearts of their blind followers.

It is a very real threat to them indeed.

Sinti ;)

[Duncan Grant]

27. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[newyawker99]

30. Hi Sinti!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Ian David]

22. Because the lines to get a marriage license may be 10% longer...

And if that happens, heterosexual marriages like the ones involving Britney Spears would be over before they could actually get to the Justice of the Peace.

[hippiegranny]

24. Because if marriage is legal for gays

then maybe their children would choose to be gay?

[Sapphocrat]

29. From what I've gathered from the enemy...

...it goes like this:

1. GOD SAYS marriage is between one man and one woman. (Where? I dunno; it's not in my KJV.) Anything else is a sin.

2. Since homosexuality is a sin, it shouldn't be condoned by the state (and since the U.S. was "founded as a Christian nation," the fanatical religionists figure they have the right to control the state with their religion).

2. Since it's their "job" to convert the unsaved (and we're talking mainly fundy evangelicals here, who are the primary opponents -- although a lot of otherwise "liberal" religionists believe this too), they're somehow failing God if they stand by and allow us to get married without trying to stop us. (Which is the justification for abortion-clinic bombings, too.)

I guess the conclusion to be drawn (if you take the above at face value) is that they're not half so worried about our marriages weaking theirs, but weaking their chances of getting into heaven. The true believers are scared of pissing off a vengeful God (and don't give a crap about human rights or the Constitution).

Personally, I think the truth is that some people feel so low on the totem pole, they need somebody below them to piss on in order to feel better about themselves.

Add to that the fear that legalizing same-sex marriage will somehow prove that LGBT people are better at relationships than they are. Heh... Nothing they "allow" us to do or not is going to affect the day-to-day functioning in our relationships -- but they seem to have this twisted idea that if we can't get married legally, our relationships don't actually exist, and so there's nothing for them to compete with.

Rambling, stupid illogic, all of it, I know -- but this is what I observe.

Beyond the fundies, you've got politicians who cater to this idiocy just for the votes and the money. I don't think * gives a hang one way or the other whether my OH and I can get married or not, but he preaches one-man/one-woman to appease the fundies.