Should same sex marriage be legalized? (Restart)
Submitted by spinmedown16 on Sun, 10/12/2008 - 12:23
Tags:
Author Comments:
Pretty simple answer. When I say gay marriage, I mean MARRIAGE. Not "partners," or any other bullshit word like that. Let's hope this shit doesn't get passed!
Prop 8 is to make same sex marriage ILLEGAL. But I am asking if it should be legalized STILL. Wanted to make that clear! Thanks for all of your input, it means a lot!
Gays should only be allowed to get married if they agree to adopt someone's kid, like Lindsay Lohan's kid after she goes back to jail another time. Otherwise there's no kids and it's just parasites.
Why shouldn't they marry. They'll see that it's not all that it's not all that great. It's a reason the divorce rate is so high. Let them be miserable to. Soon they'll ask to have the law changed back really fast. After that first feeling of discomfort or waking up and realizing I can't stand this person. And you just can't walk away you have to split everything down the middle. Why not let them see that with legalized marriage comes real divorce not just breaking up. Splitting up property alimony let them find out that it's not all peaches and cream.
Of course. I can't think of a single rational argument against it.
Homophobic idiots or religious assholes are the sort of people who want this kind of law passed, it's completely unnacceptable that people still hold this outdated intolerent viewpoint.
Is there anything wrong with using religion as a basis to vote? Weird that you say the view that marriage is between a man and woman as 'outdated' and 'intolerant' while referring to people who hold it as 'idiots' and 'assholes'. I know plenty of people who oppose this but aren't homophobic at all. Let's not forget marriage is a sacrament and the country was built on the Christian idea of it. A marriage was meant to be consummated and produce children, which gays cannot do. Is this outdated? Perhaps, but remember that your idea of what marraige is and what most of America thinks may conflict. Perhaps you just see it as a piece of paper that gives tax benefits and a reason to hold a ceremony. Many see it as the start of a family.
I think many heterosexuals have the inclination to oppose it simply because it seems so unnatural to them. A man and a woman can concieve; most people's physical attractions lie toward the opposite gender; it is obvious this is the way the circle of life goes. Some people are attracted to sheep as well; should they be allowed to marry? What if the animal is really intelligent? Obviously the point is extreme but there's some truth to it; the 'typical' marriage is done when the man and woman are ready to settle down and begin a family, whereas a gay couple would be forced to adopt. To say that gays are allowed to marry changes the fundamental definition of what marriage is. Maybe you're ready for that; some people aren't and feel that it's sort of a cheapening of what it represents.
Ooh, goody! Debate!
I think the key to this issue is in the last two sentences of your first paragraph. Is marriage a set of legal rights or a God-given means of starting a traditional family? Opposers of gay marriage will say that marriage is the latter, but in our country today, marriage is both concepts rolled into one institution. And while the religious are uncomfortable with the idea of providing homosexuals with the latter concept, I agree with the statement that it is outdated and intolerant to fail to provide same-sex couples with the same legal rights as hetero couples.
I think that's the idea behind civil unions - a marriage without calling it marriage, with all the religious and historical baggage that word entails. Of course, there are some same-sex couples who'll want to get married, pure and simple, where the law will get trickier. Christians like to say that marriage is a sacrament in the Judeo-Christian tradition designed to produce kids, but we do allow Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Scientologists, and atheists to hold different ceremonies and call it marriage. We also let sterile people, people too old to have kids, people with vasectomies, and people who simply don't want to have kids to marry. We also let murderers, rapists, thieves, adulterers, kidnappers, and other people who've committed graver Biblical sins than homosexuality, to marry. All this is provided it's a person with boy parts marrying a person with girl parts. If marriage is such a sacrament, why is the religious right okay with this?
I have a theory that a lot of this just stems from a visceral reaction against homosexuality, that it just seems gross and icky and therefore we shouldn't encourage it. That's the only way a lot of these aforementioned contradictions make sense to me.
Well, to say it was based on doesn't mean that's the way it is today. Obviously marriage has been changed from the strictly Catholic definition but the parameters of WHO can get married have always been the same.
"Christians like to say that marriage is a sacrament in the Judeo-Christian tradition designed to produce kids, but we do allow Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Scientologists, and atheists to hold different ceremonies and call it marriage."
Forbidding other religions to get married would be religious persecution wouldn't it? Besides I'm not so clear that it's forbidden in the Bible; not as clearly as that which forbids homosexuals.
"We also let sterile people, people too old to have kids, people with vasectomies, and people who simply don't want to have kids to marry."
That's also true, and this is another way in which marriage has changed from the 'fundamental' Christian definition. Most fundamentalists would take exception to any of those people getting married.
"We also let murderers, rapists, thieves, adulterers, kidnappers, and other people who've committed graver Biblical sins than homosexuality, to marry."
I don't think many are arguing that gay marriage is wrong because the people are immoral; by the same token we wouldn't elect a known thief to Congress, since thievery is a bad thing for a Congressman to do; likewise many think marriage is a bad thing for homosexuals to do.
"I have a theory that a lot of this just stems from a visceral reaction against homosexuality, that it just seems gross and icky and therefore we shouldn't encourage it. That's the only way a lot of these aforementioned contradictions make sense to me."
This may be true. I know at a company function I was at one of the workers brought his 'partner', another male, and being a semi-professional lunch, you could tell it was somewhat awkward. Many people compare this to racism and assume it will bowl over but I'm not so sure; there really aren't many revelant differences between people of different colors, but there is one big one among homosexuals, and it's definitely an issue in regards to marriage. Don't get me wrong; I'm not really taking much of a position on the issue - but I do believe our country is a tolerant one - and when a proposition like this wins handedly it seems to me like the issue goes beyond just 'intolerance'.
But we only believe there aren't fundamental differences between races because of the changes in America's belief system over the past 150 years. Ask the white man what he thinks of the black man a century or two ago, and he'd spout some bullshit about how they're an inferior race and say it's God's will that blacks and whites not get married. So yeah, the parameters of who can get married HAVE changed.
You're right, preventing, say, Muslims from getting married would be religious persecution... if you're looking at marriage from a legal standpoint... in which case preventing homosexuals from getting married would be sexuality-based persecution, right? If you're looking at it from a religious standpoint, it should be perfectly fine. No one would object to a synagogue not wanting a Muslim to have a bar mitzvah there, right? That's the problem with having this institution that has both huge religious significance and huge legal significance.
By the way, I do think we're moving towards a greater acceptance of nontraditional family models. The majority of our country is unmarried for the first time in forever, and I think things will stay that way. And finally, I don't expect this to be a popular opinion, and it may diminish my credibility in your eyes, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a movement to let humans marry animals in the next century, and if there was someone who believed he or she was in love with a pig and wanted to marry it, I'd be willing to hear their case with an open mind.
I think the race and sexuality things are different; even, say the race debate of the 1850's vs. the sexuality debate of today. To my knowledge there are no Bible passages saying inter-racial marriages are wrong, and naturally they are just fine; anyone, white, Mexican, Asian alike would be attracted to a foxy black as much as anyone else. They can still start a 'traditional' family with a mother and father figure. It is hard to accept gays in the same way because straight people can't really identify with them. I really don't think they can be looked upon the same way.
if you're looking at marriage from a legal standpoint... in which case preventing homosexuals from getting married would be sexuality-based persecution, right?
Not necessarily; we're not ruling against gays getting married, we're ruling that same sex couples couldn't be. A gay man would never want to marry a woman but that option's still free regardless of what he's attracted to; in fact I suspect this happens a lot anyway.
The last paragraph I think really does ring true. For example many of the biblical laws regarding pre-marital sex were very relevant when people got married at 13; now, they don't make sense. Marriage may slowly be going that way. Half of all marriages end in divorce, which is definitely very troubling. The cause isn't easy to pin down, but I guess the fact that people are easily living into their 80's these days instead of say, their late 30's may have something to do with it. I don't think marriage is taken as seriously as it once was. And about human/animal marriages...well honestly, I never liked that argument since it seems to be insulting toward gay people, so I always looked at it this way - if a man and a man can get married, why not then a bisexual man, a gay man, and a straight woman? Or a man and two women? I agree if same-sex marriage is legalized (and I feel like it will in our lifetimes, just not this year) some case like the man/pig one will be heard.
I think the institution of marriage needs to be more accurately defined. A pledge of eternal love doesn't need a government document and the threat of a messy divorce; honestly I believe many of these gay couples aren't really concerned about it from a discrimination angle, but rather because it prevents them from getting tax benefits.
The great thing about the Bible is that you can basically interpret it however you like. So yeah, people used it to prove that interracial marriages were wrong way back in the day.
And again, if a guy wanted to argue that his three-way relationship was functional and that he wanted to express his love though a three-way marriage, I'd keep an open mind about it. There are so many different people in the world, that I believe there could be people out there whose ideal relationship involved three people rather than two, despite what society may think of that.
I fully agree with your last paragraph, although I don't purport to speak for a same-sex couple who wants to get married, as I am not part of one.
Just out of curiousity do you know HOW they used it to argue against interracial marriage? I can see the argument about gay marriage; it's written right in there. Interracial seems like a huge stretch...
I totally 100% agree with you here. Never a truer statement was spoken.