Dear GD Denizens: Please give me your best excuse against gay marriage --

[Bertha Venation]

. . . as if you believed it. And if you can, argue your stand.

I don't want a flame war and if everyone reads this OP, no one can claim that YOU actually believe what you wrote, unless you state as much.

I want to compile a list of opponents' arguments and, frankly, I'm too lazy to try to think of them all myself. I'll quit before I have a good list together, and I know enough GD regs care about this issue that I'll get some very good responses.

Thanks

[globalvillage]

1. As a 45 year old single hetero woman, I say...

All of the "good ones" are either married or gay. If gays are allowed to marry, that will reduce my "unavailable" category to one. It doesn't help my chances any, but it makes it sound like the available pool is bigger with only one group out of the picture, so I say let gays marry. At least then it'll be easier to cross them off my list.
On second thought, that doesn't address guys who paint themselves for football games, scratch themselves in public or live with their moms. Oh well...it was a thought.
Kidding, of course. Happily single, and I can think of no reason not to let gays marry. My advice against gay marriage is the same as my advice against hetero marriage. Unless you're sure you've found the right person, it's not all it's cracked up to be.

[sweetladybug]

4. I'm a 50 yr old married women and I say, gay marriage is fine with me BUT

the Republicans have made such an issue out of it. And that issue is used against the Democrat Party. Perhaps we shouldn't fall into the Republicans hands. Maybe we should go along with them and say "A marriage is between a man and a women" BUT we need to fight for the rights of a gay couple to be able to have a Partnership or a Civil Union and for them to have the same rights as a married couple. (It would be the same thing just different words) This is just my 2 cents worth.
Gayle

[Bertha Venation]

18. hi, sweetladybug

I appreciate your concerns about what the GOP is doing with the issue, but IMO it can't be used to stop this train. We're talking about equality.

There is no substitute for marriage; civil unions are a "separate but equal" measure and the Supreme Court has already ruled that "separate but equal" is unconstitutional.

We should NOT go along with them. Marriage is a basic, fundamental human right. The Supreme Court says so. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights says so. No one's going to stop this train, especially not in the name of kowtowing to the GOP.

[H2O Man]

55. As a married family man

who cares deeply about community values, I must say that I have yet to hear a single valid point made in favor of denying the right to get married to any adult human being. Those who rant and rave against the right of homosexual couples to enjoy the exact same rights in this regard, are the people who pose the greatest threat to what I believe is the foundation of a community. In my opinion, no one needs a minister or a judge to tell them they are married. Thus, those who deny gay and lesbian couples the same rights and benefits as male-female couples are a danger to society.

Society should encourage and appreciate mature, stable, loving relationships.

[Berserker]

5. I find it very

fascinating when a woman says things like this and I quote:
"As a 45 year old single hetero woman, I say..." All of the "good ones" are either married or gay.
My question is this. Where does that leave you since you are single does that mean you are "No good or gay"?
I think you were joking but some are not.

[Wcross]

7. I must be a "bad" one....

41 years old and never married! Although there is nothing wrong with being gay, I prefer women.
Yes, I am a BAD one! I prefer being "Bad" and single because I enjoy my freedom above all else.

[globalvillage]

15. OK...

I thought "kidding, of course" made it obvious, but maybe not.
I have no issues with gay marriage. I think everyone should be happy as long as they're not hurting anyone in the process.
I do not think, on the whole, single men (or married, or gay...) are bad. Women either.
Where that leaves me, is wondering why there are so many labels.
Yes, I was joking. Maybe I'm not funny. I'll work on that after breakfast.

[LynnTheDem]

2. Ummmm...

Hmmmmm....

Gimme a minute...

ahhhh...

Oh I know! Because...nope.

Still thinking...

Oh look, BREKKIE is ready!

[sendero]

3. You beat me to it..

.... there really isn't one that I wouldn't feel like a moron saying.

[LynnTheDem]

6. Want some bacon?

Got extra scrambled eggies here too...

(still thinking, don't rush me!)

[xultar]

8. IF all the Gay men marry one another then they will spend more time

being fabulous together than spreading the fabulous amongst the world.

[LynnTheDem]

9. HEY that was MINE!

Now I have to think of another one. Dammit.

:D

[Wcross]

10. Listening to america in the morning the other day.

A caller said that marriage is for procreation. A gay couple can not procreate so there is no reason for marriage. He then stated if gays were allowed to marry then people should also be allowed to marry siblings and/or first cousins.

My personal thoughts on the subject are I don't see why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry or at least have a civil union. It seems to me these bible thumpers are intruding too much into the lives and rights of other people. (they always do)

[ultraist]

26. What a narrow definition of marriage

So only people who have children or pledge to have children can get married in that person's view? By extension, since only women can get can get pregnant and have children, men should not be allowed to marry. Only lesbians.

Just pointing out how ridiculous that notion is.

[Wcross]

28. Just how would they pull that off?

It takes a mans sperm to fertalize the egg right? Try as they might, it would be difficult for two women to get pregnant without a mans sperm.

Just pointing out a flaw in the theory.

REMEMBER- I am in favor of gay marriage/civil unions.

[ultraist]

38. Artificial insemination. You don't have to have sex to get pregnant

[Wcross]

40. Why would it take two women though?

The other flaw in the theory is that it wouldn't take two women to get pregnant- only one right? So why would two women need to be married for one of them to procreate? With artificial inspermination no marriage would have to exist at all. You would have to have one man (to donate) and one woman to carry the baby. The third individual would not be redundant.

[ultraist]

45. LOL! Good point.

The bottom line is marriage is not about or for procreation.

[Blind Tiresias]

43. that guy is a dumbass parrot monkey

and is wrong. Gay people most certainly CAN procreate. 'Gay' sperm or egg is just as fertile as 'straight' ones. The only people who cannot procreate are those with hysterectomies, or who have been otherwise sterilized, or postmenopausal women. Whenever some nut-job tells you that gays cant procreate, challenge them. Any fertile male or female can procreate regardless of sexual orientation!!

[Wcross]

47. Yes, he is.....

He probably gets all his "news" from Gordon Liddy and faux news. I of course don't agree with his thoughts.

[Blind Tiresias]

52. i didnt mean to suggest you did

I meant that often times liberals let these fools parrot this 'gays cant
reproduce' point. It is not true and its about time we called them on it.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

11. arguments against gay marriage

1. It would mean that the world would realize that gay people can have long-lasting, committed and meaningful relationships, and the conservative agenda can't have their stereotypes of gays being 'unstable' broken.

2. If gay marriages are legalized, and, after a few years, statistics show that a larger percentage of gay couples stay married than straight couples, it puts a bad light on straight marriages.

3. Verses from the Bible must be continually cherry-picked to fit whatever agenda the far right has-heaven forbid if the sheep-like followers start reading the whole Book!

[Blind Tiresias]

44. not sure about #2

I think gay divorce would probably parallel with straight divorce after a few years...

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

57. but we don't know....

so I'll be optimistic.

[Bertha Venation]

12. A NOTE OF CLARIFICATION

Responses should fall into one of two categories:

1. If you have reservations about rendering it illegal to discriminate against us gay Americans in marriage, tell us. Please -- no flaming or ad hominem responses to these posts. Be reasonable.

2. Post arguments that you have heard from people who are fundamentally and seriously opposed to this equality.

Thanks.

[MuseRider]

13. Dunno Bertha.

We are fighting it here right now and it did get somehow mixed into our City wide election even though the issues were different and I have yet to hear anything that makes any sense at all. I think most of it, or perhaps all of it comes from an emotional knee jerk Bible reaction. Arguments I have heard...so can I then marry my dog?...God says it is an abomination...it is unhealthy...costs business more in benefits...they just spread illness. Those pretty much sum up what I have heard around here. I can't take any of those and argue them because they are either incorrect or emotional without support. I think the biggest problem I have noticed here is that we have the RWers who say mean and hateful things, the Phelps group who are just f'ing crazy and now we have the spawned off "nice" groups under names like Citizens for Truth and Love. These folks are the dangers, people listen to them. "He seems such a nice man, he wouldn't lie to me." Nice suits, nice smiles, quiet and even voices spewing more hate than the loud and emotional Phelps group.

Sorry, not what you asked for but maybe something you can use, don't know. We are losing here, of that I am certain.

[Bertha Venation]

17. "Citizens for Truth and Love?"

Truth: monogamous wedded couples do not spread disease (further truth: unfaithful and promiscuous individuals of both orientations, if they don't practice safe sex, DO spread disease)

Truth: what the Bible says can't be brought to bear here (see the Constitution)

Truth: you can marry your dog, if it is of age, gives informed consent -- and if you can make it human, dumbass (I'd refrain from saying "dumbass" if you use this one)

Truth: the number one health care "drain" on businesses offering insurance is pre- and post-natal care. Vastly more straight couples give birth than do gay couples. Other than that: demand proof. Tell them you'll answer them then

Truth: "unhealthy" -- 1. see the first "Truth" above; 2. if you're referring to any gay sex act, these acts are no different than anything straight couples do already; 3. if you're referring to any gay sex act -- what business is it of yours?

Love: You call denying equality under the law "love?"

:grr:

[MuseRider]

19. Yes, I used most

of that but when they are all based on emotion and hand picked religious references they will not debate any further than that. I must have been unclear, I meant that I could not defend their arguements to you because of the reasons you stated in your post above, they are incorrect or make no sense or are not applicable. It is terribly frustrating when it becomes impossible to debate because the other side simply will not hear you or respond. Still, we keep on hoping that regular people are not quite dumbed down to the point that they can't at least mull the issues around in their heads.

[Bertha Venation]

21. Ah, now I see. I should've known you didn't need answers. Sorry.

I have to ask, then, what you do do? What do you do when talking w/ these people?

It is impossible to get a fundamentalist Christian to think of possiblities outside what the Bible says. Absolutely impossible. I'm beginning to think that it really does take some major life crisis to break such fundies out of their circular "thinking." That's what it took for me. I had a nervous breakdown, or whatever they're calling it today.

For now, I have to get moving. Gotta go to the library, get the car alarm installed, help a friend go through her late father's things & prepare for an estate sale. You know -- the usual hedonistic gay agenda shit.

TTFN :hi:

[MuseRider]

22. God Bertha

I do love you and your gay agenda! You are such a good person.

I don't know how to fight them I have been trying but there is seriously no breaking through, at least so far.

Most people, if you ask them to think as a citizen and not with emotion, will give you enough time to gain a few points.

I have also found that people who would vote against anything gay change their tune if they find out that the neighbor they like or their coworker is gay. Around here most people still don't think they know anyone gay.

It is fear of the unknown and the religious right who are doing all of this. Most folks really would not care otherwise I don't think.

[ultraist]

27. Are you sure about that drain on the health care system?

It seems that the elderly would be the biggest drag on the healthcare system. (So, anyone over 60 should be euthanized).

[Bertha Venation]

56. Actually, no, I'm not sure. I'm not a very good debater--too emotional--

and I'm relying on information I learned about three years ago. Then: Yes. That was the number one biggest expense in the American health care system. Now: maybe not.

Even so, I'm not sure. I don't know how to assemble the empirical data required to answer the charge that "it costs too much in healthcare."

You see, that assertion is just so ridiculous that it boggles the mind. We don't allow equality to gay Americans in marriage because -- what? They'll have health care costs?

[Devlzown]

14. Sulfur.

God rained down sulfur on Sodom. Next thing you know, you're leaving on a trip and you're wife forgets something. She turns around to go back into the house and BAM! She winds up in a box of Morton's salt. Gay marriage turns wives into salt.

[ComerPerro]

16. I'm so sorry, Bertha. I usually talk to wingnuts all the time, but I can't

think of a single good excuse against gay marraige.

The only things I can come up with are:

Marriage is for procreation (which is just bullshit)

and

The Bible tells us that gay marraige is wrong (but, this is the United States, so it doesn't really matter what the Bible says).

I wish I could be of more help. I really do.

[SmokingJacket]

20. OK: I'll pretend.

Here goes:

"But the tradition of marriage between a man and a woman is special -- it goes back to the very beginning of mankind. Civilization depends on this basic unit for its very survival. Once we weaken this bond between man and woman -- by allowing easy divorce, or encouraging people to have children out of wedlock, or letting gays marry -- the mortar that holds society together will start to crumble."

Well? Do I get a column in the Moonie Times?

I know it's a weak argument... but it's the only one I could think of that's not religious.

Except maybe: "The majority of Americans are against it."

:shrug:

[AlCzervik]

23. I'll give the arguement that i thnk this is really about but you'll never

hear spoken aloud by the rw----it's the tax breaks, if gay people get married they'll get the same "Married filing jointly" tax break that we straight couple get thus eating away at the tax base.

[napi21]

24. Well, I actually do have a reason not to OK gay marriage.

Why in the world would gays want to add all the messy problems of marriage to their lives? You know, divorce lawyers, alimony, child support...all those messy things that go along with "marriage"!

I think they are viewing this marriage thing as a grass is greener picture. Things always seem a lot better when you can't have them.

I've been married for 41 years, and yes most of those years were good ones, but I still think, if they are going to change any laws, they should make more difficult for anyone to get married. It might reduce the number of couples who find marriage isn't as great as they thought it was, and head off to the lawyer and divorce court!

[Tsiyu]

25. "What would we tell the children?

If we make gay marriage legal, it will confuse all of our children and they will all become homosexual and our species and our way of life would die untimely deaths."

"Marriage is between Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

They are destroying the sanctity of marriage ( this one always makes me spit. As if...). It was RESERVED as a sacrament for a MAN and a WOMAN. To allow a same sex couple to enter into that revered state of grace is to mock the very state of wedded being."

Okay, I'm making myself sick now. I, of course, believe none of the above; only adding to Bertha's thread what I have heard from the fundytards.

[ultraist]

31. "Marriage is between Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." LMAO!!!

That sounds soooo fundie like! It has to be the most idiotic excuse I've heard. LOL!

[Swamp Rat]

46. Exactamundo!

Marriage ain't between the Fonz and Hans, it's between Mistuh and Misses 'C'! Heeeey! :smoke:




edit: ... funny thing is, I bet the Fonz would actually approve of gay marriage, if not be the best man at the wedding. :D

[spanone]

29. There is no argument against GM. Hypocrisy & Hysteria.

[Enraged_Ape]

30. Because if gays marry, pedophiles should be able to marry kids...

sheep-fuckers should be able to marry sheep, and polygamists should be able to marry all their wives.

You HAVE to define marriage somehow, or the slippery slope is just too dangerous. And if it has to be defined, it should be defined as being between a man and a woman--because that, historically and traditionally, is what marriages have been. In fact, the term "marriage" doesn't really exist outside of that context.

[frustrated_lefty]

32. There are a few basic arguments.

The majority just come down to homophobes demanding that nobody has the right to do anything which threatens MY sexuality. My gosh, if he enjoys THAT it suggests I might enjoy THAT, but I'm a REAL man. Pish-posh. Or, if she enjoys THAT, I might be useless!

The single reason to object to gay marriage boils down to finance. As chimpsrsmarterthanus (?) pointed out, it's about tax breaks. If you let two guys or two women marry, what's to prevent room-mates to "marry" just to get a tax break? Two neighbors?

The "moral" outrage against gay marriage is real. The notion scares some people, it disgusts some very insecure people, and that may include many members of our piss-poor government. What I think of as the "practical" outrage deals more with money and taxes. Gays and lesbians tend to be more affluent and devote that affluence to their community and living happier lives. If they could marry, well, hell, they would be independent and government can not survive with citizens who are not dependent upon it. And they get tax breaks too??!! Hell no, we can't have that!

Looking at what I've written, it occurs to me I may have a mistaken, rose-colored impression of gay/lesbian life. If I've offended anyone, please accept my apologies. And, if there's something you can correct me on, please do.

FL

[MrPrax]

33. Here's a couple...

1)Marriage is an insanely conservative institution and it's mere appearance on the political landscape simply reinforces traditionalism in politics

2) Sure everyone is free to marry, but not all 'marriage' is equal and simply extending the 'franchise' doesn't do much to transform the institutions more debase aspects; patriarchical privilege, dowry, pre-arrangement, chattel considerations, divorce protections, etc

3) 'ape-ing the breeders' will only destroy any uniqueness and vitality of Gay and Lesbian culture and make it much more difficult for that community to organize on much more important issues of sexuality, discrimination, homophobia, etc

4) as a political issue, it affects virtually no one, but WILL expend a whole bunch energy, resources, goodwill and produce nothing for the Progressive agenda.

5) It will only produce a 'warm fuzzy' feeling for well-heeled liberals that really don't give a damn about 'human rights' generally and simply 'latch' on to inconsequential 'symbols' that don't threat their social and economic position.
In fact the rally cry for this particular movement is that, 'gay marriage doesn't affect anyone else's marriage'.
Oh great--another social movement that produces no benefit for anyone outside the circle of 'immediate' entitlement.

[hfojvt]

39. except basic civil rights are not an "entitlement"

You could make the same argument #4 about the death penalty. However, as Clinton was fond of saying "it is the right thing to do." Opposing the death penalty and opposing discrimination based on SO.

[MrPrax]

53. Hmm...

CP produces other 'objections'; but CP does have implications for everyone; whereas, no one, as I point out, is restricting marriage, the are simply expanding it's application.

Is CP being expanded to include other types of crime?

But not quite convinced that 'marriage' is a basic civil right or human right; it IS discrimination inasmuch much as it challenges 'equality' precepts.
It is mentioned (article 16) in the UN human rights charter...but then again, who cares, the planet is full of wonderful documents written by important people not nobody ever enforces and the article seems more concerned with 'spousal' protections (IE: womens' rights), consent (to fill a slavery loophole) and marriage being a 'fundamental basic' component to the community.

As far as equality before the law, we have better args; the state issues many many licenses to all citizens that qualify (drivers', death certificates, hunting tags, SS, etc)...so why is the State discriminating by not issuing a license in this case?

Mind you, the State has precedence for 'restricting' qualifications for who can get married (age, blood relationship, mental competence, etc).

[saltpoint]

34. Heck, Bertha Venation. This is hard work.

There AREN'T any good arguments against it near as I can tell. There are plenty of BAD arguments, most of which boil down to something like "God doesn't like it," or "the Bible says..." and so forth.

I would say that the opposing side's argument is no stronger than:

" My warped fundamentalist hellfire God says somewhere in the Bible that it's morally wrong for two women or two men to be married, and since my warped hellfire God says it's so, and my shit-for-brains pastor says it's so, I guess it's so. "

[NNN0LHI]

54. Very hard work. I can't think of even one reason either n/t

[Kber]

35. I've thought about this and I think it boils down to

1 - the RW believes that homosexuality is, at worst, a sin against God and at best "icky".

2 - therefore, any move to legitimize the "normal" lives of gay and lesbian couples is "against God".

3 - Although they cannont ban gay acts by law (although the've tried goodness knows), they will fight tooth and nail against the acceptance of gays as "just another set of Americans".

Their argument, in the final analysis, is based on the sinfullness of homosexuality. If it's not a sin, the whole house of cards falls down.

(Even though you asked for these arguments, I still feel the need to state clearly that these ARE NOT my views. In my book, sexuality, straight, gay or in-between, is a glorious and live affirming thing and therefore should never be a basis for systematic or personal discrimination.)

[aphonic]

36. If you really want a list of objections

to same sex marriage you can find a list of 26 at:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marint.htm

with rebuttals. Check out the whole section concerning same sex marriage, it is quite informative.

Personally, I am of the opinion that no marriage should be recognized by the government unless all marriages are. That is the only way to make it truly fair to all.

[WoodrowFan]

37. I'd have to buy even MORE wedding gifts. (NT)

[hfojvt]

41. I think "the Bible says it is wrong"

may be the strongest argument they have. You might say that that does not apply because of the separation of Church and State. However, if this is a matter to be decided democratically, that is, by the will of the majority, then clearly Christians do have a right to vote, and they do have a right to follow their conscience when they vote.
So what we need is some "consciousness raising" in this country. If there is anything which the New Testament says is wrong it is hate. Further than that, the absence of love is a sin. The things which I believe are wrong are those which violate the two commandments and the golden rule. Murder, adultery, lying, stealing, and violence clearly fall in that category. Homosexuality and homosexual acts do not.
The principles of the Bible are its heart. To ignore the principles while you strain at the gnats of every word is like killing Jesus and dissecting him instead of following his message. If you do not have love, you are merely a clashing cymbal. To Christians who support an amendment banning gay marriage my question is: "where is the love?"

[put out]

42. Are you giving us homework on the weekend? I expect

extra credit for this.

Why gay people shouldn't be able to marry. Um. Let me think.

Because I am married and I feel that if just everyone couple who wants to get married can get married, it makes my marriage not so special. And, I am special. My mate, not so much. Britney Spears, now she is special. She got married, twice. So there.

Because marriage is for procreation. And see, I did this with my mate. Although my mate got some permanent birth control done, and I have subsequently got the natural permanent birth control done and we didn't procreate as often as we could have because some people could have died, at least we have the girl parts and the boy parts and...So there.

Because people not like me shouldn't have the things I have due to being married, like love, and security, and financial benefits, and the right to make decisions for my loved one, and acknowledgment by my community, and my extended family. By gosh, because these gay people aren't married. So there.

Because it makes people feel icky, and question their own sexuality and why they feel the way they do, and it makes them think. So there.

How's that. Not so good, right. So there.

Please know I am posting having read your OP. I live in Kansas; I'm dang near ill about what's going on, friend.

[the_spectator]

48. Here goes ...

If gay marriage becomes the law through judicial declarations that it is a constitutional right, then it will become impossible to deny the right of someone to marry more than one spouse at the same time. Polygamy will become a constitutional right also. Rich men will start marrying more than one woman at a time as a matter of course - all part of their conspicuous consumption lifestyle. And they won't be too embarassed to do it either -- they're driving around TODAY in those ridiculous "Hummers" and show up on parent's day at kindergarten as 60-something "new fathers" with 20-something wives.

Polygamy - specifically, one man/many wives - was standard operating procedure in most civilizations in the past. Not only does it create a society in which women are unavoidably 2nd class, it also creates a society in which democracy, even amongst men, is impossible. There is just too much difference between a man with three wives, many children, and a real home and a man with no wives and no children for people to find it natural to believe that "all men are created equal."

Now, I actually believe this. I am NOT opposed to gay marriage: what I want to see is it acheived legislatively, not judicially. In fact, I'd like to see a constitutional amendment passed that would ALLOW gay marriage that would say something like "marriage is between two people exclusively" to close the door to polygamy.

[Wcross]

49. You think a regular divorce is messy!

Wait until gay people get them. They would probably have a lot more cool stuff to fight over.

[gollygee]

50. Because if children grow up seing homosexuality as "normal"

then they might decide to be gay. And if my daughter or any child I know turns out to be gay, it'll be ALL YOUR FAULT!!!

:eyes:

[Vinca]

51. It's a mental health issue.

If gays were to marry they'd have to suffer like the rest of us!:silly: Sorry . . . couldn't help it.