I’ve had this discussion with people who, up until our discussion, were anti-gay marriages.

Every argument I’ve heard against them is hooey.

As Solonor said, there are two possibilities.  Either marriage is a civil thing, or a religious thing.

As Solonor said (very well I might add), if a civil thing, then the government has zero right to ban gay marriages.

But what if it’s a religious thing?

Well, you know what?  It’s not.  As soon as they started allowing judges and the like to perform marriages outside of a church it became a civil thing.  My parents were married by a judge.  There was no religion in it whatsoever, as they are not religious.

Now, that’s not to say we should force churches to marry anyone they don’t want to, since many churches won’t even marry you unless you belong to their faith, and that is their right.

But marriage isn’t strictly religious and hasn’t been for a while.

Those writeups make me want to scream like Dean.

Yeeeaaaaaa-aahhh!

Solonor’s breakdown was the most succinct and precise I’ve seen in a while.  Thanks for the link.

Natalie is spot on. I too fail to see how gay marriages could possibly harm the institution itself.

This quote from today’s Post-Dispatch is an example of the type of assertation that we are going to see/hear as the debate goes on.

The Family Research Council, a national conservative organization, responed Tuesday with a radio add campaign asking, “Have you thought about where same-sex marriage may lead?” The add features a little boy asking his father where he came from. The boy is told to ask his “other daddy.”

How lame is that.

Natalie so completely voiced my opinion on same sex marriages.  Jay and I had this discussion yesterday after “our reading the paper session” before I had even logged on to SEB.

Jay’s comment at that time was that two people were committed to one another, willing to sign a paper saying so, and wanting to take care of each other for the rest of their lives let them. The divorce procedure, if exercised, should be as difficult as with opposite sex unions.  We talked of rights, insurance, and other matters that come with a legal commitment but it all boils down to if they love each other don’t try to change it!

I for one say it beats the hell out of ‘Common- Law’ situations that many states put up with for years. The comment of “I would like an amendment” is thrown around a lot.  It is like politicians tacking a chicken cleaning amendment on a sheep feeding bill.

Before we determine that something is evil because we think so we should see the benefits as well as the down side.

I think sending jobs to Mexico, changing immigrations laws to increase a cheaper work force, letting children slip through the cracks on education, protection from abuse, and decent nutrition is far more important than Tom marrying John. That the elderly find eating and medication buying not possible on the same week, or month, or year.

Come on people--tell the policians to get off the moralistic butts and fix the important things.

With all of the good feedback I got from that post, I think my favorite came from the guy who said that gay marriage is only a stones’ throw away from polygamy and legalized pedophilia.

Oh, what an enlightened world we live in!

Well, I actually live in Massachusetts, the hub of this whole situation.  I find most of what I am reading here very interesting and I tend to agree with what people are saying, however, I find the lack of certain questions interesting as well.

One of the arguments used by the Massachusetts SJC was that the state constitution did not say that gays could not marry.  Fortunately, most people do not use that argument in everyday life or there would be a lot of people using the excuse,"nobody said I couldn’t”.  The question this raises is, what else does this lead to?  If there is nothing saying that 2 men or 2 women can’t be married then what about a man and 2 women etc.

Personally, I cannot come up with a reason (except for one, but it isn’t personal) why gay marriage would be a problem.  There is one, however, and it comes in the name ‘national interest’.  Governments often find themselves in the position of advocating certain behaviors or habits that will further the nation in a positive manner (or manner suiting the current power).  In the case of marriage, that behavior would be for procreation.  Many atheistic countries in Europe are experiencing negative native population growth.  Their only growth is coming from people moving into their country.  The result is an eventual watering down of their culture.

Just some observations to ponder.

Yeah, that whole “procreation” argument is brought up quite often, to which I counter with “the adoption of unwanted children”.  Two gay couples on my blogroll are currently in the process of adopting one of these procreated children that someone didn’t want - my lesbian midwife who delivered my son just adopted a little girl who has sat in an orphanage for three years (on the taxpayer’s dime) because she was declared “unadoptable” due to her two club feet and cleft palate.  Another gay couple has adopted three “unadoptable” children and is in the process of a fourth, and I’m the aunt of two children adopted by my brother and his partner of twenty years.

If you bring up the procreation argument, well, what about the straight folks who don’t want children?  If you disallow gay marriage because it doesn’t further population growth so it’s pointless from a sociological point of view, the flipside of that is to start looking at straight couples who never have kids.  And that gets into bedroom politics.

As for the polygamy argument - remember, the practice is by and large a Mormon (religious) thing (John Smith and his twenty-plus wives) so one has to wonder about all of the “faith based initiatives” Bush is pushing.  I’d be more worried about the pro-polygamy crowd pushing for it on a religious basis regardless of the gay marriage thing.

I’m sorry but I don’t see how someone can make the leap of a one-on-one marriage to polygamy simply because the participants are gay.  A gay marriage is the same as a straight marriage in that it’s simply two people in love - polygamy is one person in love with a slew of people.  There’s absolutely no correlation there.

There is one, however, and it comes in the name ‘national interest’. Governments often find themselves in the position of advocating certain behaviors or habits that will further the nation in a positive manner (or manner suiting the current power). In the case of marriage, that behavior would be for procreation. Many atheistic countries in Europe are experiencing negative native population growth. Their only growth is coming from people moving into their country. The result is an eventual watering down of their culture.

Does that mean that heterosexual couples that can’t reproduce shouldn’t be allowed to marry?

Many atheistic countries in Europe are experiencing negative native population growth.

Which countries in Europe are “atheistic?” That’s a new one on me.

Sorry, maybe I wasn’t clear.  I was simply putting forth the arguments I have to listen to on the radio on the way home everyday for the last week.  And yes, I realize I can change the station, but sometimes you just can’t help but listen.

Actually, the biggest argument I continue to hear is simply, “gay marriage is impossible.  Marriage is and always has been between a man and a woman”.

BTW, I am one of those married heterosexuals with no plans of having children.  So I certainly understand that.  I was simply putting forth the argument that if there is no real reason why marriage shouldn’t extend to gays then that does not necessarily draw the line.  That argument can and will be extended beyond the current one.

‘Does that mean that heterosexual couples that can’t reproduce shouldn’t be allowed to marry?’

I am willing to bet that there are a lot of people on the religious right that would make that argument. 

‘Which countries in Europe are “atheistic?” That’s a new one on me.’

In a stricter sense ‘atheistic countries’ more accurately refers to the eastern bloc countries along with Russia and China.  I would think that countries such as France, Sweden, Norway and Holland (the last 3 of which gay marriage is legal) qualify as fairly atheistic.  Do a search on Google and you will get results.  Of course, in Sweden, sex with animals is legal and in Holland the age of consent is 12.

Part of my curiosity about this entire subject is where does it end.  I realize a lot of people think that the argument of gay marriage leading to polygamy is weak, but I disagree.  Everytime one barrier is broken down, other more extreme groups find a way to use it to break further barriers down.  In general people are never satisfied with what they have achieved; they always want more.

I personally don’t have a problem with gay marriage and I think picklejuice makes a great point.  My question is more along the lines of ‘where does this lead?’ and ‘what will be the unintended consequences?’.  There always are some.

I suppose I get a little bit pissed off when people say “where does it lead” with regards to homosexual marriages.  That’s not “leading” anywhere - it’s an end result of something that *should* be.  To say that gay marriage “leads” to other things makes them more like the tip of the iceberg for so-called “deviant” ways of life rather than the stopping point for normal, civil rights.

Once upon a time, the “where does it lead” argument was put into place for biracial marriages as well, but we’d never in a million years say that biracial marriage has torn up the fabric of our societal growth.

Gay marriage, or whatever you choose to call it (that whole “marriage is between a man and a woman” thing is just splitting hairs as far as I’m concerned), is something that should have been allowed a long time ago, and I honestly feel that, were it not for the sexual behavior that this wouldn’t even be an issue, no matter how much you may suggest otherwise.  It’s like saying, “Some of my best friends are black, but I still get scared walking through the ‘black’ part of town.” Saying the first part doesn’t absolve you of the bigotry of the second part.

I think the unintended consequence of gay marriage is that people will realize, “Hey, those gays are just like us, and our society isn’t hurt in the slightest by de-stigmatizing their lot in life.”

Part of my curiosity about this entire subject is where does it end.

All I can say to this is that I hope it never does end. Stagnation is death and if people can manage to get over their fear of gays maybe they will tackle their fear of another group like the retarded, the physically handicapped, or the communists. We need more fear and bigotry like we need a hole in the head.

You are penalized, financially, for being married. Especially if you choose to have two incomes, and not have children. (Okay, this is being corrected, but still...)

While it’s regrettable that people beat their wives, there’s really nothing we can do. Sorry.

Parents who enthusiastically choose not to “spare the rod” or rape their children are also regrettable, but usually nothing we can do. Sorry.

And in this environment, two same-sex people who choose to spend their lives together, are going to damage the sanctity of marriage.

Okay.

With regards to chads “atheistic european countries” featuring a “negative native population growth”: The two countries with the lowest birthrate in the world are Italy and Spain. The last time I looked both staunchly christian. It is the former eastern bloc countries who have the highest birthrates (in Europe).

I think Chad meant France (a country with a strong secular tradition) and maybe Germany, where a big part of the population does not consider itself religious.

Personally, I think religion doesn’t enter the picture that much in regard to couples having children or not. Its wealth and culture. Sadly, we in Europe don’t put much stock in kids, and we are too occupied living our lives to be distracted by having kids. I think thats the major danger for Europe - I don’t have anything against immigrants, but integrating large groups of them *is* difficult.

And concerning the main topic, I’ll take Les advice and just add my big fucking “YEAH! WHAT THEY SAID!!!” I’ve always been pro-gay, even though I’ve yet to meet any ‘out’ gay people.

Ingolfson, where do you live that you’ve never met any “out” gay people? That’s almost like saying you’ve never met anyone with dimples. One would have to be either very old, very young, or very determined to avoid meeting others to accomplish that in America.

My people are everywhere and we’re determined to pervert every logical concept, every moral certainty, and every Christian value you may hope to hold sacrosanct.

Now, just tell me where you live and I’ll have someone over to make you gay in every way.

Homosexuals: We make God believe in atheists.

Brock, I don’t like your style. You may be joking, but it’s still close to insulting.

I don’t worry about you or anyone perverting my moral certainities, because those are made and held in my mind - and there only. I’m also an agnostic, so thanks for the comment about Christian values…

I live in Germany, and if I say I never met an ‘out’ gay person that’s just what I mean. I never met a person who told me he was gay or was known to be gay, except for a male couple I once met briefly at a dinner party - but I didn’t KNOW them.

No one in my circle of friends (young college people, mostly) holds anything against gays either.

But I won’t try to actively meet gay friends, just to close a ‘hole’ in my experience. Why should I? If I meet someone who turns out to be gay, I will treat him like everyone else - I’ll judge him by how much I like him, not by his sex habits.

Whatever floats your boat! Always been my motto.

That’s funny Ingolfson, that you would be offended. Though I was being facetious with my post, now you’ve got my back up!

Why wouldn’t you go out of your way to meet an out gay person? I’ve gone out of my way to get to know a straight one or two or hundreds!

Maybe you are so lackadaisical that you can profess acceptance for something or someone you don’t even know, but it sounds like an insincere position.

I’ve lived my life being denied basic respect and simple rights that you are given without question, and I’ve met far too many people who speak the good speech but who do nothing to help correct their society’s wrongs.

My original question simply demonstrated surprise that you’ve never gotten to know an actual gay person.

If you’re an agnostic, why would you be bothered by a obviously humorously meant comment about Christianity?

I walk through this world too. You may have seen my footprints, but until you meet me and talk to me, I’m only a statistic to you.

I Chose to be Gay Because ....
I choose to be gay because I think it’d be great
to live my life as a victim of hate
I choose to be gay for the ultimate high
of telling my mom and watching her die
I choose to be gay because then I can hear
how many times people will use the word ‘queer’
I choose to be gay so I can stand out
Because laughing at people is what life’s about
I choose to be gay because I don’t want a mate
Whom I could then marry, as though it was fate
I choose to be gay just for the thrill
of having to hide from people that kill
With all the excitement to face everyday
why doesn’t everyone choose to be gay?

There you go again. Why are you special? Why are gays special? They are not. They are no worse and no better than straights.

You suggest that I *have* to know gays. I don’t. If chance made it so that I’ve never met one who was open about it, why should I go and search them out? Since I believe they are, on average, not much different from straights, there isn’t even any ‘novelty’ involved.

I’ve been raised amongst people who never said anything against gays, who never showed any homophobia, long before it was politically incorrect. I have and I do argue against homophobic views when I encounter them.

I live in a country where gays have received many legal rights they are still denied in the US, and I vote for the politcal party that supports making them fully equal before the law.

I simply object to your ‘You have to’-stance. I don’t *have* to do anything except what my conscience tells me to.