Comments on: 3 - The Case Against Gay Marriage

By: Erin R.

Erin R. — Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:08:19 +0000

I did a research paper on gay marriage in the US for a Contemporary Moral Problems class. After looking at both sides of the arguement, I chose to write with a pro-gay marriage stance. Most of the arguements against gay marriage are ridiculous. For example, how marriages between a human and and animal would then have to be legally excepted. There are separate laws that would prevent this and gay people are NOT animals. It is also ignorant to say that gay parents make gay children. Also, gay marriage is often argued against for relgious reasons. What happened to the separation of church and state? Today the separation line seems to be getting thinner. Legalizing gay marriage would not force churches to recognize them. As far as hurting hetersexual marriages, it seems that heterosexual couples are doing that on their own. With a 50 percent divorce rate, these marriages are already threatened. I believe that if a gay couple would be allowed to get legally married, they would value the opportunity much more.
Thanks to the author of this post for pointing out these arguements. It just goes to show that we all need to think for ourselves and not listen to fanatical religious types.

By: Right Democrat

Right Democrat — Sat, 12 Nov 2005 09:02:07 +0000

Democratic state legislators and party officials in California and Massachusetts has embraced gay marriage and many of the progressive party activists across America have done so as well. I supported non-discrimination against gays and lesbians in housing and employment long before it was a mainstream position, but pushing for gay marriage is something that will trigger a strong backlash against Democrats and the gay community as well in Middle America. Social issues often take a while to heat up and gay marriage could become a bigger wedge issue for Republicans than late term abortion or gun control.
Our society has grown more tolerant toward homosexuality, however, it is far from ready for gay marriage. The gay activists would be well advised to concentrate on getting local doomestic parternship laws (a different concept than civil unions as they do not involve the controversial tax benefits for same sex couples) passed which already exist in many cities and urban counties which can provide the kind of documentation of a relationship for health insurance and hospital visitation issues that the gay community is concerned about. It is a good idea for a same sex couple to consult with an attorney who specializes in estate matters and have them draw up an iron-clad will and power of attorney agreement. We do not need to have gay marriage or even civil unions to address these concerns.
If Democrats are aligned with gay marriage, we will be locked out of power for at least a generation. Democrats are already a virtual edangered political species in the South and large areas of the Midwest and rural West. A pro-gay marriage stance will only strengthen the hand of right-wing Republicans. Are the social progressives who advocate gay marriage willing to sacrifice the remaining social safety net, protections for workers and consumers, environmental laws, our Social Security benefits, public education and other concerns for all the important gay marriage issue ? I fear the answer is yes.
Democrats must appeal to working families once again. At the risk of offending my gay and lesbian friends, I think we need to recognize that a party and a society must be more focused on the well-being and stability of traditional families than on alternative lifestyles. Societies and parties that survive and thrive are pro-family and pro-child something that the hard-line pro-gay marriage and rabidly pro-choice folks in our party sometimes overlook.

By: Robin

Robin — Sun, 13 Nov 2005 00:29:39 +0000

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

United States Constitution fourteenth amednment Section 1.

It is that simple folks the consititution states it loud and clear. I don’t see what the big deal is. We clearly offer equal protection under the law.
No one here in this relm has a heaven or a hell to put anyone in. If you believe gay marriage is wrong so be it but the constitution the Supreme Law of the Land says that everyone has a right to life ,liberty or property.

What gives anyone else the right to tell people that they are wrong because of who they love? What gives anyone the right to define marriage and family so narrowly? If we go by the GOP standard a nuclear family then my children and I would not be considered a family.

Couples that are infertile are they any less a family than people with children. If hetero couples think that these laws dont affect them they should think again. That is one of the main reasons why Judge Battalion struck down our archaic law.

Right Dem said we need to focus on more traditional families most families are far from traditional with more than half of all marriages ending in divorce. I know gay and lesbian couples who have been in a committed realationship longer than the average hetero couple.

I will keep making this point until I am blue in face the GOP is not Pro family!!!!!They are not Pro Child!!!! All you have to do is look at disgrace they call a budget to see that. Pro child huh they are pro child if pro child means NCLB or trying to get rid of early childhood education, or Pbs, or Wic or decreasing foodstamp benefits to working class families like my self.
Or are they Pro child when they try to get rid of TRIO Program a program that helps lower income and firts generation college students succeed.

We can not buy into the hype that standing up for our GLBTQ brothas and sisters is going to hurt us. We must do is do a better job at framing the issue. The Jun Jul issue of the nation had a great article talking about framing.

I think it is absolutely essential that We fight for gay rights if we lose that battle the next one we will be fighting is the defintion of family and who would qualify for help based on a narrow definiton of what a family is.

By: Cody

Cody — Sun, 13 Nov 2005 09:10:39 +0000

Well said Robin. We can’t quit fighting for what we believe in. If we do then we become that very thing that we are fighting. If equal protection under that law is what we want (and what we should want) than we need to fight until we collapse. Nothing ever got accompished by choosing that something was too hard to fight for. It it’s right, it’s right. And as far as I’m concerned, every American deserves the rights granted to them in the Constitution. And if fighting for that is wrong, I don’t want to be right.

By: Alex

Alex — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 20:20:29 +0000

I understand this is an old topic. However, the case where gay marriage would lead into other things ie people marrying their animals is being done in london. http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/woman-marries-dolphin/2006/01/01/1136050339590.html
Eventually, this will come here and start up a whole new debate in which I am sure some people will fight for their rights.
On the topic about if gay marriage should be accepted in our society:

1. If an engine or motor is not maintained and all the nuts and bolts are not tightened, the engine or motor is going to fail in a number of ways. It is simple logic and scientific understanding that humans are not a homosexual species and when there is a promotion for these actions it is not maintaining the biological, economical or societal support for the species.
2. If there is no support for allowing a father and daughter to get married (which would result into the gene degregation for their offspring), why would there be a basis for allowing homosexual marrige if they don’t even provide offspring in the first place to benifit society? Even if the father or daughter couldn’t provide means of reproduction, would you then allow such marriage to occur? They love eachother, why not?
3. If there is discouragment and clinical help to stop people who are born pediphiles, why then is there encouragment for born homosexuals to pursue their desires for the same sex when it is biologically incorrect? Remember that just because it feels right does not make it correct or right to do, hence beastiality, cleptomania, necrophilia and any other mental or sexual disorder.
People should seek help for their disorders, however, people who take away the morality of everything are trying to change this and celebrate “difference” thinking that it is the disorders that are what make us different. I am different than anybody else, as each of you are different from eachother and it is not our mear sexual preferences that determine that.

Arguing that the GOP is not pro: family, life, child, etc is not the point of the blog, however, I will address this as well.

Political values and morals are up to the individual rather than the party that is trying to represent it. One can say that everyone who is a democrat is a hippy/beatnik/protestor who has utter distaste for all orginization man and who they represent. This is not true, however this action is what is done to the GOP (and its patrions) all the time. The GOP is not against helping people who want to help themselves or who need help. However, it will not give fish out to people who do not want to learn to feed themselves in the long run, and if you really want to make a difference, don’t limit yourselves to “feeding” the homeless, because that is all you’ll ever do. If you want to evolve this helping mindset, go as a group to the troublespot of the city and find out how you can help troubled people help themselves like I do on my own time (the reason I don’t form a group myself is because I do not want a beurcracy to form for something that should be selfless in nature).
Feel-good policies will only do that, make you feel good.

For one to be pro-family, one has to have the understanding that in order for a family to work properly, you need to have an effort to make it so. Pro-family does not mean that mom and dad can both be working first and formost on their own carreers and such rather than prioritizing on their children and their early up-bringing before preschool or kindergarden. Your job as a parent is to be responsible and man-up (women-up) to challenges ahead rather than letting things go up in the air by not teaching the basics of knoledge and morality, and/or sending their small child to daycare and let them decide your childs path for you. The ultimate desicion for what path lies ahead is up to child growing up. However, who will/should care more about this than the parents who brought them into this world?
Make time for the family, step up and overcome challenges that come your way. Just because it make you feel good to let go of challenges, does not make it right and it will hurt more in the long run.

To end all of this, I will say that people do not want to be told or feel that what they do is wrong. Nobody does. That is why you will see people unlawfully running a red light while flicking you off for honking. It is a defense mechinism and phychology has defined that. That is why you will find that the people that support topics like homosexuality, abortion, sexual freedom from marriage, divorice, etc generally have been affected by such topic ie haveing done them or had/have friends or family that did them. Nobody want to think as themselves as not supportive to people or what haveyou. Guilt will consume you if you let it. However, do not promote things because you feel guilty for not being a part or for being part of it.

I know first hand that it is tough to do, but hopefully you will make a difference by curing the problem, rather than curing the symptoms of the problem.