The case against legalizing Gay marriage

[byu71]

leaving out the religious aspect. I am putting this in the political forum, because I do find much of the religious cries against gay marriage to be lacking. Just as blanket cries out against people who cohabitate, drink alcohol, have long hair, wear beards as immoral less worthy human beings to be lacking. I find such accusations against gays to be lacking.

That said, I do sincerely worry about an assault on traditional marriage, one man, one women to be troubling. Perhaps someone can point out studies that prove to the contrary, but I believe the ultimate goal is a one man, one woman marital unit.

Other such unions can be recognized to have value such as, cohabitation, polygamy, gay marriage, but why should they be held out to be equal to the traditional family unit.

I hear President Obama say and I would suspect most on this board would agree, that a college eduction is important. A standard or goal if you will. I don't hear massive outcries that people who choose not to pursue a college education are being called lesser people.

Am I wrong in saying that the basic complaint of those who want gay marriage is that their marriage viewed the same as a 1 man 1 woman marriage. Well, it isn't.

[Non Sequitur]

How much of this issue is just an argument over the definition of a word, and how much is about the assignment of rights? I know when I discussed this issue with my sister from California -- a staunch supporter of Prop 8 -- she seemed to have no problem that gay unions had all the same rights as married couples, she just didn't want them to be able to call it marriage. Isn't it kind of silly if this fight is over nothing more than the definition of a word?

[byu71]

How much of this issue is just an argument over the definition of a word, and how much is about the assignments of rights? I know when I discussed this issue with my sister from California -- a staunch supporter of Prop 8 -- she seemed to have no problem that gay unions had all the same rights as married couples, she just didn't want them to be able to call it marriage. Isn't it kind of silly if this fight is over nothing more than the definition of a word?

Good point. The same can be said of both sides. It is silly of them to argue over a little word. If it is silly, why change it.

[TripletDaddy]

leaving out the religious aspect. I am putting this in the political forum, because I do find much of the religious cries against gay marriage to be lacking. Just as blanket cries out against people who cohabitate, drink alcohol, have long hair, wear beards as immoral less worthy human beings to be lacking. I find such accusations against gays to be lacking.

That said, I do sincerely worry about an assault on traditional marriage, one man, one women to be troubling. Perhaps someone can point out studies that prove to the contrary, but I believe the ultimate goal is a one man, one woman marital unit.

you have hit upon the difficulty with this issue. even when you try to disassociate religion from the equation, it always creeps back in.

One Man, One Woman is a religious-rooted, Adam and Eve POV. Keep in mind, I am in no way saying there is anything wrong with that POV.

I thought your post was going to delve into tax implications, financial impact, etc. Instead, you simply seem to be saying, "Marriage is only between a woman and a man because that is how I feel" but not expounding on it.

Just an observation.

[kccougar]

I don't think you can remove religion from it. My support for traditional marriage is rooted firmly in my agreement with the Proclamation on the Family. If I didn't buy into that, I would see no compelling reason to resist homosexual marriage.

[byu71]

you have hit upon the difficulty with this issue. even when you try to disassociate religion from the equation, it always creeps back in.

One Man, One Woman is a religious-rooted, Adam and Eve POV. Keep in mind, I am in no way saying there is anything wrong with that POV.

I thought your post was going to delve into tax implications, financial impact, etc. Instead, you simply seem to be saying, "Marriage is only between a woman and a man because that is how I feel" but not expounding on it.

Just an observation.

Good observation and I would like to reply. Unfortunately, it looks like I am actually going to have to work for an hour or two and a quick one liner response I am sure you would tear apart. I will follow up later.

[Slim]

I don't see how allowing same sex marriage will harm me. At the same time it appears that there are people who are hurt by its ban. I don't believe that broadening the definition of marriage will make my own marriage any less meaningful to me.

[TripletDaddy]

Good observation and I would like to reply. Unfortunately, it looks like I am actually going to have to work for an hour or two and a quick one liner response I am sure you would tear apart. I will follow up later.

ha! I wasn't disagreeing, btw. Just noting what KC wound up noting more effectively after me.....it is very difficult, almost impossible...to make a non-religious argument against gay marriage. If you notice, there really weren't many made by the Prop 8 coalition last summer. Most of the arguments were rooted in exposing children to gays, slippery slope animal weddings, etc. In fairness, there was also the issue of judicial meddling and rule of law, which are good points and not rooted in religion. But for the most part, the driving factors behind the Prop 8 effort were religious. And that is fine.

[cowboy]

ha! I wasn't disagreeing, btw. Just noting what KC wound up noting more effectively after me.....it is very difficult, almost impossible...to make a non-religious argument against gay marriage. If you notice, there really weren't many made by the Prop 8 coalition last summer. Most of the arguments were rooted in exposing children to gays, slippery slope animal weddings, etc. In fairness, there was also the issue of judicial meddling and rule of law, which are good points and not rooted in religion. But for the most part, the driving factors behind the Prop 8 effort were religious. And that is fine.

If we're talking strictly marriage, then I agree with you and kc. If we include with marriage the "right" to adopt then I disagree. I'm opposed to gay adoption, and the reasons have very little to do with religion.

[SoCalCoug]

Good point. The same can be said of both sides. It is silly of them to argue over a little word. If it is silly, why change it.

Actually, only one side is claiming the fight's only over a word. The other claims it's over civil and legally-recognizable rights.

I agree. It's silly to argue over a little word.

[TripletDaddy]

If we're talking strictly marriage, then I agree with you and kc. If we include with marriage the "right" to adopt then I disagree. I'm opposed to gay adoption, and the reasons have very little to do with religion.

Are you referencing the pedophilia angle? I have heard that one before (almost always from religious folks, though...not sure if there is a connection there. I consider myself to be a religious folk, btw. I also note that not all religious folks have that concern.)

Prop 8 has nothing to do with the right to adopt. You have brought this up before, but I don't know why you keep melding the two issues. Gays and single heterosexuals can already adopt.

[Non Sequitur]

If we're talking strictly marriage, then I agree with you and kc. If we include with marriage the "right" to adopt then I disagree. I'm opposed to gay adoption, and the reasons have very little to do with religion.

I'm curious, if not for religious reasons what, exactly, are your reasons for opposing gay adoption?

[RobinFinderson]

If we're talking strictly marriage, then I agree with you and kc. If we include with marriage the "right" to adopt then I disagree. I'm opposed to gay adoption, and the reasons have very little to do with religion.

This is such a strange thing to hear from a fellow CUF person who I generally respect and like. I find your view to be absolutely odious, about as fundamentally dehumanizing of gay people as anything else I have heard. Please don't take my POV personally. My parents share your views, and that hasn't tarnished my love for them. It is just one of those things that seems a little jarring for me to hear.

[cowboy]

I'm curious, if not for religious reasons what, exactly, are your reasons for opposing gay adoption?

Because every kid wants, and deserves, two parents. A little boy who wants a father isn't made all better by having another mother, and no man can provide the comfort that comes from a mother's love. Further, growing up is tough enough without having to deal with the gay-spawn taunts on the playground. Gay unions will never be mainstream enough to keep kids from making fun of them.

The only argument that I entertain on this issue is the argument that it is better to grow up in a loving same-sex couple home than a foster environment. I've never been a foster child, so I can't comment on that. But I have known a lot of couples who have tried to adopt and couldn't. It is difficult enough for man-wife couples to find a baby now, without added demand by same-sex couples, and I'm not convinced that legalizing gay adoption increases the placement of children into loving homes.

Children aren't chattel. They are a responsibility, and folks would do well to remember that children's rights supersede their own.

[TripletDaddy]

Because every kid wants, and deserves, two parents. A little boy who wants a father isn't made all better by having another mother, and no man can provide the comfort that comes from a mother's love. Further, growing up is tough enough without having to deal with the gay-spawn taunts on the playground. Gay unions will never be mainstream enough to keep kids from making fun of them.

cowboy....much love to you, brother. Your POV seems to reflect an underlying ignorance, perhaps a result from living in a smaller, rural community.

the Puffy Check are in a pre-school class with 11 total children. 3 of them are my children. So of the remaining 8, 1 child has a single mom who is a lesbian and 1 has a dual-gay parent situation. Admittedly, that is probably a HIGH percentage for an average pre-school class, even in SoCal. But what you said in your post is not accurate. It isn't even accurate now, let alone in 20 or more years.

If your fears are to protect children from being teased by ignorant or homophobic peers....well.......ask the parents of those children to stop raising their kids to have ignorant or homophobic points of view. That might not cure everything...but it will certainly help.

I agree that 2 moms or 2 dads is not the same as 1 mom and 1 dad. It just isn't, by definition. You lost me when you tried to expound further. again, no animosity here. You shared your opinion and you are totally entitled to it.