Is there any argument these people make against gay marriage

[d_r]

that isn't based on a set of religious beliefs?

I'm being serious here. I do not understand how a majority of voters can take rights away from others. Basic civil rights. I don't get that.

What argument is there? I am being serious here, is there any argument besides religion? Any at all? How is the majority allowed to impose their religious beliefs on others??

[phantom power]

1. argument based on cultural tradition...

of course, our cultural traditions surrounding marriage are completely entwined with religion.

no argument holds up under any logical examination, whatever the source.

[Buzz Clik]

2. Homophobia in its purest sense is hard wired in some people, especially young males.

Most people grow out of it. Many do not.

[HereSince1628]

3. I think there is some with fear that isn't based on religion

The whole point of us vs them thinking is about the "us's" being pretty much the same and the "thems" being different.
If a person has a low tolerance for difference it seems they would be likely to want to exclude "them."

I'm not saying it's right, just that as humans we tend to organize and identify with group membership and that more things than religion make up the definitions of an "us," that is often "like me."

[haele]

4. Too many couples being able to take the marriage tax benefit?

I'm being facetious here, but that's the only non-religious argument I can see; more legally recognizable "households" or "marriages" taking more of the few government benefits, subsidies or credits that are provided for a married couple. Things live VA or Social Security benefits for spouses. IRS tax law benefiting spouses. And we can go on.
Basically, more married couples cut down on tax revenue?

But then again, more married couples tend to be better employed and use less government services, get into less social and health problems, better families and support structures, and tend to be more compliant with the law, so the need for tax revenues to provide social safety nets tends to drop at about the same rate as the drop in tax revenues.

Nope, can't really think of a good argument other than religion or closet-based "the ick factor" that many people have when thinking of two guys together.

Haele

[Neecy]

8. You know what's funny about that?

I pay a higher tax rate to support the tax breaks they get as married couples.

Yet someone here just told us not to "stew in our outrage"....lol.

[RoadRage]

5. "Because my daddy says it's Icky".

People don't use their own brains... they let others tell them what they should or should not approve of, and they go from there.

I don't understand these results.. this sucks. :(

[csziggy]

6. That has been my question

Also, since some churches DO support same sex marriage and are prohibited by law, doesn't that violate the First Amendment - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Some will say that the states are the ones making the laws, but why should that trump a Constitutional right?

As I said in another message today, I worry that this control over the right to be with the loved one of your choice will be extended to heterosexual couples that chose not to have religious ceremonies. I know my recently deceased Southern Baptist uncle never recognized my marriage because we did not have a religious rite, just the bare minimum to meet the legal requirements. He didn't care that we love each other or even after over three decades have stayed in love. If his opinion controlled heterosexual marriage the way the American Taliban controls homosexual marriage, I would not be married today.

And that is a very real worry in these days of increasing intolerance from the American {pseudo}Religious Right.

[MineralMan]

7. They just don't like it. They don't take the time or reasoning

ability to see any parallels to their own lives. That's why individual rights should not be up for a vote. It's so easy do deny others' rights for many people.

[TxRider]

9. What rights are being taken away, exactly?

[Lance_Boyle]

10. Um, the right to marry is the big one.

Have you not followed the issue, or do you not believe that the right to a marriage recognized by the State is actually a right?

[TxRider]

13. So is that all?

The main argument I hear from righties is that everyone has equal right to marry now.

A gay man has every right to marry that I do as a straight man. We can both marry a woman, or not, neither of us can marry another man. Our rights are exactly the same now.

The issue for me is civil spousal rights under law, rights of two people under law. Parental rights, rights to determine treatment when a spouse is ill, inheritance rights, rights under tax laws, etc. regardless of whether it's called "marriage" by name.

As long as those rights are provided and equal, I don't see it as a huge issue.

Maybe the word "marriage" should just be stricken from the books and all laws, replaced with something else? Remove the "religious" term and use another less controversial one.

I hear nobody saying gays shouldn't have equal rights I listed above, not even religious righties.

Personally I have never been married, never will be married, and will never have children by choice. I get no special rights, I have to pay for others children to be educated, have parks to play in, be insured, I subsidize others kids through dependent deductions, and get no other tax advantages married people do either.

I'm soaked by tax more than anyone being single, and get less in return.. no big deal. It's a choice, I live with it.

I guess I feel that the equal rights would be much easier to achieve in all 50 states, if the word "marriage" was not used in the discussion, and the rights bestowed by the state under that term were pushed for instead. A "civil union" equal in all but name, would seem to me to be a much more easy and pragmatic issue to push through.

[Robb]

14. Setting aside much of what you say

...about, for example, your choice to be single being compared to a biological imperative to be gay. :crazy: ...

The notion of "civil union" is problematic if for no other reason than the majority of states codify rights throughout their law books with the word "marriage." To even begin to approach equality "marriage" would need to be stricken from thousands of laws.

[jberryhill]

16. Actually, the word can stay there....

...and another statute can say "X" shall be deemed "marriage" wherever it appears in the code.

The Constitution refers to the President as "he", and we deal with it.

[TxRider]

22. Exactly

Why let a single word stand in the way of getting the rights desired? As seems to be the case.

Religious types do not seem to be standing against equal spousal rights at all, they just don't want it called by that singular word marriage. Simple, call it something else and move on.

[TxRider]

20. Maybe it should be stricken, for the same logic the religious right uses

[TxRider]

24. And it can't be my biological imperative to be single?

And no, I believe that simply codifying the term civil union = marriage in all respects in all laws would satisfy that issue. And remove obstruction by religious people who simply object to the word marriage being used for it.

And all 50 states would have equal rights...

And once people became used to it, then fight for the name, while already enjoying equal rights under law.

Or wait years, spend millions and millions, fight uphill forever and maybe still not get equal rights, because your stuck on a specific name, a specific word... which could easily be bypassed.

[PVnRT]

15. Would you support segregation, then?

If the schools were the same in all but name? Chances are, no.

"The main argument I hear from righties is that everyone has equal right to marry now.

A gay man has every right to marry that I do as a straight man. We can both marry a woman, or not, neither of us can marry another man. Our rights are exactly the same now."

The fact that you can't see right through this argument is disturbing. That's like saying, in the 1960's, that blacks can marry whoever they want, so long as they're marrying another black person. There are no "special rights" involved if they are granted to everyone at the same time.

[bullwinkle428]

18. The above poster essentially confirmed that very thing, in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6925144&mesg_id=6925842

[jberryhill]

19. A difference there, though

Is that "separate but equal" in relation to physical facilities was eliminated as a standard because no two physical facilities can in fact be the same, and in practice were not.

If you are talking about simply re-defining legal terms, then, yes, one word can be legally defined to mean the same thing as another word, and that's done all the time in law.

It's like passing a law saying "from now on the word 'zork' will mean 'dog', and every dog shall be called a 'zork'".

The next day, someone says, "Awww look at the pretty zork."

It doesn't make much sense to say, "But it's REALLY a dog!"

Where civil unions have failed is in relation to every other instance where marital status matters either in statutory or common law. That's a problem of practice, but not principle, because if you define two words to mean the same thing in law, then those two words are in fact the same thing.

There are a lot of laws that still have gender specific language in them - i.e. use of "he" instead of "he or she". Rather than engage in wholesale code revision, most states have enacted yet another law requiring interpretation of gender pronouns to be neutral, even if they are not written that way in the code.

[TxRider]

21. Really..

"The fact that you can't see right through this argument is disturbing. That's like saying, in the 1960's, that blacks can marry whoever they want, so long as they're marrying another black person. There are no "special rights" involved if they are granted to everyone at the same time."



I didn't say I can't see through it, I said that's what their logic is, along with the religious connotations of the name.

IMO marriage should probably not be used as a term in the law, if it is to be strictly a religious institution. It shouldn't be both ways.

But I tend to fall on pragmatic grounds in that the underlying rights are what is actually important, not the specific word used. Marriage is a word, rights are not exclusive the the word or should not be.

In other words, if you can get the rights easily without using that word to denote them, and you are likely to not get the right simply because you choose that word to denote them, drop the word, use another, and get the rights. Worry about the name, the word, later. Priority.

[uppityperson]

31. I'd like to see the difference between "marriage" and "matrimony" become more apparent

Matrimony is a religious thing, but doesn't give any State legal rights.
Marriage is a legal partnership with the legal rights.

People need to get married, but matrimony is optional.

[TxRider]

32. Good point

Most people see no difference whatsoever between those two terms.

Civil union is generally looked on as a non religious marriage, used by atheists or anyone else not desiring a religious connotation though, and is already generally accepted.

[uppityperson]

23. miscegenation laws are fine with you then, since everyone has the same rights?

to marry someone of the same skin color?

People do not have equal rights of marriage. They are limited by their xy/xx status, like they used to be limited by their skin color.

I would be happy if our society could figure out that marriage, and the right therein, are different from the religious matrimony. If religions chose to recognize states of matrimony within themselves, their right, but legal rights of marriage should be open irregarldless of your xx/xy status.

[TxRider]

25. And the righties answer is

They are also restricted by their age, by their mental capacity, by their species.. so what?

And no the laws are not just fine with me. I have no issue with gay marriage, I have no issue of you want to marry a goat.

Just trying to shed some perspective from the points of view I hear every day, as the original post asked about reasons why people were against gay marriage. I live where most are against it, I simply stated what I hear from those around me.

To jump to the conclusion that I hold those views, when I clearly stated they were views of others, is pretty stupid.

Most just do not want a union of two people of same sex to be called by that word, use a different word, have it stated as the same definition under law, and all rights are equal...

[uppityperson]

30. Are you saying gay marriage = marrying a goat?

Of course people confuse the issue. Opening up the right to marry across skin color lines means I could then marry a cat, right?

Accusing me of "jump to the conclusion that I hold those views" when I am trying to clarify what you mean, is also pretty stupid.

[TxRider]

34. No, that's just rediculous to even suggest.

I'm just saying I couldn't care less who or what someone wants to marry.

But there are people who do logically ask that question, and why we limit age, sex, species etc. at all.

There are also people fighting for the right to legally marry their pets too. In some countries this is actually practiced. Why shouldn't they be able to?

The zoophiles take this issue quite seriously.

http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2009-08-20/news/those-who-practice-bestiality-say-they-re-part-of-the-next-gay-rights-movement/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-animal_marriage#Historical_cases

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2002/weinreb72202.htm



That is all beside the point in the current struggle though.

As I see it....

The reason people are fighting for gay marriage is to obtain equal rights accorded to married couples under the law right?

The reason people oppose it is primarily due to the name only, not the desired rights under the law which they have no issue with right?

Name it something else, codify it in law as exactly equal in rights to marriage, and get the rights desired faster and more easily with much less resistance.

Don't name it something else, and fight against people who would be otherwise be on your side and make it harder or lose entirely. Seems silly and counter productive to me not to take the easiest path to the desired goals of obtaining the same rights.

I have no dog in this fight, I'm not married, won't be, and I don't care who marries who or even who marries what. I just try to make a suggestion from the sidelines to all those in the fight that they maybe could live with and all get what they really want. Compromise... Some folks just don't have it in them I guess.

[Toucano]

28. Our rights are not exactly the same now.

A man can marry a woman.

A woman cannot marry a woman.

The woman's rights are not the same as the man's.

[TxRider]

36. ROFL..

That's usually my answer to the righties...

That men and women do not have the same rights. A woman can marry a man, but a man cannot.

But since they can each marry each other they are equal, but not the same.

[JerseygirlCT]

41. That's been tried.

And here in CT, our supreme court ruled that separate was not equal.

Because it wasn't equal. Even if every single right bestowed by marriage in CT was available to gay couples, they still had to file separate federal tax returns, for instance. Their marriage was not recognized in most other states, for instance. And many other problems.

I'm fine with using an entirely different word for everyone's marriage in a civic sense. (NOT just for gay couples), though I suspect that would simply bring all the bigots to a frothing anger as well.

We need to define "marriage" in a civic sense. And that definition needs to be entirely separated from any religious definition. No church is required to marry anyone (gay or straight) they don't want to marry, and that won't and shouldn't change. But no church or religious standard ought to prevent anyone from entering into a contract (in a civic sense, that's what marriage is, right?).

[TxRider]

44. Yes

Which is why a religious contract should not have been codified into civil law in the first place I suppose.

But I fail to see how the supreme court in your state could ever say even legal gay marriage would be equal on that logical basis, as if even one other state refused to recognize it the law would fail their test.

Having a recognition of the state of civil union = marriage at the federal level for purposes of federal law would seem to be the way to go, and the states would either be forced to recognize it as such, or at least recognize it at some level and more easily be persuaded to lift the exact legislative language from the federal law.

The point being to diffuse the religious opposition argument completely, or at least the majority of that opposition in the struggle by removing the religious connotation.

The other avenue would be to be to educate better, as I believe the vast majority who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds are completely uneducated and unaware of the reality and the depth and breadth of rights issues denied gay couples. Many if not most believe gays are simply fighting for the right to call themselves married to make some kind of rhetorical point.

Most are not aware of the rights of property, inheritance, parental rights, tax issues, and on and on... If they were aware they might well see the issue differently. I have explained this in detail to some religious people who oppose gay marriage, and it has almost to a person changed their entire perspective on the issue.

But educating enough of them to reality of the situation would be a far larger job than passing a federal civil union legislation would be IMO. And educating them as to what a civil union is would be much easier, as they have no predifined concept and no religious aspect to that perception.

[JerseygirlCT]

46. Well the supreme court in CT obviously can only rule on

CT laws and how they pertain to CT and the CT constitution.

The idea here was that CUs would provide gay couples in CT "all the same rights as marriage". But of course, as you know, those rights didn't extend beyond the boundaries of the state - and so were not at all complete.

Now, of course, CT couples still don't get federal recognition. But at a state level, we've done everything we can to ensure that according to our laws, gay couples are married, with all the benefits that extend to other married couples.

I have to say, back when the major group pushing for gay marriage rights in CT decided to accept CUs and back that measure a few years ago, I was disappointed. I thought they were selling out. Turns out Love Makes A Family just had far better strategists than I am. Within a few years, the SC was forced to look at the issue, found that indeed CUs were not equal, and that therefore it had to be marriage for all. Done.

And the best part? Nary a peep about it from most in the state. (The usual hate-mongers peeped plenty, of course, but that's to be expected). It was front-page news for a day, and then it was on to other things.

And yes, I totally agree about education. Hard, but absolutely necessary. So I applaud all of my gay friends and neighbors who have become more outspoken about this, and about themselves. It's harder to be ignorant about the topic when it stops being some theoretical couple, and starts being about Nancy and Anne down the street who bring the best dessert to the neighborhood block party. Or Bob (and his partner you haven't met yet) at work, who's such a nice guy...

Younger people don't find this to be any sort of big deal. Of course gay folks should be treated like everyone else. I find the relative lack of bias among teens I know here to be heartening.

[handmade34]

45. when I go out shopping

I see two drinking fountains - one has a sign "Heterosexuals only" the other has a sign "homosexuals only": seems unnatural to me.

[d_r]

33. In Maine

I'm talking about Maine. The legislature gave people the right to marry other people of the same sex.

The voting took that away.

So yes, a right was taken away.

[TxRider]

37. Excellent, sorry I missed that context.

I was thinking you meant it in a more general sense.

[JerseygirlCT]

42. Just like in CA.

shameful and sad.

[uppityperson]

47. Same thing that we voted on here in WA. To take away legislated rights.

[NorthCarolina]

11. Hate is a much stronger emotion than love. Religion has discovered that sanctioning

hate helps to fund the po-box. All you have to do is sanction "Hate" by relabeling it as "Gods Will", and you instantly suck in all the haters to your side, giving them a guilt-free outlet for their anger. Ingenious really.

[Mari333]

12. It shouldnt even be allowed to be voted on!!

this is MOB RULE. the civil rights of other citizens should be a given! this is ridiculous. it needs to be federal LAW and if the states dont go along with it, send in the goddamned National Guard to force the goddamned issue.

[JerseygirlCT]

43. EXACTLY. nt

[Starbucks Anarchist]

17. There is no valid legal reason to deny gay marriage.

You're right, it's based on fear and superstitious bullshit.

[Tim01]

26. "will tear apart the fabric of this country"

"this country is based on traditions"
"I don't want to have to explain it to my kid when he sees 2 guys kissing"
"cheapens the institution of marriage"
"marriage is the foundation of this country"

And I do not believe is is actually a religious thing. It is a cultural thing that happens to have the backing of the church.
Churches have some homophobes in them. But there are just as many homophobes outside of church.

[Johonny]

27. Yes there is

A lot of people argue gay married couples will enjoy economic measures that were passed for married couples that are meant for a man and wife. Such as spousal benefits. These type of things were passed in theory because spouses often take years or never "work" due to the work of raising kids. Gay couples don't have kids and thus we would be "wasting" economic resources to support them in the same manner as straight couples. The only sound argument I've heard against this is... gay couples have kids too. But that's the argument I have heard before, since you were wondering.

[d_r]

35. I appreciate that.

Thank you, I had not seen anyone use that argument. It is easily refuted with the statistics - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33595163/ns/us_news-life/

Actually, since 1/3 of married gay couples are raising children, then this argument works the other way. They should be getting the same economic breaks as other families since they are raising kids.

[Toucano]

29. I have never heard an argument against marriage equality that wasn't based on religion or economics.

Neither rationale holds water.

[Toasterlad]

38. Nothing Sane.

The big one is, gay sex will be taught in schools. Seriously. That's what they say.

[roguevalley]

39. tell them that divorce is forbidden in the Old Testament and that

if they want to be biblical, they must support banning divorce. you might also say if they are divorced and/or remarried they are fornicating.

[JerseygirlCT]

40. They've got nothing

There is no argument pertaining to marriage in a civic sense. In a religious sense, their "argument" is questionable. I'd say highly questionable.

They'll try "tradition", but that completely ignores how much the institution of marriage has changed, and continues to change.

Really? They've got nothing. Nothing but fear and bigotry.