A few weeks ago, before SF opened the flood gates even wider with the gay marriage controversy, I had written up quite a long paper trying to break down every argument against gay marriage that I had heard up until now.
I decided against posting it primarily because it was mostly something I wanted to write for the value of being able to think through the issue. Last night I was thinking about it again, and I’m still unable to find one even remotely valid reason why gay marriage should be banned.
Interestingly enough, while thinking through this issue, I did come across the understanding why some people are so against affirmative action, given that there are many valid reasons why it should or could be illegal. I was quite happy to be able to do some hard thinking about a problem and come out with a new perspective and understanding on an issue (though, I still support affirmative action, at least in the form of taking race and background in to consideration).
But I’m still unable to find a single “valid” reason why it should be banned. I invite anyone who is against gay marriage to help me understand their viewpoint. Don’t worry, I’m not trying to ask you to come up on stage so I can sandbag you. I merely want to understand the rational behind over 50% of my fellow citizens.
Here’s a quick rundown of my “responses” to the various argument I’ve hard in the past:
- immoral - well, maybe that is the case, but our courts have shown in the past that there has to be serious and provable harm caused on society for them to outlaw immoral behavior (take pornography, for instance)
- sanctity of marriage - our divorce rates are incredibly high. Also, we let Brittney Spears get married in Las Vegas because she was drunk: marriage (under government at least) is not sacred.
- destroys the idea of a normal family - I don’t know about you, but many of my friends have half brothers, step sisters, step fathers, etc. The normal family appears to have been long gone for many of us.
*those for civil unions but not marriage - if they have the same rights, shouldn’t it be the same thing? This feels very akin to “separate but equal”
PS: The reason I brought up and thought about affirmative action when thinking through this issue is that both are appear to be forms of discrimination.
PPS: I give props to President Bush for doing what he thinks he needs to do (even though I think he’s a bastard for doing it). At least he has to the guts to make a stand. Kerry and Edwards both piss me off by trying to have it both ways — they want to still appeal to the 50%+ of the US population, but at the same time they don’t want to alienate the 10% either. I can’t stand it when Democrats try to sit on the fence like this. I want a president who can make a stand (but also make the “right” stand).
on Mar 2nd, 2004 at 1:19 pm
are there a lot of gay java programmers? why so many political writtings on javablogs? please!
on Mar 2nd, 2004 at 2:15 pm
I have yet to see a single “valid” reason why I shouldn’t be able to have two wives. Who are you to impose your views of marriage on me?
on Mar 2nd, 2004 at 3:43 pm
I’m in the “who gives a damn” camp myself and I agree that there are too many non-java related posts. However, I just have to comment that the title of your post, “Arguments against gay marriage”, implied to me that I was going to read some arguments against gay marriage by some ultra-conservative type…
on Mar 2nd, 2004 at 3:51 pm
God hates shrimp
Oh man, this is a good one. There is a new movement out there: God Hates Shrimp. Gotta love satire, and it is SO easy with a president like “we” have here. 12 Reasons Gay Marriage Will Ruin Society (not)…
on Mar 2nd, 2004 at 6:06 pm
you are right in that it is no worse than any of the other problems you’ve listed - but that still doesn’t make it right. The problem with the other issues is that there is no line in the sand that says whether those marriages can go ahead in advance (except maybe a blood-alcohol test
Marriage was designed for a specific purpose between a man and a woman. Man and woman mess it up bad enough as it is - same sex couples are not going to get it “right” because it is not a union designed for them.
on Mar 2nd, 2004 at 6:35 pm
The best way that I can see it is that it is like legalizing drug use. There are two steps. One making it legal to do the activity. The next is making it socially acceptable to do the activity. Homosexuals already have the first part (being able to live together under a proclamation of their word). But they don
on Mar 2nd, 2004 at 7:31 pm
You’re being a bit demagog here, aren’t you? Yes, this is (also) about showing homosexuality as acceptable (why shouldn’t it be - it’s actually NATURAL). But what has it got to do with ‘forcing the people to recognize it as BENEFICIAL’? Recognizing someones behaviour is one thing and seing it as beneficial (to whom?) is a completely different one.
There will be no more homosexuals just because they can marry. The sexual instinct is a very strong one - that’s why you can’t change it. Even if you are a heterosexual or a homosexual. Period.
on Mar 2nd, 2004 at 7:49 pm
Polly G. Mist,
My response to your comment would be: you are free to do what you want under any religion you want, but under state recognized benefits (taxes, visitation rights, etc) it would be unfair to allow you to have multiple beneficiaries when the rest of us that believe in “one man and one woman” marriages only get one person who stands to benefit.
There is a very clear difference between multiple marriages and same-sex/different-sex marriages, don’t you think?
inignot,
I did that on purpose.
Brett,
Marriage under the traditional notion of the word as defined by the church. Marriage under the view of the state may have been intended for man and woman, but white schools were also intended for white children at one time. Laws change and original intentions don’t neccessarily hold weight forever. Personally, I’m for “civil unions” — both straight and gay couples. Marriage is a loaded word and people are unable to to distinguish the very different church and state definitions.
Dan,
I do agree that what Gavin Newsom did in SF, while ballsy, is unfortunately not the right way to pursue this issue. I would have rather gay marriage advocates, like civil rights advocates in the 60’s, looked for highly charged cases that they had a chance to win, thereby slowly tearing down the walls over a series of years in cases that a reasonable judge sworn to uphold “equality for all” would have to rule in favor of. I was in favor of the process in MA, but CA isn’t so good for me (even if I firmly agree that gays should have the same rights).
I agree the government act of legalizing something means they endorse it as “acceptable”, but I don’t agree it has to be “beneficial”. If that were the case, Big Macs and cigarettes wouldn’t be legal
Patrick
on Mar 2nd, 2004 at 7:59 pm
I heard an interesting concept from a friend of mine that said the best response to this whole thing is to entirely get rid of state-issued marriages and issue only “civil unions”, same-sex or not. Then we could let private institutions (religious or otherwise) confirm marriage on whichever people they choose, but the rights and benefits given by the state will be equally granted regardless of sexual orientation. Really, the only argument you can make against this is that you think gays do not deserve equal rights. And that’s not very American, is it?
on Mar 3rd, 2004 at 12:47 am
Alrighty, now for a different view. For the past year or so I have been listening to a lot of talk radio, primarily in the SF Bay Area, so Ron Owens, Bill OReily, Armstrong and Getty, and more recently Michael Savage.
Lately, I have been extremely pissed off with all the things going on in our country. Most notably, all the “right” and “left” things. I am usually not interested in politics, but some things really piss me off. Lawsuits, they have GOT TO GO! I am all in favor of “common sense” suits. But what is up with all of these ridiculous lawsuits, like people jumping over a fence that says “Warning: Big Dog In Year”, breaking in to a home with a weapon in hand, getting bit by a dog, and then being able to sue the owner of the home and WIN!! Why? Because they posted a sign indicating they have a vicious dog. Days later in a near by town, the EXACT SAME SCENARIO occurs, only this time the owner doesn’t have a sign. The win was to the person breaking in… why? Because a lawyer was able to persuade a jury in believing that by not posting a sign, the owner was at fault for not giving the bad guy notice. WTF??!! How can we even say we have a judicial system when the same crime has two different verdicts. Frankly, I am sick to death of this 12 person jury. I can’t believe 12 people get together, and decide the fate of someone. I believe a best 3 out of 5 should be in place, only with how long cases take, it would be 30 years per lawsuit to convict someone. I mean, there are common sense lawsuits, and then there are total trash suits that cost us lots of money and ruin this country greatly for the majority of us. It won’t be long before looking at someone wrong gets you sued. Oh, wait..that has already happened!
My point is, there is so much darn controversy going on over just about everything that our country is starting to look like a bunch of cry babies seeking anyway to screw someone else over for money with no care in regards to what may happen to that person. In relation to gay marriage, I don’t know. Personally, I don’t care, but it is yet another “scandal” so to speak tying up court rooms, taking up time, and if anything making it far more apparent that being gay/les is almost as if its the thing to do. I have no objection to men being gay and wanting other men. Yes, I want to yack when I see two men kissing, but that is me. But all this hoopla around gay marriage, it’s got to go.
I agree that here in California, Gavin screwed up and in my opinion he has got to go. Arnie said it right, by Gavin doing what he is doing, it paves the way for other city mayors to start making up their own laws and that is NOT how it should be done. If that is the case, we may as well make each city it’s own country lead by a dictatorship.
Ok, so now that I blew some steam off ;). My concern with regard to the “political” issue of all this is that this is one more thing that the “right/left” folks are throwing at the courts, and this country is really starting to be run by liberalists and lawyers, which is quickly turning us into a laughing stock around the world, not to mention the majority of the “common sense” population is disgusted with what is going on, yet there seems to be no way we can do anything about it. God forbid, I may get sued just for saying this, probably land in prison for 25 years, then sentenced to death for a crime I did not commit despite having actual proof I was behind bars!
I don’t know, I am sick to death of hearing of people getting murdered, especially kids. Being a father, every time I hear of some guy killing his wife and kids, all I can think about is how I wish our country was more like Saudi Arabia and others. You kill, you die, on the spot, no questions. Your family gets to find your remains, if they are lucky (or not). Personally, any man (or for that matter woman) who rapes another, should be castrated immediately and painfully. More so, I would love nothing more than for the Pres to go on tv and say something like “Alrighty America, if you kill, you die, if you brutually murder someone, you will be slowly dragged behind a car on a gravelly road until your limbs fall apart. If you rape, you’ll be blinded, castrated (by vicious dog) and have your opposable thumbs removed. If you steal, you will get 25 years on the first offense, even if its a candy bar, and life on the second offense, no exceptions.”
I almost think we need extreme measures to control the ridiculous crap going on. Highway sniper shootings? What the hell is this? Target practive for that hunting trip? Kids killing other kids? WTF has gone wrong?
Too many viloent movies, too many gangs, too much of everything. The media needs to shove those cameras up their proverbial asses and quit filiming everything that is going wrong. Frankly, I love the comedian that says “They should call it bad news”. It is never, or rarely good! Maybe if we would quit showing black men stealing or doing bad things and instead showed some of us white boys that do the same thing, the racists crap would eventually go away, but then again, maybe if we had White History Month, Mexican History Month and so on, we would all be equal? I am not sure I understand why we have Black History Month, but nothing for white, mexican, and other nationalities. Why are there so many black only casts? I know there are a lot of white casts, and I disagree with that too. I like mixed population, that works, and perhaps it will have an affect on all those that watch!
Damn, I could go on for days. I guess since I am a bit off topic, I should stop. Sorry for rambling..I wish there was a forum to discuss all these issues and that somehow we could all unite and get beyond all the crap that just 15 years ago I never could have imagined living through!
on Mar 3rd, 2004 at 10:47 am
I’ve deleted two comments from this thread, both were anonymous, and both were adding no value or further discussing the original post. Interestingly enough, the original comment was an anti-Bush comment, and I am most definitely anti-Bush. However, I am sticking to my original plan: http://www.lightbody.net/~plightbo/archives/000044.html
Patrick
on Mar 26th, 2004 at 10:37 am
i think that gay marriage should not be in the world because two cocks on each other is sick.
on Nov 9th, 2005 at 7:56 pm
Hi..My name is Macy im in high school and i am doin a speech on “Against Gay Marriage” and i was wondering if someone could elp me with some sites or somewhere i could look for information…it would help alot. Thank You
on Nov 28th, 2005 at 1:59 pm
I’ll tell you the real reasons people are against gay marriage: they’re uncomfortable with the idea that people are gay, hate and fear anything that’s different from them, hate themselves for being secretly gay so they become incredibly homophobic. Who cares what two people do anyway, it’s not anyone else’s business.
on Dec 19th, 2005 at 6:40 pm
Why is it so hard to understand the bible is agaist homosexual relationships and who are we to quiestion God…I’m not saying hate them you should treat them like anyone else and i do believe no one sin is different than another but the bible is true,it’s amazing when we want something in life we ask God for help or when a tradgedy occurrs we ask God for help well if he’s so helpful than why don’t we believe what he tells us in his word. I believe the quiestion is not should gay-marriage exsists but do you have any faith or belief in God, because when it comes down to it we will be accountable for all our actions when the end is near.
on Jan 9th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Sorry folks but there is no such thing as “Gay marriage controversy” the only issue here is the extend of the political force of religion. theres no bring reason to religion. how can you argue with “It is so because god says so?” (And nobody really realizes that “God” makes his own mistakes (He used to think the earth was flat) the lesson here is that it seems that even god can change his mind. lets help him see reality!.
on Apr 14th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
ok, people say that gay marriage should be legal because it’s between 2 adults that are consenting to it, and they aren’t hurting anyone. This is all fine and dandy, but we have laws against prostitution when the same arguments apply to that.. it’s between two adults, they are both consenting, and they aren’t hurting anyone
on Jun 17th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
However…..
the âentire meaning and purposeâ of marriage has been altered many times over the years â over centuries, in fact â and that this is not because of a âsingle politician or court or legislature,â but because of the evolution of society. Marriage is no longer about the joining of two families for economic benefit; itâs no longer about dowries and the subsuming of a womanâs legal identity into that of a man; itâs no longer about the survival of your tribe. For some people itâs not even about having children. Marriage can be about having children, and raising a family, and it usually is. But not always. It can be about happiness and personal stability. It can be about economic benefits. People get married for all sorts of reasons today, and liberalized divorce laws attest to how much societyâs definition of marriage has changed over the years.â ââ¦.the âentire meaning and purposeâ of marriage has been altered many times over the years â over centuries, in fact â and that this is not because of a âsingle politician or court or legislature,â but because of the evolution of society. Marriage is no longer about the joining of two families for economic benefit; itâs no longer about dowries and the subsuming of a womanâs legal identity into that of a man; itâs no longer about the survival of your tribe. For some people itâs not even about having children. Marriage can be about having children, and raising a family, and it usually is. But not always. It can be about happiness and personal stability. It can be about economic benefits. People get married for all sorts of reasons today, and liberalized divorce laws attest to how much societyâs definition of marriage has changed over the years.