Question for hard-right theocrats

[The Terrible Sweal]

I'd really like someone to explain ... how is same-sex marriage supposed to be harmful to other marriages or 'traditional' families?

[Cartman]

I honestly believe that the answer to this question is simply that if gays and lesbians are allowed to marry, they will be perceived on an equal footing to all others and that makes people uncomfortable. Calling it something else keeps the group exclusive.

[Tawasakm]

To my mind legalising homosexual marriage is nothing more then formalising reality. If families are not currently harmed by the existence of stable homosexual partnerships then I fail to see how formalising this can become harmful.

Note that I am claiming that legalisation would be formalising reality not claiming that it would be legitimising it. Homosexuality has already been legitimised even if it is not completely accepted by all.

[Tawasakm]

Errrm I just remembered that this question is addressed to hard right theocrats - which I am not. If you didn't want my answer then I apologise for butting in.

[Cartman]

Errrm I just remembered that this question is addressed to hard right theocrats - which I am not. If you didn't want my answer then I apologise for butting in.

oops...me too.

[stamps]

If a person is gay I believe they have been hardwired from birth to be that way... this cultural fear we seem to have regarding homosexuals is something that will eventually go away once people finally accept this fact.. I consider myself a christian and I hear that somewhere in the bible it says that homosexuality is a sin.. I have yet to find it.... anyway if you believe in God you have to believe that if he makes a person a certain way he must have had a reason so for us as a society to deny these people their sexuality I believe is a sin..... what two conscenting adults do is nobodies business in my opinion as long as both party's are of age and are of the same species.... if two guys or two girls want to get married then I say let them....

[Newfie Canadian]

It doesn't say that it is a sin exactly, but:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Lev. 18:22

This question wasn't addressed to me, sorry for butting in here TTS, but I was just trying to help stamps with their point. For the record, I do not have a problem with gay marriage.

Exeunt with a flourish.

[stamps]

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Lev. 18:22

So does this mean it is OK to be gay if you are a women but not if your a guy.... that might explain... aw forget it....

[stamps]

As long as Jesus did'nt say it......

[The Terrible Sweal]

Thanks for your opinions ... no need to apologize for participating.

BUT ....

I still have no idea what the alleged harm is supposed to be, according to those alleging it.

[RB]

I'd really like someone to explain ... how is same-sex marriage supposed to be harmful to other marriages or 'traditional' families?

I think that "harmful", "repulsive" and rendering "others" horrid is a construction and creation that lives in the imagination

the goverment and churches are responsible for promoting their concept of what is ideal and proceed to practice the same. well also one way for compliance is to embedd practices as laws to promote the alluring - such as marriage

i meant if you look at a man and women there is no difference in their outlook to life, appearance, or other -

it is the preference to sexuality that is different -

and the sex is tabooed, by the practising ideal and the so called deviants.

in general people usually keep information about sex, & their experiences private.

so understand when any candid person do eventually speak of sex and sexuality - oh the nerve

but better yet talk about deviating such as gays, it does not follow mainstream practice, so see how the images are projected in the mind and what it conjures up - is it partly repulsive - well this is the construction i am talking about - it only exist in the mind

[Cartman]

In exchange for legal and symbolic benefits, individuals who request the state to marry them allow their relationships to be governed by the state to an extent. The state over-extends its power by regulating common-law relationships as well. By conferring the status of marriage to homosexuals, the state is entitling them to the same benefits (legal and symbolic) currently enjoyed by everyone. Once entrenched, homosexual marriage will be tied to heterosexual marriage. If, however, “civil unions” become the legal status, then the symbolic representation for homosexuals is significantly reduced and the legal benefits can be eroded at any time. I believe that some heterosexuals are afraid that the symbolic benefits will be demeaned if homosexuals are allowed to be married. IMO, this is based entirely on hatred.

i.e. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/Falwell.apology/

Why should I care if the state creates legal subjects of Jane and John or Mary and Jane? How does it affect me? It does not. What disturbs me is that it appears those most opposed to homosexual marriage supposedly use God’s laws to support their position on civil affairs. God has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with my marriage because I was not married in a church and God has nothing to do with homosexuals who choose to be married by the state. The arguments against homosexual marriage have not changed my opinion on this issue, but they have made it abundantly clear that they desire to over-extend their authority into the civil realm by using God’s wishes as support for their arguments.

Answer: bestowing the same legal status to homosexuals does not harm heterosexual marriage, it only reduces the ability to discriminate. That is why no hard-right theocrats have responded to your excellent question thus far.

[Cartman]

I think that you can declare victory now Sweal. Indeed, undisputed victory. Well done.

[August1991]

This question wasn't addressed to me, sorry for butting in here TTS, but I was just trying to help stamps with their point. For the record, I do not have a problem with gay marriage.

Exeunt with a flourish.

Truly admirable, Newf, but like a damn fool, I'll wander in and turn on the microphone:

If, however, “civil unions” become the legal status, then the symbolic representation for homosexuals is significantly reduced and the legal benefits can be eroded at any time. I believe that some heterosexuals are afraid that the symbolic benefits will be demeaned if homosexuals are allowed to be married.

A marriage is simply a long term contract between two people. The state can offer a standard, one-size fits all contract (stipulating all the conditions in case of breach) but two people, in a sense, can always create their own contract (possibly enforceable).

For third parties, such as the state, there are additional questions: survivor benefits, pension benefits, tax benefits, power-of-attorney, joint liability. Here, the State gets involved in the same sense that private insurance firms or lenders would be involved.

Can I sue your partner if I lend you money?

Now, then, there seem to be three broad arguments against allowing people of the same sex to have the right to such contracts.

First, homosexuality is a sin. They shouldn't even shack up let alone have the right to sign a contract.

Second, homosexuals can shack up but we shouldn't let them sign any contract. God knows what will happen if we allow this.

Third, gays should be allowed to sign a contract but only use the term "civil union" to describe it. The State (and any other party) should recognize this in the same size as marriage.

Fourth, gays can use the word "marriage" to describe their contract.

----

To me, the difference between the Third and the Fourth is the difference between "mayonnaise" and "salad dressing". I suspect the words "wife" and "husband" are safe from gay usage although I was struck the first time I read "his husband".

The argument (I have heard) justifying the Second argument seems to be along the lines of "this is a new situation so let's see what happens before rush in...")

I must point out an interesting detail I just learned recently. The Turkish language has no gender. Hence, he/she/it all use the same word. I'm not certain that this makes Turkish culture any less sexist.

IOW, the Left (or Progressives) puts too much emphasis on symbol and not enough on reality.

----

Lastly, for myself, I firmly believe in live and let live.

[Guest eureka]

Butting in on this is like meeting the proverbial wall. Already the accusations of bigotry for dissenting ideas has taken hold.

However, "Let us to the marriage of true minds (if any would care to join)...."

I don't think the answer is really all that difficult and it is not from hatred and bigotry escept for an element that is not yet large in Canada. Most who are opposed to "gay marriage" simply believe that marriage is an institution for man and woman to conjoin. They believe that the purpose of marriage was and is, for the begetting and raising of children. They believe that this new idea cheapens their own marriages and destroys the institution.

I have not heard much opposition to homosexuals having the same economic benefits from their unions. However, to reduce marriage to an economic union or a contract is a reductio ad absurdum (to imitate Hugo) in the eyes of those who think that marriage does actually mean something fundamental to humanity.

I actually know a few homosexuals who would make the same argument. I also once worked for the same organization as one of the leading activists in the struggle for homosexual "rights." I never had any discussion with hime since he kept it outside of the workplace.

[Cartman]

When it comes down to it, I think that we are possibly talking about only .5% of people in Canada (being liberal). But the fuss is tremendous. As such, I suspect that strong emotions have more to do with it than calm reasoning.

[The Terrible Sweal]

... I don't think the answer is really all that difficult and it is not from hatred and bigotry escept for an element that is not yet large in Canada. Most who are opposed to "gay marriage" simply believe that marriage is an institution for man and woman to conjoin. They believe that the purpose of marriage was and is, for the begetting and raising of children. They believe that this new idea cheapens their own marriages and destroys the institution. ...

The thing is, there does not seem to be any operational reality behind this belief (or at least none I have been able to get explained). What I'm trying to figure out is in what way does it cheapen or destroy the institution?

Is it like a toney golf club? The club just 'won't be the same' if we let those people in ...

Is there any more to the of 'harm to the institution' other than just that?

[Guest eureka]

Possibly no more. However, is that not enough? In the minds of those who hold a traditional, religious or secular view of what marriage is and what its purpose is, is the harm not great if the institution is "destroyed" ot perverted."

I find myself ambivalent and I can sympathise with both views.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Possibly no more. However, is that not enough? In the minds of those who hold a traditional, religious or secular view of what marriage is and what its purpose is, is the harm not great if the institution is "destroyed" ot perverted."

I find myself ambivalent and I can sympathise with both views.

If that's all there is to it, then no, it is not enough to support the desire of same-sex marriage opponents to have the law accord to their preferences.

Civil marriage does not belong to any one person or group. To support a policy choice which will affect the interests of people broadly within the society, one must offer more than merely aesthetic interpretations.

[HybridConservative]

I honestly believe that the answer to this question is simply that if gays and lesbians are allowed to marry, they will be perceived on an equal footing to all others and that makes people uncomfortable. Calling it something else keeps the group exclusive.

Thats what I dont understand. They want equal rights but at the same time, want to be recognized as a different minority. They want to be one and exclusive.

Kind of double sided isnt it?

[Neal.F.]

(I posted this in another thread, but will add, in light of something august said, that marriage is not a contract between two people. That's acivil union. A mariage is a COVENANT between one man, one woman and God)

Same sex marriage undermines the traditional nuclear family, which is the basic building block of western society. It undermines the extended family which is the building block of Asian society. It's bad enough that traditional families are being undemined at every turn by various forces in society that snicker, calling it archaic and irrelevant. The families that are strong and do stay together are a testament to the fact that it is the best system under which to produce shealthy balanced adults who will contribute to building, not tearing down a better society.

Nobody is suggesting denying homosexuals to dispose of their estates as they see fit, or that hospital visits be denied, however, I and others like me do not think that marriage should be extended to anyone but heterosexual couples consisting of one man and one woman . Nor do we believe that mariages should be , as Rod Stewart once put it, like Dog licenses, renewed every year if the couple sees fit.

we need couples to be committed fopr a lifetime, raising their childen and strengthening families, not a society that just shacks up for awhile, then moves on when one partner outgrows the other. the damage to society resultant from such a cynical worldview should be obvious to all.

I personally don't think that heterosexual common law relationships should be viewed as marriages either. for they are not. neither, in my opinion, are civil marriages. why not just call them what they are? Civil unions.

The only people who will benefit from same sex marriage, ar the divorce lawyers, social workers, and psychiatrists.

Here's an interesting perspective from some who has lived the homosexual lifestyle.

http://www.chp.ca/arc-CHPSpeaksOut/NotAbou...riage_ExGay.htm

[HybridConservative]

(I posted this in another thread, but will add, in light of something august said, that marriage is not a contract between two people. That's acivil union. A mariage is a COVENANT between one man, one woman and God)

Same sex marriage undermines the traditional nuclear family, which is the basic building block of western society. It undermines the extended family which is the building block of Asian society. It's bad enough that traditional families are being undemined at every turn by various forces in society that snicker, calling it archaic and irrelevant. The families that are strong and do stay together are a testament to the fact that it is the best system under which to produce shealthy balanced adults who will contribute to building, not tearing down a better society.

Nobody is suggesting denying homosexuals to dispose of their estates as they see fit, or that hospital visits be denied, however, I and others like me do not think that marriage should be extended to anyone but heterosexual couples consisting of one man and one woman . Nor do we believe that mariages should be , as Rod Stewart once put it, like Dog licenses, renewed every year if the couple sees fit.

we need couples to be committed fopr a lifetime, raising their childen and strengthening families, not a society that just shacks up for awhile, then moves on when one partner outgrows the other. the damage to society resultant from such a cynical worldview should be obvious to all.

I personally don't think that heterosexual common law relationships should be viewed as marriages either. for they are not. neither, in my opinion, are civil marriages. why not just call them what they are? Civil unions.

The only people who will benefit from same sex marriage, ar the divorce lawyers, social workers, and psychiatrists.

Here's an interesting perspective from some who has lived the homosexual lifestyle.

http://www.chp.ca/arc-CHPSpeaksOut/NotAbou...riage_ExGay.htm

*claps* I agree in reference to the "civil marriage" comment just made. Its not marriage. Its a union. Marriage has HISTORICALLY been defined as "the covenant between a man, woman and God". Period.

You dont change history--especially one as old as that.

Why can homosexuals be happy with "union"? They'll have the same rights. Why marriage?? Why? I dont get it.

[Hugo]

A mariage is a COVENANT between one man, one woman and God

I addressed this point here. Perhaps you could take a look, Neal?

The families that are strong and do stay together are a testament to the fact that it is the best system under which to produce shealthy balanced adults who will contribute to building, not tearing down a better society.

I don't understand. If families are so strong, why do we need state backing to help them along? Surely if the institution is so strong and natural, it will maintain itself, without policemen, judges, wardens and hangmen to back it up? History suggests as much, when one sees the universality of the concept of marriage and family thoughout all cultures. More to the point, if some marriages are not strong and the family does not want to stay together, how does forcing them to help anything?

we need couples to be committed fopr a lifetime, raising their childen and strengthening families, not a society that just shacks up for awhile, then moves on when one partner outgrows the other.

Very possibly true, but surely this is a matter for personal ethics? How can you produce lasting, positive results in this regard by browbeating people into a vision of ethics they don't share?

Nobody is suggesting denying homosexuals to dispose of their estates as they see fit, or that hospital visits be denied, however, I and others like me do not think that marriage should be extended to anyone but heterosexual couples consisting of one man and one woman .

I'm not sure why minding one's own business is no longer acceptable. Two people want to make an agreement between themselves. It doesn't affect you. Why do you get to have a say?

I personally don't think that heterosexual common law relationships should be viewed as marriages either.

So, don't view them as marriages. But if you propose to use law to make other people share your view, what you are basically saying is, "Believe what I believe, or I'll beat you up."

Hardly an enlightened or Christian viewpoint, really.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Same sex marriage undermines the traditional nuclear family, which is the basic building block of western society.

Since that is what you believe, I would really appreciate if you would explain HOW same sex marriage undermines either inter-sex marriage or the traditional family.

Thanks.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Why can homosexuals be happy with "union"? They'll have the same rights. Why marriage?? Why? I dont get it.

Odd. You see something particular and special about "marriage" which you feel is worth particular and special treatment, but at the same time you purport not to understand why same-sex couples might place particular and special importance on "marriage".