Same-Sex Marriage

[PocketRocket]

This topic has been re-hashed so many times that I usually don't even bother any more.

For most anti-gay-marriage types, the argument is based on their personal emotions rather than logic.

There is no answer to an emotional argument.

For those few who actually argue their points from a logical standpoint, I have yet to see any basis for an anti-gay marriage stand that could not be easily shot down in flames.

25 pages in this thread, and the vast majority of it is emotional dog droppings.

I wish that for once someone would simply list their reasons for their stand against gay marriage, excluding their personal feelings on the matter, and try to defend their stance without resorting to more of the same, repetitive "it's not natural" bull.

In brief, here are a few refutations of the most common mantras.

Religion: Marriage is NOT a Christian institution for the simple reason that marriage predates Christianity.

Tradition: In many coutries marriage is indeed man-woman, but all through history there have been gay unions, and many gay marriages are also historically recorded. Furthermore, the 1 man-1 woman type marriage, while being what we are primarily used to seeing in our culture, is not the only kind of straight marriage. Many cultures approve of polygamous marriages, another form of marriage frowned upon by most Christian religions.

"Dictionary" meanings of the word "Marriage": Taken to its ultimate origin, the word "marry" simply means "to join". "Wed" holds an identical meaning. Two pieces of wood can be married together by a screw, or a nail (puns intended as I consider them apropos).

It's Sinful: Any so called "sin" which does no one any harm cannot truly be considered a wrongful act in the eyes of anyone except a religious person whose own religion opposes gay marriage. This makes it a religious argument and disqualifies it for reasons listed above. As long as religion and state are separate, no religious argument holds any water in this matter.

"It makes straight marriage irrelevant or invalid": Truly an argument that can only be employed by someone lacking self-confidence as each marriage is unique in its own way. Do two people with an open marriage make your own marriage any less valid??? No??? How about a polygamous marriage of some shah in the middle east??? No??? Then neither can a gay marriage.

"Legalizing it will cause more kids to grow up gay": Prove it. And even if it is true, so what??? Does this threaten you in some way???

IMHO, life is too damned short to deny anyone happiness unless that happiness comes at a cost to someone else. Allowing gays to marry does not cost me or anyone else a bloody thing, financially, physically, or otherwise.

[na85]

well said

[betsy]

Tradition: In many coutries marriage is indeed man-woman, but all through history there have been gay unions, and many gay marriages are also historically recorded.

There may be gay unions...but never heard of any gay marriages in history. Can you give an example as to when or where in history?

Just curious.

[betsy]

IMHO, life is too damned short to deny anyone happiness unless that happiness comes at a cost to someone else. Allowing gays to marry does not cost me or anyone else a bloody thing, financially, physically, or otherwise.

"One might as well ask, "How does my printing counterfeit $20 bills hurt your wallet?" Or to use another example, can you imagine a building where every carpenter defined his own standard of measurement? A man and a woman joined together in holy matrimony is the time-tested "yardstick" for marriage. One cannot alter the definition of marriage without throwing society into confusion any more than one can change the definition of a yardstick.

Homosexual marriage is an empty pretense that lacks the fundamental sexual complementariness of male and female. And like all counterfeits, it cheapens and degrades the real thing. The destructive effects may not be immediately apparent, but the cumulative damage is inescapable.

The eminent Harvard sociologist, Pitirim Sorokin, analyzed cultures spanning several thousand years on several continents, and found that virtually no society has ceased to regulate sexuality within marriage as defined as the union of a man and a woman, and survived.33"

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=BC04C02&v=PRINT

[Liam]

Religion: Marriage is NOT a Christian institution for the simple reason that marriage predates Christianity.

I agree, though a think a stronger argument on this point is that the issuance of a state marriage license is a state action, not a religious action.

Religion and marriage are two entirely different things. Some marriages take place under religious rites. Some do not. One can get married without attaching any religious meaning to it whatsoever. The fact that a priest, vicar, or tribal shaman has the power ("...vested in me by the state of...") to solemnize a state license does not make all marriage a religious institution.

[Michael Hardner]

Betsy:

"One might as well ask, "How does my printing counterfeit $20 bills hurt your wallet?" Or to use another example, can you imagine a building where every carpenter defined his own standard of measurement? A man and a woman joined together in holy matrimony is the time-tested "yardstick" for marriage. One cannot alter the definition of marriage without throwing society into confusion any more than one can change the definition of a yardstick.

Homosexual marriage is an empty pretense that lacks the fundamental sexual complementariness of male and female. And like all counterfeits, it cheapens and degrades the real thing. The destructive effects may not be immediately apparent, but the cumulative damage is inescapable.

The eminent Harvard sociologist, Pitirim Sorokin, analyzed cultures spanning several thousand years on several continents, and found that virtually no society has ceased to regulate sexuality within marriage as defined as the union of a man and a woman, and survived.33"

1) You're right about common definitions changing and eroding over time.

Liberals have been the ones accused of trying to 'legislate against human nature' in the recent past by trying to impose social engineering through legislation, including changing common elements of language to be politically correct. But 'Person-hole cover' never replaced manhole cover as the liberals would have liked.

Now, conservatives are picking up the ball and playing this game too. They don't want the term marriage to be used in connection with legally sanctioned same-sex relationships.

'Marriage' was still called marriage after divorce first became legal, then commonplace. That term - 'marriage' - will survive its latest sociological morphing in the same way. This will happen whether or not legislation is passed to re-label same sex marriage as 'civil union' or whatever.

2)

virtually no society has ceased to regulate sexuality within marriage as defined as the union of a man and a woman, and survived

This seems odd to be. How many societies over thousands of years did survive ? Ancient Rome ? Elizabethan England ? Eisenhower-era America ?

Maybe more detail here would help.

[Black Dog]

"One might as well ask, "How does my printing counterfeit $20 bills hurt your wallet?" Or to use another example, can you imagine a building where every carpenter defined his own standard of measurement? A man and a woman joined together in holy matrimony is the time-tested "yardstick" for marriage. One cannot alter the definition of marriage without throwing society into confusion any more than one can change the definition of a yardstick.

So basically your response to the question of how same sex marriage affects your marriage boils down to "it just does". Weak.

I've used this anaolgy before and I think it's solid. Prior to 1929, under Caandian law, women were not considered "persons" they could not not vote, run for office, or serve as elected officials. The Persons Case changed that, and the term "person" was redefined under law to include women. Did meddling with the traditional definition of persons "throw society into confusion"? No. Equal marriage is the same thing: the government is exercising its perogative under Section 91.26 of the Constitution Act, 1867 to determine the definition of marriage at law. Period, end of story.

[Michael Hardner]

Did meddling with the traditional definition of persons "throw society into confusion"?

It's such a subjective and nebulous thing. Some men were probably confused. The Metric system was confusing too. That doesn't make it a valid reason to not move ahead.

[Madman]

Since we're all big on links and research: How about what the American Psychological Association says on sexuality and whether it's a choice? You'd think that the largest association of psychologists in the world would know a thing or two about the matter.

You can also browse around to see their position on marriage.

You can also read on, though I doubt it would help in changing anyone's mind around here, the American Psychiatric Association's position on sexuality and whether it can be changed.

[uOttawaMan]

How bout when the "Tradtion" and "sins" of the Catholic Church were challenged through the Reformation and other reformist movements.

Guess what.. the world didn't end.. God did not strike down all of humanity for breaking his sacred laws. Nothing happened, so people accepted it.

The same thing has happened in Canada, same-sex marriage has been allowed, the collapse of society has not occured, noone has been hurt, ergo it will stay.

I really think that's what it boils down to, but im not so arrogant to believe that such a popular topic could be summed up that easily.

[geoffrey]

Couples of things...

1) Arguing against homosexuality isn't right or fair, these people do have rights. Being gay isn't a choice (I don't know why anyone would choose not to be with women ), if we want to argue against SSM in a constructive way, we have to be open minded and open to compromise. Most importantly, we must respect these people. You can construct a moral defense of the traditional definition of marriage. You cannot possibly construct a reasonal moral defense of sodomy laws or anything of the sort.

2) The Reformation brought the Church back towards where they should be and eliminated alot of the 'liberal' corruption from inside it. The Reformation wasn't a liberalisation, rather it was more of a reactionary attempt to bring the Church back to traditional values. Got away from the "in the coffer your coin rings, into heaven your soul springs" operatives and towards being a Church again.

3) Alot of you on my side of this argument, being the anti-SSM side, are acting quite immaturely and have the most ridiculous arguments. By saying half of these things, based on unresearched and unfounded claims, you weaken the case for traditional marriage. The pro side sounds way better and more convincing, and thats why they have won in Canada. If we got away from the God will spite them, and our society will crumble and towards making a fair compromise that respects both religious freedom and domain and the rights of homosexuals and their partners/families, then we may have a chance at reaching a compromise.

However I do fear that the traditional defense side has done too much damage to their cause already and its all a lost hope to keep fighting when you have bible thumping idiots on your teams bench.

I'm a Christian, I'm a Catholic, but I will never ever use my relgious beliefs to justify my actions towards anyone else.

[Black Dog]

Arguing against homosexuality isn't right or fair, these people do have rights. Being gay isn't a choice (I don't know why anyone would choose not to be with women),

Well, that's not the issue. Some homosexuals really want to be with women: they're called "lesbians".

[geoffrey]

Arguing against homosexuality isn't right or fair, these people do have rights. Being gay isn't a choice (I don't know why anyone would choose not to be with women),

Well, that's not the issue. Some homosexuals really want to be with women: they're called "lesbians".

My apologies to the lesbians out there. Maybe their the ones that have this figured out.

[na85]

I agree with geoffrey in that the anti-ssm side is too highly populated with immature arguments and wild conjecture. If we could get past all that, I think that the resulting debate would be very interesting indeed.

[Insom Elvis]

I agree with geoffrey in that the anti-ssm side is too highly populated with immature arguments and wild conjecture. If we could get past all that, I think that the resulting debate would be very interesting indeed.

I'm starting to understand a bit more on this topic, morality and religion aside, all I have left to wonder is how one is born into homosexuality. One fellow made a point that seemed to make sense, he said something to the effect of a genetic way of keeping the population from reaching excessive sizes. I was having a chat with a woman I work with today on the topic and she mentioned something else. She said that during the time where the fetus is still female and the male changes haven't quite occured, something different happens that leaves a male body with female instincts. That made a hell of a lot of sense to me, and it's one of very few explanations I've heard that even put thereories out to support the "born gay" idea.

[geoffrey]

I agree with geoffrey in that the anti-ssm side is too highly populated with immature arguments and wild conjecture. If we could get past all that, I think that the resulting debate would be very interesting indeed.

I'm starting to understand a bit more on this topic, morality and religion aside, all I have left to wonder is how one is born into homosexuality. One fellow made a point that seemed to make sense, he said something to the effect of a genetic way of keeping the population from reaching excessive sizes. I was having a chat with a woman I work with today on the topic and she mentioned something else. She said that during the time where the fetus is still female and the male changes haven't quite occured, something different happens that leaves a male body with female instincts. That made a hell of a lot of sense to me, and it's one of very few explanations I've heard that even put thereories out to support the "born gay" idea.

It's most likely a genetically composed mental illness, or mental difference would be more PC.

[Madman]

not just more PC, more accurate.

[Insom Elvis]

I do relate the supposed condition in the same way I would relate any other genetic "malfunction," which we all have, ie; poor eyesight, thin hair, etc. But at the same time I want the people defending the "born gay" theory to feel free to argue their case as I'm very interested in genetics and psychology and the struggle between the 2, so I'm being as PC as possible... In slight contrast to my earlier comments.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I do relate the supposed condition in the same way I would relate any other genetic "malfunction," which we all have, ie; poor eyesight, thin hair, etc. But at the same time I want the people defending the "born gay" theory to feel free to argue their case as I'm very interested in genetics and psychology and the struggle between the 2, so I'm being as PC as possible... In slight contrast to my earlier comments.

just joining in, but it sounds like we've stumbled into a debate about homosexuality. while I'm sure this is what the pro-ssm zealots would have u believe this is the debate, its not.

really, the debate isn't about rights its about people trying to steal culture.

i defy homosexulas to get a little bit of originality and define their own version of "union" instead of hijacking others.

If I started walking around naked and demanded to be known as a "nudist jew" should I be granted protection and a new definition under legislation?

[na85]

I'm starting to understand a bit more on this topic, morality and religion aside, all I have left to wonder is how one is born into homosexuality. One fellow made a point that seemed to make sense, he said something to the effect of a genetic way of keeping the population from reaching excessive sizes. I was having a chat with a woman I work with today on the topic and she mentioned something else. She said that during the time where the fetus is still female and the male changes haven't quite occured, something different happens that leaves a male body with female instincts. That made a hell of a lot of sense to me, and it's one of very few explanations I've heard that even put thereories out to support the "born gay" idea.

That's possible, although I was under the impression from my first-year bio classes that the fetus is actually androgynous until about 12 weeks when the labia in a female fetus can be detected by ultrasound. However I am not 100% on this.

just joining in, but it sounds like we've stumbled into a debate about homosexuality. while I'm sure this is what the pro-ssm zealots would have u believe this is the debate, its not.

really, the debate isn't about rights its about people trying to steal culture.

i defy homosexulas to get a little bit of originality and define their own version of "union" instead of hijacking others.

If I started walking around naked and demanded to be known as a "nudist jew" should I be granted protection and a new definition under legislation?

Try to read the whole argument before joining in, we've covered some of that before. First of all, definitions change. A hundred years ago "click" wasn't a verb describing the action of a mouse, and "mouse" was only a creature, not an input device. Should we persecute Bill Gates for "stealing" the definition or the culture of our society?

Secondly, your example about being made a "nudist jew" doesn't make any sense, nor is it related. If you wanted to be known as a nudist jew and started your own sect of judaism based on nudity then yes, yes you should be recognized and protected as per your rights to religious freedom. How this relates to homosexuality I can't fathom.

[geoffrey]

I do relate the supposed condition in the same way I would relate any other genetic "malfunction," which we all have, ie; poor eyesight, thin hair, etc. But at the same time I want the people defending the "born gay" theory to feel free to argue their case as I'm very interested in genetics and psychology and the struggle between the 2, so I'm being as PC as possible... In slight contrast to my earlier comments.

just joining in, but it sounds like we've stumbled into a debate about homosexuality. while I'm sure this is what the pro-ssm zealots would have u believe this is the debate, its not.

really, the debate isn't about rights its about people trying to steal culture.

i defy homosexulas to get a little bit of originality and define their own version of "union" instead of hijacking others.

If I started walking around naked and demanded to be known as a "nudist jew" should I be granted protection and a new definition under legislation?

Defending them specifically was a mistake, bill C-250 was a horrible concept, but oh well, life goes on.

I think the honest debate in regards to homosexual rights, which is the bigger picture needs to be based on two principles that are completely seperate.

1) Right to exist: Abolishing sodomy laws and the such and removing discriminatory statutes against gays needs to be done. Let them do their thing, they aren't affecting you and I with it. If your a God fearing man, let him be the judge, he'll deal with it when they get there. There is a reason why your not supposed to judge from a faith perspective, thats the big cheese's job.

2) Right to marry: This is different, because now we are into some rocky ground. Marriage needs to remain between a man in a women, that is simply what marriage is.

We cannot prevent, however, homosexual couples from having the same benifets as hetrosexual couples from the government benifets perspective anyways. Let them have their tax benifets.

Child adoption by a gay couple is risky, I wouldn't want to support this until there was scientific proof that the child isn't harmed. I do personally believe that a child is disadvantaged in the world by being raised by homosexual parents, and I've yet to see evidence to the contrary so my belief remains.

Either way, we need to get away from hate speech and discriminatory statements and base this on reasonable discourse.

na85, the defintion of marriage goes beyond just the dictionary and rather has been an instituion of society for some time now. This isn't a just a 'google' verb.

[na85]

na85, the defintion of marriage goes beyond just the dictionary and rather has been an instituion of society for some time now. This isn't a just a 'google' verb.

I agree. However, I was arguing earlier that many such institutions have changed, and marriage itself is a plastic ideal. It has not remained constant through history.

[Michael Hardner]

2) Right to marry: This is different, because now we are into some rocky ground. Marriage needs to remain between a man in a women, that is simply what marriage is.

But why ? Convince those of us who are for same-sex marriage that this needs to happen for some reason.

[YankAbroad]

i defy homosexulas to get a little bit of originality and define their own version of "union" instead of hijacking others

And I'm sure that if we were to do something, opponents of same-sex marriage would immediately get behind it and ensure that gays then received full equality under the law. Oh yeah. I'm sure!

Marriage needs to remain between a man in a women, that is simply what marriage is

Actually, this "definition" of marriage is a radical transformation of "traditional" marriage.

Tradition had marriage being viewed as the transfer of female property from a father to a husband. The woman had little or no say in who she married, and once she was "sold" or "transferred," she became the property of her husband. That's the reality of the "tradition" which is bandied about so often.

An opposite-sex marriage which is voluntary for both parties and in which both spouses are equal is far more radical a transformation of "traditional marriage" than making the existing modern definition embrace same-sex couples as well. That's why the whole "this is tradition" argument is so disingenuous in the first place.

[betsy]

I used to be in a dance troupe in College under a gay choreographer. There were several gay dancers too. We used to joked then that you see all these macho-looking men sign in to join (to avoid having to do another requirement)...and given three months, they all got transformed into effeminate, shrieking flamboyant girlie men! Those were the fun days. I must say gays , (at least the ones that I had befriended) were fun to be around with.

But the thing is, it was notable that two of those macho men-turned-gays....suddenly turned back into men, and married women. Of all surprises, one who've I've known to be flamboyantly gay all along...was so masculine years later.

Didn't Freud say that all of us go through this "confusion" ....mostly during pre-adolescent or pubescent stages? That those stages are normal? That in the end, it will get sorted out?