Does opposing gay marriage make you an asshole?

[Eric]

My impression is that many conservatives are simply not seriously aware of the various and numerous problems faced by committed gay couples who're not allowed to marry.

My issue with this would be that he knows enough about it to acknowledge that the situation is a talking point and concern, but chooses not to learn or hear more about these serious problems because then they'd not be so easily dismissible. That's willful ignorance in my estimation.

[Andail]

That restroom analogy was so pitiful it's just embarrassing. But let's ignore the fact that he's obviously a douchebag and a poor debater, and pretend he's got some really good reasons to oppose gay marriage, and... well...

Nope. There are no good arguments against gay marriage. The reasons for opposing it are traditions, religion and prejudices, none of which count as good arguments in a debate. Even if we stretch it further into the sociological field, research clearly shows that gay couples make just as good (or bad) parents and form just as good (or bad) families as non-gay people.

I don't buy that Christian dogmas can be used to justify being against gay-marriage, because Christians don't follow the Bible anyway, so why should they be allowed to pick some parts of it and suddenly get away with being reactionary? It'd be one thing if we had a religion with a neat, concise set of rules that their followers adhered to, consistently. I know, blaming Christians for interpreting the Bible selectively isn't very original, but it never ceases to baffle me. When I meet a Christian who's given away everything they own to the poor (which the Bible dictates) I'll start listening. But they'd better not mix wool and linen.

If Christians were never forced to modernize, they'd still refuse female priests, and they'd still like to stone people for the crime of having been raped, and they'd still preach in latin and demand a tenth of your money, lest you'd be damned to hell, or something. Religion must be organic, like the rest of society.

[LimpingFish]

Doug TenNapel has always been an asshole. Read his blog, particularly anything pre-2011.

[Calin Leafshade]

The concept of marriage between two people of the same sex is a modern invention, not found in any culture anywhere in the world or in history.

This is bullshit. Native Americans have been performing same sex marriages for a long time. Plus ancient Rome and ancient Greece.

The gay marriage thing is something of a moot point at this stage. The tide has well and truly turned and it's just a matter of time at this stage. Even in the theocratic US support for gay marriage is above 50%. I think the fight is more or less won.

[Snarky]

Which means people who oppose it do so for religious or other irrational reasons. ... (Saying their religion/word-view demands it obviously doesn't cut it though.)

Nope. There are no good arguments against gay marriage. The reasons for opposing it are traditions, religion and prejudices, none of which count as good arguments in a debate.

There's a difference between accepting an argument as externally persuasive and acknowledging that it's internally meaningful to a person. Just because it's not a good argument to you doesn't mean it's not a good argument to someone whose assumptions are fundamentally different. To deny that it's rational for religious people to base theirs views on questions like this on their religious beliefs is pretty much just another way of saying "Christians are stupid and their opinions don't count!" (The whole thing about Christians not following every word of the Bible ignores millennia of interpretative and religious tradition.)

As another example, although I'm pro-choice, I can still understand that it's logical for a someone who's a Catholic, for example, and sincerely believes that personhood begins at conception, that a blastocyte has a soul, to consider abortion murder. It makes sense within that system of thinking, and just dismissing it is pretty arrogant and not very constructive.

The concept of marriage between two people of the same sex is a modern invention, not found in any culture anywhere in the world or in history.

This is bullshit. Native Americans have been performing same sex marriages for a long time. Plus ancient Rome and ancient Greece.

So you didn't read one paragraph down or follow the link with further details, then? It seems pretty clear that none of those examples were understood as (or legally recognized as) marriages in their own societies.

[awakening]

What's the point posting stuff about how it goes against the definition of what marriage is and that it isn't actually a marriage as it is is currently defined.. Isn't the whole point of allowing gay marriage that you're CHANGING this definition?
That's kind of the point of the whole thing.

I'd agree with Calin, the tides have turned, it's only a matter of time, a high majority of people want it to happen.
Might as well close this argument before it turns into something messy, I think.

[Khris]

Snarky:
I get what you're saying, but the question is whether we should give a rat's ass about what certain people consider as internally meaningful to them when they want to deny basic civil rights to other people. My assertion that people who are against gay marriage are assholes in based on the premise that people who are against equal rights for everybody are assholes. Does it really matter what their reasons are?

Also, in case this needs to be said: All opinions aren't equally valid. An opinion that's based on unfounded assertions, pseudoscience or other falsehoods, or simply not enough information is less valid and should have less impact. So in a way, "their opinions don't count" isn't even that wrong.

[monkey0506]

I was going to post without reading this thread, but somehow I got roped into reading the whole thing. Get your hate ready boys, because I am against gay marriage!

Now that I am officially labeled as the most horrible person in the forums, I pretty much have license to say what I was going to say anyway.

Let me start by saying that it is part of my religious beliefs that God does not hate fags, or anyone. God doesn't even hate Satan as far as I'm concerned, so why would he pick on the gay kids? By extension of that, I'm not homophobic either. I have known, interacted with, worked with, and even befriended homosexuals. I don't judge them for partaking in an act which I particularly believe to be sinful (because I am myself a sinner).

Anyone who wants to call me homophobic is free to do so, but as I don't treat them any differently than any other person I couldn't disagree with the label more.

My rationale for disagreeing with gay marriage is one that is only partly founded in my religion. The other part is based on a logical understanding of the government's reasoning for acknowledging "marriage", and thusly having to define what it is.

To me, marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and God. Take God out of the picture and as far as I'm concerned you're no longer even talking about marriage. The reason I specify that it is between a man and a woman ties in with the fact that I believe homosexuality to be a sin -- but that doesn't give anyone but God the right to judge them for it. Anyone who does consider themselves "Christian" who doesn't show the same love and respect to a homosexual as they do to a heterosexual needs to seriously reevaluate their priorities and whether they are truly living what they preach. That still doesn't take away from this particular definition of marriage.

On the other side of my argument, I see a logical benefit to a government arising out of a male-female marital commitment. Obviously, men and women are capable of breeding and creating new citizens, whereas two men or two women are not. Further, the marital commitment (were it kept) would create a more stable home environment for these children to be raised in than if the men simply went about impregnating women and moving on. That in no way indicates that a same-sex couple isn't capable of providing an equally good or even better home environment, but research has shown that a two-parent household typically is better for the development of the children. So the commitment to marriage, paired with production of offspring, poses a unique benefit to the government. Same-sex couples are not able to equally provide this benefit.

The way I see it, many marital perks granted by the government are offered as incentives in exchange for the unique benefit that hetero couples can provide. That is why married couples are given tax incentives, etc. Logically there is no reason for the government to offer these same perks (equally) to same-sex couples (who do not equally offer the same returns).

As for the ability for a partner to be visited in the hospital, be listed as an insurance beneficiary, and so forth, most states (in the USA, which I presume is the main focus of this topic) recognize a status of "domestic partnership" for exactly this purpose. It does not provide the additional incentives offered to married hetero couples, but it grants the same civil rights.

So it seems to me that the issue of gay marriage is not only about equal civil rights, but perhaps they want something more than equality...?

Let the hate reign down!

[Khris]

Time for a Hitchens quote:

You give me the awful impression - I hate to have to say it - of someone who hasn't read any of the arguments against your position ever.

The quality of your arguments is almost "round them up and they will die out"-bad.

1. Leviticus 20:13
"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense."
                    - God (presumably)

Anybody who considers themselves a member of one of the approximately 43,000 different Christians sects and ignores this bible verse is guilty of cherry-picking. At least, the fundamentalists are consistent.

2. The whole "marriage is beneficial to the government, especially in terms of offspring" idea is laughably naive. Only somebody who lives in dream world where everybody finds the perfect partner and starts a family and has three children could argue like that.
- People marry but don't have children
- People don't marry but have children
- Marriages don't last
- Gay couples can raise orphans, providing them with a much better home than an orphanage could ever be
- this: http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.aspx?ind=106
  (also looks like it's worse in the more religious states...)
- some Christian sects consider the beating of children with belts or rods essential (just for completeness)
Also: http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parents-as-good-as-straight-ones/

All this is essentially irrelevant though; I could use the same "rational" reasoning to deny health care to old people. (I don't though, because being unburdened by religious crap, I can form opinions based on actual human compassion.)

The sad thing is that your post was so predictable. It's the same old tiresome bullshit. No hate though, I only have pity for you.

[Eric]

Not hate, but some interrogations of your argument:

Take God out of the picture and as far as I'm concerned you're no longer even talking about marriage.

Which God? Does that preclude non-Christians from getting married? Hindus? Muslims? Atheists?

research has shown that a two-parent household typically is better for the development of the children.

How many parents do you think there are in a household where two gay people have been married?

So it seems to me that the issue of gay marriage is not only about equal civil rights, but perhaps they want something more than equality...?

Are you implying here that gay people are fighting this fight for tax breaks? Are you married yourself? Because I am, and I'll tell you that on my wedding day, tax breaks were not anywhere near what I was thinking about.

[kaput]

In a few years debates such as this will look pretty daft - you know, reminiscent of women not being able to vote or partake in politics or people of a 'different' colour not being able to even sit down in a bus kind of ridiculous.

research has shown

I'd be interested in seeing that research. Also, I wonder how many divorced or abusive parents took part in the research.

Obviously, men and women are capable of breeding and creating new citizens

The government and everybody else is already complaining about how the world is over-populated so I don't see how that's relevant to the argument unless one were to pick at straws.

[monkey0506]

Take God out of the picture and as far as I'm concerned you're no longer even talking about marriage.

Which God? Does that preclude non-Christians from getting married? Hindus? Muslims? Atheists?

Why would atheists get married? Lol, tax breaks. At least religion validates the otherwise meaningless ceremony. (I'm sure this will be sufficiently inflamatory.)

research has shown that a two-parent household typically is better for the development of the children.

How many parents do you think there are in a household where two gay people have been married?

Perhaps actually reading what I said is in order here. I specifically indicated that I was referencing two parent homes, not strictly hetero parent homes.

So it seems to me that the issue of gay marriage is not only about equal civil rights, but perhaps they want something more than equality...?

Are you implying here that gay people are fighting this fight for tax breaks? Are you married yourself? Because I am, and I'll tell you that on my wedding day, tax breaks were not anywhere near what I was thinking about.

No, I'm not married, but aside from the civil rights offered, the only secular benefit offered by marriage is the tax break. No one is stopping anyone from being in a committed relationship or having a formal commitment ceremony with family and friends.

Gay marriage isn't about love, commitment, civil rights, or equality, and anyone who disagrees isn't viewing the issue with any rationality or objectivity.

Leviticus 20:13
"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense."
                    - God (presumably)

Anybody who considers themselves a member of one of the approximately 43,000 different Christians sects and ignores this bible verse is guilty of cherry-picking. At least, the fundamentalists are consistent.

You would almost have a valid point here, except you don't. It's not ignoring the verse, nor is it cherry-picking. Even a precursory knowledge of biblical texts would reveal that this was one of the many things that was superceded by the higher law established during Christ's ministry. To a Christian the second highest law of all, preceded only by love of God, is the love of everyone: saint and sinner alike. Regardless of race, religion, nationality, ethnicity, sexual preference, skin color, height, weight, shape, size, intelligence, or any other conceivable characteristic, the Christian is commanded to love everyone. Loving someone does not mean supporting them in their sins, but it does mean looking past their sins.

Following a higher law instead of blindly following tradition is not exactly a condemnable offense, IMHO.

The whole "marriage is beneficial to the government, especially in terms of offspring" idea is laughably naive. Only somebody who lives in dream world where everybody finds the perfect partner and starts a family and has three children could argue like that.
- People marry but don't have children
- People don't marry but have children
- Marriages don't last

Historically (especially in the USA and early British American colonies) this was not the case. Relatively speaking, your counter-argument is based on a recent trend. My argument was based on the rationale behind which the tax incentives were offered in the first place. Given that this trend has arisen, I am actually in favor of eliminated tax breaks for all married couples. There is simply no logical reasoning for the government to continue to offer these incentives.

- some Christian sects consider the beating of children with belts or rods essential

Corporal punishment is a historical proven effective method of discipline, and is completely unrelated to the issue of physical abuse. Please don't try and falsely group these things together. Fallacies such as this are what has led to the dramatically decreased emphasis on the actually essential nature of proper discipline (which is not to say that corporal punishment is "the only way" -- rather that there is a stigma of hurting the child in any fashion, even emotionally, which has led to a decline in discipline).

All this is essentially irrelevant though; I could use the same "rational" reasoning to deny health care to old people. (I don't though, because being unburdened by religious crap, I can form opinions based on actual human compassion.)

Nice way to point out that having religious beliefs prevents me from having any human compassion. I especially appreciate the irony in that my religious beliefs encourage, promote, and effectively make me a more compassionate person. If the issue were one of equality or civil rights then I might almost feel bad for having said I oppose this. Good thing gay marriage isn't about that.

The sad thing is that your post was so predictable. It's the same old tiresome bullshit. No hate though, I only have pity for you.

I won't apologize, feel bad, or be ashamed of my religious beliefs, or the fact that I oppose gay marriage. Neither of these things make me a bad, or even a worse person. If you disagree with me, you are entitled to your own opinion of me, but I am happy with the person I am. I will not be shaken or moved into believing that I must support gay marriage to be a good, decent, or compassionate person.

research has shown

I'd be interested in seeing that research.

[lmgtfy=http://lmgtfy.com/?q=research]Oh, ffs.[/lmgtfy]

Obviously, men and women are capable of breeding and creating new citizens

The government and everybody else is already complaining about how the world is over-populated so I don't see how that's relevant to the argument unless one were to pick at straws.

The world is overpopulated? Hah! That would be news to the world...seeing as it isn't. There are more than enough resources, and there is more than enough space to support a population twice what we currently have. Please don't make me laugh.

[kaput]

Please don't make me laugh.

I thought we were making each other laugh? To laugh is to love. Where is the love?

[monkey0506]

Actually, you're right.

[Calin Leafshade]

Why would atheists get married?

While I don't actually agree with marriage and would not get married, this argument sort of rings the same alarm bells to me as "Why don't you just go and kill and rape people if there's no god?".

The reason atheists get married is really exactly the same reason theists get married. Because they want to make some kind of lasting commitment to one another.

(Although in reality I think its more likely that they do it because of societal pressures but there we go.)

So you didn't read one paragraph down or follow the link with further details, then? It seems pretty clear that none of those examples were understood as (or legally recognized as) marriages in their own societies.

That's true in some cases (most notably the romans) but not true in others. In fact, the only examples given in your source that mentions a lack of legal status are the romans and greeks.

[monkey0506]

"Why don't you just go and kill and rape people if there's no god?".

Precisely my point. In actuality, I don't think it's impossible for people to be good or moral (etc.) in the absence of religion or faith. My argument is that my beliefs make me more good, moral, etc.

The reason atheists get married is really exactly the same reason theists get married. Because they want to make some kind of lasting commitment to one another.

For me, marriage isn't just about commitment though. Which brings us back to "What is the definition of marriage?" and my answer that it is a religious ordinance with eternal implications. I'm not trying to discredit the commitment people are making to one another, but to me there's more to marriage than that. (Which I think was my point...?)

(Although in reality I think its more likely that they do it because of societal pressures but there we go.)

I absolutely agree with this, and in fact it's the reason I decided to reply to your post Calin. What's interesting (at least to me) is the question it raised in my mind:  Is it possible for a person to make an informed and objective decision in favor of the tradition or trend, or do only those who have been subjectively influenced follow that path?

Edit: As a follow-up:  If they can make their own decision, would it be possible for an outside observer to tell the difference?

[Lewis]

People who aren't sure what the fuss is about:

The guy compared two consenting adults, who are in love, wanting to get married... with a man walking into the ladies' toilet and taking a shit.

Again: two loving adults minding their own business, versus a massive social faux pas that's deeply rooted in a serious invasion of privacy, plus a whole truckload of other issues.

The implication is that two homosexual adults getting married is equatable to creating a serious and inappropriate imposition on other people. In a world where gay people have been persecuted for hundreds if not thousands of years, and that misguided notion of imposition has long been a key part of the ridiculous, bigoted arguments people use, that's really offensive.

On top of that, he's claiming his own religion to be superior to others, suggesting that men and women should have defined roles, and suggesting that it's okay to remove people's rights because other people are doing it as well.

And as the cherry on the cake, his entire argument is drenched in an ugly arrogance and the utterly contemptible idea that somehow he, and all his bigoted friends, are being culturally witch-hunted by people who want nothing more than to be afforded the same rights as the other 90 percent of the population.

We're living in a time when gay marriage supporters are at their most vocal and anyone who has an alternative opinion is instantly shut down and made into a figure of disgust.

Because the alternative opinion is that gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married, for which - like Khris says - I have yet to hear a convincing argument in favour thereof. "God says man shouldn't lie with another man" isn't a good enough argument, because those lines of scripture are in direct contradiction with many of the key teachings of Christianity, are archaic even in the timeline of the Bible itself, and anyway, I don't believe that "religion says it's okay" is a good enough argument for anything, especially when every religion I know of is chock full of such contraditions.

Basically, what he's saying is really really offensive on a whole number of levels, and I really hope people can try to understand why this stuff isn't okay.

[Lewis]

For me, marriage isn't just about commitment though. Which brings us back to "What is the definition of marriage?" and my answer that it is a religious ordinance with eternal implications. I'm not trying to discredit the commitment people are making to one another, but to me there's more to marriage than that. (Which I think was my point...?)

I think this is kind of key too. You're saying that to you there's more to marriage because of your belief system. But the fact of the matter is that things like the definition and implications of marriage are written into a law that has to be obeyed whether people share your faith or not. If some religious groups don't want to get involved in changes to the definition of marriage within their circles, I have no problem with that, but the current system, in many parts of the world, necessitates people's compliance with religious beliefs and regulations, even if they do not subscribe to them. See what I mean?

[Snarky]

So you didn't read one paragraph down or follow the link with further details, then? It seems pretty clear that none of those examples were understood as (or legally recognized as) marriages in their own societies.

That's true in some cases (most notably the romans) but not true in others. In fact, the only examples given in your source that mentions a lack of legal status are the romans and greeks.

... and the Chinese. There's not enough information to say either way for Ancient Assyria. (Edit: Though looking at their marriage laws in general, they were based around the concept of paying a bride price: brides were essentially purchased, and the price would be refunded if the woman didn't bear children. It's hard to imagine how that could be applied to same-sex marriages; my guess is it wasn't.) As for native American societies, from the description it sounds as if Two-Spirit individuals were accepted as "spiritually" of the other gender (transsexual), or as a third gender. Relationships or marriage with them were therefore not seen as homosexual within their culture. (In other words, they weren't same-sex marriages: There weren't relationships between two Two-Spirits or between non-Two-Spirits of the same sex, or at least this was considered taboo and not sanctioned by society.)

So that's pretty much all the examples, and I stand by my original statement.

Edit: When you get into cross-cultural comparisons, it gets tricky because concepts from different societies don't match one-to-one. I would argue that our notion of same-sex marriage: that two men or two women can get married to each other in exactly the same sense that a man and woman can get married, is based on some pretty specific, modern western notions about what a marriage is, what the status of minorities should be within society, the purpose of and fount of laws and norms, individualism vs. collectivism, etc. The history of social arrangements for homosexual relationships show that it's something many cultures have been able to integrate in ways that were, to a greater or lesser extent, acceptable to society as well as to the individuals involved. We must find a solution that is suitable for our society; with high probability that's going to be extending the concept of marriage to same-sex unions.

[monkey0506]

Lewis, so we pretty much agree that the issue is the definition of marriage. Even from a historical standpoint marriage has strong ties to religion, so perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to cut the tax incentives from everyone, call it something not pertaining to religion, and offer the same civil rights equally between same-sex and hetero couples...?