Does opposing gay marriage make you an asshole?

[Khris]

Just to clarify: I'm no fan of marriage either, and I also don't plan on getting married eventually. But I can understand why other people want to marry, it's about "taking their relationship to the next level", about public commitment to each other.
What's interesting here is that currently, a hetero atheist couple can marry without problems, while two gay priests who plan to adobt orphans can't.

Monkey:

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.

So are you actually saying the gays are only in this fight for the tax breaks?

Jesus said he's not here to change the law but to fulfill it (whatever that's supposed to mean). He then goes on to change lots of it. Also, the perfect, omniscient creator of the universe makes rules, then later changes his mind?

Relatively speaking, your counter-argument is based on a recent trend.

Sure, why would I base my arguments and opinions on how things used to be as opposed to how they are? If we're eliminating tax breaks, could we also eliminate tax breaks for churches while we're at it?

My argument is that my beliefs make me more good, moral, etc.

This is common among believers, and wrong. It can easily be shown to be wrong by asking religious people whether they would kill their kid if they thought their god demanded it. Some will say "yes", which makes them immoral. Others will hesitate, which shows that they have an innate moral sense that doesn't come from their God (or more precisely: their holy book).
Those that say "yes" could argue that it's moral because God demands it, and can by definition not be immoral. The problem is that this argument invalidates the concept of them being "more moral" than other groups. If this were the standard, every group would be the most moral.

Regarding the definition of marriage:
Marriage was around long before Christianity. They are the ones who co-opted it and changed it's meaning. Unless the USA becomes a theocracy, the law should disregard what certain sects think about certain concepts.

Also:
Please provide links to research that has shown that children fare worse in "homo households".

[monkey0506]

Also, the perfect, omniscient creator of the universe makes rules, then later changes his mind?

Wait, what incorrect person ever said that God was Jesus?

Relatively speaking, your counter-argument is based on a recent trend.

Sure, why would I base my arguments and opinions on how things used to be as opposed to how they are? If we're eliminating tax breaks, could we also eliminate tax breaks for churches while we're at it?

Sure. Let's do it. My church has no debt and is one of the most charitable organizations in the world. With an unpaid ministry.

My argument is that my beliefs make me more good, moral, etc.

This is common among believers, and wrong.

No it isn't. I wasn't stating a matter of someone else's opinion. I was stating a matter of fact based on the observations I have made from and about my own life. I wasn't speaking generically. I was speaking very specifically.

It can easily be shown to be wrong by asking religious people whether they would kill their kid if they thought their god demanded it. Some will say "yes", which makes them immoral. Others will hesitate, which shows that they have an innate moral sense that doesn't come from their God (or more precisely: their holy book).
Those that say "yes" could argue that it's moral because God demands it, and can by definition not be immoral. The problem is that this argument invalidates the concept of them being "more moral" than other groups. If this were the standard, every group would be the most moral.

Morality is so loosely defined as to destroy any hope of providing a catch-all definition that doesn't simply amount to what is socially acceptable at any given point in human history. What makes any particular group more or less moral? In the end it all comes down to judging another group based on your own moral compass, which is highly influenced by your environment. Good thing people are held accountable for their knowledge, not just some unspoken law.

Regarding the definition of marriage:
Marriage was around long before Christianity. They are the ones who co-opted it and changed it's meaning. Unless the USA becomes a theocracy, the law should disregard what certain sects think about certain concepts.

I didn't say that marriage was a "Christian" invention. I simply stated that the formal institution of marriage has almost always been tied together with religion, and is therefore a religious institution.

Also:
Please provide links to research that has shown that children fare worse in "homo households".

I'm highly interested to see what person said this, because for the third time, I never did.

[Calin Leafshade]

If it were up to me, which it isn't (yet), I would remove the legal standing from marriage entirely. It's just none of the government's business who you call your spouse.

There would need to be a legal framework for inheritance and the like but that would be done separately and however the two people involved wanted.

On marriage being a religious institution: Originally perhaps, not anymore since it's enshrined in secular law which all people must obey regardless of religion.

[dactylopus]

Short answer to the tread title, YES.

Proving that there is no historical case where homosexuals are treated equally merely proves that this discrimination has been going on for millennia.  We are at a unique point in human history where we can correct the mistakes of the past.

I am an atheist, and one day I hope to get married.  To me, marriage has always been a formal and legal commitment made out of love between two sapient individuals.  This commitment also offers advantages to the spouse.  Such advantages should not be dependent on the spouse being of an opposing gender.  I think some people have too strict a definition of marriage, and need to relax. 

I support same-sex marriage, and see those in opposition as villainous.

And I do have a hard time separating the art from the artist (in most cases).

[Ali]

As usual, I agree with the pinko-lefties.

But while I don't think it's right to separate art and artist, I think it's perfectly possible to be a great artist and even a pretty good person while engaging in acts which later generations will find abhorrent. Shakespeare and Dostoevsky have anti-Semitism in their work. Bertholt Brecht was a dreadful sexist. I'm sure there were plenty of slave owners who were delightful dinner guests.

It's worth remembering that we probably hold beliefs which are equally mistaken. Hate the sin, love the sinner, or something like that.

BUT if you're looking for an adventure game Kickstarter by someone who's pro-gay marriage:

[Andail]

I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of a radical Christian here, and pretend there's a situation where I'd refuse someone a certain freedom that everyone else has, even though it's proven not to be harmful or detrimental to society, just because it goes against my personal preferences.

I can't do it. There are rights and types of freedom I don't want to give people, because they are bad, and make it worse for others. I do think that we should deny adults to have sex with minors, because I believe it's generally harmful, which is also consensus amongst psychologists and sociologists.

I'm not saying freedom in itself is unproblematic - freedom to carry guns, for instance, means less freedom to others (to feel safe) - but if we have a freedom that doesn't intrude on others' rights, why not let them have it? Even if it happens to go against the definition of marriage as it's written in your scripture, why not change it? What's the worst that can happen?

It's not like you haven't re-interpreted Bible passages to fit your worldviews before, so why can't a totally irrelevant and backward little paragraph be overlooked? You clearly did away with the part where you should give everything you own to the poor (which would, incidentally, be a really good rule) so why not give this one a revision?

Consensus among people who research these things is that LGBT parenting isn't worse than any other kind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting. Hence, there's no real reason to work against it, just feelings.

[Lewis]

Monkey, I noticed you didn't address concerns over this following quote from you:

"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."

I'd be really eager to hear your clarification on this, because that's quite an incredible statement to make without backing it up.

[Khris]

Also, the Mormon church openly discriminated against blacks until 1978. Just a friendly reminder.

[Snarky]

Short answer to the tread title, YES.

Proving that there is no historical case where homosexuals are treated equally merely proves that this discrimination has been going on for millennia.  We are at a unique point in human history where we can correct the mistakes of the past.

It's actually not necessarily a question of discrimination: For example, in at least some parts of ancient Greek society, male homosexual love was considered superior to heterosexual love (because men were higher status than women, and two lovers could connect more deeply as equals or mentor/protege). But traditionally marriage has been a matter of asymmetrical exchanges between two families, with customs like the bride leaving her own family and changing in social status from maiden to wife/mother, no longer the responsibility of her parents, but of her husband. In many cultures, including our own past, that's what a marriage was (hence "matrimony": roughly "motherhood"). A marriage between two men (without a wife), or between two women (without a husband) just would not compute in those societies; it'd be as meaningless as saying you're marrying yourself.

So the Greeks didn't institute "gay marriage," but they made up other customs and relationship types (some of them pretty questionable, from our point of view) to formalize homosexual relationships. As argued above, what worked (?) for the Greeks wouldn't necessarily work for us, though.

To me, marriage has always been a formal and legal commitment made out of love between two sapient individuals.  This commitment also offers advantages to the spouse.  Such advantages should not be dependent on the spouse being of an opposing gender.  I think some people have too strict a definition of marriage, and need to relax.

Actually, yours is a pretty strict definition, since it has by no means always been the norm that marriages are entered into out of love, or chosen by the couple themselves. Not to mention the rather frequent custom of polygamy, where one man (usually) can separately marry several women.

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.

But even if we accept that the religious dimension is fundamental, why should your particular religious beliefs determine the law? There are plenty of other Christians (and members of other religions) who don't see homosexuality as a sin, so for them there's no inherent problem blessing a same-sex marriage, or seeing God as a partner in it.

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.

Given the response (here and elsewhere on the internet), not an entirely unreasonable claim.

Also, the perfect, omniscient creator of the universe makes rules, then later changes his mind?

Wait, what incorrect person ever said that God was Jesus?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [...] The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. [...] No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known. (John 1:1-18)

[kaput]

the one and only Son

What??? So we're not all God's children???

Mind. Blown.

[Khris]

Morality is so loosely defined as to destroy any hope of providing a catch-all definition that doesn't simply amount to what is socially acceptable at any given point in human history. What makes any particular group more or less moral? In the end it all comes down to judging another group based on your own moral compass, which is highly influenced by your environment. Good thing people are held accountable for their knowledge, not just some unspoken law.

Religious groups always divide the world's population in two groups, themselves and others. They consider their god(s) as the ultimate arbitrator(s) of what constitutes right and wrong.
Secular morality is based on what's best for all humans.

Consider the following thought experiment: at arbitrary intervals, for instance ranging from a week to two years, everybody changes place with a random person on the planet. Basically, I go to bed as a white male living in Germany, and the next morning I wake up as an Afghan women. I submit that if that were actually the case, discrimination and inequality of any kind would simply cease to exist. Because at any point, an abuser could wake up as an abused.
Whenever I consider moral questions, this is what I base my opinion on. Religious people don't.

[dactylopus]

To me, marriage has always been a formal and legal commitment made out of love between two sapient individuals.  This commitment also offers advantages to the spouse.  Such advantages should not be dependent on the spouse being of an opposing gender.  I think some people have too strict a definition of marriage, and need to relax.

Actually, yours is a pretty strict definition, since it has by no means always been the norm that marriages are entered into out of love, or chosen by the couple themselves. Not to mention the rather frequent custom of polygamy, where one man (usually) can separately marry several women.

You know, you're absolutely right.  I do have a fairly strict definition that includes love, monogamy, and humanity.  I'll also admit it is a modern definition, for I am a modern man.

That's how I personally define marriage.  But to me, that's all it is, a definition of what marriage means to me.  You'll notice I went beyond and described how marriage includes more than my 'personal' definition, in terms of legal implications and more.  It's important for all of us to understand that we all have our own opinion of what marriage means to us, and that means that everyone else has an opinion, too.  The only people that should be affected by your view of marriage are you and those you aim to marry.  It should not be possible for any one 'personal' definition to dictate policy on a secular, legal level.  This is a case of civil rights.

I'll admit, I do have trouble relating to the idea of polygyny and polyandry, but can understand some of the reasons that it was / is a historical or cultural necessity.  I do not know how I would be reacting if polygamous marriage was the hot topic that homosexual marriage is today, because of the different ways in which I view the issues.  I like to believe that I would support polygamous marriage.  That would not change my 'personal' definition of marriage, because that only applies to myself and anyone I hope to make my wife.

[Eric]

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

Sufficiently inflammatory for what? Are you trying to pick a fight, or debate your points? I don't understand the need-to-be-inflammatory tone of your response (or your aggressive use of LMGTFY elsewhere -- the responsibility to provide sources is on the debater who uses them). You don't have to live up to the title of the thread just because it's there.

I'm an atheist. I got married because I love my wife and wanted to formally and publicly commit to her in a way that resonates with cultural norms for my part of the world. My use of a wedding ring is an appropriation of a pagan symbol. Guess what? It's not pagan anymore. Culture is malleable. And again, when I got down on one knee and proposed, I didn't say, "Sweetheart, let's get together so that I can use your income to fund my IRA."

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.

I did actually read what you said, which is why I was confused. So why bother citing this research? Unless you were implying that somehow homes where two parents are gay is inferior, this research doesn't support your argument. Thus my request for a clarification.

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.

Again, you're myopically denying an entire cultural context to marriage here, even if we limit it to just the western world, and even if we limit it to contemporary times.

[Snarky]

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.

I don't know. How many of us really educate ourselves about both sides of every issue we have an opinion on? It's not something that smacks you in the face, either. If you don't go out looking for it, or hang out with people who'll tell you, you're not likely to read about it on the news or just figure it out on your own. For me, it was only when a coworker really broke down all the implications for her and her partner that I really got it. (Beforehand, I was on the side of "marriage, civil unions, whatever; it doesn't really matter.")

To demonstrate:

No, I'm not married, but aside from the civil rights offered, the only secular benefit offered by marriage is the tax break.

That's simply not true. There are all kinds of legal implications, from adoption and child custody, to spousal privilege (in court), to making medical decisions, to immigration status. There are major differences in what happens in case of divorce (child support and alimony), for example. Lots of the stuff a civil union couple might have access to in principle is a lot more hassle and paperwork, as well (in part because domestic partnerships/civil unions vary from state to state and country to country, while marriage laws are much more consistent or harmonized).

And yes, there are tax implications, as well as lots of federal+state grants, benefits and family support, e.g. for military personnel.

But it's not just the differences specifically enshrined in law. There's also a matter of differential treatment by private organizations and companies. Like whether your employer allows you to add your partner to your health insurance. If you can get days off work to deal with a medical emergency or death in your partner's family (or even for your partner him-/herself), or for the lesbian equivalent of "paternity leave" (though that's a rare perk in the US anyway). As long as homosexual couples only have access to a separate status like civil unions, it's easy to discriminate against them.

These aren't just unromantic details, they cut to the very core of the intimacy and partnership of a marriage, to the notion of providing for your family, of being "one unit."

[dactylopus]

Why would atheists get married? Lol, tax breaks. At least religion validates the otherwise meaningless ceremony.

I'm an atheist. I got married because I love my wife and wanted to formally and publicly commit to her in a way that resonates with cultural norms for my part of the world. My use of a wedding ring is an appropriation of a pagan symbol. Guess what? It's not pagan anymore. Culture is malleable. And again, when I got down on one knee and proposed, I didn't say, "Sweetheart, let's get together so that I can use your income to fund my IRA."

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.

Again, you're myopically denying an entire cultural context to marriage here, even if we limit it to just the western world, and even if we limit it to contemporary times.

No, I'm not married, but aside from the civil rights offered, the only secular benefit offered by marriage is the tax break.

That's simply not true. There are all kinds of legal implications, from adoption and child custody, to spousal privilege (in court), to making medical decisions, to immigration status. There are major differences in what happens in case of divorce (child support and alimony), for example. Lots of the stuff a civil union couple might have access to in principle is a lot more hassle and paperwork, as well (in part because domestic partnerships/civil unions vary from state to state and country to country, while marriage laws are much more consistent or harmonized).

And yes, there are tax implications, as well as lots of federal+state grants, benefits and family support, e.g. for military personnel.

But it's not just the differences specifically enshrined in law. There's also a matter of differential treatment by private organizations and companies. Like whether your employer allows you to add your partner to your health insurance. If you can get days off work to deal with a medical emergency or death in your partner's family (or even for your partner him-/herself), or for the lesbian equivalent of "paternity leave" (though that's a rare perk in the US anyway). As long as homosexual couples only have access to a separate status like civil unions, it's easy to discriminate against them.

These aren't just unromantic details, they cut to the very core of the intimacy and partnership of a marriage, to the notion of providing for your family, of being "one unit."

I believe that these are the essence of the debate here.

People must acknowledge that in modern western culture, people get married for many reasons, including a simple love and desire to commit to one another.  It has actually been this way for at least a few generations in most of the west to my knowledge, so it's not some recent fad.
They must also acknowledge all of the legal and cultural ramifications of marriage.  Some people say just get rid of these legal tidbits, falsely thinking they are the crux of the issue.  I disagree, because all of these things are equally important in the debate.  It's not about arguing against one point or the other.
One day, I hope to marry someone in the name of love and commitment.  I would want my partner to receive all of the related legal and social benefits regardless of their gender.

And I would want everyone else to have that right.

[Eric]

How many of us really educate ourselves about both sides of every issue we have an opinion on? It's not something that smacks you in the face, either. If you don't go out looking for it, or hang out with people who'll tell you, you're not likely to read about it on the news or just figure it out on your own.

To some extent, I'll say 'Fair enough.' However, if I care about something deeply enough to argue with strangers on the internet, I want to know most sides of it, and I'm willing to listen when new information is brought to the table. I understand that I might be in the minority when it comes to engaging in internet battle, though.

However, fair enough because...

These aren't just unromantic details, they cut to the very core of the intimacy and partnership of a marriage, to the notion of providing for your family, of being "one unit."

Many of these situations you've listed are affordances of marriage with which I'm passingly familiar, but would likely take for granted until I encountered the need for them. And I've never really thought about these legal situations in the context you've accurately described above. Thanks for the perspective.

[Anian]

Let me tell you what's happening in my country, I think talking about the "bit more extremer" behaviour of such thoughts is.
Right now organization called "For family", which is unofficially supported by the branch of catholic church in my country, have gathered enough signatures to call for a referendum. What would be the issue of this referendum? To change the constitution (not a law, but to change the founding principles on which our country is founded) and define "marriage" as a "bond between man and a woman". So they actually want change something in the constitution, which would actually clash with more than few other things in that same constitution (all people being equal and should be treated equally no matter what).

I don't know if these people are scared of "homos" destroying their marriage (which is just stupid and has nothing to do with people wanting same sex marriages) or just, again, stupid enough to be influenced by backwardness of their upbringing and again church doctrines...which btw clearly has in it's core for all people being equal and God loving ALL his children.
It is just sad how some people feel endangered from someone who wants to be treated the same and yet feel the need to put their opinions and beliefs above other people.
ALL OF THIS is without mentioning the fact there are far more problems that need taking care of and far more causes that should have priority EVEN if you are against gay marriage. Economy, education, jobs, environment, homelessness, poverty, crime, corruption, government...and the biggest reaction you get from is when the question of gay marriage is raised? That is so wrong,.

Whether you think it's only for tax breaks or health insurance, why would you deny that to someone and why would you think heterosexuals don't do that already? Same thing with adopting babies, people who would rather see a child being without anybody to care for them, molest them or abuse them for child support, than to let a homosexual take care of them and at the same time not understand that some heterosexual people already are doing  horrible things to kids...that's f-ed up and cruel.

[veryweirdguy]

You know, reading this thread reminds me of that old saying about the similarities between arguing on the internet and racing in the Special Olympics:

Whoever wins, gay marriage will still be a social norm in years to come and anyone who opposed it will be viewed as stupid throughout history.

[Khris]

Good point.

I know I'm not going to convince anybody. I'm doing this for two reasons: a) lurkers who read all the arguments on both sides can form better opinions, and b) I collect bad arguments (it's a hobby)

[Cyrus]

Nowadays gay people have all the rights straight people do, and same-sex marriage is a "new" right no one previously had (neither straights nor gays). To grant it, we must admit not only the equality of people, but the equality of sexualities themselves (i.e. not only homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals, but homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality). Because, if we see homosexuality as an abnormality (like many conservatives and a small percent of medics do), a gay marriage would be almost the same as making six-fingered gloves for polydactyls (while at the same time no one in their right mind would approve discrimination/hate crimes against polydactyl people).

There is also the much more controversial question of church marriage for gay couples (it's a very touchy subject for many religious people, and I cannot blame them for it).

I'd also like to raise a more general question like "Does opposing LGBT movement/tolerance campaigns make you an asshole?". Because, for instance, even if you say things like "Dumbledore is not gay to me, because Rowling never said so in the books, and I don't see his character like that", you can still be stigmatized as a bigoted jerk.