The tide of marriage for same-sex couples has ebbed and flowed over the last decade with no end in sight. Because marriage sits squarely at the intersection of religion, law and society, the discussion around same-sex couples’ inclusion into the institution of marriage has been one of the most complex and hotly contested topics in America.
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Gay “Marriage” Harms Traditional Marriage
- From FRC
By Family Research Council - Defending Faith, Family and Freedom
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
the so-called harm of gay marriage
"man and a woman joined together in holy matrimony is the time-tested “yardstick” for marriage"
this is simply not true, as is evidenced by the many, many wives of certain rulers of antiquity. that too was considered "time-tested" in its day. the ultimate failure of many appeals to tradition--which this is--is that it seeks to artificially define one point in human history as the golden standard against which all other periods must be measured, but ignore previous such periods, which are usually in direct contradiction to such a decision, as even a cursory review of biblical genealogy will reveal.
the argument as presented amounts to little more than simple fearmongering about some cataclysimic consequences never actually identified yet which are somehow supposed to be inevitable. this has some admitted rhetorical force, but no logical force, because all actions have unforeseen consequences. this is known in some circles as chaos theory.
- silverwhisper
July 13, 2008 8:30AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Gay Marriage Does Not Harm Traditional Marriage
Anyone who feels that gay marriage harms traditional marriage is surely an insecure person. We live in a fluid ever-changing world. Surely we must come to appreciate and accept the differences within each and every individual. Bigotry has its roots in the fear of the unfamiliar. As the unfamiliar becomes familiar, fear and hatred will dissipate. It took an extremely long time for this country to finally eliminate the miscegenation laws. Why can’t we just move forward in peace and harmony? If each one of us would simply concentrate on making sure that our own lives were decent and productive without trying to disrupt others’ lives, this world would be so much more peaceful and harmonious!
- redondo July 13, 2008 11:28PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Confusing argument...
I'm a bit lost. Where is your evidence that gay marriage would hurt heterosexual marriage? The point is stated but not backed up or explained. The link provided doesn't actually include any justification for this argument either. All I can see offered is the "yardstick" metaphor, which doesn't really make sense. Yes, changing the definition of a meter (not "yardstick" which is not a defined measurement) would be a problem. It would be tough to know how long a yard is.
I don't see how that extrapolates to marriage... are you suggesting that if gays marry, heterosexual couples who've been married for years will not know if they're married or not anymore?
If anything, I think traditional marriage is harmed by the high divorce rate, green card marriages, Britney Spears getting married for a weekend, etc. Even then, how is any traditional "sacred" marriage harmed? If your marriage is sound, it will not be affected by the actions of other people.
- lostlo
August 19, 2008 12:03PM
Reply to this Recommend (5)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
How would you feel about civil unions?
I'd like to hear more on this. I understand why you feel that government-licensed marriage for same-sex couples would be a departure from tradition. But would government-licensed "civil unions" for same-sex couples harm your institution of marriage? What about the non-licensed marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples that happen every day in America? Are you going to try to stop those?
- hibernate August 26, 2008 8:58AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I feel fine about those and heres why
It seems to me that when most people are asked about gay "marriages" they simple will not give. its seen as an assault on traditional religious ceremonies, in that a homosexual couple cannot, in the eyes of god , join in holy matrimony. but when the issue of civil unions arise its ok. i believe if your are a homosexual seeking marriage in the eyes of god thats a mockery to all things most americans hold dear, but when its being sought in the eyes of the government i have no problem with it. i am opposed to gay "marriage" but not to civil unions. most people define marriage as man and a woman joining in matrimony under the eyes of god, by this definition gay marriage is simply an oxymoron, a contradiction in and of itself. there simply cant be gay "marriage".
- camdaddy09
June 4, 2009 10:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I kind of agree
I partly agree. I believe they should be able to file taxes together and get all the legal benefits in theory off married couples. But should not be allowed to wed. In theory, but i think that we shouldn't open the door for any advance of the homosexual society , I am completely against it and think that it is evil. But so is a lot of stuff in society.
- lucas weaver
June 6, 2009 11:44AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Where do you get your ideas on evil?
And what makes those things you think are evil, truly evil?
- quantummechanik
June 8, 2009 1:07AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
His religion
His religion says its evil
- camdaddy09
August 8, 2009 7:56PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
That's a possibility, certainly
I'm hoping there's more to it than that, but I hope that hope about all people.
- quantummechanik
September 1, 2009 12:10PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Let me get this straight.
It's not that gays are living together. It's not about taxes or health insurance . Its not about a license. All anybody wants is that when gays get a license the clerk marks out marriage and writes civil union.
- mike1948
August 9, 2009 12:42AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
acceptance
What about those Christian Churches that marry homosexuals?
- MrBook
August 9, 2009 4:14PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Different standards of measurement
It seems to me that most of the confusion here has to do with the usage of the term "marriage" in both a legal and a religious sense. When you write "the real thing" here, I think you fall into that same trap. What defines the real thing? You mean marriage as a sacrament, or at least marriage as sanctioned by your religious framework.
My question to you: how do you feel about people outside of your religious community getting married? Their rules for marriage are different from yours (some slightly, some vastly). Do you think that anyone with a set of expectations for marriage that differ from yours is cheapening marriage for you and those like you? If so, what you are advocating is a ban on all marriages of people with other faiths. If not, you disagree with your own argument. Christian marriage is no more harmed by homosexuals being married than it is by Jews or Muslims getting married. (I could just as easily have written Catholic marriage vs. Methodist or Presbyterian, for that matter.)
- thoughtcounts Z
September 8, 2008 1:06PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I think you may wish to look again at the facts.
"...no society has ceased to regulate sexuality within marriage as defined as the union of a man and a woman, and survived."
The Roman Empire only fell after it banned gay marriage.
Native American cultures used to have gay marriage but no longer do as a result of practices like, oh, the Spaniards setting dogs on them. The cultures still survive today, just in tiny numbers. It has nothing to do with their marriage practices and everything to do with having someone else come in and build an empire on top of them. The first hit were the Aztecs and Mayans, who did not accept homosexuality.
- sharky
September 24, 2008 8:05AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
This argument is circular reasoning
The FRC presupposes that gay marriage is bad because it is "fake," then uses this assumption to state that such "fake" marriages harm other marriages. Then he/she states that because other marriages are harmed, gay marriage is bad, and thus fake. Circular reasoning is a common logical fallacy.
My marriage is living proof that the argument is false. I have many married gay friends, and their marriages give inspiration and strength to my (heterosexual) marriage.
The FRC metaphor of gay marriages being counterfeit $20 is inappropriate. I propose that that a better metaphor would liken gay marriages to the currency of another country. Like currencies, gay and heterosexual marriages are certainly different (sexuality, anatomy, gender relations, etc) but still essentially the same thing. Does printing more Canadian dollars hurt my wallet? Of course not.
- chemteach
November 13, 2008 12:42PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No more than our Divorce Rate...
The exessive divorce rate degrades the principal of marriage much more than two same-sex persons making (and keeping!) a commitment to each other. Every day it seems I am bombarded by a co-worker who is now going through a divorce.
Not to mention, that it is none of our buisness, and doesn't bother or hurt my marriage at all. My psyche is much more damaged by the heterosexual couples murdering each other plastered all over the news, than the pictures of other couples getting married. We all deserve the same happiness, and joy where we can find it.
- panursedeann
December 8, 2008 5:55PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Same-sex Marriages are Stonger than Mixed-Gender Marriages
I believe this to be true because there are more obstacles to overcome to get married. Heteros are *expected* to get married, and will, at times, even when not prepared. When barriers to marriage are removed for same-sex couples, then it will even out.
- Ivar
December 8, 2008 8:48PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The “holy” and “fundamental”
What is “holy” matrimony? What is it that makes it so “holy”? I assume that to be “Holy” something most likely derives from a religious purview. So then, matrimony must be in line with our religious beliefs at some level. But even if we could widen the net and make a definition of marriage that is conciliatory with every religion, what about those people who have no religion? I hope we agree that the government cannot impress religious dogma or interfere with the religious reestablishment—but if an idea cannot be rationalized through anything other than religious, then it might as well be religious dogma, and therefore it cannot be imposed on the People. Would the Protestants be happy if Catholics prohibited meat on Lenten Fridays? What if Christians prohibited Muslim girls from wearing a headdress?
What exactly is the “fundamental sexual complementariness of male and female”? Now, I understand that the penis fits quite nicely into the vagina, and that copulation is usually effective for producing children. And I would not think it unreasonable that this is the product of evolution , or the hand of God. Yet, these design elements serve to carry on the human race—to say that man and woman should be together just because their genitals say they should is reading morality from an irrelevant biological function. Marriage is about love and happiness, and the only way the idea of gender complementariness could dictate marriage is if marriage was meant to produce children. I know some people believe that is a purpose to marriage, but this wouldn’t be America if the government dictated what kind of marriage even heterosexual people should have.
- The Monk
February 15, 2009 4:07PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Philosophical Catholic view point
On a philosophical viewpoint here is why homosexuality is seen Biblically as wrong. Under the strict beliefs of the Catholic church, the followers of the Catholic Church believe that homosexuality is wrong. This argument would be valid to an audience who takes a firm stance on religious beliefs. Biblically speaking Gen. 2:24 is the only text which makes it clear that marriage, as intended by God, is for a male and a female. All other passages either alluding or referring to this are commentary in one form or another and presume heterosexuality as the gender basis for marriage in God's plan. For example, Matt 5:27-32; Matt 19:1-9; there are parallel passages in Mark and Luke; Ephesians 5:21-33. When the prophets (especially Hosea) use marriage as a metaphor or symbol to describe God's relationship with Israel, the heterosexuality of marriage is presumed.
In his commentary on Romans 1:26b-27, Brendan Byrne writes: "With respect to both female and male homosexual practice, the text points to an 'exchange' of the 'natural' form of (sexual) relations for that which is 'contrary to nature'. The language reflects the conventional Stoic sense of 'nature' as the established order of things. Central to that established order was dominance of male over female as far as gender relationships were concerned. Where ancient writers condemned same-sex relations, what they found offensive was the fact that such relations blurred the all-important distinction of gender role, inducing males to act as females and vice versa. The 'reduction' of the male to the female constituted a 'shame' contrary to nature. In the Jewish adaptation of such ideas reflected in this text a more theological note may also be present: such behavior is contrary to the design inserted into the natural order by the Creator."
Byrne mentions in a subsequent paragraph that the Letter to the Romans and the world then made no distinction between a homosexual orientation and the free choice made by some individuals to engage in homosexual genital relations. So we shall not find in Scripture any commentary on the orientation of homosexuality itself; just homosexual genital acts.
There is also 1 Timothy 1:10 which refers to male homosexuality.
Here is a link to a section in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) on homosexuality: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm #2357. The Catechism is a book in the Catholic religion that explains the beliefs of the Catholic Church. In the Catholic Catechism, homosexuality is forbidden. The teachings of the Catholic Church as laid out in the revised version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in particular the teachings on sexuality: "All the baptized are called to chastity" (CCC, n.2348); "Married people are called to live conjugal chastity; others practice chastity in continence" (CCC, n.2349); "... tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered... Under no circumstance can they be approved" (CCC, n.2333); This means that under certain religious beliefs homosexuality is seen as a disorder.
I believe that homosexuals should not be able to marry because God created male and female to become one flesh despite their opposite genders. The genitals of both man and woman were made specifically for each other, and it is in God’s creation that he made them that way for a specific reason: procreation. Man and woman are supposed to populate the earth and beget children. Man and woman cleave to each other to become one, and that is a very spiritual thing to many religious people. Catholics believe that sexuality was designed by God as a sign of the love of Christ, the bridegroom, for his Bride, the Church, and therefore sexual activity is appropriate only in marriage. Catholic teaching holds that: “Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion.” (CCC, n.2360)
http://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/HOMO.HTM . This sight is another reason why homosexuality is deemed as incorrect for marriage.
- Kabunky
February 17, 2009 12:42PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
First Amendment?
Cool. Believe whatever you want to believe, but the First Amendment does not give any religious institution the right to enforce its ideas and actions upon any other individuals.
In other words, all arguments regarding God, Christianity, etc. are moot.
- QuinceyQuick
February 17, 2009 1:19PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Maybe for You
While the teachings of the Church are clear that homosexuality is unnatural, to make blanket statements that “the followers of the Catholic Church believe that homosexuality is wrong” is not only false, but, as a Catholic, one that I take personal offense to. The Church is one of the largest religious denominations in the world, among Christians and among all faiths, encompassing over one billion people. There are many faucets of Catholicism unique to the faith, but, even though public deviation is not well tolerated, dissent does occur, even in the church hierarchy. As for the faith of the laypeople, it is often a personal matter and faith does not necessary lay contingent on complete adherence to dogma, but rather the belief of at least the core principles of Catholicism.
I believe that is the will of God that we should respect other peoples’ religious beliefs, and that to join Church and State at any level would be to force, in this case, the Catholic faith upon all people of the United States. I think it is un-Christian and un-Catholic to do such a thing, and so I invite you to give a logical, not theological, argument against gay marriage.
- The Monk
February 17, 2009 2:24PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
my reply
And I am sorry that you took offense, it was not supposed to be offensive. I was only the interviewer! I took down his thoughts and then paraphrased them. kabunky
- Kabunky
February 17, 2009 5:39PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
to monk
Dear Monk,
I hope you understand where I was coming from. I paraphrased an opinion from someone that had opinion I thought was worthy to display as it showed diversity, and of course allows for some debate! Thank you, and I am sorry Monk, I hope you forgive me. Kabunky
- Kabunky
February 17, 2009 8:00PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
This Is Taking A New Viewpoint
( This was from an interview I had done over the break with A Catholic priest on his opinion which I paraphrased.)I found quotes in the Bible to back his argument. This is meant for a religious based audience only. )
- Kabunky
February 18, 2009 7:33AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What happens over time?
According to the Family Research Council, "A man and a woman joined together in holy matrimony is the time-tested “yardstick” for marriage". So because homosexuality was not allowed one hundred years ago and same-sex marriage was the only right way that makes it the "yardstick" of tradition? Tradition is not always best. In many cases, with time comes knowledge and we are able to reform our ways for the better rather than relying on the beliefs of the past. It could be possible that in the next twenty years a new invention will replace the yardstick, even though now we can't see that possibility.
- SweeneyToddInc
February 17, 2009 9:05PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
wow.
How in the hell can gay marriage harm a traditional marriage ? That is one of the dumbest things I've heard in a while. I think that people aren't secure with their sexuality and they're scared. Honestly, it's about them, not us.
- ChristinaLovesMariaForever October 15, 2009 3:27AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Hey Family Research
Explain how gay marriage has hurt other country's to us. Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Canada and so on....where is the destroyed economy ? Where is the Hell fire and brimstone blasting them all to hell? You cant can you. How does two people who love and cherish each other hurt your marriage ? It doesnt does it. And the key word here is Holy matrimony...What is holy about divorce?
- oldfoxbob
October 28, 2009 1:26PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Amen!
Canada has had legalized gay marriage since 2005 and in most provinces since 2003...it's 2009 and Canada is still standing. My straight relatives in Canada are still married and feel perfectly secure in their marriages. God hasn't consumed the nation in pillars of flame...and quite frankly they're doing quite a bit better than we are.
- RonJ73
October 29, 2009 4:17PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.