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:
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.
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 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
Reframing the Question
Children have nothing to do with it
Marriage from a legal standpoint is simply a contract between two people that gives certain legal rights and responsibilities and affects property ownership.
If you're talking about the sacrament of marriage, i.e. religious ceremony, you can exclude homosexuals all you want. The law is not the same as religion, however. This issue is about the legality of "marriage" as recognized by the state. Legal marriage does not mandate, require, or even encourage children. Society encourages children. If you have a problem with children who aren't raised by a mother and father, you need to try to bring about societal and attitude changes, not trying to suppress the civil rights of a group you dislike.
If you don't think homosexuals should be allowed to raise children, that's an adoption issue. All you're doing by fighting gay marriage is ensuring that children of homosexual couples will have unmarried parents. Is that somehow better?
- lostlo
August 19, 2008 1:55PM
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.
Where did that "Law" come from?
The sacrament of marriage is the exact reason why the laws concerning marriage were created. We wouldn't have "marriage" as a concept if it weren't for religion . Society, though, doesn't in fact encourage children . If you look at Western Europe, their birth rates are well below replacement and dangerously close to societal collapse despite their natalist government policies. The United States is leaning towards those dismal numbers itself.
I am first and foremost about children in my opposition to same-sex marriage . We are already seeing vast changes in culture in the states that have adopted same-sex marriage. These states are shutting down Catholic adoption agencies by forcing the law (same-sex marriage is legal ) to take precedent over their religion in their adoption agencies. Same-sex marriage starts to trample religious freedom even if it is "only" a legal issue.
The other major cultural shift is in that a school can no longer (and religious institutions lest they violate "hate laws" or discriminate) hold up traditional opposite-sex marriage as the normal, optimal solution to a child. Confusing children at an early age as to whether they should marry a boy or a girl is not good for children still in the development stages. Claiming that it doesn't matter whether a child marries a boy or a girl is equivalent to society saying that girls are the SAME as boys. This is patently false... men and women are EQUAL, but NOT the same.
I agree that societal and attitude changes are required about marriage. Our out-of-wedlock birthrate in the US is staggering, and the statistics about children raised in single parent households are appalling. That being said, legalizing, and therefore societal endorsing, same-sex marriage says that our society doesn't care that a child has a mother and father. We have taken that option off the table. Adoption agencies are not allowed to discriminate and favor a married opposite-sex couple over a same-sex one anymore, which deprives children of a mother and father. A same-sex couple is obviously a wonderful option for a child that is in foster care or in dire straights, but society needs to be able to favor an opposite-sex couple over a same-sex one in adoption. A child has a right to a mother and father when it is possible.
Additionally, the whole notion that it is "discrimination" is ridiculous, no offense. Same-sex marriage is a NEW right. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. I will inevitably hear the rebuttal of how inter-racial marriages were illegal, and that is a non sequitur. There is no difference between the races, but there are staggering differences between men and women. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, but some individuals are predisposed towards someone of their sex, be it by genetics, nurture, or nature or some combination.
By redefining marriage, we have not only thrown the notion that men and women are different out the window, we have necessarily changed that definition to allow anyone to marry anyone if it is consensual. There is no reason, therefore, that three people cannot marry into a polygamous relationship if it is about consensual decisions between any persons. There is a reason that thousands of years of human history have evolved to this point; that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that reason is being torn down.
I have the utmost compassion for gays and their situation, but that does not mean I forsake my standards and ignore the consequences of such a change because of my emotional "compassion."
Thanks for the discussion.
- Benjamin Tuttle June 11, 2009 5:10PM
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.
That's a good question (Part 1)
Where did the law come from? I don't know, and I appreciate your thoughtful explanation, but you have made a large number of assumptions in your argument. Unfortunately, my profound skepticism and love for the truth prevents me from accepting your assumptions outright without any evidence or explanation of why you think it's safe to make them. So if you truly want to convince me, and I honestly am open-minded, you will need to give me some more information about these assumptions. For clarity's sake, I will go through each of your paragraphs in order and ask questions where I need more clarification.
1. First of all, I was not aware that the concept of marriage would not exist without religion . Can you please give me some more information about which religion invented the concept of marriage, or perhaps point me in the direction of where you learned this? I have not learned this in my studies, which admittedly have not been exhaustive. As for birth rates, I am familiar about the low birth rates in some countries, but I do not see what that has to do with gay marriage. If I had to guess, I would think that you mean to say that countries that are less religious have fewer children , but I do not see how that relates to the legality of gay marriage. Remember, this debate is about whether gay marriage should be legal , not about religious views on gay marriage. If you want to argue that laws should be based on religion you are welcome to do so, but I'm not a huge fan of theocracy myself. I am a huge fan of the US Constitution, personally.
2. I am not familiar with the shocking violation of religious freedom that you mention here, and would like to read more about it. Could you provide a little more detail so I can do some research? Names of the agencies involved, name of a court case, which state/time period... any of these things would help me to find more detail about the cases involved.
3. "Confusing children at an early age as to whether they should marry a boy or a girl is not good for children still in the development stages." In this statement you have assumed two things a) if it is legal for homosexuals to marry, children will be confused about who they want to marry, and b) such confusion is harmful to the child in a way that you did not specify. This may be correct, but again I have not seen the evidence, could you tell me where I could read more about these claims? "Claiming that it doesn't matter whether a child marries a boy or a girl is equivalent to society saying that girls are the SAME as boys." Here, you have inadvertantly committed a logical fallacy. The two claims are not equivalent. Here, I'll show you: "It doesn't matter if a business owner is a woman or a man. Therefore, women and men are the same." The two are not equivalent. If you think they are, do you mean to suggest that women should not be allowed to own small businesses? Of course not, you made no such claim because the scientific that men and women are not biologically identical is not the same thing as a society standard about what men and women should or should not be allowed to do.
4. I'm sorry, I did not say that changes in societal attitudes are required. I do not think that I have the right to dictate what others are allowed to believe. I do have personal standards which differ from the most common societal views, but I do not really feel compelled to demand that others change their views to be like me. As much as I'd love for us to agree about something :) Your notion that something being legal means that society "endorses" it confuses me, if you care to clarify this position I'd love to hear it. And the rest of this paragraph appears to be your complaints about adoption law . As I mentioned in my original post, if you think the adoption laws should be changed, then you're in the wrong place. This debate is about whether homosexual couples should be allowed to get married, not about whether they should be allowed to adopt children. If you feel that's a problem, why aren't you against gay adoption? Why gay marriage? And finally, it's great that you care about the rights of children, but all children do have a mother and father, as far as I know... maybe I missed human cloning coming into vogue? I think you mean to say that you think all children have the right to be raised the way that you think is most appropriate. Do you also feel that we should enact laws dictating how parents are allowed to raise children? It's fine with me if you do, I'm just trying to understand your argument.
(this was too long, so there will be a part 2)
- lostlo
June 16, 2009 2:54PM
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.
That's a good question (Part 2)
5. You were right to say "no offense," because as a member of a heterosexual, interracial couple I am tempted to take offense. The right for me to marry my boyfriend was also once a NEW right. Your claim that there are differences in gender but not race lead me to think you are talking about genetics. If I'm understanding your argument correctly, you seem to be saying that it's fine to treat groups differently under the law if their DNA is different. Am I understanding your argument correctly? That also troubles me. I do not like the idea of establishing legal precedent that equal protection under the law can be discarded based on genetics. Surely you can see how that might be abused.
6. I do not understand how allowing homosexual couples to marry implies that men and women are identical. I also do not understand your next sentence. It is false that if gay marriage were legal, that would mean that polygamy would be legal. The reason that polygamy would not be permitted if gay marriage were legal is that polygamy is illegal under separate laws. I believe you are trying to say that you think that if gay marriage becomes legal, that automatically means that polygamy will become legal. This is a straw man fallacy, because you have presented no evidence that this is true. I do not believe any such evidence exists, unless you have the ability to see the future, in which case surely you have something better to do with your time than argue with me :) Finally, you say "there is a reason" that gay marriage is illegal, but you do not specify what it is. If there is a reason, name it. Your assertion that the current situation is automatically best because "thousands of years of human history have evolved to this point" is laughable. I'm sorry, but it is. In the 1940s, thousands of years of human history had evolved to the Holocaust. Does that mean the Holocaust was good? The true history of humanity is a tale of ups and downs, of progress and regress. Humanity has made some serious bad calls, but they seemed like good ideas to the people of the time. If you truly believe that the status quo is good and the current change is bad, you need a better argument than "this is good because it's how things are." (if you want to be taken seriously, anyway)
7. What is the "situation" of the gays to which you refer? It's also interesting to me that you put the word compassion in quotes, as I see no compassion for gays (and their mysterious "situation") on display in your argument. However, I am open-minded and realize that you are probably telling the truth and are not just some bigot, so if you'd like to provide examples of times when you have demonstrated compassion for homosexuals, I would be delighted to hear that evidence as well.
No problem, I always make time for courteous and rational discussion.
- lostlo
June 16, 2009 2:54PM
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.
A long post got lost - but this is my last post here
I actually replied with a long post, answering point by point, but it was lost somehow. It made me rethink the issue, so I'll provide a few answers to your questions and then reframe the issue.
2) http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions / - Sadly, the Catholic agency had to choose between their beliefs and law . The State, which mandated that same-sex marriages were equal to traditional marriages, made it impossible to differentiate legally.
4) As you can see, codifying same-sex marriage as equal in law DOES force your beliefs on others. Either the Catholic adoption agency agrees with same-sex marriage, or it must close down. If that is not coercion, I don't know what is.
Now for a little reframing.
My hope is that you would attempt to see the issue from the opposite side, although I am a little discouraged that you think it is my responsibility to prove "when I have demonstrated compassion for homosexuals." My hope is that, as an informed women who cares about the issue enough to debate someone on a site like this, you would research these issues. I encourage you to read up on many of the religious issues surrounding same-sex marriage in Europe and the US, as well as read some intellectual discussions from the pro-traditional marriage side. I certainly am not the most eloquent spokesman, but one must first disregard the notion that opponents are either bigots or not progressive in their thinking (and therefor dumb). You certainly don't get any intellectual debate about the issue in the New York Times or on CNN.
The problem with the whole issue is that gays think the marriage issue is all about gays. It has barely anything to do with gays frankly, and every attempt to change the definition of traditional marriage in American society is met with the same attempt to stop it. The issue is that marriage, as defined as the union between one man and one woman, should be kept that way for the good of society. Utah wasn't allowed into the Union until it changed its incorrect definition of marriage to that of the United States.
Do you think that marriage between one man and one woman, especially in regards to the raising of children , is the ideal for society? Does it make no difference if a child has two mothers instead of a mother and a father?
Ignoring the difference between the sexes is required to disregard this ideal. Thinking that a male and a female parent in a loving married relationship do not bring something different to the table than two loving gay parents is just untrue.
The point is that traditional-marriage advocates are arguing FOR the ideal of opposite-sex marriage for the betterment of society, and not against any group in particular.
It most certainly is not a discrimination issue for gays, even though it is constantly touted as one. There is no difference between a caucasian man and an asian man other than cosmetic difference. There are huge differences between men and women. This is why we have girl scouts and boy scouts, but not white scouts and asian scouts. We should as a society be able to differentiate in our laws regarding different things, and gays currently have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as everyone else. Gays just don't choose to because of their genetic/nature/nurture/biological differences. Allowing equal rights in visitation, inheritance, etc should obviously be law, and currently it can be law in many cases through contracts between individuals, but where not it should be made so.
In order to make it a discrimination issue, therefor, we would have to change the definition of marriage from "the union of one man and one woman" to "the union between individuals who love each other." In this case, there is no rational argument one could make against any grouping of consensual, loving humans joining together in a "marriage," including polygamy and intra-family marriage, which is why that definition is not true.
I hope this helps, and I appreciate the discussion. My main goal merely is to at least get others to think a few steps beyond the initial emotionality of the issue. What's good for individuals on an micro scale is not necessarily good for society. Thinking past "stage 1," though most people do not, is imperative to understanding any issue. Thinking about the consequences wrought on children as they are taught in school that there is no ideal for marriage or relationships, about the consequences on men and women as marriage becomes any arrangement one pleases, and denying the differences between the value of men and women in child-rearing can have vast consequences that are unknowable. Making such a momentous change in society should be thought out, and at least voted on behind a banner a little more well-thought out than "Prop H8" or "Equal Rights."
- Benjamin Tuttle June 18, 2009 5:46PM
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.