Why are people so against gay marriage?

[Muse]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
It's an abomination to God.

That's a pretty uptight, weird god you have there.

 

[nineball9]

On a similar note, why were (are, in some instances) people so against interracial marriage? It was more than just skin color.
Wikipedia entry on Anti-miscegenation laws.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Vic
Marriage is about authority. It is the tradition of a couple going before the societal authority (religious, government, or both) to beg for permission and approval to have sex and procreate. And now the gays want society's permission and approval too, and they're not begging like young couples of old seeking their parents' blessing, they're demanding.

That's what the fuss is all about. Better IMO if we ditched the practice of marriage altogether.

Nail on the head. This is the "correct" short answer to the question.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: 43st

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: 43st
I'm not sure when the government got into the marriage business, hasn't that always been a church thing?

When married couples got separate legal rights?

Then remove any special rights granted to married people by the government.. problem solved.

The thing is married couples do not have separate legal rights. There is no benefit to getting a marriage certificate. In fact you are worse off because of the tax penalty. All perceived "rights" that you guys think gays don't have, they already do have it through domestic partnership.

It boils down to gays trying to get govt/societal approval.

 

[dlx22]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: dlx22

I know you mean well Harvey but the case law doesn't really support any basis for 14th amendment equal protection of gay marriage. If anything as it stands now the Supreme court in not hearing Nelson v Baker established that its not a federal question, but one for the states to decide. Some states like MA have more liberal equal protection clauses in their own constitutions.

"As it stands, now" doesn't apply as of November 8, 2008. It will take some time to bring a case before the Supreme Court, and Obama will probably have the opportunity to appoint one or two justices in the near future. If the plaintiffs' timing is good, they may have a better chance that the Supreme Court will return to its mandate on behalf of the citizens of the nation inscribed over the western portico of the court building, "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW."

So the interpretation of the law should change everytime we have new appointments to the court? if this was true would that now make judicial precedence meaningless or perhaps violate the seperation of powers? Expecting the law to change simply on the composition of the court is an extremely dangerous expectation and could very well erode public confidence in the supreme court. The supreme court does not make the law.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: dlx22

So the interpretation of the law should change everytime we have new appointments to the court? if this was true would that now make judicial precedence meaningless or perhaps violate the seperation of powers? Expecting the law to change simply on the composition of the court is an extremely dangerous expectation and could very well erode public confidence in the supreme court. The supreme court does not make the law.

That horse left the barn a long time ago.

Currently, a right0-wing ideology branch of judges has built up, under the broad banner of the Federalist society, and they're pretty predictable in how they'll decide some issues.

Justices form different views on basic constitutional interpretations, and that leads to their being pretty predictable on some important issues, and there is a partisan element.

There's a reason John McCain cited judges like Roberts, Scalia and Alito, and why Bush appointed them, while Obama does not.

In the past, the court has had ideological periods; the late 19th century was a disaster of a corporatist ideology that gave us Plessy v. Ferguson among other gems (as well as the enormously harmful misuse of the due process amendment to the constitution to protect corporations as 'people', something fought for long and hard by the corporations, with many more cases on it protecting corporations than protecting who it was designed to, black people).

The current court has long been compromised by your standard - look at the election of 2000 where the supposed federalists stretched the law for a partisan result.

These modern right-wing judges have a history of saying one thing in their confirmation hearings on respecting precedent, and doing another.

It was back in the 80's that a Senator in the approval process addressed the issue of whether ideology was a legitimate part of the approval, and decided it was.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
It's an abomination to God.

That's a pretty uptight, weird god you have there.

Severely OCD, too.
"Sundays, have to worship on Sundays. Hands in front of face, placed together. Catholics do a hail-Mary. Some Jews must not cut hair by their ears. Amish can't drive cars. Never drive cars. Horses only. At least some of them," as he rocks back and forth in a corner.


He only leaves his corner to peek in on people's bedrooms, to make sure they're having sex properly.

 

[sportage]

Wanda wants to know too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5M3iS2O0Es

 

[L00PY]

Originally posted by: piasabird
When you look at it, there is no real constitutional right that protects marriage. However if the Federal Government wants to pass an amemdment to the U.S. Constitution, let them bring it on.

Many see parallels between the fight against racial inequity and the fight for gay rights.

The final arbiter of how to interpret the US Constitution is the US Supreme Court. How much do you think is changed in the following unanimous US Supreme Court ruling? Here's a hint: not much.

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the sexual classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious sexual discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another sex resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

 

[Possessed Freak]

I do not have a problem with gay marriage, I have a problem when it relates to bonuses/penalties at the federal level and states have different restrictions on marriage. Does this state recognize that? Does the fed recognize this? Why do 2 people here get this bonus but 2 people here don't?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: ebaycj
religion.

Proudly holding back progress for two millennia and counting.

Your math skills aren't doing anything for progress either. Or do you think religion has only been around since Christianity started? You're as ignorant as those you mock.

In this case it is correct to reference the age of Christianity as that's what causes the majority of our issues in this country.

Is this supposed to be taken serious? What issues within our country are caused by Christianity? Much less the "majority" of them.

 

[deftron]

Supposedly, because marriage is a religous institution and gays are going to Hell, or something like that.


I don't know, according to most Americans.... Jews, Muslims, Athiests, Lairs, Thieves, Adulterers, and many others are going to Hell also.. somehow they are still allowed to marry.


If you ask me, the only thing that jeopardizes the sactity of marriage is divorce, and that's perfectly legal.

 

[Gand1]

Ghostbusters...that's when we learned that it was too dangerous to cross the streams!

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Marriage is the union betwen a man and a woman.

If gays or lesbians want to get married to a member of the opposite sex they are free to do so. No one is stopping them! They are idiots who want to reinvent marriage becase they want everything their way.

When you look at it, there is no real constitutional right that protects marriage.

However if the Federal Government wants to pass an amemdment to the U.S. Constitution, let them bring it on.

Show me in the Constitution that says marriage is the union betwen a man and a woman.

 

[First]

Why are people so against gay marriage?

Ignorance, mostly.

 

[zhwu]

Same reason we do not let close blood relatives marry each other?

I have nothing against gay/lesbian people. However, if we want to legalize their marriage, I think they need to lift the ban on a lot of other types marriage as well just to be fair. (In fact, both groups can't produce healthy offspring naturally.)

Why should we give gay/lesbian more legal rights than the other group? (Polygomists included)

Explain this to me, if we allow gay people to legally marry in this country, why can't a male marry his own blood sister if all persons involved are adults and willing to marry?

 

[L00PY]

Originally posted by: zhwu
Explain this to me, if we allow gay people to legally marry in this country, why can't a male marry his own blood sister if all persons involved are adults and willing to marry?

Laws are on the books prohibiting marriages within certain levels of consanguinity presumably because of the probability of an unhealthy child being born from such an union. It is impossible that a same sex union would produce such an unhealthy child. I fail to see the parallels.

I also am unaware of any laws the prohibit infertile couples from marrying, a post menopausal limit on marriage, or any similar legislation. Same sex couple can obtain children the many of the same ways any heterosexual couple with an inability to bear children could, through adoption, sperm donor, or egg donor.

 

[Paratus]

Here's the whole shebang:

Per the direction of the preamble to the constitution the government has the obligation/responsibility to promote the general welfare.

So does legally recognizing ANY marriage promote the "general welfare"?

It does. The benefits to the couple are:

- Increased health of the couple/family
- Increased wealth of the couple/family
- Better parental support for those who

It benefits society by the following:

- Less likely to require govt assistance
- Increased social stability.
- More taxes for the government!

So does promoting same sex marriage provide these same benefits to the couple and society?

It sure does as those benefits are provided by the fact that there are two people supporting each other instead of one, regardless of the sex of the two parties.

Now the argument could be made that a one father / one mother household is the "ideal" environment to raise kids, however studies have shown that two parents regardless of sex are an improvement over a single parent. Since we as a society haven't seen fit to prevent single parents from raising children I don't see why we should prevent ANY two people from raising a child, their own or adopted.


So what does the constitution say about same sex marriage.

It says it's legal.....


The 14th amendment guarantees "equal protection under the law" amongst the states and federal government. Checkout the following logic to understand why bans on gay marriage are illegal:

Alice marries Bob, the state legally recognizes the couple and grants them certain rights.

Alice marries Cathy and state DOES NOT legally recognizes the couple and DENIES them certain rights.

Cathy has been discriminated against by the state solely on the basis of her sex which is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment.


Does that mean Churches will be forced to marry same sex couples.

NO, the first amendment prohibits the government from legislating religion. So no church would be forced to marry those it did not want to.

Besides SAME SEX COUPLES CAN ALREADY MARRY in a religious ceremony. The only thing being denied are the secular legal benefits which is pretty fucked up IMHO.

What about marrying your sister, dog, children, or polygamy (slippery slope)?

- animals and children cannot give consent - no slippery slope here
- trying to marry a sibling has genetic implications but the real issue (besides being disgusting) is they are being discriminated against for their relationship not , sex, race, religion etc. - no slippery slope here
- polygamy - no one is allowed to marry more than one person at a time so the 14th amendment doesn't apply. This is a separate argument, no slippery slope here.


Even as a straight married man with two kids, I don't expect anyone to change there mind from this but quite frankly if you are against a set of people pursuing the same happiness you have you might be a good religious person but you make a poor American.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Paratus
Alice marries Cathy and state DOES NOT legally recognizes the couple and DENIES them certain rights.

That is the biggest lie told by the anti prop 8 camp. For all intents and purposes, domestic partnership laws satisfy whatever a marriage license provides (in CA).

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

It's easy to blame religion for so many being against gay marriage but it's not quite that simple. Sure, your everyday bible thumper is going to be against gay marriage. But Prop 8 passed with over 60%, in freakin California. You'd have a hard time convincing anyone that those were all bible thumpers voting "Yes."

Looking at the demographic breakdown of voters on that issue it's pretty clear there were other reasons Prop 8 passed. Blacks and Hispanics voted heavily in the "Yes" category. That's an indication of cultural influences in addition to religion. Neither the Black or Hispanic cultures are very accepting of homosexuality. In fact, if you look around the world at cultures that are very male dominant - iow, cultures where machismo and being a man's man rule the day - you'll notice that homosexuality is not well received.

In addition there's the traditionalists. Those people are the ones who firmly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, with no exceptions. They haven't come to their conclusion based on "the Bible says so." They simply don't want to see the tradition of marriage redefined.

While I'm a full supporter of gay marriage myself, I can understand why many people are averse to gay marriage and have dissenting opinions. Their opinion is just how they believe and those trying to deem them all to be "bigots" are doing themselves a great disservice. Applying such derisive labels accomplishes nothing and makes those who support gay marriage appear to be intolerant themselves, and ultimately no better than those the levy the accusation upon.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
If anybody actually wants to see a rational discussion of the opposite side to this issue of Prop 8, check out Huckabee on Fox News when they rebroadcast the show later tonight or tomorrow.


And just because it's on Fox News doesn't mean it's conservative hate speech - just preparation for the typical responses from the usual suspects in P&N.

A rational discussion on gay marriage by the same guy who wants to incorporate the word of god into the constitution? No thanks, I'll pass.

 

[piasabird]

Gay marriage is just the tyrranical few trying to push their standards and their beliefs onto the majority. It is just radical leftist Facism!

 

[Modelworks]

I think it is because the only thing left to talk about since the elections are over is gay marraige or the economy. And no one likes talking about that.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: K1052
In this case it is correct to reference the age of Christianity as that's what causes the majority of our issues in this country.

I can just as easily say it's those who reject religion that are causing the majority of our issues in this country. :roll:

If you can never see a situation from the other side, you will never be able to fully understand it.

OP, the answer to your original question is that it is because of people like Cubby and others who appear to not believe that homosexuals deserve equal rights to that of heterosexuals. That's ok though because these people and their beliefs are becoming a minority as more time passes. The laws will change in time too.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: JS80

That is the biggest lie told by the anti prop 8 camp. For all intents and purposes, domestic partnership laws satisfy whatever a marriage license provides (in CA).

BULLSHIT! First, "domestic partnerships" are NOT equal "for ALL intents and purposes." If ANY intent or purpose is not met, it is not the equivalent of the status of civil marriage. For example, it does NOT satisfy the intent or purpose of providing equality under Federal tax laws, and it does not afford the same legal rights to a partner when dealing with legal matters in another jurisdiction.

Second, even if you could make the case that it is truly the same, the meaningless imposition of another name for the same legal condition imposes a presumed pejorative distinction on such unions.

Third, the Supreme Court has held that "separate but equal" is NOT equal.

Please tell us what harm does it do you to allow mongamous gay couples the same happiness you wish you could find for yourself in a heterosexual marriage?

Or are you just hung up in hurting others for no reason whatsoever? :roll: