trendkill

I can think of at least three, the aforementioned argument from visceral disgust, the argument from evolutionary unsoundness, and the "kids need a mommy and a daddy" argument. Of course, all of these fall apart under the most cursory examination, but they're no worse than the religious one.

Stephen_BostonMA

I came across this anti-gay marriage piece today: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/r...20040519.shtml. It has the typical religious components, and one or two arguments that I have never heard. Below, I have highlighted some of the author’s claims. Underneath the claims, I have tried to show how I might answer. I know that some of my answers could be better, and want to be prepared when the topic comes up for discussion. Can anyone suggest some different arguments? 1) In some societies, polygamy is still practiced, as it has been for centuries.
2) It’s impossible to demonstrate from history that same-sex marriage has ever ended a society’s existence. After all, same-sex marriage didn’t exist anywhere until very recently.
3) What evidence is there that any society’s destruction was caused by its marriage laws?

Your study brings up some good points, such as noting that “Parents belonging to each other are what children need more than anything else this nation can give them.�? Yet, nowhere in the study was there mention of same-sex couples, let alone whether they can be good parents. Nowhere did it indicate how a couple’s heterosexuality correlates to good parenting. Hmmm...I am not familiar with this bill…does anyone have any information on it?What evidence is there that same-sex marriage is the cause of these developments? If there was a 10 percent increase in heterosexual marriages, would you worry about a fiscal crisis? You most likely believe that gays can change their sexual orientation. If all gay people suddenly changed, and became married in heterosexual unions, would you be worried? The line is drawn where it’s determined that society would be harmed. Polygamy could easily become a major legal headache and cause lots of confusion in areas such as child custody, visitation rights, inheritance, power of attorney, tax laws, etc. Talk about breaking the federal treasury!

As for incestuous marriage: no matter how uncomfortable some people feel with homosexuality, it cannot be equated with incest. Some families may be upset to learn that a family member is gay. Yet their pain is quite different from the emotional distress caused when a daughter is molested by her father. Imagine how destabilized families would be if a sister grows up knowing that her brother has his sights on her as a potential future spouse. Societal attitudes toward homosexuality have become increasingly relaxed. The same is not true for incest - people know the difference. Many people do not believe in God. Of those who do believe, many do not accept the Bible as authoritative. Of those who do accept the Bible as authoritative, interpretations vary.

In our society, laws cannot be determined by one group’s interpretation of Biblical passages.

simian

I love it when fundies talk about "traditional marriage." If there is such a beast, it is not what they envision. The idea of one man (who goes to work), one woman (who stays at home and cares for the kids), and their kids as the "family" is a very recent occurrence. It came about with the industrial revolution 1850s or so. Prior to that, both parents worked and cared for the kids. The traditional marriage included extended family - certainly grandparents (or additional generations), likely siblings, not unlikely cousins. Women died in childbirth, most children died before adulthood.

Simian

BruceWane

I think any disgust with homosexuality is entirely a product of a persons values, not anything visceral. I am in no way disgusted by homosexuality; it's just not my thing. I think most who are offended by homosexuality come by their repulsion as a result of religious and/or gender related (especially masculine) indoctrination.

The only way this argument works is if you assume that, denied legal marriage to their preferred partner, gay people would 1)enter into heterosexual unions and 2) have children within those unions.

That's a pretty big assumption.....

So we should also remove children from single-parent households?

Yep, they do. Even the tax issue. Wouldn't those who oppose gay marriage be absolutely THRILLED if all the gay folks suddenly turned straight and got married? Would there be any problem with the tax system under those circumstances?

Brad Messenger

The disgust comes, I presume, from the fact that many people wish to see their children form the same kind of relationships they have grown up to see as healthy and which carries the emotional joy of connecting with history that traditions provide. By saying that homosexuality is "just not my thing" you are stating what many parents probably fear their children will soon as well: that what they see as healthy will be "reduced" to simply another kind of relationship that is either "their thing" or not. While not a subscriber to this argument, I at least sympathize with it and partly explains why pushing gay marriage on a resistant culture is wrong.


I am not aware of the government's attempt to remove children from gay or lesbian household presently even though nearly all states outlaw gay marriages. So clearly anti-gay marriage advocates do not say children have to be raised in homes with mothers and fathers but that they should be raised in such environments. If civil marriage exists so that the government may endorse it as a public benefit, the inclusion of gay marriage could be seen as saying mothers or fathers are not important components in creating a society of well-adjusted citizens. No one denies that kids in single-parent homes or those lacking a strong female or male in the house don't succeed, but it's also the case that such a situation is ideal. I don't necessarily buy this argument, but it certainly deserves more attention and research than you give it.
[/QUOTE]

reprise

As someone who lives in a mostly secular nation, I can assure you that there is significant opposition here - too - to the idea of "gay marriage" and it isn't based on religion but rather on the concept of "ickyness". Mind you, very many of the people who pull the "icky" card are the same ones who buy lesbian or threesome porn, and really have no objection to "girls doing it together"... Even in secular societies, hypocrisy is alive and well.

Draygomb

Genetic mutation is rare. So the idea that 5% of the population has mutated in exactly the same way and in a way that such mutation wouldn't be handed down to future generations is ludicrous. Therefore Homosexuality is most likely caused by severe mental trauma. Most Homosexuals are therefore insane and unsuited to make certain choices.

BruceWane

Why do people consider a loving relationship between two consenting adults of the same sex to be less than ("reduced") the same relationship between two of opposite sex? Who says that a homosexual relationship must carry less emotional joy than a traditional one? There is no reason to believe that one relationship is "healthier" than the other. Certainly there are plenty of unhealthy heterosexual relationships around. And the assertion that "pushing gay marriage on a resistant culture is wrong" assumes that it is right for a majority to push it's morals on the minority. Well, the minority still has rights. Regardless of the origin of this disgust of homosexual relationships, the basis of resistance to the idea is that any acceptance will equal promotion of non-traditional relationships. You will probably have more people come "out of the closet" if these relationships become more accepted. The flip side of the coin is, if these relationships are denounced, it is not going to make these people change their ways and enter into traditional relationships. They'll just stay in the closet. Rejecting acceptance assumes that if gays are denied marriage, they'll go straight. Well, even if a few were to enter into scharade marriages in order to gain societal acceptance, would you consider this to be the "healthy traditional relationship" that society wants to promote?



I know of no government action to remove kids from gay or lesbian households either. My point was that it is a public benefit to have kids raised by good parents. Male or female is irrelevant. The idea that a gay couple wouldn't make good parents falls back to the dogma that homosexual relationships are inherently inferior to traditional relationships.

It'd be nice to have some research on the subject, but there are very, very few homosexual households to serve as test cases due to the historical rejection of such relationships.

It'd be nice if the opposition would acknowledge that this deserves more attention and research than they have given it before they dogmatically reject the issue.

Toto

I assume this is ironic?

Aravnah Ornan

Before you posted that, how much research had you done into custody battles involving lesbian or gay parents?