 |
channels
Our own little initiative in citizen journalism. Like everything on Mojo, 99% of what you'll see here is all you. |
|
Friends of Mojo
Click to Join my posse
|
|
|
|
|
page: ~1~ [2] [3]
|
| Author |
|
How does legalizing gay marriage diminish heterosexual marriage?
|
Messages
1
-
17
|
|
boudicca
msg
local #300753
|
posted
Fri Nov 6 11:35 pm
|
2990 posts · tenured: apr '09
|
Delete
Edit
|
I'm truly baffled by this. How does legalizing gay marriages hurt society. More specifically, as many in the religious right have argued, how does it hurt the "institution" of marriage? I know this is a charged issue that has been debated countless times, but given the core assumptions of our nation - specifically the separation of church and state in order to to establish religious freedom - why is legalizing unions between same-sex partners a problem?
As I understand it, much of the opposition comes from Christian moralists who are opposed to homosexual relations. However, such traditions are also opposed to sex outside of marriage. So homosexual marriage might encourage monogamy. Furthermore, a central assumption of Christianity is that one's behavior (sins in particular) are between the individual and God. No one on earth is fit to judge the soul of another. Thus, a person's actions, unless they harm another individual or group, are a matter of conscience and not subject to human judgment or intervention.
In terms of the separation of church and state, churches are free to recognize or not recognize homosexual unions within respective denominations, congregations, etc. However, as the government may not impinge on the individual's freedom to worship (or not) a diety of choice, religions, denominations, etc should not be able to impinge on the freedom of individuals outside their perview to behave according to conscience. Thus, a religion may require a religious ceremony to consecrate a marriage in lieu of or in addition to a civil ceremony. It may choose not to recognize a homosexual union, but not to outlaw it.
From a societal standpoint, my guess is that overlapping the moral conservatives who oppose same-sex unions, perhaps businesses may generally oppose legalization of gay marriage. The simple reason is that marital benefits such as insurance and retirement would be extended to a whole new class of spouses. Given the ridiculous state of healthcare in this country, it may have a lot to do with why so-called "liberals" are not able to generate critical mass behind this movement. Just a guess.
I would be interested to see other people's opinions on this topic.
|
|
Auticus
msg
local #13879
|
|
posted
Sat Nov 7 12:04 am
|
5636 posts · tenured: Jul '04
|
Delete
Edit
|
Because to a religious person, legalizing gay marriage means their country is slapping god in the face and that god will become angry and send forth his wrath.
Saying gay marriage hurts our institutions etc is strictly 100% a religious argument.
It is one reason why I don't believe in religion.
|
|
Parvati
msg
local #105590
|
|
posted
Sat Nov 7 12:07 am
|
2155 posts · tenured: Jan '06
|
Delete
Edit
|
How does legalizing gay marriage diminish heterosexual marriage?
It doesn't.
|
|
 Slycon
msg
local #66274
|
|
posted
Sat Nov 7 12:09 am
|
14340 posts · tenured: Jul '05
|
Delete
Edit
|
Gay marriage isn't illegal.
|
|
boudicca
msg
local #300753
|
|
posted
Sat Nov 7 12:23 am
|
2990 posts · tenured: Apr '09
|
Delete
Edit
|
But it's not legally recognized in most states. Insurance doesn't cover homosexual spouses.
|
|
PoseurHatesMen
msg
local #33691
|
|
posted
Sat Nov 7 12:44 am
|
3368 posts · tenured: Jan '05
|
Delete
Edit
|
Well, it would appear that in liberal states the main concern among the opponents of gay marriage is a fear that schools will indoctrinate children into supporting same sex marriage regardless of their parent's values. These issues are generally handled at a local level so there won't really be any difference.
|
|
Jax Rhapsody
msg
local #230464
|
|
posted
Mon Nov 9 11:13 am
|
1677 posts · tenured: Sep '07
|
Delete
Edit
|
No, heterosexuals diminish heterosexual marriage.
|
|
tecoyah
msg
local #229495
|
|
posted
Mon Nov 9 3:28 pm
|
962 posts · tenured: Sep '07
|
Delete
Edit
|
This whole issue should be viewed as a litmus test of tolerance, intellect, and societal health. Generally speaking, those opposed to allowing same sex couples to wed are of a lower intelligence as a rule, and carry either hatred or God in the heart (though the two are somewhat inter changeable)...These people are not within my respect threshold.
The only reason to deny another person this institution, is a fundamental dislike for who they are.
|
|
Stalking Butler
msg
local #312028
|
|
posted
Mon Nov 9 3:59 pm
|
395 posts · tenured: Sep '09
|
Delete
Edit
|
This whole issue should be viewed as a litmus test of tolerance, intellect, and societal health. Generally speaking, those opposed to allowing same sex couples to wed are of a lower intelligence as a rule, and carry either hatred or God in the heart (though the two are somewhat inter changeable)...These people are not within my respect threshold.
The only reason to deny another person this institution, is a fundamental dislike for who they are.
VERY well said... I just thought the entire post deserved an encore, so I italicized the entire damn thing!
|
|
Rick.
msg
local #144166
|
|
posted
Mon Nov 9 4:10 pm
|
5831 posts · tenured: Jun '06
|
Delete
Edit
|
I think it is a jealosy thing. I might be wrong, but I suspect married gay men still get blow jobs.
|
|
mo
msg
local #13461
|
|
posted
Mon Nov 9 6:17 pm
|
17799 posts · tenured: Jun '04
|
Delete
Edit
|
It doesn't. Marriage is, at its core, a legal contract.
The people who say "one man, one woman" generally believe same-sex marriage is wrong for religious reasons. To which I say: You are welcome to hold your own opinions, values, and religious beliefs.
Citizens who want to insert religion into matters of the state-- I have NO problem with those people. However, it's a one way street. I DO have a problem with the state inserting religious beliefs into law.
|
|
Slycon
msg
local #66274
|
|
posted
Tue Nov 10 2:03 am
|
14340 posts · tenured: Jul '05
|
Delete
Edit
|
But it's not legally recognized in most states. Insurance doesn't cover homosexual spouses.
As it currently stands, it's not. However, I'm one of those who would not oppose it being put to a state by state vote. If a majority of the voters in a particular state decide that gay marriage should be recognized by the state, I could accept that, whether I agree with it or not.
As far as insurance is concerned, I don't believe that insurance benefits should be limited based on marital status in general. What about those who aren't married?
|
|
Slycon
msg
local #66274
|
|
posted
Tue Nov 10 2:06 am
|
14340 posts · tenured: Jul '05
|
Delete
Edit
|
The only reason to deny another person this institution, is a fundamental dislike for who they are.
Ah yes...the typical "If you disagree with me, it's obviously because you're a racist/sexist/homophobe" retort. I always enjoy that one.
Unfortunately, I tend to tune out anything after that from those who resort to such.
|
|
L B
msg
local #285195
|
|
posted
Tue Nov 10 6:39 am
|
1450 posts · tenured: Nov '08
|
Delete
Edit
|
the issue here is LEGAL.
in my opinion it is discrimination by the states against people for their sexual preferences which is illegal in every state.
its really that simple.
|
|
Scubasteve2365
msg
local #149566
|
|
posted
Tue Nov 10 8:32 am
|
6833 posts · tenured: Jul '06
|
Delete
Edit
|
the issue here is LEGAL.
in my opinion it is discrimination by the states against people for their sexual preferences which is illegal in every state.
its really that simple.
I don't think so. It has everything to do with evolving past tradition. I don't have a problem with homosexuals. I think they should be recognized as married, however I also understand that change (Even the kind you can believe in) takes time. Most states don't recognize polygamy either (that I'm aware of) so a polyagmist, something that I'm fine with as well, can't have all of their spouses recognized either.
As for the religious thing, I think it's a cover up for homophobes. Seriously, there are plenty of things in the Bible. Why is modern Christian society so hung up on this one thing, that isn't a commandment? Why aren't they protesting in the streets about "Coveting thy neighbor"? The answer is because they really aren't concerned religiously about homosexuality. It's different to them and it is something they do not understand. I feel fortunate that I think I understand it, at least enough that I'm comfortable with it and around homosexuals.
|
|
Urban Sasquatch
msg
local #285987
|
|
posted
Tue Nov 10 8:35 am
|
1087 posts · tenured: Nov '08
|
Delete
Edit
|
I suspect that a great deal of the problem is a mixture of social and legal. It's a pretty broad picture that has to be taken in for the purpose of understanding.
I believe what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is their own damn business; and I believe this way despite being a devout believer in God (can't say "Christian" because technically it's not true -- said only for clarification's sake). I think if God actually has a problem with homosexuals (NOT saying He does, just saying IF) then that's between them and God, not them and me.
I'm NOT homosexual, but I could almost say "I've never met a queer I didn't like" by way of putting a humorous spin on it. I don't give a damn about someone's sexual orientation, it's none of my business so long as they don't make it my business, homo or hetero.
Except that then we get into the problem areas.
IF it was what two consenting adults did behind closed doors, I wouldn't give the proverbial rodent's sphincter; but it's not. Look around you. Homosexuality is held up like a flag, flaunted, given an in-yo-FACE air by way of rebellion.
Disagree with me? Think about any conversation regarding the topic. If you DARE make a face or grimace, if you DARE say anything against it, you're automatically "small-minded" and "unilluminated" and people want to ARGUE -- but you're just supposed to roll over and accept the converse.
I sat down with a group of friends in a bar a few years back and there was a newcomer, a young woman who'd come with someone else.
We were making introductions and as I reached over the table to shake her hand she looked at me seriously and said (since I was the only one new to her) "Does it bother you that I'm a lesbian?"
WTF?!? I responded, seating myself, "Does it bother you that I'm not?"
She immediately began to argue and sniff disdainfully because she was sure that I was somehow being condescending to her status as a lesbian. I wasn't; I was being condescending to her status as an idiot, but I didn't give a shit that she was a lesbian until she had to throw it at me.
I know this isn't everyone out there; at my last home prior to moving out to the country there were two gals in a nearby apartment who were a couple, and I thought the world of them, thought they were just the sweetest people.
But they're not everyone out there either.
Point is, there's ENOUGH of the raucous crowd giving a bad name to the rest, just as there are enough of the Sunday-only Christians giving a bad name to the rest.
Partially I can understand this because it IS rebellion against a form of establishment which needs to lighten up; and partially I get disgusted because while I consider avid opponents of homosexual marriage to be small-minded pricks and busybodies, I also consider avid proponents of it to be the same small-minded pricks and busybodies, just under the GUISE of claiming some sort of social enlightenment. If I planned and executed a Heterosexual Parade celebrating heterosexuality, the left-wingers would be screaming about how I was trodding on their rights and using this to taunt them somehow.
It's one thing to demand acceptance, quite another to insist I will dine or I will be force-fed.
I don't want to watch two guys making out on the street; not just because it's not my thing but because it's inappropriate behaviour. What makes it inappropriate? The same damn thing that makes a heterosexual couple making out on the street inappropriate. Get a room, both you couples.
People simply aren't bright enough on EITHER side to live-and-let-live; they're just NOT.
And social things always move on into legal/political arenas as the government takes a larger, more looming hand in how we rear our children today. So yes, there comes a point when questions will come up regarding whether or not to act as a proponent of something involving homosexuality at the educational level.
"Well, why SHOULDN'T something be taught? Isn't education the answer?"
Sure, I believe it is; but the physiology of sex education is one thing, the psychology behind it quite another below the collegiate level. And it's been my experience that people are FINE with education only so long as it teaches what THEY want it to teach.
So what then? Recognizing it legally means at some point it MUST enter the school system. While that's not the end of my world by any stretch of the imagination, the real question is HOW will it do so? Because frankly, it's not being handled very well NOW on EITHER side, and that's just the do-or-don't portion of the debate.
|
|
Slycon
msg
local #66274
|
|
posted
Tue Nov 10 11:43 am
|
14340 posts · tenured: Jul '05
|
Delete
Edit
|
First and foremost, well said Urban. I often find myself simply skimming through retorts of a long-winded nature, but in this instance, I read every word. Substance (whether I agree with the sentiment or not) matters.
the issue here is LEGAL.
in my opinion it is discrimination by the states against people for their sexual preferences which is illegal in every state.-LB
No one is being discriminated against, as gay couples are free to marry as they wish.
As for the religious thing, I think it's a cover up for homophobes. Seriously, there are plenty of things in the Bible. Why is modern Christian society so hung up on this one thing, that isn't a commandment?-Scubasteve2365
While I'm sure there are "homophobes" who oppose gay marriage, the vast majority of those who do are simply defending the traditional institution of marriage, being defined as "a union between one man and one woman". I suppose in that regard they could also be labeled as "polygaphobes".
If anyone starts calling for gay marriage to be made illegal, I will oppose them.
The answer is because they really aren't concerned religiously about homosexuality. It's different to them and it is something they do not understand.-Scubasteve2365
It is indeed "different to them", and perhaps many of them don't "understand". However, many (if not most) Christians have come to accept those differences, and they aren't attempting to force anyone to live as they do. On the other hand, many (if not most) gay marriage advocates aren't simply asking for acceptance of the same, but are attempting to force recognition.
On a side note, I've talked to quite a few people who are actually gay that are more concerned with the smaller aspects of the issue, such as insurance/death benefits, power of attorney, hospital visitation, and so on. In my experience, it seems the straight gay marriage advocates are more concerned with changing traditional definitions and impugning Christians. I think there's a reason for that.
|
|
|
Messages
1
-
17
page: ~1~ [2] [3]
|
|
|
cars
homes
jobs
health
one of my paintings
todays
mojo on the road pictures
