What's up with gay marriage/unions? Serious Answers please! No mudflinging.?

Question

I know this is a hot topic, but my liberal butt needs some help. I do not see the opposition to gay marriage being anything more than a tip of the hat to the religious right. I'd like to understand the argument more completely from a neutral standpoint that doesn't include religious philosophy. I'm agnostic and am an American, and I do not believe that religion should be intertwined with law. And, I don't think law should regulate religion. To each his own is my motto. So, without spewing off on how homosexuality is a sin, are there any legitimate arguments against it? If you're going to spew off numbers too, please cite them so I can look them up. I can spot a hot head a mile away, and I'm honestly trying to reach out to the other side and understand what's going on.

Pizza Guy, you have all the space in the world right here. I've posted 4 plus page answers to questions before, and yahoo provides seemingly no limit for how much you want to say. I promise to read every last word you write, buddy...

Rocco! Awesome answer. From my understanding, state courts have not enacted laws allowing gay marraige but they have, as they did in Mass., decreed that it is in violation of state constitution to extend special rights and privlidges inherent in marriage to a man-woman couple while same sex couples cannot form similar legal relationships in the same name. I'm guessing, but not 100% sure, that the reason the ruling read as strongly as it did was because of the inherent flaws present in the passage of segregation laws that allowed for whites and blacks to be seperated by race, but treated 'equally'. Really, gay marriage is a very gray legal area and needs to be defined by legislative action. I'd be crushed to see our standards of 'equality' changed in order to fit a religious agenda. As an agnostic, I really am sensitive to any church's involvement in government. There's more than enough evidence to show that our Founding Father's felt the same way, too.

Pizza Guy, I very much appreciate your answer and I respect the amount of time and effort you put into it. Honestly, thank you for taking the time to respond. One of the things that I'll say is kids from gay unions probably have it tougher than kids from man/woman unions. Having two mommies or daddies would only add to the normal taunting we all went through as kids. But, as you pointed out, growing up as a child from a broken home is extremely difficult. My parents divorced when I was 13 but I still suffer ill effects from it 14 years later and probably will the rest of my life to some degree. Yet divorce is quite common among married couples and there are a lot of kids like you and I that have struggled. If there's a national crisis forming because of gay marriage, shouldn't we give the same airplay to divorce? Lastly, there's a lot more straight rapists/child molesters out there than there are gay ones.

Answer 1

There is not problem for me with gay marriage. I do think however that we live in a democratic society and changes in law have to be enacted by the representatives of the people if not by the people directly in the form of a constitutional amendment.
I'm not one of these people that says there is something wrong with two people of the same gender joining together in a legal union or more than two people joining together in a legal union.

The problem more people have is with courts redefining the word marriage. A word has to have a certain deffinition in the law. Marriage has had the deffinition of a legal union between one man and one woman since this nations founding. For the courts to say that Marriage means a union between two partners when that was never in the intent of the law is the court changing law without acting through the process on which this nation was founded.
Can I tomorrow wake up and change the meaning of income to mean funds transfered to me only in paper money? Can I wake up and change the number of feet in a mile?
The definition of words in law is what this nations conduct is judged by just as speed it judged by the mile. I would love to have a law brought up to allow for gay unions with all the same benefits as marriage in Wisconsin, but only if it came up for a vote. I could even see a vote to change the definition of marriage.
I do however think it is morally wrong for the minority to have their morality forced on the rest of us. This system is not fair, but we choose to remain here as opposed to moving to Canada.

You can't just go changing the meaning of words in a legal sense it is dissempowering the very people that could stand to gain from gay marriage. The more power the courts have to over power the other branches closer we are to a dictatorship.
(read between the line in Mark Levin's book Men in Black alot of it is humor though the history behind it is sad to realize)

Rocco

Answer 2

The isssue is being debated and voted on state by state. The opponents of gay marriage have failed to muster the two thirds vote in Congress that would send the proposed amendment to the States for a 75% vote- 38 states. The Constitution should not be used to deny freedom. The last time it was used this way was the Prohibition Amendment, and that was rescinded after a 13 year period of the so called "noble experiment". With all the hate in the world, why try to impede genuine love between men and men and women and women. It would also contribute to less promiscuity among gay people. We are talking about civil marriages; not marriages in a Church or Synagogue, so the religious argument against gay marriages is a fraudulent one.

Answer 3

I love how the homophobic right wingers and Christians always say "Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman" Okay, 'sacred institution'? If its so damned 'sacred' then why do half of them end in divorce? And why are there some people out there who have been married and divorced seven different times? And why are the Mormons out in Utah allowed to have three or four or ten wives?

I think you nailed this issue dude, its a political tool for the Republican party in general and the Bush administration in particular to dredge up whenever the polls are down and the election draws nigh.

Answer 4

Well, its hard to leave out the religous part of this answer, since this land of America was founded at Cape Cod, Virginia in 1606 or 1607, then they declared and dedicated this land to God and to be blessed by Him. So from that, the United States of America belongs to God, and it is Him who decides and influences the people on what laws to create. Soooo, I'm sorry, I couldn't answer your question without involving God, it would be impossible.

To be honest with you, I could care less if gay marriage is legal or not. I do believe that love is love, doesn't matter what sexual preference. Love is the best thing to give and take.

Answer 5

people think gays are just well brainless.

Answer 6

Nonwithstanding religious viewpoints, the main problem with legitimizing what is not a marriage, is the legal rights which accompany such a union. The greatest example is the right to adopt children. Most people believe that people have a right to choose whatever lifestyle they want, but are against the idea of indoctrinating children at a young age that alternative lifestyles are both normal and healthy.

For example, the number of people who die of AIDS-related complications is staggeringly slanted towards homosexual men. The fact of the matter is, the physical differences between male to female relations and male to male relations makes it far more likely to transmit the disease during homosexual contact. This is not hate speech, it's scientific fact. How many millions more have to die before people realize that?

This is just one of the reasons why homosexual lifestyle choices are not taught to children at a young age, because it often leads to dangerous activities. However, because heterosexual people often make similar choices, that's not an argument against gay people, per se; more of an argument against teaching that lifestyle choices regarding sexuality are not all the same. The fact is, unprotected sex of any kind is more dangerous, non-vaginal sex is more likely to produce STD's. Teaching our children that any kind of sex is perfectly fine and just as natural as every other kind is a fallacy.

Because gay unions would allow adoption of children, these children are going to be brought up in an environment where they believe their adoptive parents lifestyle is both normal and healthy. They will be exposed at a young age, and will begin to love and defend their "parents" even when confronted with facts about gay lifestyle choices. They will see any opposing viewpoint as being intolerant, rather than scientific. Consequently, they might make dangerous decisions as a result.

Gay couples raising children is a problem for many different reasons. They will likely develop psychological problems as a result, because often times the child becomes confused about their own sexuality and gender. Without a strong male or female rolemodel in the household, the child will be essentially forced to choose the only lifestyle they have been exposed to. Without a mother (or in the case of lesbian couples, a father) the child will be be missing a vital aspect of their development.

All children deserve a mother and a father. This is why it is a tragedy when one of them dies, or gets a divorce. As the child of divorced parents, I know it was tough on me. Raising a child in a gay household essentially robs the child of their ever having a mother (or a father). This is why SINGLE people (of any sexual orientation) are not allowed to adopt children. This is why unmarried straight people (who are not single) cannot adopt. The fact is, this is not entirely about morality or sexuality. It is all about the child's development. A child deserves a mother and a father.

A child does not need to be exposed to alternative lifestyles at a young age. A child does not need to be indoctrinated in grammar school about how to put a condom on a cucumber. A child does not need graphic descriptions of sexuality in the classroom. Teaching these children about sex in a way that totally excludes lessons on respect for yourself and respect for others leads our young children to simply have sex or even "safe" sex with people they have no emotional connection with.

Children do not need to be exposed to a world of frivolous sexuality with no emotional context, nor should they be taught that traditional marriage is absolutely meaningless. Children should also have a right to be brought up in a normal household with a mother and a father. Without even discriminating against gays, we have already determined all of these things as a society. We don't want them to be raised by unmarried, single, or perverted straight people either. So we have severe restrictions as to who gets to adopt children.

The problem with giving gay people the right to marry is the consequences to the children which will follow. First of all, the child will be exposed to alternative sexuality at a young age. Then, without a positive male or female role model, the child will have problems forming normal heterosexual relationships (having no basis for comparison). The child will out of curiosity begin to explore the possibility of whether or not they are gay. These are questions young children do not need to be asking.

Children need to be focused on school, and on forming their social skills. They should not be distracted at a young age with questions about their sexual orientation. Let them decide those questions on their own, when they are older, and know more about the world, and have already been raised by a positive male and female role model. Then, if they want to be gay, it's their choice.

But if they are taught that Jamie has two mommies at age 4, Jamie will think that she is supposed to grow up and date her female classmates. At that age, she should not be forced to answer such questions. Sex should be the last thing on her mind.
It is a form of pedophilia to teach young children explicit details about sex and alternative forms of it. Much like showing a child pornography, which is illegal.

There was a news story just last week orthe week before about a 6 year old boy who was going to first grade dressed up like a little girl. His parents were a transsexual male and a female. The parents were encouraging the child to dress as a woman. The reporter interviewed the boy, who then said that he
"wanted to cut off his penis and smash it with a hammer"
and that he hated being a boy. Apparently his parents has been teaching him that normal boys are bad, and females were superior to men.

This is not something that parents should be doing to their children. Gays and transsexuals and polygamists and sado-masochists should NOT be raising children. They live in a pleasure-driven fantasy world, which is the kind of environment an emotionally immature person seeks. Someone who is obsessed with self-pleasure and perverted games is not emotionally mature enough to be raising little boys and girls, and they should not be telling little boys that it is ok to kiss other boys, or telling other girls that they can grow up and marry other girls, or telling little boys that they should cut off their penis. Two gay men were arrested after sexually assaulting a 10 year old boy they adopted, just last month.

The fact is, whether you want to admit it or not, the gay culture is a very sexually oriented and less family oriented lifestyle. It is about moral relativism and sexual experimentation. It is not about raising children. To allow gay people the same rights as married couples is to invite the destruction of a whole generation of young innocent children.

You call it hate speech, but that is because you are more concerned with making yourself and others feel good than facing the truth about the world we live in. When a university administrator gave a speech which suggested men and women might have different innate abilities, based purely on scientific evidence, he was forced to resign from his job. This is an indication that the politically correct new world we live in is more concerned with people's feelings than the truth.

Because the opposition is unwilling to listen, and will continue to trumpet speeches about homophobia, bigotry, and hatred, to make it appear as though gay people are being persecuted, even though they have the same rights as unmarried straight couples who live together, politicians will crack and legalize this.

With the sanctification of gay marriage, and the legalization of gay adoption, there will be a whole new generation of young children confused about their sexuality, indoctrinated to hate men, or to hate women, who will be molested in some cases, who will not learn the truth about AIDS and other STDs, and will never grow up and have children of their own.

Without even looking at the moral aspect, or the religious aspect, the bare bones, neutral, scientific argument is that we will have a generation of children not having children, dying of STDs, and an aging population which cannot support itself. To undermine traditional marriage in this manner is to invite the destruction of society as we know it. Need proof?

In 2050 China's policy about killing or surpressing or selling into slavery female babies will have disastrous results, as their projected population demographic includes over 30% of their population being 60 and over. The fact is, their economy will collapse, because their elderly will outnumber their young by hundreds of millions of people. Then there will be euthanasia of the sick elderly in order to save resources.

In the case of gay marriage, endorsing such a lifestyle (sexuality without human reproduction) is already allowing our baby boomer generation to outnumber our dwindling youth. Now, with an entirely new generation of children being exposed to gay culture at a young age, with sex change operations and other perversions becomming normalized, with public school propaganda encouraging sexual activity in young people, with graphic descriptions of sex being taught to PRESCHOOLERS...

This latest stunt of legalizing an illegitimate marriage will cripple our population further by tossing all traditional values out the window, and labeling any opposition to immorality to be "hate speech".

That is my opinion. Now go ahead and flame me for being intolerant. I don't really care. Let Rome burn at this point, many of you only care about yourselves, and never stop to think about how it would affect the innocent children. You are too selfish to be adopting and raising children, because you will not tolerate a viewpoint other than your own about gay marriage, because it makes you feel bad. That's immaturity, it's selfish, and it's sad.