What would the ramifications of legalizing gay marriage in the United States consist of?

Question

I have a debate in school on Friday, on the subject of gay marriage. I am anti-gay marriage- both in terms of my own personal views, and for the purposes of the debate.

However, this is supposed to serve as practice in a mock court-of-law setting. I am disappointed in myself, because the only objection I can think of at this moment is my religious convictions. That is the only argument I can muster right now, and of course, that sort of religious argument is not valid to be used in a courtroom setting. Rather, scientific facts, relevant statistics, and primary sources are what is required.

Please share your opinions about this very controversial matter- gay marriage.

Do you think it should be legalized in the U.S? Why or why not? (I am aware that it is legal in a few places already- Vermont, Hawai'i, Massachusetts, and perhaps California)

What would gay marriage do the American family?

Your opinions are welcomed- but facts would be even more effective. Thank you!

Answer 1

This was actully posted in reponse to one of my questions. The poster is http://answers.yahoo.com/my/profile;_ylt=Atwaz_GqOVMpOKN9QOd_koIezKIX?show=1cb630e22cf712d81a067ddde9ea384caa
He always posts intelligent and well researched answers.

"First, let's discuss what gay relationships are really all about. The stereotype has it that gays are promiscuous, unable to form lasting relationships, and the relationships that do form are shallow and uncommitted. And gays do have such relationships!

But the important fact to note is that just like in straight society, where such relationships also exist, they are a small minority, and exist primarily among the very young. Indeed, one of the most frequent complaints of older gay men is that it is almost impossible to find quality single men to get into a relationship with, because they're already all 'taken!'

If you attend any gay event, such as a Pride festival or a PFLAG convention, you'll find this to be true. As gays age and mature, just like their straight cohorts, they begin to appreciate and find their way into long-term committed relationships.

The values that such gay couples exhibit in their daily lives are often indistinguishable from those of their straight neighbors. They're loyal to their mates, are monogamous, devoted partners. They value and participate in family life, are committed to making their neighborhoods and communities safer and better places to live, and honor and abide by the law. Many make valuable contributions to their communities, serving on school boards, volunteering in community charities, and trying to be good citizens. In doing so, they take full advantage of their relationship to make not only their own lives better, but those of their neighbors as well.

A benefit to heterosexual society of gay marriage is the fact that the commitment of a marriage means the participants are discouraged from promiscous sex. This has the advantage of slowing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, which know no sexual orientation and are equal opportunity destroyers.

These benefits of gay marriage have changed the attitudes of the majority of people in Denmark and other countries where various forms of gay marriage have been legal for years. Polling results now show that most people there now recognize that the benefits far outweigh the trivial costs, and that far from threatening heterosexual marriage, gay where various forms of gay marriage have been legal for years. Polling results now show that most people there now recognize that the benefits far outweigh the trivial costs, and that far from threatening heterosexual marriage, gay marriage has actually strenghtened it.

So, having established the value of gay marriage, why are people so opposed to it?

Many of the reasons offered for opposing gay marriage are based on the assumption that gays have a choice in who they can feel attracted to, and the reality is quite different. Many people actually believe that gays could simply choose to be heterosexual if they wished. But the reality is that very few do have a choice -- any more than very few heterosexuals could choose which sex to find themselves attracted to.

Additionally, many people continue to believe the propaganda from right-wing religious organizations that homosexuality is about nothing but sex, considering it to be merely a sexual perversion. The reality is that homosexuality is multidimensional, and is much more about love and affection than it is about sex. And this is what gay relationships are based on -- mutual attraction, love and affection. Sex, in a committed gay relationship, is merely a means of expressing that love, just the same as it is for heterosexuals. Being gay is much more profound than simply a sexual relationship; being gay is part of that person's core indentity, and goes right the very center of his being. It's like being black in a society of whites, or a blonde European in a nation of black-haired Asians. Yes, being gay is just that profound to the person who is. This is something that few heterosexuals can understand unless they are part of a minority themselves.


The Arguments Against Gay Marriage

Well, of course there are a lot of reasons being offered these days for opposing gay marriage, and they are usually variations on a few well-established themes. Interestingly, a court in Hawaii has recently heard them all. And it found, after due deliberation, that they didn't hold water.
Here's a summary:

Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. Well, that's the most often heard argument, one even codified in a recently passed U.S. federal law. Yet it is easily the weakest. Who says what marriage is and by whom it is to be defined? The married? The marriable? Isn't that kind of like allowing a banker to decide who is going to own the money in stored in his vaults? It seems to me that justice demands that if the straight community cannot show a compelling reason to deny the institution of marriage to gay people, it shouldn't be denied. And such simple, nebulous declarations, with no real moral argument behind them, are hardly compelling reasons. They're really more like an expression of prejudice than any kind of a real argument. The concept of not denying people their rights unless you can show a compelling reason to deny them is the very basis of the American ideal of human rights.

Same-sex couples aren't the optimum environment in which to raise children. That's an interesting one, in light of who society does allow to get married and bring children into their marriage. Check it out: murderers, convicted felons of all sorts, even known child molesters are all allowed to freely marry and procreate, and do so every day, with hardly a second thought, much less a protest, by these same critics. So if children are truly the priority here, why is this allowed? The fact is that many gay couples raise children, adopted and occasionally their own from failed attempts at heterosexual marriages. Lots and lots of scientific studies have shown that the outcomes of the children raised in the homes of gay and lesbian couples are just as good as those of straight couples. The differences have been shown again and again to be insignificant. Psychologists tell us that what makes the difference is the love and commitment of the parents, not their gender. The studies are very clear about that. And gay people are as capable of loving children as fully as anyone else.

Gay relationships are immoral. Says who? The Bible? Somehow, I always thought that freedom of religion implied the right to freedom from religion as well. The Bible has absolutely no standing in American law, as was made clear by the intent of the First Amendment (and as was very explicitly stated by the founding fathers in their first treaty, the Treaty of Tripoli, in 1791) and because it doesn't, no one has the right to impose rules anyone else simply because of something they percieve to be a moral injunction mandated by the Bible. Not all world religions have a problem with homosexuality; many sects of Buddhism, for example, celebrate gay relationships freely and would like to have the authority to make them legal marriages. In that sense, their religious freedom is being infringed. If one believes in religious freedom, the recognition that opposition to gay marriage is based on religious arguments is reason enough to discount this argument.

Marriages are for procreation and ensuring the continuation of the species. The proponents of this argument are really hard pressed to explain, if that's the case, why infertile couples are allowed to marry. I, for one, would love to be there when the proponent of such an argument is to explain to his post-menopausal mother or impotent father that since they cannot procreate, they must now surrender their wedding rings and sleep in separate bedrooms. That would be fun to watch! Again, such an argument fails to persuade based on the kinds of marriages society does allow routinely, without even a second thought, and why it really allows them - marriage is about love, sharing and commitment; procreation is, when it comes right down to it, in reality a purely secondary function.

The proponents of the procreation and continuation-of-the-species argument are going to have a really hard time persuading me that the human species is in any real danger of dying out anytime soon through lack of reproductive success.

If ten percent of all the human race that is gay were to suddenly, totally refrain from procreation, I think it is safe to say that the world would probably be significantly better off. One of the world's most serious problems is overpopulation and the increasing anarchy and human misery that is resulting from it. Seems to me that gays would be doing the world a really big favor by not bringing more hungry mouths into a world that is already critically overburdened ecologically by the sheer number of humans it must support. So what is the useful purpose to be served in mindlessly encouraging yet more human reproduction?

Same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage. Well, that one's contradictory right on the face of it. Threaten marriage? By allowing people to marry? That doesn't sound very logical to me. If you allow gay people to marry each other, you no longer encourage them to marry people to whom they feel little attraction, with whom they most often cannot relate adequately sexually, bringing innocent children into already critically stressed marriages. By allowing gay marriage, you would reduce the number of opposite-sex marriages that end up in the divorce courts. If it is the stability of the institution of heterosexual marriage that worries you, then consider that no one would require you or anyone else to participate in a gay marriage. You would still have freedom of choice, of choosing which kind of marriage to participate in -- something more than what you have now. And speaking of divorce -- to argue that the institution of marriage is worth preserving at the cost of requiring involuntary participants to remain in it is a better argument for reforming divorce laws than proscribing gay marriage.

Marriage is traditionally a heterosexual institution. This is morally the weakest argument. Slavery was also a traditional institution, based on traditions that went back to the very beginnings of human history - further back, even, than marriage as we know it. But by the 19th century, humanity had generally recognized the evils of that institution, and has since made a serious effort to abolish it. Why not recognize the truth -- that there is no moral ground on which to support the tradition of marriage as a strictly heterosexual institution, and remove the restriction?

Same-sex marriage is an untried social experiment. The American critics of same-sex marriage betray their provincialism with this argument. The fact is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Denmark since 1989 (full marriage rights except for adoption rights and church weddings, and a proposal now exists in the Danish parliament to allow both of those rights as well), and most of the rest of Scandinavia from not long after. Full marriage rights have existed in many Dutch cities for several years, and it was recently made legal nationwide, including the word "marriage" to describe it. In other words, we have a long-running "experiment" to examine for its results -- which have uniformly been positive. Opposition to the Danish law was led by the clergy (much the same as in the States). A survey conducted at the time revealed that 72 percent of Danish clergy were opposed to the law. It was passed anyway, and the change in the attitude of the clergy there has been dramatic -- a survey conducted in 1995 indicated that 89 percent of the Danish clergy now admit that the law is a good one and has had many beneficial effects, including a reduction in suicide, a reduction in the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and in promiscuity and infidelity among gays. Far from leading to the "destruction of Western civilization" as some critics (including the Southern Baptist, Mormon and Catholic churches among others) have warned, the result of the "experiment" has actually been civilizing and strengthening, not just to the institution of marriage, but to society as a whole. So perhaps we should accept the fact that someone else has already done the "experiment" and accept the results as positive. The fact that many churches are not willing to accept this evidence says more about the churches than it does about gay marriage.

Same-sex marriage would start us down a "slippery slope" towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all kinds of other horrible consequences. A classic example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy, it is calculated to create fear in the mind of anyone hearing the argument. It is, of course, absolutely without any merit based on experience. If the argument were true, wouldn't that have already happened in countries where forms of legalized gay marriage already exist? Wouldn't they have 'slid' towards legalized incest and bestial marriage? The reality is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Scandinavian countries for over many years, and no such legalization has happened, nor has there been a clamor for it. It's a classic scare tactic - making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken. Such are the tactics of the fear and hatemongers.

If concern over the "slippery slope" were the real motive behind this argument, the advocate of this line of reasoning would be equally vocal about the fact that today, even as you read this, convicted murderers, child molesters, known pedophiles, drug pushers, pimps, black market arms dealers, etc., are quite free to marry, and are doing so. Where's the outrage? Of course there isn't any, and that lack of outrage betrays their real motives. This is an anti-gay issue and not a pro marriage issue.

Granting gays the right to marry is a "special" right. Since ninety percent of the population already have the right to marry the informed, consenting adult of their choice, and would even consider that right a fundamental, constitutionally protected right, since when does extending it to the remaining ten percent constitute a "special" right to that remaining ten percent? As Justice Kennedy observed in his opinion overturning Colorado's infamous Amendment 2 (Roemer vs. Evans), many gay and lesbian Americans are, under current law, denied civil rights protections that others either don't need or assume that everyone else along with themselves, already have. The problem with all that special rights talk is that it proceeds from that very assumption, that because of all the civil rights laws in this country that everyone is already equal, so therefore any rights gay people are being granted must therefore be special. That is most assuredly not the case, especially regarding marriage and all the legal protections that go along with it.

Sodomy should be illegal and was until very recently. Ah, the ol' sodomy law argument! Why was sodomy illegal in so many states for so long? Because conservative religionists (at whose behest those laws were enacted in the first place) historically blocked or vigorously resisted attempts to repeal them in every state, and were horrified when the U.S. Supreme Court recently overturned the ones that remained.

Indeed, those laws were very rarely enforced (though it did happen), yet there was very stiff and angry opposition to their repeal. Why? Because they were a great tool for a homophobe to use as a basis for legalized discrimination. "Why should I rent an apartment to you, an unconvicted felon?" "I can't have an admitted criminal on my staff." "You're an unconvicted felon. I want you out of my restarurant and off my property." "I don't want you around my children. You're a sex offender!" These were very real, actual arguments that were used frequently as a basis for legalized discrimination, using largely unenforced sodomy laws. So even though this particular moral crusade of the religionists using the power of the police has ended, at least for now, the sodomy laws that made them possible are still being pushed, and pushed hard. Crass politicians, including even president George W. Bush, see votes in homophobia, and continue to push for sodomy law reinstatement as a means of securing those votes. And such laws, which have thoroughly discriminatory effects by intention, will likely will be advocated for as long as politicians see votes in allowing conservative religionists to impose their morality on others, regardless of the violence this does to the intent of the Bill of Rights.

Heterosexuals would never stand for such intrusion into their private sex lives, of course, but the homophobes among them seem to see nothing wrong in using the power of the state to enforce their prejudices. State court systems, however, long ago began to see the violation of the Fourth Amendment in such laws, and nearly as many state sodomy laws were overturned as unconstitutional by state supreme courts as were repealed by state legislatures, before the recent U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence vs. Texas decision which very pointedly overturned all that remained.

Gay marriage would mean forcing businesses to provide benefits to same-sex couples on the same basis as opposite-sex couples. While this may or may not be true (based primarily on state labor laws), the reality is that many businesses already do offer these benefits to gay couples, and for sound business reasons. And experience has shown that when they do, the effect on their costs for offering these benefits is minimal - very rarely does the cost of benefits offered to gay couples cause the business' benefits costs to rise by more than 1.5%. This trivial cost is usually far more than offset by the fact that the company is seen as being progressive for having offered these benefits - making its stock much more attractive to socially progressive mutual funds and rights-conscious pension funds and individual investors, and thus increasing upwards pressure on its price. This is why so many corporations, including most of the Fortune 500, already offer these benefits without being required to do so - it's just good business sense.

Gay marriage would force churches to marry gay couples when they have a moral objection to doing so. This argument, usually advanced by churches that oppose gay marriage, is simply not true. There is nothing in any marriage law, existing or proposed, anywhere in the United States, that does or would have the effect of requiring any church to marry any couple they do not wish to marry. Churches already can refuse any couple they wish, and for any reason that suits them, which many often do, and that would not change. Some churches continue to refuse to marry interracial couples, others interreligious couples, and a few refuse couples with large age disparities and for numerous other reasons. Gay marriage would not change any church's right to refuse to sanctify any marriage entirely as they wish - it would simply offer churches the opportunity to legally marry gay couples if they wish, as some have expressed the desire to do - the freedom of religion would actually be expanded, not contracted."

Answer 2

Hi, actually -- there is nothing relevant except religion -- and I congratulate you on recognizing it.

As for what homosexual marriage would do to the American family -- nothing. That's part of what is called the Zero Sum fallacy. The idea goes, you can't have something that you don't have now unless you take something away from me (in this case the you being gays, the something being marriage and the me being heterosexuals who dislike gays).

The gay marriage fight is really a battle between two groups of religious denominations - Christian and other in both cases. That battle is being missed by the media, and I believe that the battle threatens democracy in America.

One of the reasons for the Revolution, in which ancestors of mine fought -- was to establish freedom of religion in the new nation. Now, we are throwing that away, because contrary to what those on the Right would like you to think, this is not a battle between "people of faith" and "atheists" or some such -- this is a battle between two groups of people of faith, using the government to establish one sides views -- the EXACT THING that the anti-establishmentarian clause of the Constitution is there to prevent.

Of course no one should "make" those whose faiths oppose gay marriage perform such marriages, and no one ever would. So ministers from the Southern Baptists and Assemblies of God and Ultra-Orthodox Jews and Fundamentalist Muslims should never be asked to perform gay marriages, and certainly not forced to.

On the other hand, why should faith groups that support gay marriage -- such as the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian/Universalist Society, the North American Spiritualist Church, Reform Judaism, and the Correllian Tradition of Wicca -- all recognized Churches and 501c3s be barred from practicing their religious faith, which says it is ok to marry same sex couples?

The first group of faith groups is realistically using the government to prevent the second group of faith groups from practicing what they believe. The founders tried to prevent this, for the stability of the country. It doesn't matter that everyone "thinks" they are right and others are wrong -- it matters that we are plural as a society and the government should recognize everyone's ceremonies the same -- which means that gay marriages committed by churches and faith groups that believe in gay marriages, should be honored by the government regardless of what groups that don't like it say.

Everyone's beliefs can be honored, thus preserving the values that my 12 times removed Great Grandfather died for -- but not if we allow one side to legislate away the rights of the other side.

And that's what I think. If you want/need to talk to me, feel free to email me. Otherwise, good luck with your discussion -- this is more background than anything else, but its the best I can do for you.

Regards,

Reynolds Jones
http://www.rebuff.org
[e-mail]

PS Be careful not to use false statistics. I have no idea what people will offer you -- but there are some bogus statistics running around on the contra- side that have been ripped in peer review -- not that anyone would figure that out in a H/S debate, but you seem bright and might want to avoid statistics that are untrue or made up -- regardless.

Answer 3

D.K. is right, religious views asside there IS no other reason. I can however give the common lies used by the Anti-Gay/Anti-Gay Marriage lobbies.
1. Lie: Gays spread AIDS.
Fact: 40% of new AIDS cases each year in this country are found among single, heterosexual women. The smallest percentage of new cases is among Lesbians, who tend to be the least promiscuous of any sexual lifestyle.
2. Lie: Gays pose a threat to children, because they can't reproduce and have to recruit.
Fact: Gay child molestation overall is the rarest kind (less than 10%), with lesbian child molestation at less than 1%, and a whopping 90% of all child molesters exclusively hetero-sexual. As to the need to recruit, more gay people are being born everyday, they've always been there and always be, denial of this is one more example of Christian bigotry.
3. Lie: Gay couples are unable to provide healthy environments for children.
Fact: Study after study, including extensive interviews with children raised by same-sex couples, show no statistical variance in how the kids turn out. One might also address the question of why, when heterosexual couples are throwing babies in dumpsters, gay couples who want to take those children in are being denied the chance, how is that preserving family values?

It is a basic rule of rhetoric that you should never allow facts to influence your arguments. If there is no factual or logical basis to counter your opponants position, make up something you can counter and keep repeating that that is what was said, denying all evidence to the contrary. The proof that this works is that huge numbers of people who reject the Bible still except the anti-gay position.
By the way, I'm not gay, I'm just a guy who likes to get his facts straight and despises both hypocracy and bad logic, but you shouldn't just take my word for any of this, as long as you avoid Christian web sites, the facts I've stated are well documented and readily available to the public.
Good luck with your debate.

Answer 4

Unfortunately, there are a WHOLE LOT of people that disagree with same-sex marriage. There are 5 states that has legalized it, but for the whole country to legalize it, ALL the states have to agree with it (including the people in those states), they gotta send it to congress, then the president (or however, they do it lol). It's going to take a lot to legalize it. A lot of people are against it because they see it as wrong and against nature. I would honestly vote for it. It's not hurting anyone, and if they love each other, let them get married.

Answer 5

I support gay marriage, as I don't see anything wrong with it. The only change would be that more people would have access to health/tax/etc benefits due to their legal marital status.

The American family would not change just because of a piece of paper. If a couple lives together, and raises a healthy, happy child, the family dynamic is not going to change because of the piece of paper.

In my opinion, it's all about the rights that everyone deserves, whether gay, straight, transgendered, anything.

If Catholics don't want to allow gay marriages in their church, the government should not force them. Conversely, if the government wants to allow gay marriage since it assists with equal rights & partner benefits, the Catholic church should not have a say. Separation of church and state, that's what it's all about.

Answer 6

First things first! We should be allowed to get married because everyoneelse in the USA can! Bible thumpers have used he bible to oppress every minority group there is. Women, Blacks, and now gays! ALl were at one point oppressed and the BIBle was the book that gave them the reason to justofy thier actions. Those have all changed so why hasn this one? Did not Jesus teach Love,Tolerance, and Peace> Above all he commanded us not to judge, let others be and always preach the good word and salvation through hios sacrifice and his fathers name. Not bash Homo's or even judge them. I dont agree with Drug Abuse but im not hating nor judging addicts, nor do I think THEY shouldnt marry!
Another thing is PLENTY of Single parents have raised successfuly, productive and responsible kids. YOu do not need two parents. Does two help? YES! BUt it doesnt matter if its a man and man or a man and a Woman!

Answer 7

Socially, the ramifications of gay marriage allows people who've been together for a long time to be with their loved ones in their death beds, to inherit, to adopt, to file taxes together, to claim health benefits at work, etc. It would not affect anyone in anyway, so the only case against it would be Xtian, which should not have any impact on this country due to separation of church and state--but it still does due to the strong fundamental influence the church holds on the gov't.

Answer 8

Other than religious reasons, there IS no valid reason.
I hate to put it like that, I've heard all the arguments against and they're all based on religious views, I have yet to hear a valid argument against gay marriage that doesn't involve God.

Answer 9

Gay marriage isn't going to affect the American family because they will become part of the American family! Gay marriage isn't going to affect anyone except gay people! Gay people have the same right to be happy as straight people! I don't understand why people don't want everyone to be happy!!

Answer 10

The traditional / Biblical family is the backbone of American society. As the family goes, so the society.

If you look at how the increase in illegitimate births and divorce have changed the social mores and financial attitude of the family.

Children who grow up without the love and support of a father have a higher chance at failing in school, are easily drawn into criminal acts and delinquency at an early age, and are more prone to spending a large part of thier life beind bars.

Thus, two woman trying to act as a mother and father can not give the same balance of influence a child gets from a father and a mother. Just as two men trying to act as father and mother can not give a child the balance of influence needed.

Homosexuallity goes against the very nature of procreation and fabric of a family.

Genesis 2:18

Now the Lord God said, It is not good (sufficient, satisfactory) that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper meet (suitable, adapted, complementary) for him.

Genesis 2:17-19 (in Context) Genesis 2 (Whole Chapter)
# Genesis 2:22
And the rib or part of his side which the Lord God had taken from the man He built up and made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.
Genesis 2:21-23 (in Context) Genesis 2 (Whole Chapter)

Genesis 2:23
Then Adam said, This [creature] is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of a man.
Genesis 2:22-24 (in Context) Genesis 2 (Whole Chapter)

Genesis 2:24
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall become united and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Genesis 2:23-25 (in Context) Genesis 2 (Whole Chapter)


God intended for two people (one man and one woman) to join together in order to procreate. Two women "together" or two men "together" can not procreate.

Answer 11

all you're going to get here are opinions
try searching some legal data bases and some gay rights sites for more factual info
it should be legal, gay people have the right to screw up kids and get divorced just like us straight people,LOL. we say it's such a sacred institution but look at how we treat it.... they can't possibly do any worse