What social malevolency would legalizing gay marriage have?

Question

Do anti-gay people disapprove for 'just because' reasons only, or do they actually have a reason to be against it?

Answer 1

The objection to gay "marriage" lies not in the behavior of gays, but in the way adoption of that terminology would distort and diminish the meaning of the word marriage, in a vain attempt by some to achieve moral parity. Gay couples CANNOT elevate their social status merely by changing the definition of a word. By diluting the meaning of the word marriage they will poison it, and it will NOT confer the moral equivalence that is desired. Ultimately, people will adopt new terms that distinguish between hetero and gay relationships, because the ability to pro-create is CENTRAL to the propagation of the species and society. The negative connotations they seek to escape are attached to their public behavior, not to any word. While it is true not all hetero couples produce children, it is also true that no other combination is capable of pro-creation.

Many examples of distorting the language are possible, but I will share one: Years ago people with physical defects were referred to as "crippled." That word was perfectly accurate and descriptive, but it eventually grew to carry a negative connotation, so we switched to the word "handicapped." (Remember the "Hire the Handicapped" campaign?) Now that word is out of favor, so we refer to the "disabled" or the "physically challenged." The problem lies not in the words, but in the instinctive and emotional reactions within the minds of the people who hear them.

Marriage as an institution has existed throughout recorded human history. It has the very practical utility of stabilizing the only type of relationship that can produce children, and advance both the species and the culture. I an NOT saying that only couples that are procreating should be allowed to marry, I'm saying that the only way you can created a child is with one man, and one woman. This is why there can be no moral equivalence. Gay couples may raise children, but they cannot produce them.

Perhaps without realizing it, you acknowledge the difference yourself when you use the term gay marriage.

UPDATE - Let's see if I can summarize, to make the logic a bit more obvious.

1) Children are created by the sexual union of one man and one woman.
2) Marriage has existed throughout recoded history, and is a formal social recognition of the TYPE of union that can created children.
3) Children are necessary for a species to continue to exist.
4) The practical utility of marriage is to reduce violence related to competition for mates, and to enhance the survival rate of offspring.
5) Gay unions do not have moral parity BECAUSE they cannot produce children.
6) Marriage has thus been understood to mean one man and one woman throughout history. It carries special status PRECISELY because of the reasons stated above.
7) Broadening the definition of marriage to include gay relationships will not confer special status upon gay couples, it will only dilute the meaning of the word marriage.

That said, I have no problem with gay relationships, and I am in favor of civil unions, so that committed partners have access to the same legal rights as hetero couples.

My ONLY objection is to the attempt to redefine the word marriage. To me, that is socially malevolent. When words lose their meaning, language can no longer be used with precision, which in turn hinders communication and understanding.

Answer 2

I have nothing against gay people. I never have. There is however a limit to acceptance.

Marriage is supposed to a sacrament, a blessing from God on a relationship between a man and a woman so that they may start a family. Gay's want marriage because of all of the legal ties that come with it. It is not a piece of paper. It is not a legal tie. It just ended up that way when the towns and lawyers found out they could turn it into a commodity.

Trying to force churches to accept gay marriage is like trying to force religion into our schools.

Give them the paper, give them the legal ties, but keep your public gayness out of religious sacraments or you are no better then anybody else. Nothing is good enough for people who want everything, and the freedom to be gay should also mean the freedom for others to not accept you for it.

Answer 3

To begin with, I'm not "anti-gay". I'm not necessarily "pro-gay" either. I'm not gay, but I don't have a problem with anybody who is. I believe it is wrong, but it's not up to me to judge anyone else for it.
That being said, here is the main reason I don't believe gay marriage should be legalized. I know quite a number of gays, both males and females, and they are my friends, and I care a great deal about them. And I know them all pretty well. I see and hear the petty "issues" they are constantly having with their partners. Most of them are always complaining about how sad it is that a 3 month relationship is breaking up, and they take as hard as if it were a 3 year relationship or something. If gays are allowed to marry, I can see the nation's divorce courts tied up for years!
I do believe there are truly committed gay relationships, and those relationships should be able to have some sort of Legal Commitment, no matter what they call it.

Answer 4

Imagine the horror of finding out that children raised by gays and lesbians were all around better citizens. Or that those couples pay higher taxes, commit less crime, and have less domestic violence. I ask you, how could we tolerate such a thing???

UPDATE: To "Jay".
You logic is inconsistent. You make the "moral" question hinge on whether the potential for creating children exists - which in itself seems pulled out of thin air - but let's not quibble. Then you go on to excuse the sterile heterosexual couple because OTHER couples like them can reproduce??? That isn't even coherent.

And let's go with that bit of "logic" ... Suppose science could intervene so that the gay couple COULD use their combined genetic material to create a viable embryo? Would that make it "moral?" Why am I thinking that won't do it for you either?

Answer 5

Most of the reasons that come up are based on either misinformation or religious laws. The problem with this is no secular law in the US should have a religious basis as it will automatically be unconstitutional.

Personally, I am still trying to figure out how a marriage of people who live down the street is supposed to affect my marriage by the fact that the other marriage exists.

Answer 6

The reason I hear most people mention is that homosexuality is immoral. I don't think we should legislate morality, I think our laws should be based on freedom, and not infringe on each others rights. Gay people not being allowed to take part in the institution of marriage is discrimination

Answer 7

Weren't we all raised that love is the way out and etc.? Well I see nothing wrong when two people love each other and want to be toghether. Even if they are the same sex. It maks no sense for any one to get in the way of love. There is no reason, unless you count the bible as a valid reason......(i don't).

Answer 8

The reason I hear given is that "no child will come from this union".

What about infertile couples? Hetero couples who choose not to have children? The elderly, who are well beyond child-bearing years?

And don't tell me about "the sanctity of the institution". "It demeans marriage."

Britney Spears 55-hour marriage? Elizabeth Taylor and Mickey Rooney, who have 16 marriages between them? Anna Nicole Smith married that guy for "love"?

Answer 9

before i even get started, i am not "anti-gay"....i don't hate the people, just the lifestyles.....

I am a Christian and therefore follow God's teachings through the Bible...therefore, when i read things from the following verses:

1. Leviticus 18:22 (New International Version)
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable

2. Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version)
13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

3. Romans 1:26-31 (New International Version)
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.


I cannot support homosexuality. My view is that if guys were meant for guys or girls meant for girls, then reproduction would be possible.....it's no coincidence that only a male and female can reproduce. homosexuality is not of God.

Answer 10

From what I've seen, there is no rational answer given, even in the court rulings I've seen. The only reason is the religious or moral philosophies against it.
Unfortunately, I don't think even most judges realize this. There is no non-moralistic reasoning for opposing homosexual marriage.