Is THIS the question that NO opponent of same-sex marriage will EVER be able to answer?

Question

SCENARIO --

A same-sex couple in a community has been cohabitating in a community for 20 years. Then, one day, there no longer is any law prohibiting same-sex marriage, so they get legally married.

QUESTION --

Presumably, all those so-called "defense of marriage acts" up until then were for the purpose of defending so-called "traditional" (i.e., opposite-sex) marriage against SOMETHING. So tell me this: Just HOW will the marriage of ANY opposite-sex married couple in that community be harmed in ANY way by that formerly-cohabitating gay couple's having gotten legally married?

(I have yet to find ANY anti-gay-rights bigot who has been able to answer that.)

To "da3rdxsacharm" -- You claim that there are (presumably-valid) arguments against gay marriage, and that "I know that." Sorry, but I know NO such thing. I have NEVER heard ANY argument against same-sex marriage that I would regard to be in any way credible or valid.

To "shelleighgirl" -- Nice TRY with that silly strawman argument, but NO cigar. There's no comparison. Marriage requires mutual CONSENT by *both* contractees. So human-animal marriage would never be possible. (Although, even if it *were* possible, it probably would be totally harmless. Since with marriage or not, any farmer feeling inclined to make it with a goat can feel free to do so.)

As for same-sex marriage -- I can't think of anything that could be any more HARMLESS than that. Or more fair and sensible.

To "czborak2001" -- I just gave you a "thumbs-up" because you made it clear that you are an egalitarian, despite your well-reasoned overall discussion. And standing up for the individual rights of others is what COUNTS for egalitarian defenders of human and civil rights like me. You made interesting points, but you never advocated *depriving* same-sex marriage to anyone. And that's very good.

Answer 1

There is absolutely nothing that gay couples can do to destroy the institution of marriage that straight couples haven't already done.

Answer 2

I'm not sure how to answer your question, but I'm not sure exactly WHY an "anti-gay bigot" (I'm not one!) would need to.



Although motives are able to be deduced in obvious situations, they mustn't be exaggerated.

What I MEAN to say is that the "defense of marriage acts" by name are inevitably protecting marriage against "something"
(like you said)
The 'defense of marriage' legislators as far as legal matters go (cuz we can't say their heart's motives), are defending (traditional) marriage as an Opposite-sex union against non-tradional marriage. Thats it.

They are NOT protecting it from gay relationships, Love (of the more open sense), nor from some abstract, unnameable force. Also defending the INSTITUTION of opposite-sex marriage, not the little couples that are a part of it.

Therefore, it is not the marriages of the opposite-sex couples that the laws are worried about. Of course the marriage of a same-sex couple or any couple cannot hurt other ppl; moment's of silence, which are just gaps of soundless time, have been fought , even though THEY don't hurt others either.

Anyway, the scenario with the cohabitating gay couple seems to suggest that the government is fighting gays themselves and the gay "agenda." When in fact, all that we can assume from their stance on the "protection of marriage"is that they wish to keep marriage as a man-woman institution. Heck, the gov't may very well have it out for us... but that can't really be said with matters of the courtroom and legislation. :(

So the question is unanswerable, in ways, but for different reasons than would be expected. Rather, it's almost as if they wouldn't need to answer the question. The gov't is fight to protect marriage from being redefined. Contrarily, they are not fighting to protect each straight couple's marriage from the dreaded Attack of the ever-so-DREADFUL gay couples.

Answer 3

I hesitated to answer your question because of the way it was posed. A true question does not pre-suppose the answer. Regardless, I believe we need to distinguish a few points first:
Look at the definition of "marriage":
–noun 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
You may disagree with this definition, however this is a culturally accepted definition. If you wish to change or expand the definition, that is another matter.
I believe, although I may be incorrect, that the "anti-gay rights bigots" as you objectively call them, do not argue that gay marriage harms the marriages of heterosexual couples, they merely argue that you are attempting to expand the definition of marriage.
Your use of the phrase "so called traditional" is false; the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman is truly traditional; if you mock the very concept of tradition, what is the purpose of wishing to participate in the tradition of marriage in the first place? That seems to be sour grapes on your part.
Let us look at the concept of "expanding the definition", if you will. I believe that (just as an example) most of us agree that the concept of the group "Jews for Jesus" is an attempt to expand the definition in a way that does not logically fit. One cannot, by definition, be Jewish and believe in the divinity of Christ. Am I an antisemite for stating this? Of course not.
Do I personally oppose gay "marriage"? No, I do not. Yes, I realise that some oppose homosexuality on biblical grounds and people have a right to that opinion, as long as they to not infringe on the rights of others.
I do believe, however, that some people feel that by attempting to permit gay marriage, it dilutes the tradition of marriage (see definition of marriage above), and therefore dilutes the value of their vows.
I do understand that marriage was originally a religious AND civil ceremony/tradition and has now become (to some) a civil contract only. If one views marriage as only a civil contract, then gay marriage would logically be permissable, as a contract between two loving, consenting adults. But if one views marriage as either an exclusively religious or civil/religious ritual, then gay marriage is, by definition, a distortion of the ritual.
I believe that most people do not object to gay civil unions, merely to the label of marriage. I would hope with all my heart that we, as a society, can reach a tolerant and loving compromise. Would it be unacceptable to call gay marriage, civil unions instead? Or do some feel that that demeans their love for each other?
In closing, not everyone who opposes "gay marriage" is an "anti-gay rights bigot". I have heard the arguments that heterosexuals have made such a mess of marriage that how could homosexuals possible do any worse? This is an argument that is compelling, but false. It is along the lines of thinking that since so many Catholic priests have disgraced themselves by molesting children, why not let Muslims run the Catholic church, as they could not possible screw up things any more than they already are. Many would laugh and say, "Yes, why not"?, but again, by definition, Muslims are not Catholics and marriage is defined as a SOCIAL institution where a man and a woman annonce their commitments through religious AND civil means.
In closing, can we all agree that all people are equal, with equal rights, dreams and obligations? I am not a fundamentalist Christian, nor am I a homophobe, I merely wish to add some clarity to the discussion. Feel free to insult me and demean my intentions, but in my heart, I can only state what I believe to be true. I have an open mind about ideas, and if I can be persuaded that I am incorrect, I will freely admit it.
Finally, this post is merely my opinion that I wish to add to the discussion in a respectful manner. Thanks.

Answer 4

Of course you haven't!
That's because bigots are what they are, out of ignorance. You might as well discuss calculus in a pig pen.

The problem with bigots is that reason is lost on them so you can never convince them of anything. JUST IGNORE THEM.

Most laws now are interpreted by judges with the concept of justice for all taken into account. That is why I say that it is just a matter of time before the courts order gay marriage to be permitted as a matter of equal rights under the law, just as we have done here in Canada. The ones who don't like it can go join their friends in holed up in underground fortresses in Montana.

Answer 5

Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.
Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.
Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.
Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.
Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.
Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.
Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.
Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.
Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.

I'm trying to use the same logic as the bigots..... but it doesn't make any sense to me....

Answer 6

I wonder if those who complain that allowing gays to marry somehow destroys the meaning of their own marriages ever took their marriage vows seriously in the first place.

I've tried to point out the parallel between the parable of the workers in the field who accepted the terms offered by their employer but who then complained when he gave the same terms to late-comers with those who think their marriage vows have less meaning because gays also allowed to make them, but the concept drew nothing but confusion or blank stares -- and complaints that I was quoting the Bible out of context (like that is a privilege extended only to the fundies).

I think the underlying sentiments are, "I've got mine, and I'll be damned if I let you have any!" and "If I let you have the same rights and privileges as me, how can I pretend that I'm superior to you?"

Answer 7

They can't because they just use same sex relationships and all the issues that surround us as a reason to b**ch. Instead of complaining about the real problems like violence and the ozone layer. maybe cause those problems they would have to get off the couch and to do something about them. To complain about me all they have to do is write a letter to the editor and every once in a while make a little donation to thier local senator.

Answer 8

Great question. My wife and I have been married for 27 years now. I have yet to figure out how allowing gay couples to marry will in any way place our marriage in jeopardy. I have always believed the only two people who can do that are my wife and I. If the survivability of someones marriage hinges on who else gets married then that marriage is in a pretty sad state anyway.

Answer 9

You're looking for depth in words that have none.

Defining marriage is a moral issue for people to tackle, and you're talking about semantics. The words are wind. The meaning is everything. You sound excited about labeling. What the mainstream wants is for the moral definition of marriage to stay the same, as being a male-female union.
People find harm in having their traditions altered without sufficient reason to do so. This undermines their sense of belonging and well-being. Having ANY important cultural tradition taken away (and changing it quickly IS taking it away), is about as harmful as can be done. The inclusion of same sex couples to a widely-held state of beliefs through legal injunction is simply too abrupt.

I'll offer an example, and go.

The USSR banned the expression of certain religious celebration through legal means. This reduced the number of participants, but hardened the belief of a core group of people. Ultimately, the abrupt change failed, and caused a resurgence of belief.

Now, at the same time in the wider world, the influence of secular culture caused a massive decrease in the number of the same type of participants of these same religious celebrations.

Which was more successful, in this case? The gradual acceptance of a decreased role of religious celebration, or the use of legal means to ramrod something completely down an unwilling people's throats?

Now, back you your debate: can you see now how counterproductive the currently- state-mandated recognition of gay marriage is? Nothing has done more harm to acceptance of same-sex couples in the wider society in living memory.

Anyhow, good luck to you.

Answer 10

If allowing gays and lesbians to marry is so threatening to the heterosexual institution of marriage, then lets go another route. Give us ALL the RIGHTS and privileges extended to married couples and call it whatever you like.

The term "married" isn't as important to me personally as the aspects that come automatically with being married. Give us those things with a different name and your institution of marriage won't be destroyed by us loving gay and lesbian couples trying to protect our families.

Answer 11

Let me add ANOTHER slippery slope argument Why should straight people be allowed to marry. That is just going to lead to GAY people wanting to get married too! So maybe we should ban ALL straight marriages as well. These straight marriages are going to lead to same-sex marriages, which EVERYONE knows lead to bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, hurricanes in New Orleans, and probably also the war in Iraq!

If one part of the slope is slippery, it ALL is!