Gay marriage

[CH3ezEC4KE]

If I were to say that I didn't support gay marriage, I would be labeled a bigot and a zealot. To be honest, though, this is a stereotype perpetuated by the ugly words of certain individuals in the extreme right. Most people don't think like that at all. The Christians I know who reject homosexuality have compassion and respect for gay people. They regard homosexuality as a sin akin to greed, hatred, or lust. These are flaws that every single person possesses and one should not be held above another - nor should any stigma be attached to a homosexual person.  That's the line of thought i have heard among my friends, anyway.
  Basically, this.

+1

I have no idea where people are getting their info from, saying that the bible is vague on homosexuality. It actually is strongly against it

[Professor Polonsky]

Just out of interest, can anyone here come up with a reason to prohibit same-sex marriage which is not grounded on religious beliefs?

[academicbulimia]

Yes there are many religions that oppose homosexuality, but hey these religious "rules" apply only to those in that religion. Say a man disagreed with gay marriage because of his religion; he’ll make sure he doesn't marry another man to 'obey the rule'. But I believe that does NOT mean that he has the right to dictate if other individuals(who are outside their religion) can/cannot marry, this is simply absurd.

[academicbulimia]

Just out of interest, can anyone here come up with a reason to prohibit same-sex marriage which is not grounded on religious beliefs?

I've heard a few, apparently marriage is traditionally about procreation?
Not my view though.

[AbominableMowman]

Just out of interest, can anyone here come up with a reason to prohibit same-sex marriage which is not grounded on religious beliefs?

If we allow gay marriage, then who knows what will be next, maybe polygamy or even beastiality, which would cause problems..
Not saying its my view but I think it's an argument.

[Lolly]

Just out of interest, can anyone here come up with a reason to prohibit same-sex marriage which is not grounded on religious beliefs?

1) If you didn't believe in the institution of marriage - if you saw it as fundamentally archaic.
2)If you still believed in the institution of marriage as between a man and a woman only, but justified this on grounds that were not religious.
3) If you opposed or persecuted gay people on another ideological basis ( ie: gay people were persecuted during the Nazi regime and Holocaust) ( I deeply apologise for invoking Godwin's law upon this discussion)

[thushan]

If we allow gay marriage, then who knows what will be next, maybe polygamy or even beastiality, which would cause problems..
Not saying its my view but I think it's an argument.

An argument, but not a good one at all. Therefore not a valid one.

Polygamy is okay if all parties consent, bestiality no because animals cannot consent.

[brenden]

I've heard a few, apparently marriage is traditionally about procreation?
Not my view though.

I would quite literally laugh in the face of anyone that said this to me. (not in your face though).. If we deny gay/les marriage solely based on the lakc of procreating ability then we should also prevent people who are infertile from marrying.

[psyxwar]

The old testament is meant for one group of people, the ancient Jews who inhabited Israel. If you have any serious knowledge of biblical scholarship and aren't just cherry picking bad looking lines, i'm sure you'd know this. Many of those punishments, like capital punishment for reasons like this, are suspended in the absence of a proper Jewish religious court (Sanhedrin), even then, the evidence for these things was so strict that it was almost impossible to enforce properly. The old testament as little affect on Christianity in particular because it was replaced by a new covenant with God (the old testament was a covenant between the Jews and God) and most of the old laws were abrogated.

You can't just cherry pick a single line and pretend to be a historical, juristic and religious expert all of a sudden and know everything from that sole line.

I don't claim to have any serious knowledge of biblical scholarship. It's not a matter of cherry-picking bad looking lines; it's the fact that such lines exist in the first place -- why does it matter if it appears once, twice or a thousand times? If it mentions putting homosexuals to death, then that's pretty anti-homosexual is it not?

The thing you've seemed to miss is that I wasn't generalising and saying that Christians or Jews were anti-homosexual; I was merely saying that the Old Testament was anti-homosexual in response to someone's comment that religious scriptures don't explicitly prohibit such relations.

I don't see why it being difficult to enforce has any relevance to the scripture being against homosexuality. Honestly, I think you've misinterpreted my position.

I'd be careful as referring to it as this:

It can be taken as offensive. It adopts the view that the Christian bible with its old and new testaments must be the only right thing and the Jewish scripture is just plain wrong. The old testament is their only testament, it's their only God given holy book. It's not some old, superseded document for Jews, it is the document.

Fair enough. I don't have much knowledge of Judaism and I wasn't aware that such terminology could be offensive.

[Professor Polonsky]

So... So far we have:

1. Marriage is about procreation.

If so, then should we disallow marriages between seniors? How about couples in which one of the partners is infertile? Justice Kagan did an excellent job at demonstrating how stupid this point is in the same-sex marriage case in the US.

JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, suppose a State said, Mr. Cooper, suppose a State said that, Because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55. Would that be constitutional?

MR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, it would not be constitutional.

JUSTICE KAGAN: Because that's the same State interest, I would think, you know. If you are over the age of 55, you don't help us serve the Government's interest in regulating procreation through marriage. So why is that different?

MR. COOPER: Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both couples -- both parties to the couple are infertile, and the traditional -­
(Laughter.)

JUSTICE KAGAN: No, really, because if the couple -- I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage.
(Laughter.)

2. Same-sex marriage would lead to polygamy or bestiality.

In each moral dilemma which comes before us, we have to judge it on its own merits. This way, you don't get those silly slippery slope cases. If you don't see anything wrong with same-sex marriage, then allow it. If you see something wrong with polygamy or bestiality, then don't allow it. (They are both morally interesting questions, but I don't want to drag this off-topic.) By the way, we've allowed gay sex in Victoria since 1981, but bestiality is still very much illegal.

3. You do not believe that civil marriage should exist at all

I'm fine with that. But as long as marriage exists legally, then equal rights should be afforded to everyone regardless of sexual orientation.

4. Belief in marriage as being between a man and a woman, but on non-religious grounds

Which grounds? This is exactly my question, come up with a valid non-religious reason to oppose same-sex marriage.

5. "If you opposed or persecuted gay people on another ideological basis ( ie: gay people were persecuted during the Nazi regime and Holocaust)"

But we agree that this is wrong, no? And therefore, an invalid reason.

[brenden]

Just a note to anyone that wants to utilise the slippery slope argument - be prepared to distinguish between gay marriage and interracial marriage (same argument was used; "it's a monstrosity. It will lead to other monstrosities")

[abeybaby]

I think there is a valid argument - Allowing gay marriage can alter the structure of family. Does being raised by two dads or two mums have any bad consequences? I don't know if it does or not, but there's a point there. Should we then not allow gay married couples to have access to things like IVF? Or would it be better to allow only adoptions (2 dads is better than no dads). I haven't given these points enough thought to formulate an opinion, but on the face of it, i think they constitute valid points

[psyxwar]

To play devil's advocate: Jim Spiegel's argument against gay marriage:

1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).

2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.

3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.

4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.

5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.

6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust.

[Professor Polonsky]

I think there is a valid argument - Allowing gay marriage can alter the structure of family. Does being raised by two dads or two mums have any bad consequences? I don't know if it does or not, but there's a point there. Should we then not allow gay married couples to have access to things like IVF? Or would it be better to allow only adoptions (2 dads is better than no dads). I haven't given these points enough thought to formulate an opinion, but on the face of it, i think they constitute valid points

Good, probably the first point meriting detailed attention

Well, firstly, there's the issue that in many jurisdictions, marriage and adoption are completely two different systems legally. As far as I know, it is entirely possible for a de-facto gay couple in Australia to adopt. In California, same-sex couples have the exact same adoption rights as straight couples. So marriage does not necessarily equate to adoption rights.

Secondly, there is certainly a strong argument to let same-sex couples adopt. Even if a same-sex household is not ideal (questionable, see below), then they would almost certainly still be in a better situation than they were in before.

Thirdly, we allow single parents to adopt. Is that better for the child than a same-sex couple adopting them?

There is no evidence whatsoever which suggests that children raised by same-sex couples are at a disadvantaged position, except due to the bigotry of those around them. They do not suffer from mental health problems at an any greater rate, make just as much or even more money than their peers, and are educated to the same degree as well.

[abeybaby]

^ good points, but

They do not suffer from mental health problems at an any greater rate, make just as much or even more money than their peers, and are educated to the same degree as well.

source?