Why are people so afraid of gay marriage?

Sugarglass

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And what is that reason, what is the difference in a man marrying his som and a man marrying another man ?

When a man marries a man, he does so as a sign of his commitment to his partner, and as an expression of their love to the world.

If a man were to enter into a relationship with his son and marry him, this would be a violation of the trust and nurturing relationship that exists between a father and a son. There are different kinds of love, and I personally believe it is wrong for a father/mother, to take advantage of the trust and love their children have for them and try to make it something sexual.

The two relationships are completely different in nature and to compare the two to undermine one is ridiculous.

philologos

Sugarglass wrote: »

When a man marries a man, he does so as a sign of his commitment to his partner, and as an expression of their love to the world.

If a man were to enter into a relationship with his son and marry him, this would be a violation of the trust and nurturing relationship that exists between a father and a son. There are different kinds of love, and I personally believe it is wrong for a father/mother, to take advantage of the trust and love their children have for them and try to make it something sexual.

The two relationships are completely different in nature and to compare the two to undermine one is ridiculous.

This basically comes down to saying, "I find it morally unacceptable therefore it should be illegal".

If we are to engage in the same type of subjectivism that people are seeking in defining marriage, one could say that not everyone views a father - son relationship in the same way as you do?

Are you saying that laws should be based on what society deems to be appropriate rather than merely preventing harm?

Sugarglass

I think in a situation where a man has raised his son from birth, changed his diapers and helped him with his homework, there are severe psychological implications when you change that dynamic to a sexual relationship. Children trust their parents to teach them right from wrong, and to always do what is best for them. If someone was attracted to their children I don't believe it is in the best interests of the child that the parent pursue a relationship. It's not fair considering the amount of control the parent has over the relationship. That is my problem with a man marrying his son/daughter or a woman marrying her son/daughter. The genetic issue is also significant but if this was your only objection, genetic screening, or the use of birth control could prevent children being born with diseases/deformaties.

People seem to object to homosexual relatinships from a moral stand point. Personally I don't see how the way people have sex is an indication of their character or their ability to raise children.

Dades

Jakkass wrote: »

This basically comes down to saying, "I find it morally unacceptable therefore it should be illegal".

Perhaps, but the difference is Sugarglass has outlined why he/she believes it to be immoral. i.e. A potential betrayal of parental responsibilities, affecting an innocent party.

philologos

Dades: I think you'll find many people have outlined why they disagree with gay marriage both in media discussion about it and on this thread so far.

antiskeptic

Sugarglass wrote: »

I think in a situation where a man has raised his son from birth, changed his diapers and helped him with his homework, there are severe psychological implications when you change that dynamic to a sexual relationship. Children trust their parents to teach them right from wrong, and to always do what is best for them. If someone was attracted to their children I don't believe it is in the best interests of the child that the parent pursue a relationship.

We're assuming the child in question is now an adult. If we expect it of them that they be sent off to war and kill others in defence of the realm (in the case that's required) then it's a little bit rich to suggest they aren't capable of deciding who they'd like to form a union with.

People seem to object to homosexual relatinships from a moral stand point. Personally I don't see how the way people have sex is an indication of their character or their ability to raise children.

My objection to homosexual marriage revolves around the resulting dilution in the special position marriage holds in society. This due to gay marraige being recognised as equalling somethng it plainly doesn't equal. Bearing in mind that the benefits and protection given by society to marriage unions reflects the (hoped for) contribution that such unions can be expected to contribute back to society.

- a gay marriage can't produce children and cannot contribute, in and of itself, to the propagation of society. That some unions between men and women fail to result in children (whether due to fertility issues or due to a desire not to have children) is neither here nor there: such fruitless unions can be viewed as "duds" given the stated goal/motivation and must be 'tolerated' by a system that can't micromanage each union so to ensure a return. Tolerating inevitable 'dud's' is an altogether different matter to actively promoting them.

- children can be introduced into gay unions by way of third party help/adoption but such unions deny-by-design any right the child may have to be raised by it's biological parents. There is a difference again between what can be expected to occur from time to time in man/women marriages and what one is designing in from the very outset.

- ultimately, a woman isn't a man to understand, empathise with, teach-through-own-experience.. a boy-child. To argue for recognition of gay marriage as equal-value-to society, when those unions can never hope to compete on equal footing (if by compete we mean "provide balanced, capable, well-adjusted adults into society") is to argue an impossible argument. It's not to say that there aren't dysfunctional marriages or that a gay couple couldn't raise a well-adjusted child. It's whether society should recognise as equal a union that is patently unequal from the get-go. And whether they should encourage a situation where children: their wellbeing and opportunity, are the subject of that inequality.

I think not.

Tricity Bendix

antiskeptic wrote: »

To argue for recognition of gay marriage as equal-value-to society, when those unions can never hope to compete on equal footing (if by compete we mean "provide balanced, capable, well-adjusted adults into society") is to argue an impossible argument. It's not to say that there aren't dysfunctional marriages or that a gay couple couldn't raise a well-adjusted child. It's whether society should recognise as equal a union that is patently unequal from the get-go. And whether they should encourage a situation where children: their wellbeing and opportunity, are the subject of that inequality.

I think not.

Can you prove that children of gay parents are less-adjusted than those raised by heterosexuals?

On gay parents not being abole to procreate, that is clearly false. If society supports marriage because it leads to the creation of children, then children of gay couples count as much as children of straight couples. The gay couples children never would have come in to being without gay parents.

Húrin

antiskeptic wrote: »

- a gay marriage can't produce children and cannot contribute, in and of itself, to the propagation of society. That some unions between men and women fail to result in children (whether due to fertility issues or due to a desire not to have children) is neither here nor there: such fruitless unions can be viewed as "duds" given the stated goal/motivation and must be 'tolerated' by a system that can't micromanage each union so to ensure a return. Tolerating inevitable 'dud's' is an altogether different matter to actively promoting them.

Endless population growth is not desirable. If marriage were really about reproduction, it would not be necessary to micromanage. You could deny marriage to anyone who is infertile, or set an expiry date on it if no children were produced within a certain time.

jaffa20

Jakkass wrote: »

Considering I don't follow Catholicism, I don't think that there is a Biblical prohibition against contraceptives. You do realise there is a prohibition on incestual activity between close relatives legally anyway?

N.B - You are sidetracking a bit by bringing my faith into the discussion.

I am aware of that. I am not sidetracking at all. Your faith is a fundamendal part of your beliefs which keep cropping up, i.e marriage and the redefinition of marriage which always existed between man and women. The family unit, why you are against abortion etc. i merely asked a few questions which you were not able to answer.

antiskeptic

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

Can you prove that children of gay parents are less-adjusted than those raised by heterosexuals?

Wouldn't it be the case that those proposing change prove their own case - especially given that it's the welfare of children we're considering? This I'd suppose to be extremely difficult given the difficulty in extracting accurate and relevant data.

Besides, the self-evident contention is that gay unions cannot compete on equal footing with male/female unions because gay unions will necessarily:

- lack the range of exposure to male/female perspectives that could be expected to contribute to well-adjustment. Where is a child (of either sex) to get it's male role model in a female gay union? Outside the home is a poor 2nd best.

- lack specific role modelling in the special case of same sex-parent-as-child. A homosexual woman can never hope to fulfill the male role model role for a boy-child. How would she intimately know of the very specific issues that concern a developing male?

If you are prepared to redefine well-adjusted so that these failing aren't taken into account in your definition then your case is made. I don't think many who've witnessed what a lack of male role models in eg: single, predominantly female, parent families results in would agree with you

On gay parents not being abole to procreate, that is clearly false. If society supports marriage because it leads to the creation of children, then children of gay couples count as much as children of straight couples. The gay couples children never would have come in to being without gay parents.

A gay union can't produce children ... was my point. It can go outside the union and in doing so structurally deny the child a right to be raised by it's biological parents (witness the effort involved in reconnecting adoptees with biological parents to understand how adoptees consider things). Society protects and supports marriage because it is structured towards creating the children society needs whilst raising them in the ideal environment: biological father present, biological mother present. That this structure isn't perfect, in that it doesn' always produce those goods/environments is neither here nor there - the point is that it is aimed at this goal.

It is not reasonable to demand that society render as equal other union types (whether gay or otherwise) which cannot, per definition, offer an equal return. Nor is it wise to undermine the special postion marriage has by rendering as equal that which clearly isn't.

antiskeptic

Húrin wrote: »

Endless population growth is not desirable. If marriage were really about reproduction, it would not be necessary to micromanage. You could deny marriage to anyone who is infertile, or set an expiry date on it if no children were produced within a certain time.

Endless population growth isn't the issue here - it may be in China where the states interest in marriage/kids is as here but with limitations.

Micromanaging involves the very things that you'vee mentioned above - including the time and expense of testing everyone for fertility.

You seem to have missed the overarching point about protecting an institution which tends towards producing a beneficial-to-society result. And why it is reasonable to object to extending this protection to unions that tend not to.

Tricity Bendix

antiskeptic wrote: »

Wouldn't it be the case that those proposing change prove their own case

Actually, when you assert that gay parents are worse for kids, it is up to you to back up that assertion.

however, I can tell you that the American Phsychological Association holds the belief that there is no reason why gay and lesbian parents should be considered unfit parents, that in some ways they make better parents, and that they are just as likely to provide a supportive home environment for their children.

A gay union can't produce children ... was my point.

Oh, but it can. Children born through IVF, sperm donation or surrogacy are just as valid as children born of more conventional means.

in doing so structurally deny the child a right to be raised by it's biological parents

I wasnt aware children had the right to choose their parents.

Society protects and supports marriage because it is structured towards creating the children society needs whilst raising them in the ideal environment: biological father present, biological mother present. That this structure isn't perfect, in that it doesn' always produce those goods/environments is neither here nor there - the point is that it is aimed at this goal.

On the production of children, gay couples can bring life into this world that would not exist if they were not together. So as far as the continuation of the species argument goes, your point is irrelevent.

As far as promoting the ideal family, I just don't agree with you. I think society should protect all families, be the parents gay or straight, divorced, widowed, mentally unwell, poor etc. Families come in all shapes and sizes. Holding families based on a married man and woman won't make the others disappear. And can you imagine the impact that would occur from telling a child their family is inferior, less legitimate, or somehow unworthy of recognition by society?

If I may quote myself from another thread:

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

I can't believe I'm about to wade into this pointless debate, but, as has been repeatedly pointed out, there are many reasons for why a child may lack either a mother or a father. That doesn't make their family any less legitimate, or any less deserving or state recognition and protection. Ideals are all well and good, but governments should legislate for the reality. It would be great if mothers and fathers never died, or never shirked their responsibilities and abandoned their role as a parent, but it happens. And no amount of wishful idealism will change that fact.

Iwasfrozen

Sugarglass wrote: »

When a man marries a man, he does so as a sign of his commitment to his partner, and as an expression of their love to the world.

If a man were to enter into a relationship with his son and marry him, this would be a violation of the trust and nurturing relationship that exists between a father and a son. There are different kinds of love, and I personally believe it is wrong for a father/mother, to take advantage of the trust and love their children have for them and try to make it something sexual.

The two relationships are completely different in nature and to compare the two to undermine one is ridiculous.

But we are assuming that the son is an adult, and as an adult shouldn't he be entitled to marry whomever he wants ?

Salvelinus

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

But we are assuming that the son is an adult, and as an adult shouldn't he be entitled to marry whomever he wants ?

What about his daughter, and what if she's a hottie? Hubba, hubba

antiskeptic

Sir Baralot wrote: »

Religion has no place within law or the state and for this reason all argumetns against gay marriage are pretty much outdated in my opinion.

1) The religious viewpoint has as much a place within forming the law of the state as has any other viewpoint.

2) Not all arguments against gay marriage are based on religion so your objection fails on that score too.

ChocolateSauce

antiskeptic wrote: »

It is indeed not your business, it's the business of the agency which regulates the institution to decide on such things. Currently that's the government - a representitive of society upon whom is conferred the right to look after it's (societies) interests. And from whom the benefits of marriage are sourced.

So the question is, is it in the interests of society to permit just anything at all when it comes to conferring the benefits of marriage. Given the central role of the traditional (albeit somewhat battered) family unit in it's support of stable society, it's hard to imagine a reasonable case being made for undermining it by way of diluting the special privileges attaching to it. Rather than ask "why shouldn't x, y or z grouping of people be given the right to marry?" the question might be "is it beneficial for society to fund/support these unions?" Because if not - and especially if counter-productive, then I can't see the logic behind the demand to marry - asking as it does, that society fund/support it's shooting its own interests in the foot

Until such a time as the government and society can prove beyond doubt that a marriage between any two people or class of people is harmful to society, who marries isn't their business either.

Tradition is irrelevant. If the tradition is good and makes sense, we do it because it is good and makes sense, if it is bad, it should be discarded.

Salvelinus

antiskeptic wrote: »

1) The religious viewpoint has as much a place within forming the law of the state as has any other viewpoint.

Firemen, guards shouldn't be allowed to work on a sunday. Keep menstruating females away from everyone.

jaffa20

antiskeptic wrote: »

You seem to have missed the overarching point about protecting an institution which tends towards producing a beneficial-to-society result. And why it is reasonable to object to extending this protection to unions that tend not to.

You seemed to have missed the point that the people are the society and so to not allow the benefits of marriage to a small percentage of people because of their orientation, you are in return not allowing that small proportion of "society" to benefit. I think you'll find it's called discrimination.

Also, thinking that this will break tradition is ridiculous with divorces, annulments, marriage for money etc

Forming a family unit should never be a basis for marriage. The true core of marriage should be love and if that exists between 2 parties then there should be no objection to it, regardless of your orientation.

Aard

antiskeptic wrote: »

1) The religious viewpoint has as much a place within forming the law of the state as has any other viewpoint.

Including the viewpoint of homosexuals?

Salvelinus

Aard wrote: »

Including the viewpoint of homosexuals?

But they've got teh ghey

philologos

Aard wrote: »

Including the viewpoint of homosexuals?

Yes, all views should be considered, but no one view should decide on public policy. Of course as citizens of this state homosexuals should let their grievances be known to the Government. I personally don't see why these grievances should be necessarily be about changing the definition of marriage instead of changing the Civil Partnership Bill, but what their grievances are, they are and they should certainly be heard as they have been in the public media recently.

antiskeptic

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Until such a time as the government and society can prove beyond doubt that a marriage between any two people or class of people is harmful to society, who marries isn't their business either.

Given that the benefits and protections accruing to marriage are supplied by society it is very much societies business who marries whom. The onus of proof isn't on society to prove that gay marriages aren't damaging to it's interest. Both sides can present their reasoning and if the judgement of society is that it isn't convinced by the homosexual lobby then so be it. They are entitled to conclude so if the argument against is more compelling

Tradition is irrelevant. If the tradition is good and makes sense, we do it because it is good and makes sense, if it is bad, it should be discarded.

I've no qualms there. Except that what makes sense to one might not be the same sense made to another.

antiskeptic

Aard wrote: »

Including the viewpoint of homosexuals?

Sure.

antiskeptic

jaffa20 wrote: »

You seemed to have missed the point that the people are the society and so to not allow the benefits of marriage to a small percentage of people because of their orientation, you are in return not allowing that small proportion of "society" to benefit. I think you'll find it's called discrimination.

It's not on account of their orientation that I think marriage benefits shouldn't be extended to homosexual couples. I'm arguing that marriage benefits are extended to those who will provide a return considered beneficial to society. If any groupings return isn't considered beneficial then those benefits won't be issued.

Consider it through the lens of the Dragons Den perhaps - the Dragons don't invest their money in businesses that they don't think will provide a return. The Dragons can't be accused of discriminating against anyone - it's the poor return their concerned with.

Also, thinking that this will break tradition is ridiculous with divorces, annulments, marriage for money etc

The point has already been made that unavoidable failures in a system which prevent the desired goal being achieved 100% of the time is NOT a reason to make additions to the system which are structurally counter productive. That tyres get punctured by debris lying on the road at times isn't a reason to go sprinkling more debris on the roads. The lack of perfection in the roads system isn't reason to add more imperfection.

Forming a family unit should never be a basis for marriage. The true core of marriage should be love and if that exists between 2 parties then there should be no objection to it, regardless of your orientation.

You'll find that "family unit" is where many of the benefits/protections accruing to marriage are aimed. By all means set up unions - but if you want marriage then societies interests in you forming a family unit raise their inevitable head.

Marriage is what society holds it to be - not what you hold it to be.

ChocolateSauce

antiskeptic wrote: »

Given that the benefits and protections accruing to marriage are supplied by society it is very much societies business who marries whom.

UN charter of rights wrote:

16.
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

According to this, marriage is a right which society must protect, it is not privilege that society may confer. Ergo, it is not their business who marries who.

The onus of proof isn't on society to prove that gay marriages aren't damaging to it's interest.

If "society" thinks its interest is to have a gay-free environment, then it must be ignored. Otherwise, it is very much up to society to prove gay marriage is harmful. Despite this, the gay side has stepped up and proven its side beyond doubt, so it's the end of the argument on that point. The only argument left is a religious one, which can and should be ignored in a secular/just and civilised society.

ebmma

Em...Why is everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that it is already incredibly hard to adopt for the regular heterosexual couple of perfect citizens?

Even if gay couples were allowed to adopt, they'll get pushed right towards the end of the line with or after single parents trying to adopt.

People seem to have the notion that once gay couples have the right each and every one of them will adopt a kid, which is realistically not going to happen.

As to the role models of opposite sex...Lots of people get raised by 1,2 or more women (say mother and grandmother, aunts, whatever) and the way kids get role models of opposite sex are nice uncles, grandfathers, teachers, sports coaches, etc, etc. It's been the case for years.

Yes, gay parents is not an ideal situation. Neither is a single parent of either sex, teenage parent, being raised by grandparent, etc.
So what I'm trying to say is that priority is not going to go to gay couples for adoption (in the same way as it won't be given to a single parent), but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have a right to try and adopt.

ChocolateSauce

ebmma wrote: »

Yes, gay parents is not an ideal situation.

Why not? Surely the ideal situation is a stable, loving relationship into which children may be brought? Why does the orientation matter?

The answer is it doesn't. It is as irrelevant to rearing a child as to whether a person votes FF or FG. Saying it does is discrimination, whether a person means to or not.

ebmma

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Why not? Surely the ideal situation is a stable, loving relationship into which children may be brought? Why does the orientation matter?

The answer is it doesn't. It is as irrelevant to rearing a child as to whether a person votes FF or FG. Saying it does is discrimination, whether a person means to or not.

I see what you are saying. What I'm trying to say is that in a perfect world every child will have a loving mother and father who love each other and have stable relationship and plenty of time and money to raise the child.
However, we do not leave in the perfect world.

I don't think your analogy with FF/FG counts though. Every child comes from some man and some woman. Who ideally love each other and the child (as I described above). If it is not the case for whatever reason there are other options, other ways to provide a child with a stable, good, loving home. Gay parents are perfectly capable of that.

I don't think that saying that in a perfect situation a child will stay with it's own loving parents is a discrimination against gay couples.

jaffa20

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's not on account of their orientation that I think marriage benefits shouldn't be extended to homosexual couples. I'm arguing that marriage benefits are extended to those who will provide a return considered beneficial to society. If any groupings return isn't considered beneficial then those benefits won't be issued.




The point has already been made that unavoidable failures in a system which prevent the desired goal being achieved 100% of the time is NOT a reason to make additions to the system which are structurally counter productive. That tyres get punctured by debris lying on the road at times isn't a reason to go sprinkling more debris on the roads. The lack of perfection in the roads system isn't reason to add more imperfection.




You'll find that "family unit" is where many of the benefits/protections accruing to marriage are aimed. By all means set up unions - but if you want marriage then societies interests in you forming a family unit raise their inevitable head.

Marriage is what society holds it to be - not what you hold it to be.

Well, you missed my point, people = society. That includes gay people so if it benefits them then it is a benefit to society.

Below are some interesting facts from http://www.heritage.org/research/family/hl-804.cfm

Benefits for Women
For women, despite a whole generation of a movement that has misled them into thinking that marriage is not necessarily in their interest, the evidence proves otherwise.

Studies show that wives are 30 percent more likely to rate their health excellent or good than single women of the same age. In addition, married women (and men) are less likely to suffer long-term chronic illness or disabilities than single women. And mortality rates are less than one-third as high among married women as among non-married women.

Women gain financially as well--marriage increases income by 50 percent for women (25 percent for men)--and domestic violence rates decrease substantially. Married women are far less likely to be victims of intimate-partner violence than divorced, separated, or never-married women. The rate per thousand for divorced or separated women is 31.9; never married women, 11.3; married women, just 2.6.

Benefits for Men
Finally, the evidence shows that marriage benefits men significantly and serves as a civilizing influence on them.

Notably, single men have almost six times the probability of being incarcerated as married men, and men who live with their biological children are more involved in the community and service organizations, more connected to their own siblings, adult children, and aging parents. Fathers living with their children invest more hours per week in work and careers than non-fathers.

Men's financial gains are substantial. Married men make 25 percent more money than single men, and two-parent families are five times less likely to be in poverty than single-parent families.

Their health and quality of life also improve with marriage. Mortality rates are two-thirds as high among married men as among single men. Married men (and women) are less than half as likely as their divorced counterparts to attempt suicide.

Although some of this may be irrelevant, a lot of it is relevant and applicable to both gay and straight couples. You may argue against this based on the family unit but i disagree that the family unit is the main purpose of marriage, there are many reasons to marry and many benefits to society financially and health wise.

See other links below:


http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/december_2000_4.html

ChocolateSauce

ebmma wrote: »

I see what you are saying. What I'm trying to say is that in a perfect world every child will have a loving mother and father who love each other and have stable relationship and plenty of time and money to raise the child.
However, we do not leave in the perfect world.

I don't think your analogy with FF/FG counts though. Every child comes from some man and some woman. Who ideally love each other and the child (as I described above). If it is not the case for whatever reason there are other options, other ways to provide a child with a stable, good, loving home. Gay parents are perfectly capable of that.

I don't think that saying that in a perfect situation a child will stay with it's own loving parents is a discrimination against gay couples.

So you're saying that there is some intrinsic value to being raised by your biological parents that cannot be matched any other way?

What about a child who is born to a surrogate mother, specifically to provide a two gay men with a baby? Or if a lesbian artificially inseminates herself? In these cases the biological parent is never in the picture to being with.

What is important is to have a family, and trust me when I say that biological isn't always ideal. Even if my biological mother wasn't a poor excuse for a human being, she simply could not have raised me as well as my adoptive mother because she hasn't got the same abilities.