Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Joseph Antley

Why Am I Against Gay Marriage?

Recommended Posts

Why is gay marriage so bad? I understand the religious views, but I don't like trying to force my religious views in law. I'm pretty conflicted on this issue. I know that homosexual activity is a sin, but why should I care if homosexuals can "marry" each other? It's all about a label, isn't it? Or should I not want them to get tax benefits?

Share this post


Link to post
Why is gay marriage so bad? I understand the religious views, but I don't like trying to force my religious views in law. I'm pretty conflicted on this issue. I know that homosexual activity is a sin, but why should I care if homosexuals can "marry" each other? It's all about a label, isn't it? Or should I not want them to get tax benefits?

On Tuesday, October 28, 2008, Princeton Professor Robert George presented a BYU Forum entitled, "On the Moral Purposes of Law and Government" that is available on mp3 at the BYU broadcasting page as follows:

http://www.byub.org/devotionals/?selectedM...lectedYear=2008

Mr. George's bio is available at the following:

http://www.princeton.edu/politics/people/b...l?netid=rgeorge

I downloaded the presentation and listened to it.

Up until listening to Mr. George, I felt indifferent to SSM.

Up until listening to Mr. George, not even the post-election antics of some prop 8 opponents motivated me to take interest (despite those antics being very destructive to their own cause and has led me to see that movement's potential.)

Personally, after seeing the post-election conduct of prop 8 opponents, and after listening to Mr. George, I realize that I may not be able to remain indifferent for long.

Respectfully,

Mark Hannig

Share this post


Link to post
Why is gay marriage so bad? I understand the religious views, but I don't like trying to force my religious views in law. I'm pretty conflicted on this issue. I know that homosexual activity is a sin, but why should I care if homosexuals can "marry" each other? It's all about a label, isn't it? Or should I not want them to get tax benefits?

How are yu gonna explain to your 5 year old child why "Joe" and "Joe" whom live togeher down the street, are also legally married? Thats what this is all about in its entirety; Moral decline. :P

Share this post


Link to post
How are yu gonna explain to your 5 year old child why "Joe" and "Joe" whom live togeher down the street, are also legally married? Thats what this is all about in its entirety; Moral decline. :P

"Joe and Joe were born different than us. You see, most boys love girls and most girls love boys. However, in Gods infinite wisdom, he made some boys love boys and some girls love girls. Joe and Joe are some of Gods children who were born like this. They love each other very much, just as your father and I do, and deserve all the happiness that the committment of marriage has brought to our family."

Pretty simple, I think.

Just curious, but how do you explain to your 5 year old about the neighbor that drinks coffee, or beer, or smokes, or any other host of LDS "sins" that are not sins to the rest of the world?

Share this post


Link to post

Joseph,

I think what you are really asking for is a principle which distinguishes between moral beliefs which you feel are justifiably mandated by law and those moral beliefs which are not justifiably mandated by law.

I think you'd agree with me that moral beliefs about what constitutes direct harm are validly part of what kinds of laws one mandates. Similarly, beliefs about relative moralities (like, say, drinking wine, which is only sinful if one makes a covenant to not do it, or God directly tells you not to do it) are probably not validly part of the reasons we can use to justify laws.

Many people believe that "gay marriage" directly harms others, including children when they are indoctrinated in schools. Others believe that "gay marriage" directly harms society as a whole by equating a holy and beautiful union (marriage) with an unholy and sinful union. Others believe that God has directed them to pass such laws (either through direct revelation, or via prophetic counsel). Some believe that there is not direct harm, and thus do not see any negatives to supporting gay marriage. etc...

I personally believe that gay unions are harmful to society, in many ways, and especially to children who deserve to have their mother and father together in a marriage. I do not believe that contracted friendships deserve or merit the same priviledges as marriage. But if you want some non-religious reasons, try the website: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF04G01

Best,

Zeta-Flux

Share this post


Link to post

My 7-year old asked about what it meant for someone to be gay this weekend. Scotties little dialog almost captured what I said verbatim. And she understood it pretty well.

See, if a kid is old enough to make a choice about being baptized at 8, why not think they can understand the nuance of marriages as they occur in all their peculiarities in the world today? By school age, they know single parent families, kids whos parents are not married, and kids who probably have issues at home that you can't imagine. My daughter catches me with some of her questions. I think that is one of the worse arguments in this debate.

As to kids who are brought up in these families I find the recent rulings in Florida on gay adoption to be very promising as they are the first court where the studies suggesting that kids living in families with gay parents are more likely to have social issues were put to the test against studies that suggested there is no difference. You should read up on that.

Share this post


Link to post
See, if a kid is old enough to make a choice about being baptized at 8, why not think they can understand the nuance of marriages as they occur in all their peculiarities in the world today?
The question isn't whether or not they understand the nuances. The question is whether or not they are being told the truth.
As to kids who are brought up in these families I find the recent rulings in Florida on gay adoption to be very promising as they are the first court where the studies suggesting that kids living in families with gay parents are more likely to have social issues were put to the test against studies that suggested there is no difference. You should read up on that.
And we can trust that these justices are trained scientists, with no biases, able to distinguish and test these studies, because...?

By the way, nobody has said that individual gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender/questioning couples make worse parents (except idiots). It would be patently false. They make fine parents, just as do single mothers and fathers, or grandparents. The question is whether the *institution* of gay unions is less optimal to society as a whole, and children in particular.

Share this post


Link to post
As to kids who are brought up in these families I find the recent rulings in Florida on gay adoption to be very promising as they are the first court where the studies suggesting that kids living in families with gay parents are more likely to have social issues were put to the test against studies that suggested there is no difference. You should read up on that.

Social issues are VERY hard to pinpoint.

Is it possible that the social issues are due to the fact that other kids are taught to be so anti-gay that they make life in school a living hell? The south doesn't exactly have a good history of a tolerance.

The question isn't whether or not they understand the nuances. The question is whether or not they are being told the truth.

And what, exactly, is the truth?

Both sides are guilty of spreading information which furthers their agenda, regardless of truth.

Share this post


Link to post
And what, exactly, is the truth?
Someone asked Jesus that very question a long time ago.
Both sides are guilty of spreading information which furthers their agenda, regardless of truth.
Really? As far as I know, I have never knowingly tried to spread information without regard to the truth. While there might be a few on my side who have done so, by and large they have not. I'm surprised that you claim for your side that they spread their information without regard for the truth.

Share this post


Link to post

"Just curious, but how do you explain to your 5 year old about the neighbor that drinks coffee, or beer, or smokes, or any other host of LDS "sins" that are not sins to the rest of the world?"

i told mine that one they shouldnt judge anyone. and two that not everyone knows the truth and if they dont know they arent responsible.

and they are sins. no matter who does them. but if you dont know they are a sin you cant be held accountable for them.

your title is why am i against gay marriage? if you dont know then you arent are you? or you are undecided. :P

there are some very interesting stats in gay parented families on the internet. one particular set by two researchers who are gay. they do say there are differences. they also say that to deny it to be politically correct is foolish.

they go on to say that the differences may not be bad. of course that depends on your view point. some differences sites are that girls are more likely to be sexually experimentive. more partners and of both sexes although they are no more likely to be lesbian than not.

the boys were also different in that they were later to experiment with sex. both sexes had differences, also, to do with whether the parents are male or female. my memory is a bit fuzzy past this.

google gay parents socialogical studies.

look for the pair of gay researchers.

or lesbian i dont remember which.

Share this post


Link to post
The question isn't whether or not they understand the nuances. The question is whether or not they are being told the truth.

Zeta-Flux- no offense, but truth does not seem to be the core of the issue for those opposed to same-sex marriage. At least, not the kind of truth that comes from evidence rather than religious based prejudice.

And we can trust that these justices are trained scientists, with no biases, able to distinguish and test these studies, because...?

Actually it was one judge who was presented evidence from multiple experts who testified to both sides of the issue. Her finding was that the expert presenting the evidence against SSM had allowed his personal prejudice to influence his data. Scientist? No. Judge? Yes. And she made a fairly well reasoned judgement based on the findings and testimony of the scientists involved in the proceeding.

By the way, nobody has said that individual gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender/questioning couples make worse parents (except idiots). It would be patently false. They make fine parents, just as do single mothers and fathers, or grandparents. The question is whether the *institution* of gay unions is less optimal to society as a whole, and children in particular.

...because??? Consider you statement above as you answer this.

Share this post


Link to post

http://www.e-noah.net/ASA/MO/articles/stacey.pdf

this is an interesting study by two sociologists, one gay, one lesbian. read it and decide for yourself what the conclusions might be.

when i googled it i did notice something odd and funny in a pitiful way. if the internet site quoting them is gay rights then it says they say the differences are positive. if anti gay they say it is negative.

what i read was interesting and prefer to draw my own conclusions from their study.

Share this post


Link to post
Why is gay marriage so bad? I understand the religious views, but I don't like trying to force my religious views in law. I'm pretty conflicted on this issue. I know that homosexual activity is a sin, but why should I care if homosexuals can "marry" each other? It's all about a label, isn't it? Or should I not want them to get tax benefits?

It's not really about religion at all except where religion and science meet. It's about society and the state having a good reason to incentivize/reward/legitimize gay marriage. since simply wanting the right is not a reason, no such reason exists as of yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Zeta-Flux- no offense, but truth does not seem to be the core of the issue for those opposed to same-sex marriage. At least, not the kind of truth that comes from evidence rather than religious based prejudice.

Actually it was one judge who was presented evidence from multiple experts who testified to both sides of the issue. Her finding was that the expert presenting the evidence against SSM had allowed his personal prejudice to influence his data. Scientist? No. Judge? Yes. And she made a fairly well reasoned judgement based on the findings and testimony of the scientists involved in the proceeding.

...because??? Consider you statement above as you answer this.

check out this study.

http://www.e-noah.net/ASA/MO/articles/stacey.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Zeta-Flux- no offense, but truth does not seem to be the core of the issue for those opposed to same-sex marriage. At least, not the kind of truth that comes from evidence rather than religious based prejudice.
That is a falsehood, that does not come from evidence, but is propogated due to political motivations.
Actually it was one judge who was presented evidence from multiple experts who testified to both sides of the issue. Her finding was that the expert presenting the evidence against SSM had allowed his personal prejudice to influence his data. Scientist? No. Judge? Yes. And she made a fairly well reasoned judgement based on the findings and testimony of the scientists involved in the proceeding.
Okay, one justice, who is not a scientist (and thus unqualified to judge the scientific merits of the studies).

I read (a summary of) the ruling, and agree with (that summary of) her ruling. Same-sex attaction, in and of itself, does not make one a worse parent. If the law against gay unions adopting children is based solely on their sexual orientation, then the justice has a point. As I said before, those with SSM can make fine parents. So can those who have murdered previously, and those who drink, and those who like unripened fruit, and those who are Mormon, and etc... If, however, the law is based on other factors then the judge's may be inappropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
It's not really about religion at all except where religion and science meet. It's about society and the state having a good reason to incentivize/reward/legitimize gay marriage. since simply wanting the right is not a reason, no such reason exists as of yet.

Unless one views homosexuality as being as innate to an individual as heterosexuality is to another person. At which point it becomes very, very evident that a reason should exist to legitimize same sex marriage.

But I agree it should be about the state and science (more than society) and less about religion. You can believe what you will about SSA as a sin without feeling that SSM is inherently a religious issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Someone asked Jesus that very question a long time ago.

Heh, and we are still searching, huh.

Really? As far as I know, I have never knowingly tried to spread information without regard to the truth. While there might be a few on my side who have done so, by and large they have not. I'm surprised that you claim for your side that they spread their information without regard for the truth.

I'm not saying that any particular individual will spread lies. I try to be as honest with myself and with those who I discuss SSM.

As of now, I have only seen one detrimental flaw in SSM. The rest, as far as I can tell, are just religious ideologies that the religious right wants to impose on the rest of society. Look at this thread alone. The arguments are, "It's a sin", "How do I explain it to my child" and a study that claims it MAY be harmful to children in Florida.

The fact that adherents lie to further their agenda is nothing new. It happens in all kinds of arguments. You would have to be blind to not see that when people are empassioned about something, they might stretch the truth to further their cause.

Share this post


Link to post
That is a falsehood, that does not come from evidence, but is propogated due to political motivations.

O

K.

Anywho -

Okay, one justice, who is not a scientist (and thus unqualified to judge the scientific merits of the studies).

<<<<taps fingers on desk pondering what one thinks a judge actually does and what role scientific based evidence would play in a world where this were true?

It's the first case, and there will be more. Most likely this will end up before the Florida Supreme Court, where I hope to see the same evidence brought forward. This really is precedent setting because of this alone.

I read (a summary of) the ruling, and agree with (that summary of) her ruling. Same-sex attaction, in and of itself, does not make one a worse parent. If the law against gay unions adopting children is based solely on their sexual orientation, then the justice has a point. As I said before, those with SSM can make fine parents. So can those who have murdered previously, and those who drink, and those who like unripened fruit, and those who are Mormon, and etc... If, however, the law is based on other factors then the judge's may be inappropriate.

All of the examples you gave can marry except gays. And yet, we continue to disagree. Why?

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for the link Anne.

The Abstract at the beginning of the article suggests why I am so interested in the Florida case. There HAS been so much debate of the issue of gay/lesbian parenting and how it affects children. Finally, it is being brought forward in the courts as part of the debate. It should be and needs to be. There should be a lot of questioning and seeking because that is how democracy works best.

We are at the beginning stages of this issue, and democracy has a bad track record on dealing with issues where deep former prejudices are involved. It takes this level of debate and review of the data to actually get democracy moving forward. Wonder of wonders, it's why we are more of a republic that a true democracy since most of us don't have the time to actually be informed enough on every issue to be able to vote on everything the way our representatives do.

Share this post


Link to post
Heh, and we are still searching, huh.
Some are ever searching, and never come to a knowledge of the truth, true.
I'm not saying that any particular individual will spread lies. I try to be as honest with myself and with those who I discuss SSM.

As of now, I have only seen one detrimental flaw in SSM. The rest, as far as I can tell, are just religious ideologies that the religious right wants to impose on the rest of society. Look at this thread alone. The arguments are, "It's a sin", "How do I explain it to my child" and a study that claims it MAY be harmful to children in Florida.

Actually, I've seen two links to a number of sociolgy articles. As far as religious ideologies go, I addressed that pretty thoroughly in my first post I think.
All of the examples you gave can marry except gays. And yet, we continue to disagree. Why?
Those with SSA can marry if they wish, although many of them do not wish to. Where we disagree is on the nature of same-sex unions (as an institution, not on an individual level) and whether they are (even socially) equivalent to marriage.

Try this little thought experiment. Suppose you were suddenly black (or, if you are black, suppose you are suddenly white). Would this change your nature? Would this mean you are less or more smart? Less or more qualified to do the job you do? etc...

Now suppose you are gay and your partner is of your same gender. Would this change the nature of your relationship with your partner? Would it change how well you can parent? etc...

To me, it is obvious that if I was suddenly black I would still deserve all of the same priviledges I enjoy now. If, however, I was suddenly gay and had a gay partner my *relationship* would *fundamentally* change. I might be just as good a parent, but my new relationship would be different enough that it couldn't rightly be called a marriage.

Now imagine that 99.9% of all people in the USA were suddenly black. Would humanity fundamentally change?

Now imagine that 99.9% of marriages were suddenly gay unions. Would these serve society as the equivalent of marriage? Would humanity and the family fundamentally change?

Share this post


Link to post
Try this little thought experiment. Suppose you were suddenly black (or, if you are black, suppose you are suddenly white). Would this change your nature? Would this mean you are less or more smart? Less or more qualified to do the job you do? etc...

Now suppose you are gay and your partner is of your same gender. Would this change the nature of your relationship with your partner? Would it change how well you can parent? etc...

A priori, I think that the answer is actually no, it would not change.

The problem, Zeta-Flux, is that you have to apply your a priori assumptions of how a same-sex couple feels towards each other as being the same as you feel towards your spouse if you have one.

I'm not gay, and the idea of being married to another male does not appeal to me. But once I assume myself to be gay, I have to assume I would be as attracted and feel as loving and committed to my hypothetical SS spouse as I do to my real wife.

Why do you assume this to be otherwise? Or if this is the case, why do you think this still fundementally changes your marriage?

Share this post


Link to post
Heh, and we are still searching, huh.

I'm not saying that any particular individual will spread lies. I try to be as honest with myself and with those who I discuss SSM.

As of now, I have only seen one detrimental flaw in SSM. The rest, as far as I can tell, are just religious ideologies that the religious right wants to impose on the rest of society. Look at this thread alone. The arguments are, "It's a sin", "How do I explain it to my child" and a study that claims it MAY be harmful to children in Florida.

The fact that adherents lie to further their agenda is nothing new. It happens in all kinds of arguments. You would have to be blind to not see that when people are empassioned about something, they might stretch the truth to further their cause.

read the other study i posted. http://www.e-noah.net/ASA/MO/articles/stacey.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Why is gay marriage so bad? I understand the religious views, but I don't like trying to force my religious views in law. I'm pretty conflicted on this issue. I know that homosexual activity is a sin, but why should I care if homosexuals can "marry" each other? It's all about a label, isn't it? Or should I not want them to get tax benefits?

If you live in a state that defines marriage to include SSM, and you have a license whereby the state grants you authority to perform marriages (e.g. a LDS Bishop), you must follow that state's law. You can not discriminate.

So if a SSM couple approaches you, LDS Bishop, to perform their marriage, and you refuse, could they sue you for unlawful discrimination? Can they sue the Church?

If the state refuses to grant licenses to peform marriages to those who would refuse to perform SSM, then would the LDS church be able to peform state-recognized marriages in it's temples in that state?

If your church operates an adoption Agency, and refuses to facilitate adoptions for SSM couples, can the SSM couple sue the Adoption agency? Can they sue your Church?

If your public school has any textbooks that mentions marriage or parents, can a SSM couple sue to ensure that all school textbooks equally portray SSM marriages and parents? Can they sue to ensure that all references to marriage and parenthood are gender-nuetral?

If your church operates counseling services (or any social service for that matter) that counsels against SSM, can SSM proponents sue your church? Could they sue the individual performing those social services? What about a church that refers (and sometimes pays for) couples from the church to go to private marriage counselors? Will the church be able to discrimate against SSM married couples who want to be treated equally and receive marriage counseling as well? Could the private counselor be sued by a SSM married couple if the private counselor refuses to provide services?

What about dating services? Can any dating service refuse to service potential SSM prospects?

If your church distributes welfare assistance, but distributes welfare assistance (in any form) only to those not married in a SSM relationship, can SSM proponent's sue your church?

Could a SSM couple demand to get any service rendered to a traditional-married couple? For example, a store that sells bride's dresses -- If the store refuses to serve the SSM marriage couple in the same manner as the traditional marriage couple, can the SSM couple sue?

Moving on to interstate commerce/movement: if one state allows for SSM marriage, and another doesn't, what rights does the SSM couple have when they move to the state where it's prohibited? So what if a SSM couple from California (assuming it recognizes SSM) moves to Utah (assuming it doesn't?) Must Utah recognize the marriage? What about all the above questions? Could a SSM couple demand services rendered to the traditional-married couple, even in a state that does not recognize SSM?

How about your children's education? What if your child applies to be admitted in a university's graduate program, and in an admittance interview (or more likely at lunch with the department chair), the topic of one's opinion about SSM arrises? How soon before your child either capitulates to SSM tolerance, or get's beaten down? [We've already seen the McPinkthy-ism just for the small issue of Prop 8. Just how long do you think your children will be able to "hold out" for traditional marriage should this SSM movement actually take hold and becomes widespread throughout the country.]

What about charter schools? If the state recognizes SSM and the state grants a school a charter, will the charter school be compelled to teach/portray SSM in the same manner as traditional marriage?

Also what about applying for government-funded research? Will SSM advocates be able to demand that all government-funded research give equal resource to SSM?

What about receiving any type of government money -- would your organization be compelled to recognize SSM? So for example, if your 501©(3) non-profit organization wants to remain recognized as such, will it be compelled to offer all services, indeed all recognition, to SSM couples? Basically, will all federally recognized non-profit organizations be compelled to recognize and equally serve SSM?

Just a few questions and implications to think about. I'm sure if we brainstormed, we could think of 100s if not 1000s of more legal implications of SSM, and it's impact on you whether you have an opinion about SSM, or not.

Respectfully,

Mark Hannig

Share this post


Link to post
Why is gay marriage so bad? I understand the religious views, but I don't like trying to force my religious views in law. I'm pretty conflicted on this issue. I know that homosexual activity is a sin, but why should I care if homosexuals can "marry" each other? It's all about a label, isn't it? Or should I not want them to get tax benefits?

Those who believe that homosexual marriage is only a way to show equality are wrong. This is more than an argument for equality. It is a destructive redefinition of the marriage relationship, which is to be used as a way of uniting masculine and feminine energies in a way that unites family and in a broader sense, all of mankind.

Heterosexual marriage is not merely about a physical union. It combines masculine and feminine values and behaviors at many levels above the merely physical. The man's need to protect and provide, as well as to seek individuality and independence is complementary to the woman's innate desire to nurture, provide emotional support and seek community and togetherness.

Marriage is not just a sex act between two physical bodies. It is more than gratification. It is a physical reflection of spiritual unity, it transcends selfish desires and commits us not only to each other but to our offspring. It is a consummation of a bond that should transcend the mere physical relationship. As such, homosexual marriage is not "the same" as a heterosexual marriage. If you are of the opinion that you shouldn't force your religious views in law, consider that forcing a redefinition of my marriage to accomodate your sexual proclivities is just as bad if not more harmful than letting people know your "religious" view.

I don't happen to agree that the definition of marriage, and thereby the definition of family, is solely a religious one. You don't even have to have a religion in order to have a family, but there are still the necessities of rearing children to be well adjusted.

I view homosexuality as a dysfunctionality, as a gender attraction disorder. What is the homosexual agenda doing to my worldview? They are saying that I am homophobic merely because I see the situation differently than they do. They are requiring, or attempting to require, that I relinquish my conscience, my sense of right and wrong, in order to accomodate their behavior.

Every family requires masculine and feminine role models - there are differences in males and females which working together advance our development as a society. These two energies, in balance, are beneficial to society. Men tend toward individuality and independence, women tend toward communality, and toward nurture and care, in many ways these two opposites create a dynamic tension which is ultimately beneficial at both the family unit level and in the broader society.

The gay agenda is to deny those realities and overthrow them in the pursuit of selfish sexual gratification. If that's their choice, fine, but don't make us all bear the burden of your individual choices. It would be wrong, to enforce by law, a viewpoint that is detrimental not only to my religious viewpoint, but to the stability of the family unit. Men and women are not "the same" in every respect, but the gay agenda is to force us all to view the two genders as only one and to provide a legal basis to prohibit us from doing so.

The effect of the gay marriage proposal would be to silence any critic. We would be forced to proclaim that the emperor is wearing clothes that he doesn't have. They would drive into the closet anyone who believes any other way than that gay marriage is good. Already the gestapo are out driving people from their employment and making them the victims of political correctness. It's time we said 'enough already.'

Share this post


Link to post
A priori, I think that the answer is actually no, it would not change.
Are you married? If you were to be married, what sorts of things would you want in your future wife? (I'm assuming here you are a man.)

On the flip side, if you had SSA, what sorts of things would you want in your future partner?

Are those two things different? Fundamentally so? For me, they are. In my search for a wife I looked for qualities that no gay partner could ever possess (for biological reasons alone) which have nothing to do with attraction or a priori assumptions about how people feel towards each other.

The problem, Zeta-Flux, is that you have to apply your a priori assumptions of how a same-sex couple feels towards each other as being the same as you feel towards your spouse if you have one.

I'm not gay, and the idea of being married to another male does not appeal to me. But once I assume myself to be gay, I have to assume I would be as attracted and feel as loving and committed to my hypothetical SS spouse as I do to my real wife.

Why do you assume this to be otherwise? Or if this is the case, why do you think this still fundementally changes your marriage?

You seem to have missed the point. The part of my relationship that would fundamentally change is not how loving or committed I would be. I tried to make it clear with the last question I posed (on my previous post) which you snipped out in your response to me. Try to answer honestly within yourself if 'marriage' would mean something fundamentally different if suddenly 99.9% of marriages were gay unions.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...