Stage set for possible showdown on gay marriage

[valkyrie]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Compelling argument, sure, the rights of states to act as they wish. I think it should be left to the states, but there will be a problem with the FFC clause. Of course, the last time a group of states significantly argued for states rights we saw what happened...

Come on Mitt!
Romney for President, 2008

Provide a compelling argument in support of a state law banning gay marriage that is not based on religion.

[shinerbock]

States rights is a completely compelling argument. Just as the Supreme Court has ruled several times that localities should be able to decide what is should/should not be allowed in the public arena, I believe states should be allowed to do the same based on their constituents beliefs. Why do localities ban obscenity? For several reasons, such as degradation of women, the idea that it misinforms children about how relationships should be, etc... I believe that state sponsored gay marriage would put a governmental stamp of approval on homosexual relationships, relationships that logic and nature tell us are counterproductive to the future of the human race. My personal wish would be that marriage had remained entirely church sponsored, but as it is, I think states and their citizens should be allowed to decide whether or not they think gay marriage is appropriate in their state.

[mu_agd]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

My personal wish would be that marriage had remained entirely church sponsored

So you don't think people of any other religion should be able to get married?

[valkyrie]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

relationships that logic and nature tell us are counterproductive to the future of the human race.

I think that this statement is based on your religious views.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

I think that this statement is based on your religious views.

Being counterproductive for the human race isn't religious, it's fact. Two women or two men can't reproduce. That would scientifically be considered counterproductive. I still don't think it's a good enough reason to ban gay marriage, however, as there will be plenty of other people to reproduce and humans are far from being an endangered species.

[shinerbock]

Mu AGD, I'm not sure what you're talking about. What I said was that marriage should be left to religious institutions. Thus, it would not be regulated other than by the church. Therefore, if you were an atheist, you could participate in a ceremony, it just wouldnt be "accredited" by any religious body.

Valk,
My views are religious based yes, but there are other motives as well. Evidence has shown that a man and woman provide the best family environment. Before you point out exceptions, there are exceptions, but that doesn't overcome the fact that in the majority of situations, children with a mother and father present do best. The majority of people who marry are fertile and within ages which could bear children. Thus, they are likely to eventually produce children, and if the family remains intact, those children have a much better chance at educational success, mental health, etc. If gay marriage is permitted in every state, then the question will become why would they not be allowed to raise and adopt children? I think that issue has the potential of becoming more hostile and even more devisive than the one at hand.

[mu_agd]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Mu AGD, I'm not sure what you're talking about. What I said was that marriage should be left to religious institutions. Thus, it would not be regulated other than by the church. Therefore, if you were an atheist, you could participate in a ceremony, it just wouldnt be "accredited" by any religious body.

You said marriage should be "Church sponsored." I am Jewish and therefore don't go to Church, so how could I get married under your view?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

My views are religious based yes, but there are other motives as well. Evidence has shown that a man and woman provide the best family environment. Before you point out exceptions, there are exceptions, but that doesn't overcome the fact that in the majority of situations, children with a mother and father present do best.

Unless you're also arguing for an amendment to eliminate divorce, I must disagree with this point.

Also, I'd like a citation if possible - I'm unaware of comprehensive studies comparing 2-parent households 'apples to apples' with regard to gay/straight parenting viability.

Besides this, gay people can adopt on their own, and that's not illegal. Marriage and children are not intertwined . . .

Originally Posted by shinerbock

The majority of people who marry are fertile and within ages which could bear children. Thus, they are likely to eventually produce children, and if the family remains intact, those children have a much better chance at educational success, mental health, etc. If gay marriage is permitted in every state, then the question will become why would they not be allowed to raise and adopt children? I think that issue has the potential of becoming more hostile and even more devisive than the one at hand.

. . . which leads to this. Denying someone adoption based on their sexuality is a separate issue, one that I doubt you'll find much support for outside extreme religious groups, and this is NOT a contingent or conflated issue to gay marriage.


-----------------

Originally Posted by Drolefille

The argument that there is no genetic benefit to being gay isn't quite true. There seems to be evidence supporting the idea that the gay uncle (so to speak) helped raise the children, so that more people could hunt and gather. Same thing for grandparents. We live much longer, relatively speaking, than other mammals. Long past our reproductive age.

This is all anthropological theory of course, but it isn't entirely baseless.

To add to this post, there are numerous examples of homosexuality within other mammal species. This is not a human-only phenomenon; thus, within nature, it must not be THAT detrimental (you know, survival of the fittest and all that). It's a baseless argument.

[shinerbock]

No its not, that assumption wasn't a part of my argument. I did question what would happen regarding children. I'm perfectly aware that some will marry without any desire for kids. That being said, what does it tell my children, who see the State of Georgia saying that two men being in a married relationship is ok? I would prefer my children not be overly exposed to homosexual relationships to begin with (I want them to know what it is, but not to the point where they assume it is a viable life option), but with gay marriage being provided for, it is their state government saying that two males or females being in a relationship is just as legitimate as a male and a female. I'm sure many disagree with my take, but that is how I believe.

[shinerbock]

Mu AGD, marriage is a church creation. If you want to get married under my "system" you could either go to a Jewish faith's ceremony, if you desired, or you could simply have a private ceremony. Under such a system the government would recognize no marriage or lack there of, and thus if you believe that your ceremony is valid, then it would be to you. Those who choose to have the Church's validation, would have that option as well.

[Drolefille]

The argument that there is no genetic benefit to being gay isn't quite true. There seems to be evidence supporting the idea that the gay uncle (so to speak) helped raise the children, so that more people could hunt and gather. Same thing for grandparents. We live much longer, relatively speaking, than other mammals. Long past our reproductive age.

This is all anthropological theory of course, but it isn't entirely baseless.

[valkyrie]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

That being said, what does it tell my children, who see the State of Georgia saying that two men being in a married relationship is ok?

I want to understand this, because I've heard it before. Do you think that the morals/lessons/values you'll teach your children will be so fragile that if the state allowed gay marriage your kids would think it's okay despite what you've taught them? I'm not trying to be argumentative here -- I just want somebody to explain this.

[Drolefille]

The question shinerbock, is do you believe homosexuality is a choice or is innate?

I go with the innate for many reasons, but mostly that I myself never chose to be attracted to anyone, just found myself attracted to my boyfriend.

If innate, you may disagree with it, but how can it be wrong (outside of a religious belief). Gay rights has often been compared to civil rights, and while I disagree that such a broad comparison is accurate, the gay marriage/interracial marriage comparison seems right to me.

No one complains about a straight couple holding hands while walking down the street, but if it's a gay couple, all of a sudden they're "forcing their views on me" and "making my children think it's ok"

Your children are going to witness many things that are "wrong" in life. You will have to teach them whether things are wrong or right. That's a parent's job. Trying to put them in a bubble from the "wrongs" isn't going to work, and will probably make them rebel. Be prepared to have a talk with your children about WHY you disapprove of gay marriage when they see two men together. I still won't agree with you, but you'll be doing everything right.

[shinerbock]

Free thinking? Naturally at some point my children will have the decision of what religion to practice, who they want to be in a long term relationship with, etc. What I don't appreciate is a school, or a government telling them that being gay is alright, or that abortion is ok, or that evolution is the only way the earth could have been created. However, until they reach the point of young adulthood, do you think I should let them consort with whoever they want, watch whatever they want, not go to school, not go to church? Also, if your liberal ideology is one of "freethinking" and you obviously exclude my way of thinking, then your ideology isn't quite sound is it?

[Drolefille]

That is your job, to fill in where the government leaves off. The government teaches the science of evolution, they do not teach religion. When the kid comes home from school you teach them about Genesis. (I learned evolution in my Catholic school and I, like most Catholics, have no problem reconciling the two)

The government shouldn't be saying that those things are bad either, they're not around to make moral judgements. You are the one to teach your children morals. If you don't think can be done with gay marriage than I'm sorry for your kids, they will need a lot of help.