Gay marriage: Yay or nay?

[DragonsAreReal]

I feel I should mention that I am speaking as a citizen of the United States.

I support same-sex marriage but probably for far less personal reasons than other people. Taking a very Vulcan viewpoint, I am for same-sex marriage not because I am emotionally invested in the issue but because I think that it is only logical.

Since I base my opinion off of what I feel is most logical, I am discounting all religious points of view as I feel that religion is not only illogical but also a complete fallacy that is used to promote control of the masses rather than any sort of holy salvation.

America is supposed to be a land of opportunity that prides itself on freedom and equality regardless of race, creed, religion, and even sexuality. Sure, it can be argued that America was founded on Christian values and that such values denounce homosexuality as ‘going against God’ but separation of church and state helps to prevent religion as being a plausible reason why same-sex marriage should be outlawed in the United States.

I am aware that the exact phrase ‘separation of church and state’ is not mentioned in the Constitution but regardless of how you choose to interpret it; there is a reason why our government is a government of the people and not of the church. For religion to be a viable form of government, I feel God Himself would have to come down and put Himself up for election the same way I would not accept the idea of one man running for President only for another to actually take the seat.

I believe Jefferson said it best: “Religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship.”

The government has no right to force any church to recognize any marriage that goes against their belief just like no church has the right to tell the government that two people of the same gender do not have the right to get married. While admittedly not a fan of religion, this also goes along with the idea that I believe it was wrong for the government to force the Catholic Church’s insurance to cover contraception.

When you get right down to it, this should be a legal matter more than anything. My brother-in-law is very much against gay marriage, as a Christian and as an American and even when he put his Christian ethics aside; he said that marriage was matrimony between men and women that should be respected as such by the U.S. Government. Despite not feeling like he was able to truly put his beliefs as a Christian on hold, I still find such reasoning to be laughable.

I feel like it is clear that the U.S. Government has little respect for marriage and that on their terms, it is little more than a legal contract rather than any sort of union of love. In a country where you can literally get married in a drive-thru, could you really be surprised that the government does not care about the ‘sanctity of matrimony’?

Personally, I have no interest in ever getting married. I honestly feel that it has the potential for more legal trouble than it is worth. I am more than willing to remain in a monogamous relationship with a woman and raise a family with her without the need to put our love in to paperwork. That does not mean that I will never get married, though because if the woman that I fall in love with desires marriage, then I will do everything within my ability to give her, her ‘dream wedding’.

I truly do, but in this case, voting yay or nay would be a betrayal of someone. Deep down, I simply do not care. If I vote yay, I hurt those that want nay. If I vote nay, I hurt those that desire yay. If I had deeper feelings on this subject then it would not matter as I would belong to one of the parties, but in this case, I do not, and so, I will not simply check yay or nay simply because I should do something.

Don’t worry. I’m not going to be one of those people who try to push you to have an opinion concerning one side or the other. In fact, I support your neutral stance and I am not going to throw down the old adage of the greatest evil being when good men do nothing because I see no evil in neutrality concerning same-sex marriage. In fact, I do not even see evil in someone opposing same-sex marriage. I may view it as an injustice that infringes on certain peoples’ rights but I would not say it was evil.

However, I bring up your quote because I am curious as to why your own opinion on another matter would actually hurt a friend who holds an opposite opinion. This could lead one to believe that you never discuss differing opinions with your friends out of fear of offending them and thus your discussions with them must always remain either lighthearted or cover a subject that you both wholly agree on. Holding to a belief and acting as an advocate for that belief should not be viewed as a betrayal of those friends who do not share that belief. And in my opinion, of that friend would claim betrayal on your part because of that then they are a poor friend, indeed.

I am for same-sex marriage and yet my friends and family who do not share my opinion are not offended or upset with me because we all respect that each of us hold different beliefs and that we may not always agree on certain matters.

Now I am certainly not trying to insinuate that you hold no opinion on this and that you abstain from casting a vote should the issue ever make it to your ballot simply because you do not wish to offend your friends. Judging from your comment, I truly believe that you do not hold an opinion because, as you said, deep down, you simply do not care and I can respect that. If we were discussing stealing food from children then I might have a stronger stance against your neutrality but, much like your stance on same-sex marriage, I simply do not care about your neutrality.

Consent is all that matters, and it should be verified with extra care before performing a more unusual type of wedding.

I have to disagree. Consent is not all that matters, especially when it comes to such matters as marriage. Just because it is not hurting the people around them, a mother and a son having a child of their own can be very detrimental to the child as such a close relation makes it very likely that said child is going to be born mentally and/or physically deficient. While it may not be the reason why incestuous relationships are illegal, it is a good reason for them to remain that way.

I only quoted a small part of what you said, though so I feel it necessary to make it clear to anyone reading just this comment that cucumbersome did not ever insinuate if he/she was for something such as incestuous relationships or marriage. I was simply bringing it up because it was brought up in previous comments and also to use as an example as to why I disagree that consent is all that matters.


So does anyone have a reason for being against same-sex marriage that does not have to do with religion or personal morals? That is a point I’d like to see made.

[cucumbersome]

Consent is all that matters, and it should be verified with extra care before performing a more unusual type of wedding.

I have to disagree. Consent is not all that matters, especially when it comes to such matters as marriage. Just because it is not hurting the people around them, a mother and a son having a child of their own can be very detrimental to the child as such a close relation makes it very likely that said child is going to be born mentally and/or physically deficient. While it may not be the reason why incestuous relationships are illegal, it is a good reason for them to remain that way.

I only quoted a small part of what you said, though so I feel it necessary to make it clear to anyone reading just this comment that cucumbersome did not ever insinuate if he/she was for something such as incestuous relationships or marriage. I was simply bringing it up because it was brought up in previous comments and also to use as an example as to why I disagree that consent is all that matters.

I knew sex ed in the USA was of poor quality, but you think marriage causes pregnancy? Have I got news for you!

But seriously, isn’t that child included in “the people around them”?

That said, the potential harm to the child (which actually isn’t “very likely” unless the incest happens for multiple generations) can be stopped by making it illegal to have sex with a close relative. Safe sex could even be allowed, but consider that that can fail and is difficult to prove either way, that brings lots of complications to the law. I’d suggest that the existence of the child should be the only admissible evidence of the sex happening, though (without changing laws about nonconsensual incest, of course). People get married for financial and legal reasons, it is not a contract to get pregnant; but is useful when two people plan to raise a child together.

By the way, what if the son from your example is asexual and aromantic, and his sister and her partner,who have children, die in an accident? If the (grand)mother and son decide to raise those children together, shouldn’t they be allowed to have the same contract?

So does anyone have a reason for being against same-sex marriage that does not have to do with religion or personal morals? That is a point I’d like to see made.

If, for some reason it is beneficial to encourage people to make babies, same-sex marriage being illegal would *slightly* encourage bisexual people to prefer relationships in which pregnancy is possible without outside help. It’s a very weak point, but there you go.

[DragonsAreReal]

I knew sex ed in the USA was of poor quality, but you think marriage causes pregnancy? Have I got news for you!

If you believe that sexual education in the U.S. is of poor quality then you are rather ignorant of the subject. While the U.S. had quite a late start, looking at especially at the time period between the 50's and 70's that is by no way an accurate judgement of America's current sexual education which is one of the best in the world. My country's biggest issue with sexual education at this point actually has more to do with these silly ideas of censorship and modesty but in no way do these impede our actual knowledge on the subject.

I cannot tell if you're being sarcastic or serious so I will also address the second part of your comment. Considering my age and my sexual experience, in no way am I under the false assumption that marriage causes pregnancy and to insinuate my belief in such a notion is asinine and insulting. I am well aware of how a baby is made and you can thank my U.S. sexual education course for that as well as my parents and other family members involved in my raising.

More married couples than not are having sex. It is safe to assume that the majority of people who are getting married are also having sex with one another and no form of contraception is 100% whether or not the couple is related.

But seriously, isn’t that child included in “the people around them”?

Yes, it is and I feel like I was very clear on that point. A mother and a son having sex does not harm the people around them but the conception of a child that such an act will likely lead to can harm that child. Thus, pre-conception that child is unaffected by the sexual intercourse between those two people but post-conception that child is included in "the people around them". I cannot be much clearer on that point so I will move on.

That said, the potential harm to the child (which actually isn’t “very likely” unless the incest happens for multiple generations) can be stopped by making it illegal to have sex with a close relative. Safe sex could even be allowed, but consider that that can fail and is difficult to prove either way, that brings lots of complications to the law. I’d suggest that the existence of the child should be the only admissible evidence of the sex happening, though (without changing laws about nonconsensual incest, of course).

You have been horribly misguided. Depending on the incest in question, the likelihood of a child of incest being born with birth defects is quite high. This is not something that can be disputed. It has been proven. The chances of a child of incest born between two first cousins are actually very low. But between a mother and son (which is the example I originally gave), the chance for a serious birth defect, including death is anywhere between 20% to 40%. However, you are right that further incest within the same family will increase these chances so starting at 20% (the lowest end of the spectrum), it would conceivably only take two to four more generations for such birth defects to genetically cripple them. This is also based off of statistics that, excluding incestuous rape, families who “keep it in the family” do so for generations and are not above brainwashing their children in a cult-like fashion that they must “keep their line pure”.

As to your very last comment concerning the child itself being the only evidence that two relatives are engaging in intercourse, I agree. We cannot simply sling accusations against a brother and sister or a mother or son or any relatives without actual proof. That’s just common sense.

Same-sex marriage, however poses no danger to straight people or the rest of society. It is a matter of taste and some people being too menial to direct their focus to real problems that plague our society. People sometimes bring up that a child (adopted or otherwise) raised by two gay parents will have a harder time growing up and be confused about certain things because of it but that is just ridiculous. A child raised by two loving parents (two men or two women) has the same potential for a perfectly happy and “normal” childhood as those children raised by straight parents. The biggest problem a child with gay parents faces comes not from their household but from the judgmental society in which they live.

People get married for financial and legal reasons, it is not a contract to get pregnant; but is useful when two people plan to raise a child together.

If they are already in place then I am unaware of them but laws can be put in to place in order to financially assist, say a brother and sister who are both raising the sister’s child. A legal union such as marriage would not be necessary. That is simply an extreme way to prove a poor point. A less extreme way of doing that would be to have the brother legally adopt his sister’s child and then if they are all living in the same household, claims of supporting a dependent can be made on both sides. Now I am certainly no expert in law or taxes, but this is not a far-fetched idea and is certainly far less extreme than having the brother and sister get married. Not to mention that since one is not permitted to marry multiple people in the United States, this would take away their opportunity to legally marry a chosen mate.

By the way, what if the son from your example is asexual and aromantic, and his sister and her partner,who have children, die in an accident? If the (grand)mother and son decide to raise those children together, shouldn’t they be allowed to have the same contract?

You are using very unlikely and narrow probabilities to prove a point that is, in contrast rather broad. Regardless, I will entertain the possibility (as it is still possible) and reply by saying that I have made this point in my above comment. There is no need to go to such an extreme as to have them get married. That is just silly.

But in the taste of using crazy scenarios, I shall present one of my own. A man is not allowed to have sex with a dog. That is illegal. He is also not allowed to marry that dog. But what if that dog once saved his life and he loves that dog like a son!? What if he requires financial help raising that dog and thus a contractual union between the two that would allow the man to claim the dog as a dependent would be necessary? Because we cannot prove that this marriage between man and dog will lead to sex, should it be permitted?

And that is why I avoid outlandish scenarios in order to make a point that in itself is not so outlandish.

So does anyone have a reason for being against same-sex marriage that does not have to do with religion or personal morals? That is a point I’d like to see made.

If, for some reason it is beneficial to encourage people to make babies, same-sex marriage being illegal would *slightly* encourage bisexual people to prefer relationships in which pregnancy is possible without outside help. It’s a very weak point, but there you go.

That is my mistake. I did not believe that my question was so vague as to warrant such a hypothetical response and so I shall re-phrase it.

Also, in response that it might encourage bi-sexual people to marry of the opposite gender, did you not mock me earlier when you insinuated that I believed marriage lead to sex? Look at the teen pregnancy rate in the United States. Married, not married, none of it is relevant. People are going to have babies whether they are married or not. Did I not say in my very first comment that I would actually prefer a monogamous relationship with a woman in whom I did not marry but still have a family with? I believe I did.

My question re-phrased:
So does anyone have a reason for being against same-sex marriage that does not have to do with religion, personal morals, or outlandish hypothetical scenarios that do not actually exist? That is a point I’d like to see made.

[cucumbersome]

I knew sex ed in the USA was of poor quality, but you think marriage causes pregnancy? Have I got news for you!

If you believe that sexual education in the U.S. is of poor quality then you are rather ignorant of the subject.

This is anecdotal evidence, but a girl I know in the USA graduated from highschool believing that oral sex leads to pregnancy.

Anyway, there is a significant number of schools that teaches “abstinence only”, is there not?

I’m sure there are many schools that give perfect information, but when you’re talking about a whole country, you have to look at the average not the best.

While the U.S. had quite a late start, looking at especially at the time period between the 50's and 70's that is by no way an accurate judgement of America's current sexual education which is one of the best in the world. My country's biggest issue with sexual education at this point actually has more to do with these silly ideas of censorship and modesty but in no way do these impede our actual knowledge on the subject.

So, there is censorship, but it is so ineffective that you do, in school, get told the things you’re not supposed to be told in school?

I cannot tell if you're being sarcastic or serious so I will also address the second part of your comment.

Sarcastic hyperbole.

But seriously, isn’t that child included in “the people around them”?

Yes, it is and I feel like I was very clear on that point. A mother and a son having sex does not harm the people around them but the conception of a child that such an act will likely lead to can harm that child. Thus, pre-conception that child is unaffected by the sexual intercourse between those two people but post-conception that child is included in "the people around them". I cannot be much clearer on that point so I will move on.

Right, so you’re pointing out that I was being imprecise by including the impossible consent of someone who does not exist yet in “consent is all that matters”. Except I was talking about marriage, not sex, and getting married is not the same thing as intending to have sex. Sure, they often are combined, but they are very different things. And yes, I often respond with sarcasm when someone equates things that are not alike.

You have been horribly misguided. Depending on the incest in question, the likelihood of a child of incest being born with birth defects is quite high. This is not something that can be disputed. It has been proven. The chances of a child of incest born between two first cousins are actually very low. But between a mother and son (which is the example I originally gave), the chance for a serious birth defect, including death is anywhere between 20% to 40%.

Do you have a source for that, one that isn’t about people in families where incest is more common or very small populations?

The probability that a single recessive genetic defect is passed on from mother to son is 50% (assuming the father doesn’t have it). Assuming the son does get it, the child of mother and son needs to get two copies of the defective gene to get ill (or else the illness is irrelevant to incest), the probability of that is 50% × 50% = 25%. Because we don’t know whether or not the son got it, the actual probability is 50% × 25% = 12.5%. And that’s assuming the mother carries such a genetic defect. Fatal or crippling genetic defects are uncommon (which is why we could ignore the possibility of the father carrying the same gene without the numbers getting too far off). afew% × 12.5% < 20%. Of course the mother might have multiple recessive bad defects, but, again, not likely.

Incest is not a significant problem, if the population is large enough and it happens about as often or less as it would if partner selection were random. I could talk a bit about computer science and evolutionary algorithms here, but marriage =/= sex, so whatever.

If they are already in place then I am unaware of them but laws can be put in to place in order to financially assist, say a brother and sister who are both raising the sister’s child. A legal union such as marriage would not be necessary.

Who are you to decide for others that a legal union is not needed to attempt to guarantee a stable life for the children they are looking after?

By the way, what if the son from your example is asexual and aromantic, and his sister and her partner,who have children, die in an accident? If the (grand)mother and son decide to raise those children together, shouldn’t they be allowed to have the same contract?

You are using very unlikely and narrow probabilities to prove a point that is, in contrast rather broad. Regardless, I will entertain the possibility (as it is still possible) and reply by saying that I have made this point in my above comment. There is no need to go to such an extreme as to have them get married. That is just silly.

I deliberately narrowed it down to remove the red herring of incest from the example. The guy could have been any ordinary straight guy who doesn’t want to have sex with his mother, but if I had not made it explicit that he definitely doesn’t want to have sex, we would still be talking about incest.

But in the taste of using crazy scenarios, I shall present one of my own. A man is not allowed to have sex with a dog. That is illegal. He is also not allowed to marry that dog. But what if that dog once saved his life and he loves that dog like a son!? What if he requires financial help raising that dog and thus a contractual union between the two that would allow the man to claim the dog as a dependent would be necessary? Because we cannot prove that this marriage between man and dog will lead to sex, should it be permitted?

And that is why I avoid outlandish scenarios in order to make a point that in itself is not so outlandish.

A dog isn’t legally able to consent to anything. Therefore, no contract is possible between a man and a dog.

So does anyone have a reason for being against same-sex marriage that does not have to do with religion or personal morals? That is a point I’d like to see made.

If, for some reason it is beneficial to encourage people to make babies, same-sex marriage being illegal would *slightly* encourage bisexual people to prefer relationships in which pregnancy is possible without outside help. It’s a very weak point, but there you go.

That is my mistake. I did not believe that my question was so vague as to warrant such a hypothetical response and so I shall re-phrase it.

It’s not all that hypothetical. Over here in the Netherlands there is talk about how there will soon be too many old people for the younger ones to look after (which isn’t true, but politicians and journalists love to scare people). There are two solutions to that problem when it does exist, one is to start having more children soon enough, the other is less pleasant.
And that’s just the sane reason to encourage people to have more babies, there are plenty of insane ones. Possibly also sane ones I don’t know.

To be clear, limiting the relationship choices of bisexual people who happen to want to get married is a completely idiotic way to encourage them to have children. It will work a little bit, but compared to the consequences it’s stupid.

Also, in response that it might encourage bi-sexual people to marry of the opposite gender, did you not mock me earlier when you insinuated that I believed marriage lead to sex?

In this case, marriage still does not lead to sex, but it does lead to the sex being more likely to be heterosexual.

[étoile]

Of course I'm yay for it. I don't understand why people don't just let people be who they are. Two people in love with each other is...two people in love with each other. Gay people are still people. So, what's the difference? What's the big fuss about? (I know why it's controversial, but still..it shouldn't be). That being said, I'm not religious at all, I don't go to church or anything. But if gays want to marry in a church, why not? Why can't two people who have similar beliefs also get married in a church?

[Ashenblaze]

Yay. Love and gender are separate. The human mind and body are very complex

[King of Rags]

I believe people should be allowed to marry whoever they truely love, gay, bi, straight, or whatever someone may be. Stopping someone from being with who they want to be with is wrong. The decision should be up to individuals. Thats my stance.

EXACTLY.
Now why do we have such huge problems with this? It seems like our culture keeps wanting to separate people into "us" v "them" groups, even when the basis for the groups makes no sense. We're all people, and we deserve the right to do what makes us happy.

[cucumbersome]

Now why do we have such huge problems with this? It seems like our culture keeps wanting to separate people into "us" v "them" groups, even when the basis for the groups makes no sense. We're all people, and we deserve the right to do what makes us happy.

Well, our culture became dominant by killing off every "them" it could find. You’re kind of asking why water is wet. Hating the other is intrinsic to western culture. Sure, it has contained many individuals who were opposed to hate, but compared to the haters they didn’t do much to spread our culture around the world.

I should by the way mention that other cultures that have grown big compared to others in their times and places were also typically spread with violence. Cultures that don’t mind the existence of the other are at a disadvantage in growth because members see no reason to convince others to join them.

[Kilgannon]

Oh, but cucumbersome. Why is water wet?

[The Toxic Cereus]

My personal opinion is a rather equal one (if I say so myself). I'm not a believer in gay rights, I'm a believer in human rights however. As long as you're a human being and you're breathing I believe your allowed to pursue happiness, so if being gay, bi, les makes you happy - go for it.

[Aniihya]

The Toxic Cereus: That's how libertarians think. They say the world doesn't need gay rights, rights based on ethnicity or whatsoever, it just needs human rights because everyone is equal.

[Patchlamb]

When I was a freshman in high school I was highly religious. I don't recall back then having a stance on marriage, but I did believe I had no right to tell people who they could love. Of course I was terrible about saying that then right after condemning them, which was ironic because at the time I secretly had a crush on another girl.

Of course I quickly realized my own homosexual tendencies and dislike of romantic and sexual contact with men, so my opinion was sort of forced to change. I find it wrong to give special rights to one group of people because of ones own personal disgust or religious beliefs, when the other may not feel or believe the same. Saying "I don't like it, so you have to suffer" feels very silly to me. It's prejudiced to not let a couple experience the same thing (which could hold meaning to them) as another just because they're the same sex. It's like children on the playground playing jump rope, and telling a kid they can't play because they're not identical to the other children.

As far as adoption goes, I'm all for that as well. I see nothing wrong with orphaned children getting a loving home. Homosexual couples have to work very hard in order to adopt, because adopting is a tough process (not to mention any bias towards the pair for being same-sex). Every child adopted is wanted. There are no accidents. Studies done on children raised in households with homosexual parents have not shown any negative side affects based upon the fact their parents are same-sex. And being that one cannot "make someone gay" the children will not have a higher chance of being homosexual when they grow older. The only negative side affect of gay adoption is not in the home, however. Bigotry from other children and the parents who teach their children to pick fun can affect the child with same-sex parents. But if every parent was terrified that their child would be bullied, there'd be very few children. Almost all children are bullied at a time in their life, only with same-sex couples it's is an almost certain. Which is sad.

[Willowlae]

yay. A 7 year old can't help that his first crush was on someone with the same parts he has... love is love.

[cucumbersome]

Studies done on children raised in households with homosexual parents have not shown any negative side affects based upon the fact their parents are same-sex. And being that one cannot "make someone gay" the children will not have a higher chance of being homosexual when they grow older.

If children raised by homosexual adoptive parents were more likely to “become” homosexual themselves, would that be a bad thing?

[Patchlamb]

Studies done on children raised in households with homosexual parents have not shown any negative side affects based upon the fact their parents are same-sex. And being that one cannot "make someone gay" the children will not have a higher chance of being homosexual when they grow older.

If children raised by homosexual adoptive parents were more likely to “become” homosexual themselves, would that be a bad thing?

No, I don't personally believe so. I mean there's still a chance of children raised by gay couples (adopted or surrogate) being gay themselves. The same chance is there as is with opposite-sex couples. It's likely those raised in same-sex households would feel more free to explore their sexuality though. Kids often stay in the closet for fear of being rejected by their families.

[MetaJokeName]

Definite yay from me. Love is love is love no matter who's involved, and it's not really my or anyone else's place to tell consenting informed adults what to do with their life. If I'm honest, I have difficulty understanding why it's such a huge political controversy - it's not like those who disagree with it are in any way obligated to participate. Don't like gay marriage? Don't marry someone of your gender. It's not terribly difficult to not marry someone.

[Dottie]

I am for it. I mean it is not hurting anyone so why should we stop it? And it is none of our business who one likes or doesn't. *shrugs and smiles*

[JokerValshe]

I'm all for gay marriage. People should be able to live in a world where they can marry the one they love.

[M|Alice]

Well, my favorite characters from t.v. shows are lesbians and I absolutely love them so yeah it would be weird if I was against gay marriage.

[Archaeological]

I am a strong yay. Myself and several of my family members and close friends are not cisgendered heterosexuals, but that aside, I believe that the only concern the state has in marriage is consent and harm. If both/all parties involved consent and by marrying/remaining married to each other they cause no physical harm, the state's involvement should be done.
If the marriage is between two men or two women, well, what does the state care? The state does not exist to enforce religious principles. The state does not exist to ensure the creation of the next generation (or its genetic makeup). The state's job is to provide a safe environment in which every citizen can do whatever they wish, so long as it does no harm.
As far as I'm concerned, incestuous marriage ought to be legal (although maybe with a higher age limit or a mental/physical health eval to make sure consent is present in both parties) because it does no real harm. Birth defects are a possibility but not a guarantee and, in any case, I do not believe the government has a right to ban marriages on a genetic basis- it's an ethical and moral issue on which I will not change my stance. Plural marriage I'm also OK with because, again, it doesn't do any harm and there's no lack of consent involved.
As a disclaimer, I don't support either of those two other examples on an emotional level. I just don't think the state has a right to prevent marriage on grounds that don't involve health or safety. Gay marriage definitely would not compromise either of those principles and it's also an emotional issue which I feel strongly in favor of. Watching my uncles grow old and suffer serious health issues is hard enough on me without knowing that, if either one reaches a crisis, it will be his largely non-supportive and distant family that gets to see him and make decisions for him.