If you are against Gay Marriage or Civil Unions, why?

[War on Want]

I am just curious, because I have honestly not seen a valid reason for being opposed to it besides personal bias against gays and borderline Theocracy type thought. I can understand being against Gay Marriage but for Civil Unions quite a bit but why be against Civil Unions?

[Ebowed]

I can understand being against Gay Marriage but for Civil Unions

Actually, I'm more interested in hearing a justification for this view.

[Boris]

I can understand being against Gay Marriage but for Civil Unions

Actually, I'm more interested in hearing a justification for this view.

not sure an intellectually defensible justification of that view exists (other than the fact that it is probably the mot politically expedient view), but that really doesn't matter, now does it?

[ilikeverin]

I can understand being against Gay Marriage but for Civil Unions

Actually, I'm more interested in hearing a justification for this view.

not sure an intellectually defensible justification of that view exists (other than the fact that it is probably the mot politically expedient view), but that really doesn't matter, now does it?

I'm not sure intellectually defensible justifications of any particular political views exist.  Political feelings aren't due to rational, intellectual ponderings, not even bono's; they're due to gut-level moral judgments.

[Reluctant Republican]

Marriage is a religious thing, according to social conservatives (Not that I totally agree) So if you give the gays benefits without dirtying the religious institute of marriage, their is no harm done.  At least, that’s the justification I’ve been able to piece together, I’d love to hear others reasoning.

I do think there are few good reasons to be against civil unions. I guess if you don’t believe the government should be involved in marriage at all you could extend that to civil unions and say government should not recognize or reward any partnership. And if your  a social conservative you could oppose civil unions by saying that it leads to a slippery slope, or your rewarding an abhorrent, socially destructive behavior by giving it the same benefits as one a socially constructive coupling receives.  I don’t agree with any of this, and I’ve never really heard anyone be against civil unions (It seems to be the view most people see as PC. “I’m not a homophobe! I support civil unions“.) So if my reasoning is wrong feel free to shoot some holes in it.

[Smid]

Marriage is a religious thing, according to social conservatives (Not that I totally agree) So if you give the gays benefits without dirtying the religious institute of marriage, their is no harm done.  At least, that’s the justification I’ve been able to piece together, I’d love to hear others reasoning.

Marriage is a religious institution that has existed for thousands of years - before the existence of the US government, before the drafting of the constitution, before european settlers even arrived in the US. To legislate a new definition of marriage destroys the concept of the separation of church and state.

[Ebowed]

Marriage is a religious institution that has existed for thousands of years - before the existence of the US government, before the drafting of the constitution, before european settlers even arrived in the US. To legislate a new definition of marriage destroys the concept of the separation of church and state.

Marriage is a social institution that has existed for thousands of years - before the existence of Christianity.

When the Supreme Court banned laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage in 1968, were they violating the separation of church and state?

[dead0man]

There are no good reasons to keep two people that love each other from joining together in some legal fashion or another.  I believe that's true for 3 or more people as well.  I draw the line at animals.  If a dude can marry a dude, a dude should be able to marry two chicks as well....and a dude.  Or whatever.  It might not be the best situation for everyone involved in the long run, but as long as there is no coercion and everybody is an adult, the govt has no business preventing it.  The govt isn't here to keep us from making mistakes, nor should it be.  They shouldn't be the ones we run to when we fail either.

[Smid]

When the Supreme Court banned laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage in 1968, were they violating the separation of church and state?

No, it wasn't violating the separation of church and state, it was overturning the previous law that violated the separation of church and state, in my opinion.

[Ronnie]

I have very mixed feelings on the subject as a whole.  It does not effect me personally, so I'm pretty apathetic in any case.

[DownWithTheLeft]

For the reason mostly that people like you think that you are retarded for opposing it.  I can't stand the society where we live in that if you are anywhere to the right of opposing pigs marrying donkeys you are mocked and ridiculed.  I would be much more open to supporting civil unions (although not gay marriage) if I wasn't so sure what a victory it would be the left and their lunatic causes

[War on Want]

For the reason mostly that people like you think that you are retarded for opposing it.  I can't stand the society where we live in that if you are anywhere to the right of opposing pigs marrying donkeys you are mocked and ridiculed.  I would be much more open to supporting civil unions (although not gay marriage) if I wasn't so sure what a victory it would be the left and their lunatic causes

Oh yeah that's very reasonable.

[DownWithTheLeft]

For the reason mostly that people like you think that you are retarded for opposing it.  I can't stand the society where we live in that if you are anywhere to the right of opposing pigs marrying donkeys you are mocked and ridiculed.  I would be much more open to supporting civil unions (although not gay marriage) if I wasn't so sure what a victory it would be the left and their lunatic causes

Oh yeah that's very reasonable.

And your reponse only furthers my point, thx

[War on Want]

For the reason mostly that people like you think that you are retarded for opposing it.  I can't stand the society where we live in that if you are anywhere to the right of opposing pigs marrying donkeys you are mocked and ridiculed.  I would be much more open to supporting civil unions (although not gay marriage) if I wasn't so sure what a victory it would be the left and their lunatic causes

Oh yeah that's very reasonable.

And your reponse only furthers my point, thx

So pretty much you oppose people getting married because.....the left is for it and then you think it is as reasonable as pigs marrying donkeys. Yeah I am sure you get my drift for why I think your own personal view is retarded.

[Aizen]

There's really no valid reason but in all honesty, it isn't a big issue for me. We have plenty of other things to worry about.

[Alcon]

I have very mixed feelings on the subject as a whole.  It does not effect me personally, so I'm pretty apathetic in any case.

Doesn't that seem like a downright scary ethical defense to you?  In fact, I think we have a much greater onus in defending those with very limited political sway.

For the reason mostly that people like you think that you are retarded for opposing it.  I can't stand the society where we live in that if you are anywhere to the right of opposing pigs marrying donkeys you are mocked and ridiculed.  I would be much more open to supporting civil unions (although not gay marriage) if I wasn't so sure what a victory it would be the left and their lunatic causes

Okey doke.  Explain why I'm a lunatic?

[HardRCafé]

This is the closest thing I can recall to an explanation in recent years:

Topinka opposes gay marriage but says there's no need to rewrite the state constitution because Illinois law already prohibits same-sex marriage. Blagojevich, too, opposes a constitutional amendment and has said he considers marriage to be between a man and a woman. Both politicians support civil unions.

When it comes to gay rights, where Blagojevich and Topinka diverge is in offering health benefits to partners of the nonunion gay employees under their control. Thousands of unionized state employees already were entitled to them.

Blagojevich issued an administrative order in May extending the benefits as of July 1 to the employees he oversees and encouraged the state's other constitutional officers to do the same. They all have except for Topinka, said Department of Central Management Services spokesman Justin DeJong.

Topinka said the state can't afford the benefits or “anything else right now.” The Blagojevich campaign hopes that shows how the two are different.

[John Dibble]

Marriage is a religious thing, according to social conservatives (Not that I totally agree) So if you give the gays benefits without dirtying the religious institute of marriage, their is no harm done.  At least, that’s the justification I’ve been able to piece together, I’d love to hear others reasoning.

Marriage is a religious institution that has existed for thousands of years - before the existence of the US government, before the drafting of the constitution, before european settlers even arrived in the US. To legislate a new definition of marriage destroys the concept of the separation of church and state.

First off, there has been no single definition of what marriage is throughout history. Yes, normally it goes by the one man one woman model, but there are exceptions to that. There's polygamous marriages for instance, which have existed for thousands of years as well. There's also been various rules as to how the marital relationship works, varying by religion, country, and time. Variance in rules includes who is in charge of what in the relationship, whether a divorce is allowed, etc. Point is, marriage has changed over and over again.

Second, for the government to legislate a new definition of marriage does not violate the separation of church and state. The reason for this is because marriage as the state defines it is not religious in nature. As far as the state is concerned it's pretty much a civil contract between two people. Two atheists can get married just as easily as two Christians, two Jews, two Muslims, two Buddhists, a Christian and an atheist, a Jew and a Muslim, a Scientologist and a Pastafarian, and any other combination of people who may or may not religiously be forbidden to marry. They also allow divorce whether or not the religion of a married couple allows it or not, as well as not recognizing polygamous marriages whether or not a particular religion allows it or not. If gay marriage is recognized by the state, it will be without any regard to whether a particular religion allows it or not.

Seperation of church and state only prevents the state from behaving in a manner that is overly biased towards a particular religion - they can't act as if a single religion is the state religion. In regards to marital contracts, the state would only be crossing the line if they attempted to force people to religiously accept a marriage that contradicts the religion then it is violating the first amendment. No proponent of gay marriage is asking that religious people be forced to religiously recognize any marriage of any kind as far as I know.

[JSojourner]

Completely in favor of either, or both.

Man on man sex skeeves me out.  But it's really none of my business, is it?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

*Is not actually against Gay Marriage or Civil Unions but is ready to make an arguement anyway/play Devil's Advocate*

From a rational non-theological point of view the argument against gay marriage is rather slight, mostly based on spurious thesis' and unprovable facts - the ridiculous partizanship of many "studies" proves this. It can't be a scientific study if you are trying to look for things to back up your arguement and disprove your "opponent's". How many times does "OMG gay parentage damages the Children!111" come out only to be contradicted by "Gay Rights!!! There is no Evidence!1111" and so on. Rinse and Repeat.

However the institution of marriage itself has little to do with rationality, at least in the way most people here understand it and even less to do with religion, at least initially. Like so many other European customs (and marriage is far from being a European-only custom) it was originally a Pagan construct which over a long period of time gained a superficial christianity, later on this was enshired into law and people have been thinking of marriage as a religious issue ever since.

Rather Marriage is a right of passage, and even today I believe this holds true with most people, given that on average people in long marriages I find to be slightly more mature than even more co-habitees, many of whom are afraid of "marriage" for various reasons. Marriage's purpose was take a man and a woman together and put into "adulthood", their next stage in development, in the same way baptism marked birth and a funeral marked death and today these things still have a strong emotional appeal, how many Atheist children are baptised? Though many today would, say, see losing their virginity as a sign of adulthood it does not contain the symbolic or emotional power of a marriage.

So in this sense Marriage the custom, not the legal and financial entitlements which come with it should be preserved in its current standing as homosexual 'marriage' is not a standard or traditional form of exchange it cannot be a right of passage for gay males at least initially. Rather the campaign is something of a cultural fad, a form of new leftist thinking syncretizing current practices into those deemed 'modern'. Gays could create their own ceremonies and their practices and give them legal rights but not call them 'marriages' as that concerns a single man and a woman.

....

Well, at least, this was my attempt at an arguement against it.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

What I don't understand is why liberals and the various sodomites don't advocate separation of marriage and state.  It's interesting to me when liberals are angered about existing laws, their solution is not to repeal old laws, but to make new laws.

Most gays have no intention of getting married as it is; they would rather participate in pride parades and wave their penises at traffic.  Gay marriage is all politics and nothing more.  Somebody wake me up when all this crap is over.

I concur for the most part. Most of the gay people I've known live a totally different lifestyle where anything goes. I am for Civil Unions for those who truly are in a longterm committed relationship, but those are few and far between. I worry about them gaming the system to take advantage of the tax benefits you get when you are married. I could "marry" by best friend while we were living together so we could get the benefits and then divorce him once we really found a girl.

But for the most part, we can instate civil unions, but most of this cry is political. Most gay people don't want to get married and sleep with about any guy that has a nice dick.

[Stranger in a strange land]

For the reason mostly that people like you think that you are retarded for opposing it.  I can't stand the society where we live in that if you are anywhere to the right of opposing pigs marrying donkeys you are mocked and ridiculed.  I would be much more open to supporting civil unions (although not gay marriage) if I wasn't so sure what a victory it would be the left and their lunatic causes

Oh yeah that's very reasonable.

And your reponse only furthers my point, thx

So pretty much you oppose people getting married because.....the left is for it and then you think it is as reasonable as pigs marrying donkeys. Yeah I am sure you get my drift for why I think your own personal view is retarded.

Gay marriage is marriage between consenting adults. Animals are not consenting adults. If two men want to get married, the government has no business trying to stop them. They aren't hurting anybody.

[Alcon]

What I don't understand is why liberals and the various sodomites don't advocate separation of marriage and state.  It's interesting to me when liberals are angered about existing laws, their solution is not to repeal old laws, but to make new laws.

Most gays have no intention of getting married as it is; they would rather participate in pride parades and wave their penises at traffic.  Gay marriage is all politics and nothing more.  Somebody wake me up when all this crap is over.

I concur for the most part. Most of the gay people I've known live a totally different lifestyle where anything goes. I am for Civil Unions for those who truly are in a longterm committed relationship, but those are few and far between. I worry about them gaming the system to take advantage of the tax benefits you get when you are married. I could "marry" by best friend while we were living together so we could get the benefits and then divorce him once we really found a girl.

But for the most part, we can instate civil unions, but most of this cry is political. Most gay people don't want to get married and sleep with about any guy that has a nice dick.

I'm kind of worried you'd be making the same argument, with slightly different wording, against interracial marriage, if this were 100 years ago.

Snark: Wow...promiscuity in college?  Next thing you'll be telling me, the heterosexuals sleep around too.  Especially considering a lot of these guys/girls probably just came out and are in the first place where they feel comfortable with their sexuality, this is a bad sample.  I'm not encouraging promiscuity but using bad college behavior to deny rights to mature adults is crazy.

Plus: "Sorry, you can't get married, the people in college I know were slutty, so logically you probably wouldn't want to either."  Huh?

As for the potential for abuse:  How extensively has the system been "gamed" where gay marriage is legal?  If you can't prove that exceeds the value to marriage equality and general fairness, the morally cautious thing to do would be to be inclusive.  This is all about caution, right?

[DownWithTheLeft]

For the reason mostly that people like you think that you are retarded for opposing it.  I can't stand the society where we live in that if you are anywhere to the right of opposing pigs marrying donkeys you are mocked and ridiculed.  I would be much more open to supporting civil unions (although not gay marriage) if I wasn't so sure what a victory it would be the left and their lunatic causes

Okey doke.  Explain why I'm a lunatic?

You are part of the lunatic left?  I was unaware

[Alcon]

You are part of the lunatic left?  I was unaware

Nope, but I share their position on this issue.

You don't seriously put your pride in winning above the ethical thing to do, do you?