jump to last post 1-16 of 16 discussions (168 posts)

Traditional Marriage Folk: Bring Your Best Arguments

  1. 0
    Sooner28posted 3 years ago

    I will refrain from accusing anyone of holding ill will towards homosexuals, unless you flat out lie (like saying gay people are pedophiles).

    What I am looking for is your best argument (s) against gay marriage, in favor of traditional marriage, in order to foster understanding.  Use whatever source you want: The Bible, science, anything you find to be compelling. (Notice I am using gay-marriage instead of marriage equality to try and remain as neutral as possible).

    The arguments in favor of traditional marriage also don't have to necessarily endorse a government ban on gay marriage.  You could see it as a private matter, like being personally against alcohol, but in favor of the ability to buy it.  However, if your argument supports a ban on gay marriage, bring that to bear also.

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      There are several.
      Right now I'll give you the most basic one.
      A man cannot be a wife nor a mother, and a woman cannot be a husband nor a father.

      How simple that is.

      I bet you know the other arguments too.

      And actually the burden of proof should be upon the liberals who are yelling for gay marriage, not upon conservatives.   Try as they might, there's no good argument, no good reason, for them trying to invade the institution of marriage and change it into something it isn't.

      1. Zelkiiro profile image86
        Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        News Flash: Dead bodies can't be fathers or mothers. Does that mean single parents should be dragged out into the street and murdered, too?

      2. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So? What does being a wife or mother have to do with it?

        There are many good reasons for either making marriage equal, or removing government from the decision process. Equality and freedom are at the top of that list.

        When it comes to deciding if citizens should be able to do something or not, the onus is on the one arguing on LIMITING freedom, not vice versa.

    2. tirelesstraveler profile image87
      tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I will support gay marriage when there is proof that gay marriage is good for all, partners, children and that it won't get out of control. Everything gets kind of confusing when transsexual and bisexual  is part of the whole thing.

      Yesterday I heard a news item about a couple who wanted to get divorced in Arizona.  Tom who was born a woman, originally her name was Tracy.  She,Tracy, had a double mastectomy and testosterone treatments and became Tom.  He married Nancy in another state. When Nancy couldn't have children, Tom, who professed to be a man, but still had female organs ,using donated sperm had three children.  Whoa that is confusing.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        How about supporting it when convinced that there is little to no harm going to come of it instead of requiring that it actually be positive for everyone involved?

        Not necessarily a positive, just not a negative?  Isn't that what much of other's rights are about - what they want and not particularly what you or I decide is best for them?

      2. Josak profile image61
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        God forbid something confusing happen, we obviously can't have that tongue

        As for it working several countries have had it for significant time with no negative consequences.

    3. peoplepower73 profile image88
      peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I've read every single reply so far. The divorce rate in America for opposite sex marriages is about 50%. I don't know what the statistics are for those  who took religious vows, but I'll bet it was pretty high. Who is to say whether opposite sex marriages are better than same sex marriages?  Here is the link to the divorce rates:  http://www.divorcerate.org/.

      What the supreme court is deliberating now is whether same sex couples will be given the same legal rights as opposite sex couples.  It has nothing to do with the morality or sanctity of marriage or the bible.  As far as I know there is nothing in the constitution that says in order to get married you need the blessing a church!  The bible is for the church and the constitution is for our laws.  Here is a link to a website that summarizes 1,138 laws that benefit heterosexual marriages but not same sex marriages. http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-o … ed-couples

      1. 0
        Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        A good conservative argument could be that marriage would lower taxes for gay Americans!

    4. peoplepower73 profile image88
      peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I saw this someplace and seemed to make sense for me.  You don't get a wedding license.  You get a marriage license. Weddings are a ceremony. A marriage license makes it legal.  That's what is being deliberated in the Supreme Court.  The legality of same sex marriage.

    5. Silverspeeder profile image59
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      There is nothing wrong with individuals wanting to show commitment to each other by marriage (even if they are the same sex) but there is everything wrong with trying to force religious institutions to carry out those marriages.
      Best option would be for same sex partner marriages to be recognised in law and give religious organisations an opertunity to opt out of performing ceremonies for the said same sex marriages. ( I think that's what will be happening here int he UK)

    6. lizzieBoo profile image79
      lizzieBooposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The argument should centre around the purpose of marriage.
      Is marriage about equality? No.
      Is it about rights? No.
      Is it about religion? No.
      Is it about telling the world that you love someone? No.
      Marriage is designed for just a few specific purposes:
      1. As a necessary contract for the protection of offspring.
      2. For insurance against future generations inbreeding (ie; knowing who belongs to whom in law).
      3. For the assurance that men will take responsibility for their children and the mothers of those children.
      4. For the protection of mothers when they are most vulnerable  (ie; pregnant or with small children).
      For these reasons, the purpose of marriage is for the protection of society against unnecessary unrest. Marriage is often a romantic thing, but romance is not its purpose. You can only justify gay marriage therefore, by changing the meaning and purpose of marriage.

      1. Petra Vlah profile image59
        Petra Vlahposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The purpose of marriage is stability (financial and otherwise) It is a social contract that will insure just that. In many cases, it has nothing to do with children (many couples do not have or want offspring). Both parties are equally responsible for the successes of the social contract

  2. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    Good luck. You can get arguments based on the Bible, or arguments based on personal morals, but you won't get any arguments that work with the Constitution and role of government.

    1. 0
      Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe there will be a personal moral one I haven't considered yet;

  3. Zelkiiro profile image86
    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago

    Most anti-homosexual arguments usually amount to "THE BIBLE!!" or "Eugghh" when you get right down to it.

  4. Zelkiiro profile image86
    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago

    Bonus Material on Leviticus:

    http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/p480x480/32368_10151306892805155_1684196008_n.jpg
    http://i.imgur.com/E5Ajo.jpg

    1. HattieMattieMae profile image69
      HattieMattieMaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      ha ha...always love these versus...we like to be disobedient in them, but not okay for others when they hit the bone where you don't agree. smile

    2. HattieMattieMae profile image69
      HattieMattieMaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      ha ha...always love these versus...we like to be disobedient in them, but not okay for others when they hit the bone where you don't agree. smile

  5. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    Marriage is the best way to commit oneself to love in a relationship. A family needs the commitment of the adults/parents to each other to have a solid and lasting foundation.  The children take a long time to mature/grow and need the security of a wholesome, happy and lasting environment and marriage insures this. I do not think that individuals of the same gender have to marry unless they want a family and children will be involved.

    Furthermore, I do not think two individuals of the same gender should be allowed to adopt children unless they ARE married.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Of my 4 married nieces/nephews, only 2 have children.  The other 2 couples don't want them and will probably never have them.

      I presume they didn't "have" to get married?  That there was no reason to?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I am talking about people of the same gender. If they really want to, that is entirely up to them, of course.  (I wonder how many REALLY want to "tie the knot."  How many have? all of them??? No. Why not?  Friends, family,
        minister = wedding. Nothing stopping them at all. Instead, how many are enjoying a childless, free lifestyle of dating or living with someone for as long as it works out and then moving on to the next relationship?

        1. 60
          picnic2013posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Wait, what?
          So, people of the same gender shouldn't get married because they can't procreate and have children,
          but,
          if people of the same gender want to get married, then they should, if they really want to, of course, (which is the problem, they can't)
          but,
          people of the same gender should not be allowed to adopt children UNLESS they are married...
          did I get that right?
          hmm
          Oh, BTW,
          "Friends, family, minister = wedding"
          isn't completely true.
          Here's an article about a same sex married couple who do not have the same rights as a traditional married couple:
          http://www.npr.org/2013/03/27/175295410 … f-marriage

          Here's an excerpt of what I mean:
          "The test case involves a couple from New York, Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, who had been together for 42 years prior to their marriage in 2007. When Spyer died, however, the federal government, acting under DOMA, required Windsor to pay $363,000 in estate taxes that she would not have owed if her spouse had been of the opposite sex.

          "If Thea had been Theo, I would not have had to pay those taxes," says Windsor. "It's just a terrible injustice and I don't expect that from my country. I think it's a mistake that has to get corrected." At the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Windsor's lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, will tell the justices that the federal government, throughout the nation's history, has always deferred to state definitions of marriage, because regulating marriage is a state function. But because of DOMA, that traditional deference to the states doesn't exist for same-sex couples. Edie Windsor's marriage, recognized as legally valid by the state of New York, is not recognized by the federal government."

    2. jandee profile image46
      jandeeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I don't think men should be allowed to adopt or foster children,unless relatives,no matter what their sexual activities are. Women have kids and that is it... Otherwise who is bothered who lives,legal or otherwise ,with who ?

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Wow, I don't think I've ever heard that before...

        You don't think a child can be as well off with just a father as it can with just a mother?

        1. jandee profile image46
          jandeeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Hm! I did say unless relatives,okay ?

        2. HattieMattieMae profile image69
          HattieMattieMaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well there are many mothers out there that are not good mothers just because they gave birth. Lots of mothers that make bad choices all the way around, or leave their children just as well as men do. So of course the courts put the child where it is appropriate, as what is best for the child. So I don't think the last few decades could be dismissed when plenty of fathers have stepped up to the plate.

      2. peeples profile image89
        peeplesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I have to say that was the least thought out answer in this entire forum thread. Last year approximately 17,000 children were adopted by male same sex couples. Do you have an alternative for those children? Would you rather they stay in the foster care system? Bounce from home to home?

        1. jandee profile image46
          jandeeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well then ! Maybe you should start thinking..

          1. peeples profile image89
            peeplesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            My point exactly, couldn't even answer the question.

            1. jandee profile image46
              jandeeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              When men can have children----well then !   Can easily answer any question but how can you learn if others do the work for you ??

              1. peeples profile image89
                peeplesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Learn what exactly? That you would rather 17,000 children be homeless than have two dads? A man is just as capable of parenting as a woman. Who spits a child out their crotch is irrelevant. Plenty of women have shown they aren't capable of raising a child.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  It's kinda relevant.
                  I mean it does hurt a lot.  Let's not let men completely off the hook with that one... smile

                2. jandee profile image46
                  jandeeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Sounds like you are one of them.......

        2. HattieMattieMae profile image69
          HattieMattieMaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          sexual gender doesn't qualify you as a good or bad parent. Perhaps it's the sexual example you're aiming at here. smile

  6. jenb0128 profile image93
    jenb0128posted 3 years ago

    Wilderness beat me to it!

    Is baby-making the only reason people "have to" get married? I can't have kids, so I guess my husband and I had no reason to get married.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Some individuals of the same gender may not want to marry.  I am considering these people. If they do not want to have children they do not have to get married. Why would they want to? Marriage is suddenly something SO WONDERFUL?

      Welcome all frying pans, financial woes, divorce details and misery... LOL

      (Staying single might actually be one of the advantages of having same gender orientation. smile  )

      1. jenb0128 profile image93
        jenb0128posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        No, they don't "have to" marry (nobody has to), but why stop them if they DO want to? My husband and I wanted to get married, even though we can't have kids. How is that different?

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
          Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I never said they should be stopped. I said they should/could be married already... Are they not married Y E T ?

  7. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    (In '09 I was the dog sitter for a well to do producer who enjoyed the companionship of the same sex.  He had a beautiful home and beautiful yard for his three black standard poodles. They were always waiting for me, beautifully groomed, with colorful handkerchief scarves around their necks.  One was a puppy and needed a person to look after him.

    Anyway, there was one bedroom in his house which he obviously used for bed romping with whomever he wished. I am quite sure he had no plans to marry. Ever.)

    1. jenb0128 profile image93
      jenb0128posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That's him. That's not every gay person in the world.

      You have me confused (not that confusing me is hard to do right now, as I've been sick and "out of it" for the past several days).. In one post you said:
      "I do not think that individuals of the same gender have to marry unless they want a family and children will be involved."
      In another, you said:
      "If they really want to [get married], that is entirely up to them, of course."
      I agree, but it seems to conflict what you were saying above.
      Then, you say:
      "Some individuals of the same gender may not want to marry.  I am considering these people. If they do not want to have children they do not have to get married. Why would they want to?"
      You say that as if anybody who doesn't have or want kids SHOULDN'T want to get married! There are plenty of gay (and straight) people who don't want to or can't have kids who would still like to have that commitment to each other and the legal benefits that come with it.

      I have no idea what you mean by this:
      "Are they not married Y E T ?"

      Sure, some gay couples are married, if they are lucky enough to live in an area that allows same sex marriage. There are still PLENTY of places that don't allow it. So, no, not all gay couples who want to get married are married.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The government should allow legal *Same-Gender Partnerships* and give them benefits based on their same gender relationship status. Institute a bonding institution: Call it "LGBT Partnership" for people who are oriented toward the same gender, but don't call it "marriage."  After all, according to the dictionary, marriage is based on* matrimony.* see below)
        And yes, they can have a religious wedding ceremony if they so choose for the sake of their own lives.
        Do not issue a Marriage Certificate to same gender couples but, rather, a Legal Union Certificate.
        This should help clarify everything.
        IMO

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          What is it with the religious angle?  People have been getting married for a long, long time without a priest in attendance - ships captains can marry, Las Vegas has hundreds of locations without ministers, and any Justice of the Peace can marry someone.  I've been married (married, mind you, not some declared "partnership") for 37 years now with nothing but the approval of a JP.  I neither know nor care whether God chooses to recognize my marriage - I am more married than the vast majority of couples using religion to make their promises.

          While religion may like to claim sole responsibility and authority for marriage, it isn't so and hasn't been in the past.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Marriage was originally for the purpose of uniting two people together who wanted to commit themselves to one another under mutual Love. Traditionally, marriage ceremonies were conducted
            in the presence of the Lord
            'til death do us part.
            - without God, what keeps them together,  I wonder?
            Love?

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Can you give dates, location and culture for that original purpose?

              Most certain it is that love is NOT under the jurisdiction of a god that promotes slavery, genocide, child abuse and rape.  Love falls under the guidance of eros and aphrodite, not the Christian myth.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                God is the force of morals in our lives: Boundaries for our own good. See Jesus. However, even He knew that marriage was not easy and actually said it would be better for people not to get married and devote themselves to God...but, acknowledged that it was also hard to live without it: (love and sex.)

                In other words, Legal Marriage makes love and sex legitimate for heterosexual couples and Legal Union will make it legitimate for LGBT couples. I think this is a great idea, if I don't say so myself!

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  No, God is the force of morals in your life, with boundaries set for the good of the church.  Other people have other gods, or even just their own mind to form their morals with. 

                  No, both love AND sex are legitimate for both hetero and gay couples.  Hard to believe that you think the govt. has to say it's OK before one person can love another - even provide a license for it!

                  I think it is an extremely poor idea to require one segment of the population to have a different word for the same thing.  If the religious folk, being legitimized by their specific god, wants a different word, let them make up and choose one for their relationship.  "Born again", maybe, as a couple instead of individuals.

                  (I didn't see any history of marriage, showing the origin of marriage with that "original purpose" you claimed)

                2. Uninvited Writer profile image83
                  Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Separate but equal right?

              2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                @ wilderness: Lord Hardwicke's Act of 1753 in England and Wales instituted performance of a religious ceremony observed by witnesses.  (In general, marriage also proves legitimacy of offspring.)

            2. Uninvited Writer profile image83
              Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Marriage was instituted so that women could be seen as possessions.

              1. Clint Ward profile image59
                Clint Wardposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Please explain I have never heard that.

                1. Josak profile image61
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Marriage was a transferal of ownership from the father who owns his daughter to her husband that will now own her, (hence her father giving her away in modern marriages), married women were considered chattel of their husbands in most first world countries until around 80 years ago.
                  Usually the trade involved a material trade of possessions too such as a dowry.

                  1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
                    Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Thank you smile

                  2. Clint Ward profile image59
                    Clint Wardposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Good thing that is no longer the case. Now for my next question how do we feel about a man or woman marrying their horse or other animal? Will we in 10 years see people feeling discriminated against because they can't marry their sister? Where will it end?

                  3. tirelesstraveler profile image87
                    tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    80 years?

            3. Don W profile image83
              Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You need to go further back than Latin or biblical times. Monogamy (the forerunner of marriage) is a behaviour that has been selected over many years through the process of natural selection. The long developmental period of human infants (compared to other mammals) meant there was a survival advantage in both parents sticking around to rear the child. Traditionally this would have been the female providing nourishment (through breast milk) for the child, the male providing nourishment for himself and the female, and both providing protection for the infant while the slow process of development took place.

              As human beings became more complex and developed different layers of socialisation, certain evolved behaviours became codified as part of moral codes, customs, traditions, religious practices etc. So the behaviour we call monogamy, turned into the social/religious construct we call marriage.

              The truth is that conditions which originally gave marriage/monogamy a survival value do not exist to the same way they did. A male is no longer needed to provide food and protection to a mother and infant. Two females can adequately provide both those things. Likewise two males (who obviously have no breast milk) can successfully rear an infant from birth. This is because we have developed to a point where we have overcome some of the constraints of our biology and our physical environment. So marriage/monogamy in the 21st century is more a matter of choice than of survival.

              The problem is that we seem less able to overcome the traditions, customs and practices which stem from those adapted behaviours. Probably because these things have become aspects of people's identity. Someone saying they are a Christian is not only a statement of fact, but also a statement of identity. For those people, it is not just about changing a tradition. I think it is about giving up something which is deeply ingrained in someone's identity. But there is precedent for doing so.

              Segregation in the South was ingrained as part of some people's identity, but (thankfully) society changed. There are still pockets of people who would like a return to those times, but generally society has moved on. I think the same will happen with this issue. It will take time and it will mean some people (perhaps not unlike yourself) will feel their identity, their way of life, even the fabric of society, is under attack. But just as it did when slavery was abolished, just as it did when women got the vote, just as it did when desegregation happened, I think the time will pass and attitudes will slowly adapt. Such is the progress of human beings.

      2. Becca's Blog profile image60
        Becca's Blogposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The conservatives who have finally given in on this topic have done so because tthese are moslty issues of people wanting to benefit from financial rights that traditional couples have. There simply is one form of marrige that government has any business bothering about it is civil . The paranoid right needs to understand that even their radical rabid Catholic friends do not see their marriages as legitimate. This is a civil and not theological matter. As far as the slippery slope issue. The governent has no need to legitimate poly amory on the basis that it is far too much trouble to even think about dealing with people who want to claim they have more than one spouse. There is no moral judgement needed here because as long as the rights of support are given to children of any biological union , society can not be asked to mess with the complications polygamist cause by their lifestyle. The other stuff about marrying goats and things. Well the government is not in the business of controling fetish lifestyles so it is just a stupid issue to bring up. No one is going to decide what a particular flavor of Christianity can deem the sacrament of marriage as. Many radical protestants don't view it as a sacrement anyway. If we wanted to promote the cause of traditional marriage we would do it by making divorce complicated enough to discourage people getting married on a whim less likely to happen.

    2. LongTimeMother profile image97
      LongTimeMotherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Question, Kathryn L Hill.

      If you were the dog sitter, what were you doing looking in the bedrooms? Surely that door would have been kept closed, no?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        No,  actually. I would often rest with the dogs all around me on the bed. ( I worked at a camp for special needs children and would arrive at his house in the afternoon, exhausted. (His house was so beautiful, neat and clean with nothing out of place. I felt so relaxed there compared to how I felt in the disarray of my own house.) So, while resting there I eventually noticed certain items in this room.  At first, I thought it was just an extra bedroom... but there in the closet was a mirror set up, just so... and there in the drawer were condoms, and there under the bed was a box... just kidding about the box.... I did not dare look under the bed!

        1. LongTimeMother profile image97
          LongTimeMotherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I don't look in the closet or the drawer in anyone's house when I'm trusted to stay there alone - even in my adult children's homes. I think it is a betrayal of trust.

          I find it interesting to compare this kind of behaviour with the words you speak. You know what they say about actions speaking louder ... ?

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Oh, good grief!

            1. Clint Ward profile image59
              Clint Wardposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You could say that about a lot of these responses.

            2. jandee profile image46
              jandeeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You are so nosey ! You remind me of my Boxer Dog.  I think i like you....
              jandee

            3. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
              Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              In my defense, I had to find out if it was a spare bedroom or not! After I found out it was for bed romping, I never went in there again. No, I would sit on the couch watching his Home and Garden shows along with the dogs who loved hanging out with me. I was a very good dog/puppy sitter. I would recommend this job to to anyone!

  8. LauraD093 profile image84
    LauraD093posted 3 years ago

    I can only give the most ridiculous argument thus far (as I personally support "gay marriage.")


    http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/jeremy-irons … 53998.html

    1. 0
      Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      LOL.  Nice

  9. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    Matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, (mater.) The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her." Wikipedia

  10. LongTimeMother profile image97
    LongTimeMotherposted 3 years ago

    I'm wondering why you are asking for "best arguments against gay marriage", Sooner28.

    Please tell us, what inspired this thought? Are you researching a future hub, preparing yourself for a conversation with a gay friend or relative, or what?

    I'm only asking because I'm scratching my head, wondering "Why??"

    1. 0
      Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I explained it in the beginning: fostering understanding.  I haven't attacked anyone.  I'm simply reading responses.

      I've written a hub about gay marriage, so this isn't for that.

      1. LongTimeMother profile image97
        LongTimeMotherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks for your response, Sooner28. Let's look at what you wrote ...

        "What I am looking for is your best argument (s) against gay marriage, in favor of traditional marriage, in order to foster understanding.  Use whatever source you want: The Bible, science, anything you find to be compelling. (Notice I am using gay-marriage instead of marriage equality to try and remain as neutral as possible).

        "The arguments in favor of traditional marriage also don't have to necessarily endorse a government ban on gay marriage.  You could see it as a private matter, like being personally against alcohol, but in favor of the ability to buy it.  However, if your argument supports a ban on gay marriage, bring that to bear also."

        If you were trying to foster understanding, why didn't you actively invite pro-gay marriage opinions as well?

        Instantly gays are put in defensive mode. Either that or they stay away because they don't feel their opinion is 'welcome'.

        Without any pro-gay marriage input you'd be left with a page that provided no understanding of the issue as a whole. So what would you be seeking us to understand? Just one side of the issue?

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I believe because Sooner as a staunch supporter of same sex marriage rights is very familiar with the pro argument and is attempting to gain more understanding of the opposition to it.

          1. 0
            Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You got it.

        2. 0
          Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Because I am pro-gay marriage to begin with.  Reading any of my hubs, or even just browsing the titles, will make it unnecessarily obvious.  I have a gay brother, and I am usually very direct about disagreeing with people who are against gay marriage.  You could also check out the forums I have created.  With this one, I was/am simply trying to more fully understand the opposition so I can stop thinking so low of them.

          The purpose of the forum is for people who are against gay marriage to fully articulate their claims without fear of the creator of the forum disagreeing.  I was aiming for a very open atmosphere.

          I've created other forums that favor gay marriage, and responded to many people who disagree with it.  I think you are just misunderstanding my purpose here.

          1. LongTimeMother profile image97
            LongTimeMotherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Okay, thanks. When I looked at your profile the 20 hub titles showing didn't really give me a clue. The hub about your brother shows up now. I've posted on it. smile

  11. Clint Ward profile image59
    Clint Wardposted 3 years ago

    How about bisexuals will they be able to marry a man and a woman? Will we be discriminating against polygamist's too? Will we just stop at two people getting married or can it be a group of people? We all have rights....right?

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Why would bi-sexuals want to marry a  man and a woman?

      That question makes no sense.

      As well as polygamy, it the bible says it's fine, that's good enough for me.

      (I don't care about polygamy either, I honestly think it should be legalized as well... as long as all parties are of age and consenting)

      1. Clint Ward profile image59
        Clint Wardposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Look, I'm done with you, you can ignore me and I will do the same.

      2. tirelesstraveler profile image87
        tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I believe the legal age for marrying in some states is 14.  At least it was as late as the  mid 1970's.  . Does that make a lot of sense?

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Nope, it makes no sense at all.  Your average 14 year old is incapable of consenting.

        2. jandee profile image46
          jandeeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          It used to be 13 in Texas.

    2. jlpark profile image90
      jlparkposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Ahhh...in the one or two states in the US - it is legal to marry more than one person...(.can I find that image with the info again....not right now, i will though).

      Gay Marriage is NOT going to open marriage up to anything else...see this hub for the best explanation I have seen in a while:
      http://ohgodwhyme.hubpages.com/hub/The-Gay-Dillema

      Think people! Think!.  We are all human.  Yet treating one group of people as those they are lesser does not make you the better person - it makes you despicable.

  12. 0
    Sooner28posted 3 years ago

    So far, I notice three themes in these forum.

    The first is that opening the door to redefinition of marriage will never let it close.  Without clear criteria, so the argument goes, marriage can mean almost anything.

    The second argument is about procreation.  Homosexuals cannot reproduce, and marriage is about reproduction, so homosexuals should not be allowed to get married.

    The third argument is based on "uncertainty" about what kinds of parents homosexuals are/would be.  It asks, "Where is the evidence that homosexual parents would be fit and raise good people?"  To me, this is more of an argument against gay adoption in general, and allowing gay males to use surrogates, or gay females to use artificial insemination in particular.

    I'm not passing judgment on any of these.  I'm just trying to summarize what I've read thus far.

    1. jandee profile image46
      jandeeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I think it is the right of the child to be socialised by a Mother and,if possible,a Father. Couldn't care less who marries who.  I don't really believe in Marriage,even though I did it, and we are still together and probably would be without the certificate. THE RIGHT OF THE CHILD .

      1. Becca's Blog profile image60
        Becca's Blogposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        GLBT people often get children in relationships the old fashioned way.  Many GLBT people have children because they try straight marriage.Others simply have their own biological  children. There is no evidence that they are better or worse parents then anyone else. This issue about parenting has nothing to do with gay marriage, it really is sort of mute in a discussion of hetro marriage. So many people have kids outside of matrimony, it is a completely different discussion.

      2. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I don't know about the "right" to have both sexes as parents, but I do think it is an advantage for the child.

        However, there are a great many children growing up with only one parent - I cannot see that two of the same sex can be anything but better than one of either sex.  We freely allow divorce, in spite of recognized harm to the children, and for the life of me can't see any logic in denying gay marriage because both parents will be the same sex.

        1. jandee profile image46
          jandeeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I never said that Gay marriage should be denied. I said that I didn't agree with Gay couples adopting---------Different thing.....

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            It is the adoption part I refer to.  Is not two parents of the same sex preferable to no parent at all?  Or, under certain circumstances, better than one parent?

            1. jandee profile image46
              jandeeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              We could go round forever.   In France the family allowance is to be increased in order for Women to be encouraged to have more children.  In UK there are more people wanting to adopt than there are children available,also  laws that go against adoption such as smoking,a weight problem and other  reasons.
              So should these children go to a couple where one is overweight or to Two Fellas ?

              1. peeples profile image89
                peeplesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Everywhere is not the UK. Each year 30,000 children age out of the foster care system without getting adopted. I was one of them and I would have took an overweight couple, smoking couple, gay couple, or any other couple that would have loved me. No one should get to say that a child should go without loving parents. Oh yeah by the way you should do your research because a quick google search shows the UK foster care system has over 400,000 children in it and they are having issues finding families to adopt/foster.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, they should be required to obtain a Civil Union certificate in order to adopt.

                2. jandee profile image46
                  jandeeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Try again Darlin'.
                  I was talking ADOPT not short term foster.  The children in U.K available for ADOPTION is around 4,000.  (Women don't give up babies ,they are taken off them . Health,Prison Housing-no money to fight their case ,many more such as children placed on planes from war-torn countries by desperate parents........

                  1. peeples profile image89
                    peeplesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    "I don't think men should be allowed to adopt or foster children" Sorry I assumed you hadn't changed your stance in 30 hours. No matter the stats, not everywhere is where you are. There is a need worldwide for adoptive AND foster parents.

      3. jlpark profile image90
        jlparkposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        People seem to forget when speaking of "children" being brought up in SS marriages/relationships, that people who are gay do not ONLY Have same gender friends, family, or loved ones.

        I am one of 7 girls (no boys) - I am the ONLY gay child.  My sisters are all in relationships or married to MEN.  I am in a CU with my wife (and married this year as it's legal but can't happen till after August). I have my mother, father, step-father, brothers-in-law, my wife's brothers (also "brothers-in-law"), and until a few years ago, my father in law (he has passed). We see all of these people a lot of the time, and I am lucky enough to have a supportive and loving family - who will love our children for who they are, whereever they may come from (IUI or adoption).

        I work with male counterparts, I have male friends. My female friends have male husbands (though, yes, some are gay...so they have wifes).

        I do not exist in a bubble of Women. (I can't think of ANYTHING worse!). I exist in the world just as you all do. As all your children do.  Your children will have male and female teachers (who...frankly, for much of their life will spend more hours in a day with your children that you may manage!....that is the nature of schooling!).

        It is not like they are brought up in a bubble.
        Why do people think that they will lack a "other gender" influence? THEY WON'T

        In fact, they will likely develop just as normally as your own children.  (See my hub on Teenagers of Same-Sex Parents for a condensed version of the latest reasearch).

        1. jandee profile image46
          jandeeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Okay ,point taken. My worry is the trendy,rich blokes, who adopt,it seems to me  it is similar to going out to buy a pet. Can't stand it,The Elton Johns!
          Most of my  friends who are from every kind of mix seem to agree with me------re.Gender influence-MOTHER INFLUENCE actually.Don't think I am coming at this from a religious perspective as I am an atheist------
          -jandee

          1. jlpark profile image90
            jlparkposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I'm sure Elton and David also do not live in a bubble of men only.  With men, and surrogacy, there is usually a mother figure, who may or may not be in the childs life (she is entitled to her privacy also).

            I do understand what you mean, though I feel the same about people who have children because it's the thing everyone is doing - they don't really want one, but it's a way to be: cool, paid (welfare etc), etc etc etc. I agree that children are not pets.

            Gay men often have a lot of female friends, they have sisters, mothers, aunties.  They are not in a bubble.

            Believe me - with what it takes to get pregnant as a gay woman - we've thought long and hard about what we want and need for our children's welfare.  With men, its even HARDER to become parents - adoption and surrogacy etc.....they've thought LONG and HARD about what they are doing....it's not something we ACCIDENTLY fall into.....unlike quite a  number of straight couples. (grins)

  13. Wayne Brown profile image86
    Wayne Brownposted 3 years ago

    When one begins to redefine traditional marriage, thought must be given to whether we are talking of marriage in the eyes of God or simply a civil union in the eyes of the law.  This is the great abyss built into the subject as those who follow the teachings of the Bible cannot be expected to ignore the references to marriage and homosexual behavior thus they can never support that position in their church or their life.  If civil union becomes the basis for the recognized marriage then how do we define that...."a union between two consenting adults regardless of gender"?  How long will that law stand?  How about the guy who falls in love with his dog and wants to marry it but is bound by law not to do so.  And what about Farmer Jones falling in love with one of his sheep?  Oh, one can laugh as the suggest but that is the point.  Where do you draw the boundaries of the law if someone or some group can simply protest that it restricts their own rights to the pursuit of happiness?  ~WB

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      why not redefine Civil Unions?
      Forget the religious aspect of marriage altogether... let  *All Couples*  obtain a Civil Union Certificate!
      There is Equality for you!

      1. jlpark profile image90
        jlparkposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I've got on of these - yet it is STILL not equal to marriage, even here in New Zealand.

        Why should we have to settle for second best?? Here straight people can have CU's or marriage - it's still not equal, they have every right to change to a marriage if they don't like the restrictions placed on them with an CU (eg adoption laws etc).

        So, again, why should we have to settle for second best? We are not second class citizens.

        1. Petra Vlah profile image59
          Petra Vlahposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Wayne,
          The Bible is about 2000 years old and marriage is much older than that, so the reference is inadequate at best. Let not forget that only about 1/3 of the world population (if not less) believes in the Bible, so your argument is faulty to begin with

    2. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Marriage is not a religious issue, certainly not a christian issue, marriage existed long before the birth of Christ or even the freeing of the Jews from Egypt so claiming some sort of christian right to define what marriage is makes no sense whatsoever, thus the religious argument about marriage carries no weight at all.

  14. Zelkiiro profile image86
    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago

    Time to bring this thread back from its 4-day sleep, because I just remembered this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuK9pxjBwX8

    Have a nice day~

  15. kateperez profile image73
    kateperezposted 3 years ago

    I don't have an "argument" per se', but really, why do people have to continually re-define words.

    I cannot say the little girl danced in a gay way anymore, because gay has been re-defined.  I cannot say that the person acted queerly because queer has been re-defined. 

    Now the word marriage is going to be re-defined as well. 

    Why can't they make up a word?  Lesbians managed to figure this out.  What is the big deal anyway?  If "civil union" gives a gay couple the same rights as a married heterosexual couple then why would that not be enough? 

    They could be original and make up their own term rather than re-defining yet another word that has had a single meaning for so long already.

  16. Petra Vlah profile image59
    Petra Vlahposted 3 years ago

    All through history marriage was a social contract meant to strengthen economic or political power.
    It was never about love - this concept entered the equation only recently and, in most cases, proved to be less than adequate (see the high rate of divorce before accusing me of being cynical).
    Best and most successful marriages are still social contracts based primarily on commitment and common goals, as well as compatibility. For this reason alone, a marriage, which in effect is as a civil union, should not be denied to any couple

 
working