Non religious reasons to oppose gay marriage

[piasabird]

For the Children! If you had raised a family and put your children first before yourself for 30 years for the next generation, you might understand what it really means to be married. You might also realize that being married for real carries a lot of responsibility that Gay people don not have to deal with. It is an insult to be told that gay marriage is the same as straight marriage. Go raise a family and then you will be equal. Until then quit insulting married people.

 

[Nebor]

I'm baffled at how someone can look back at the defeated racists that opposed desegregation & interracial marriages and say, "Yeah! I want to be the next one of those!"

You're making a conscious choice to be on the wrong side of history.

 

[Veliko]

For the Children! If you had raised a family and put your children first before yourself for 30 years for the next generation, you might understand what it really means to be married. You might also realize that being married for real carries a lot of responsibility that Gay people don not have to deal with. It is an insult to be told that gay marriage is the same as straight marriage. Go raise a family and then you will be equal. Until then quit insulting married people.

This is one of those parody posts, right?

 

[alzan]

So you are saying that conservatives are imperfect or hypocrites.

on 1.) Just because a liberal couple stays together in no way takes away from their support of no fault divorce. Liberalism has so infiltrated the culture that even "conservatives" get divorced.

2.) No it does not. People are imperfect. But look at how historically out-of-wedlock births were 5% vs >40% now. And remember that birth control has significantly advanced since then.



No. But your refusal to give a fundamental reason for the existence of marriage is indicative

I didn't say that but most likely they are. No one is perfect and a lot of people are hypocrites.

Actually it does say that they don't support no fault divorce for themselves. Whether they support it for society at large is more on a case by case basis. There are sound reasons for allowing no fault divorce. Just because you disagree with no fault divorce doesn't mean there aren't valid reasons to allow it.

There are a lot of reasons that out-of-wedlock births have increased; that you choose to blame liberals is just another proof of this obsession you have in viewing things in a strict liberal vs conservative way. Once again, for your own sake and the sake of people around you, seek professional counseling.

There are a lot of reasons for marriage to exist; if you're too lazy to look them up that's your issue, not mine.

I'm not going to get pulled into one of your little "your definition of "x" sucks, mine is better" troll-posts. Go back under your bridge, little troll.

 

[nehalem256]

I didn't say that but most likely they are. No one is perfect and a lot of people are hypocrites.

Actually it does say that they don't support no fault divorce for themselves. Whether they support it for society at large is more on a case by case basis. There are sound reasons for allowing no fault divorce. Just because you disagree with no fault divorce doesn't mean there aren't valid reasons to allow it.

And so how is a marriage you can leave at any time for any reason different than simply being bf/gf?

There are a lot of reasons that out-of-wedlock births have increased; that you choose to blame liberals is just another proof of this obsession you have in viewing things in a strict liberal vs conservative way.

No. Liberal values is the only reason for the increase in out-of-wedlock births.

There are a lot of reasons for marriage to exist; if you're too lazy to look them up that's your issue, not mine.

Again wrong. There are lot of benefits that the government confers on married couples. But for some reason you refuse to provide a reason for the government to provide these benefits.

 

[nehalem256]

I'm baffled at how someone can look back at the defeated racists that opposed desegregation & interracial marriages and say, "Yeah! I want to be the next one of those!"

You're making a conscious choice to be on the wrong side of history.

Seems like you are essentially arguing that might makes right.

If Hitler had won WWII then those who opposed killing Jews would have been on the "wrong" side of history

 

[fskimospy]

Seems like you are essentially arguing that might makes right.

If Hitler had won WWII then those who opposed killing Jews would have been on the "wrong" side of history

No, he's asking you to examine how you feel about the racists who opposed desegregation and interracial marriage. He's saying it's most likely that people in the future will feel that way about you if you oppose gay marriage. That might not be something you want.

Think about it this way. Gay marriage gets the most opposition when it is two men marrying. In those cases there wouldn't be any evil, icky, mean women involved for you to rage about. It would be the perfect marriage!

 

[Ryan]

No. Liberal values is the only reason for the increase in out-of-wedlock births.

I'll just leave this right here:

Most Religious States: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/03/29/where-are-the-most-religious-states-in-america/

1. Mississippi
2. Utah
3. Alabama
4. Louisiana
5. Arkansas

States with the highest teen birth rates: http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-04-10/news/31320505_1_teen-births-new-hampshire-teenage-girls

1. Mississippi
2. New Mexico
3. Arkansas
4. Texas
5.Oklahoma
6. Louisiana
7. Kentucky
8. West Virginia
9. Alabama

 

[nehalem256]

I'll just leave this right here:

Most Religious States: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/03/29/where-are-the-most-religious-states-in-america/

1. Mississippi
2. Utah
3. Alabama
4. Louisiana
5. Arkansas

States with the highest teen birth rates: http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-04-10/news/31320505_1_teen-births-new-hampshire-teenage-girls

1. Mississippi
2. New Mexico
3. Arkansas
4. Texas
5.Oklahoma
6. Louisiana
7. Kentucky
8. West Virginia
9. Alabama

So liberal values have infiltrated even religious believers. Although it could be related to the fact that religious people still have a problem with abortion. Perhaps they actually act on those beliefs.

 

[nehalem256]

No, he's asking you to examine how you feel about the racists who opposed desegregation and interracial marriage. He's saying it's most likely that people in the future will feel that way about you if you oppose gay marriage. That might not be something you want.

Because clearly I have a problem with taking an unpopular position?

 

[child of wonder]

Because there way to name someone to make medical decisons for you. *cough* medical proxy *cough*

Because unmarried people cannot own property? :hmm:

And I am confused about how resolving issues of child custody is anyway a refutation of saying that marriage is about having children?

What's the cost and effort involved in drafting and submitting paperwork for a medical proxy, a will to ensure all your property is left to your partner along with custody of your biological children (a gay/lesbian person can have children thanks to in vitro fertilization or surrogacy), granting someone power of attorney should you become invalid, and finding ways to extend medical insurance to a partner's biological children should the other work while the one with the children stays home?

How easy is it for a heterosexual couple to avoid all that cost and effort of the scenarios above via a simple legal contract we call "marriage" that they can knock out in Vegas in 15 minutes?

Clearly, there are more reasons for people to get married than societal pressure or to create offspring. A litany of legal and tax benefits are also involved.

 

[nehalem256]

What's the cost and effort involved in drafting and submitting paperwork for a medical proxy, a will to ensure all your property is left to your partner along with custody of your biological children (a gay/lesbian person can have children thanks to in vitro fertilization or surrogacy), granting someone power of attorney should you become invalid, and finding ways to extend medical insurance to a partner's biological children should the other work while the one with the children stays home?

How easy is it for a heterosexual couple to avoid all that cost and effort of the scenarios above via a simple legal contract we call "marriage" that they can knock out in Vegas in 15 minutes?

I have no idea how difficult it is to name a medical proxy. But perhaps we should make it easier to do so. This will provide benefits to gay couples and well as unmarried straight people.

I believe it is wrong to use in vitro fertilization or surrogacy unless you are married.

Why should you be able to get medical insurance benefits for children that are not yours?

And interesting that one of the benefits is to help with one of the parents staying home with the children since liberals are the ones who think it is essential for everyone to work.

Clearly, there are more reasons for people to get married than societal pressure or to create offspring. A litany of legal and tax benefits are also involved.

I have said the state grants benefits to married couples. The question is why should they?

 

[fskimospy]

So liberal values have infiltrated even religious believers. Although it could be related to the fact that religious people still have a problem with abortion. Perhaps they actually act on those beliefs.

So maybe you can explain two things? One is that while I think we can agree that society has been embracing more and more liberal values over the last 70 years, teen pregnancy rates are now the lowest they have ever been recorded at. Shouldn't liberal values be causing an overall increase? Were the 1940's more culturally liberal than now?

Second, why is it that teen pregnancy rates show no correlation between red or blue states? Shouldn't more liberal states have higher rates?

 

[child of wonder]

I believe it is wrong to use in vitro fertilization or surrogacy unless you are married.

That's nice. I believe it is wrong to watch The Jersey Shore but I don't get to take away anyone's right to do so.

Also, gay couples want to get married which would solve your dilemma with unmarried people using in vitro fertilization and surrogacy.

Why should you be able to get medical insurance benefits for children that are not yours?

And interesting that one of the benefits is to help with one of the parents staying home with the children since liberals are the ones who think it is essential for everyone to work.

Let's say a homosexual couple exists where one has the potential to earn $100k while the other could earn $30k. The couple decides they want 2 children. Since the one that earns $30k would barely earn enough to cover daycare, they decide to have that person stay home with the kids.

So this couple has their two children via in vitro or surrogacy and each child is the biological offspring of one spouse or the other.

Under current health care laws, the child of the spouse that stays home would be ineligible for medical benefits under the other spouse's insurance. Some states have enacted "domestic partnership" laws that alleviate the issue, but some conservative states or moving to remove them or have already done so (such as North Carolina).

I have said the state grants benefits to married couples. The question is why should they?

I agree. "Marriage," in the common vernacular, is traditionally seen as a religious ceremony. I'd prefer the government didn't recognize "marriage" at all, only civil unions between two consenting adults. The recognition of this civil union would only be for tax purposes, for issues of inheritance, and custody of children brought under such a union. I'd also limit the benefits to two adults only so polygamous couples still had the ability to gain the same benefits but not to stack those benefits beyond two people.

The word "marriage" would still stick around in our culture to describe people that have formally entered into a civil union as recognized by the government, but the government would cease recognizing or enforcing any religious aspects of "traditional marriage" such as banning homosexual marriage.

 

[nehalem256]

That's nice. I believe it is wrong to watch The Jersey Shore but I don't get to take away anyone's right to do so.

Also, gay couples want to get married which would solve your dilemma with unmarried people using in vitro fertilization and surrogacy.

But you would still be purposefully denying a child a mother or a father.

And to continue your Jersey Shore analogy. How would you feel if other people expected you to pay for their Jersey Shore channel (I have no idea what that channel is)

Let's say a homosexual couple exists where one has the potential to earn $100k while the other could earn $30k. The couple decides they want 2 children. Since the one that earns $30k would barely earn enough to cover daycare, they decide to have that person stay home with the kids.

So this couple has their two children via in vitro or surrogacy and each child is the biological offspring of one spouse or the other.

Under current health care laws, the child of the spouse that stays home would be ineligible for medical benefits under the other spouse's insurance. Some states have enacted "domestic partnership" laws that alleviate the issue, but some conservative states or moving to remove them or have already done so (such as North Carolina).

According to liberalism both men and women are suppose to work. Take it up with them not me.

I agree. "Marriage," in the common vernacular, is traditionally seen as a religious ceremony. I'd prefer the government didn't recognize "marriage" at all, only civil unions between two consenting adults. The recognition of this civil union would only be for tax purposes, for issues of inheritance, and custody of children brought under such a union. I'd also limit the benefits to two adults only so polygamous couples still had the ability to gain the same benefits but not to stack those benefits beyond two people.

Changing the name of the institution from marriage to civil union changes nothing.

Why should certain relationships grant you special tax benefits?

Child custody is dealt with everyday without marriage/civil union.

For inheritance. Why should the government give special inheritance privileges to your domestic partner.

Also not that with the frequency of divorce now a days that child custody and inheritance will inevitably become issues. It would seem any legal problems solved by marriage will be canceled out by the legal problems caused by divorce.

 

[nehalem256]

So maybe you can explain two things? One is that while I think we can agree that society has been embracing more and more liberal values over the last 70 years, teen pregnancy rates are now the lowest they have ever been recorded at. Shouldn't liberal values be causing an overall increase? Were the 1940's more culturally liberal than now?

People got married earlier. They probably got pregnant at 18-19 after marrying.

Second, why is it that teen pregnancy rates show no correlation between red or blue states? Shouldn't more liberal states have higher rates?

1.) Normally it is the teen birth rate. If liberals are more likely to abort that would skew the birth rate numbers.

2.) Birth control usage. Probably higher by liberals.

3.) If you at the states having the highest rate of teen pregnancy, with the possible exception Utah, it is basically a list of black and white trash states.

 

[werepossum]

OK, after some soul searching, I have decided that I no longer oppose gays becoming married.

It's true that bigotry is the only reason to oppose gay marriage, as gays do not choose to be gay, and marriage as an institution does not confine itself to reproduction so there's no reason it should be limited to heterosexuals only.

I still will always consider homosexuality to be abnormal and unequal to heterosexuality, but abnormality should not be grounds for discrimination.

I'm still against gay adoption though, because I think every child should have both a mother and a father if at all possible.

Congratulations! One of the hardest things is to give up government control over things you don't like. Using the power of government to make others behave as you think they ought is seductive.

I too believe a child should ideally have a mother and a father. I'd just point out that all parents (or perspective parents) are not equal. With the huge number of children in foster care, it's not hard for me to imagine that gay parents would be superior, or that a particular gay couple might be able to offer a child a better, more secure life than any available hetero couple. It's easier for children of a same-sex couple to find good role models and mentors of the opposite sex than for those children to find a parent to stay home with them if both must work.

Would you mind pointing out when marriage was define as being between a man and a 12 year old girl?

Or why you think marrying a 12 year old girl vs an 18 year old girl fundamentally changes marriage?

It used to be pretty common. My great-grandmother married at 12, as did my wife's grandmother. My paternal grandmother married at 15, my maternal grandmother at 14. Such ages aren't common today, or at least not unless there is a pregnancy involved, but they used to be quite common. A man was expected to establish himself before he married, and women his own age might long be married before he was secure enough to take a wife and raise a family - and with no effective birth control, taking a wife tended to mean immediately beginning a family.

I'm baffled at how someone can look back at the defeated racists that opposed desegregation & interracial marriages and say, "Yeah! I want to be the next one of those!"

You're making a conscious choice to be on the wrong side of history.

Good point.

 

[nehalem256]

It used to be pretty common. My great-grandmother married at 12, as did my wife's grandmother. My paternal grandmother married at 15, my maternal grandmother at 14. Such ages aren't common today, or at least not unless there is a pregnancy involved, but they used to be quite common. A man was expected to establish himself before he married, and women his own age might long be married before he was secure enough to take a wife and raise a family - and with no effective birth control, taking a wife tended to mean immediately beginning a family.

I do not deny that earlier marriage was commonplace among women. I am asking when that was considered a definitional part of marriage?

 

[fskimospy]

People got married earlier. They probably got pregnant at 18-19 after marrying.

The median age of females at first marriage was virtually unchanged between 1940 (21.5) and 1980 (22), yet during that time the teen pregnancy rate varied wildly, nearly doubling by the end of the 50's and then declining again. The statistics do not back up your argument in any way. Try again?

1.) Normally it is the teen birth rate. If liberals are more likely to abort that would skew the birth rate numbers.

2.) Birth control usage. Probably higher by liberals.

3.) If you at the states having the highest rate of teen pregnancy, with the possible exception Utah, it is basically a list of black and white trash states.

Data is kept on both pregnancies and births. For teen pregnancy data:
http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/state-data/state-comparisions.asp?id=3&sID=18

There is no correlation between a state's politics and its teen pregnancy rate. So again, what is the basis for your argument about liberal values other than shit you're just making up?

 

[nehalem256]

The median age of females at first marriage was virtually unchanged between 1940 (21.5) and 1980 (22), yet during that time the teen pregnancy rate varied wildly, nearly doubling by the end of the 50's and then declining again. The statistics do not back up your argument in any way. Try again?

Data is kept on both pregnancies and births. For teen pregnancy data:
http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/state-data/state-comparisions.asp?id=3&sID=18

There is no correlation between a state's politics and its teen pregnancy rate. So again, what is the basis for your argument about liberal values other than shit you're just making up?

2.) Birth control usage. Probably higher by liberals.

3.) If you at the states having the highest rate of teen pregnancy, with the possible exception Utah, it is basically a list of black and white trash states.

And 4.) Hypocrites.

 

[fskimospy]

I was talking about teen pregnancy, not out of wedlock births. There remains no correlation there whatsoever. (you are correct that teen pregnancy is more a condition of poverty, but of course that has nothing to do with the liberal or conservative values of a region)

 

[werepossum]

I do not deny that earlier marriage was commonplace among women. I am asking when that was considered a definitional part of marriage?

A definitional part of marriage, no, but it's evidence as to how what we're willing to accept as marriage varies with time as cultural norms vary.

 

[zinfamous]

why not..and lets legalize incest and beastliality too. You know that will be next. Get it all out of the way now.

don't forget letting the dopers get married.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

For the Children! If you had raised a family and put your children first before yourself for 30 years for the next generation, you might understand what it really means to be married. You might also realize that being married for real carries a lot of responsibility that Gay people don not have to deal with. It is an insult to be told that gay marriage is the same as straight marriage. Go raise a family and then you will be equal. Until then quit insulting married people.

My parents carried on full-time careers, bought property, settled down and raised two sons, and were in a monogamous relationship until one of them died. If they had been a married heterosexual couple, you'd be praising them for carrying on good family values. Because they were a homosexual couple who wasn't legally allowed to marry, their relationship and the children they raised is somehow inferior to your family. And you think that gay marriage is somehow insulting to you?

You know what's insulting? Being told that my parents, who were literally with each other until one of them died, are more of a threat to your sanctity of marriage than the millions of heterosexuals who get divorced every year. But you're petitioning the government to make divorce illegal, aren't you? Because heterosexual marriage having a failure rate over 50% is a lot worse for the notion of "responsibility" than letting gays in on it.

 

[nehalem256]

You know what's insulting? Being told that my parents, who were literally with each other until one of them died, are more of a threat to your sanctity of marriage than the millions of heterosexuals who get divorced every year. But you're petitioning the government to make divorce illegal, aren't you? Because heterosexual marriage having a failure rate over 50% is a lot worse for the notion of "responsibility" than letting gays in on it.

Unfortunately if you called up you representative and presented that you would probably be considered a crank call