Opposition to Gay Marriage--is it necessarily hypocritical?

[_Ray A]

Just caught Ren's sig line:

"It doesn't sound effective to me either. But then I believe homosexuality is caused by demons of the opposite sex possessing one"
~ Hammer - discussing 'cures' for homosexuality

See, I told you he is 2,000 years old.

[_Moniker]

I haven't read the whole thread... I'm going on a trip and just have a moment to reply... so sorry if it's already been said.

If I believe that X is immoral and vote to not legalize it, is this stance necessarily hypocritical? I believe that people should vote according to their consciences. I am perfectly fine with Hindus trying to ban beef. I am fine vegetarians voting to make all meat illegal. I think they should all vote according to their consciences. I might even be willing to live in such a society, and if I was not willing to do so then I would move to a place with laws I could abide. Similarly I think homosexuals should vote according to their consciences.

I don't see that it's hypocritical? Why would be voting your conscience be hypocritical? I think when people vote though and want to persuade others to vote in unison with them there should be compelling reasons that it would benefit society. I mean, it's not just one person voting for a candidate or legislation -- there has to be enough support for the candidate or legislation to be elected or passed. To do this effectively you have to appeal to those that don't share your morals and convince them there are actually benefits to voting the way you want. If it falls back on God says so then that's not very compelling, really.

[_Ren]

See, I told you he is 2,000 years old.

Heh! :)

Hmm - yeah, I should clarify too on the 'hypocritical' point.
Like Moniker, I don't find it 'hypocritical'. I just find it unreasonable. (And inconsistent - at least the particular argument being put forward here...)

[_beastie]

In regards to "rewarding" hetero marriage due to having children: a significant percentage of children are being raised in single parent homes.

These stats are comparative between races, but you still get the general idea:

• Percentage of all white children in the United States who are being raised in married-couple families: 75%
• Percentage of all black children in the United States who are being raised in married-couple families: 34%
(U.S. Census Bureau)

• Percentage of all white children in the United States who are being raised in female, single-parent homes: 16%
• Percentage of all black children in the United States who are being raised in female, single-parent homes: 50%
(U.S. Census Bureau)

http://www.jbhe.com/vital/index.html

[_beastie]

One more comment - my impression from opponents of gay marriage is that they've formed this opinion largely due to religious reasons, or sometimes cultural prejudices, and then create post-hoc justifications and rationalizations.

[_Jersey Girl]

abman,

If you already addressed this, just ignore it.

How do heterosexual couples benefit society?

They provide new citizens for it in the environment most likely to be best for raising them. Also, women have a taming effect on men when they are married. The same taming effect does not occur with homosexuals. The MADB poster Confidential Informant has more details on these things.

Let me begin by saying that I don't read MADB or CI and don't plan to.

While hetero's often do provide new citizens, the same can be said for homosexual persons. Homosexual's do have bio and adopted children. Not all of course, but then again neither do all hetero's.

I think you need to check divorce rates and the number of children being raised by single parents in this country. Do you honestly think that hetero's are raising their children in an "intact" family environment?

They aren't.

I don't have stats in front of me at the moment but I do deal with a large number of families in my work and have done so for many years. The children being raised by "intact" hetero parents are ALWAYS in the minority these days. The second most prominent minority are children being raised by steps. The more common situation that I see are children being raised by parents who aren't married at all and those who are being raised by single parents. Your experience may be different than mine.

I'm afraid whatever hetero's are doing with their relationships doesn't support the claims of those Christians (specifically) in our country who think that sanctioning same sex unions will be the downfall of marriage and the family.

Hetero's are destroying the sanctity of their own marriages and families.

With regards to the "taming effect" that you think women have on men, why do you think there is an absence of female influence in the case of same sex parents? Do homosexual men have sisters, mothers and female friends?

Do you?

I'd like to continue on here and will, if I have time later this evening.

[_asbestosman]

In fact it wouldn't be a huge deal if people could easily procure all those things so long as it wasn't specifically for gay marriages.

I thought this wasn't so much about discouraging homosexual behaviour (since you know you can't achieve that by anything less than facism) but rewarding heterosexual behavior...?!

Have you changed your mind?

Somewhat. We could reward heterosexual behavior in other ways rather than decreasing the relative number of hoops to jump through.

If bachelors don't have any kind of significant other (wife, sister, brother, cousin, friend etc.) who they want to share these rights with, then what good are such visitation, "power of attorney", inheritance rights anyway?!

Why give 'bachelors' useless rights they don't need...?

I'm thinking about tax breaks and maybe medical benefits.

So 'fake' marriages are just as useful as 'real' marriages in the eyes of the state?
(Note - I'm not making any judgement call on the particular marriage you've pointed out. I'm talking about the principle. You are happy to encourage heterosexual marriage even if it is 'faked'?)

Some couples change their minds and decide to have kids later. Encouraging a "faked" marriage may actually be beneficial in this sense.

If they had a choice of a civil union, what would they have done?

Probably that.

If they lived in England, and had access to the NHS what would they have done?

Nothing. Relative incentives for marriage might therefore be beneficial in some way.

Again, homosexuals aren't going to start shacking up with the opposite sex for the 'benefits'. But a renter may well go for the buying option purely based on the financial advantages.

..can you reasonably disagree with this...?

No, but I don't think a Jehovah's Witness witll buy a home for financial advantage (against his beliefs). I think home ownership encourages a certain subset of the population to own homes and marriage benefits encourages a certain subset of the population to marry even if not everyone will be encouraged by these benefits. There are also incentives for military service, but not everyone is qualified to enlist (poor eyesight, etc.). Some will be encouraged to enlist based on the incentives while many will not be encouraged or simply cannot enlist anyhow.

But even if those benefits are not a major consideration for miliatry service, even if those benefits did not really provide much incentive to change behavior, those benefits give a well-deserved reward for those who provide society with vital services.

I think I'm going to need you to confirm that you are serious about this position before continuing. Because right now, I'm finding it quite hard to...

I'm still in the middle of a bit of a paradigm shift, but I am serious. I think it's probably best to stop in any case. I've learned what I wanted to know from this thread--I cannot please everyone. I'm basically forced to choose between pleasing God and pleasing my fellowman. I don't particularly like having to choose something that hurts others, but I do think I need to do the right thing instead of the convenient thing.

[_asbestosman]

One more comment - my impression from opponents of gay marriage is that they've formed this opinion largely due to religious reasons, or sometimes cultural prejudices, and then create post-hoc justifications and rationalizations.

I'll be honest. I don't know why God does not want us to legalize homosexual marriage, but I do know that He's against it. I also know that Confidential Informant has some interesting "seccular" reasons for not sanctioning it. Are those the reasons God has in mind? I don't know. I tend to suspect that if God opposes it there is good reason for it and as those reasons are some of the best I've read, they are my best guess as to why. God feels that religious freedom is important even though I'm sure He'd be saddened if I joined another church. I think therefore that this issue is not simply about making all sin illegal. I think it does have to do with protecting the family although I'm not completely sure how. The details, however, may not be for me to know now. Adam offered sacrifice even without knowing why except that he was commanded to. For now that will have to suffice although I will continue to try learning why. I also expect to know why shortly. In fact, I suspect that gay marriage will become legal in this country within my lifetime. At that point in time, I'm sure I'll have learned why.

[_Ray A]

I'll be honest. I don't know why God does not want us to legalize homosexual marriage, but I do know that He's against it.

It depends on which God you're talking about. I know that many here don't accept my other obsession, the study of NDEs. Gay people who have had NDEs report that they felt "completely accepted" by the "Being of Light", and I don't recall reading even one report where they were specifically condemned for being who they were. You can take that with a grain of salt, but if you're going to bring God into it, I would ask which God, the one in scripture, or the one numerous people claim to have encountered in personal experiences which were very real to them?

[Guest]

I think home ownership encourages a certain subset of the population to own homes and marriage benefits encourages a certain subset of the population to marry even if not everyone will be encouraged by these benefits.

...

Some couples change their minds and decide to have kids later. Encouraging a "faked" marriage may actually be beneficial in this sense.

But the thing here asb is that in the case of buying the home and the 'overall benefit' that brings society - the benefit is bestowed just through the financial act of buying the house itself.

How do you 'fake' buying a house?

Your 'analogous' situation is encouraging people to get involved in 'fake' marriages in the hope that they turn into 'real' marriages. SOmehow. Not only is it not an effective comparison practically, but you'll forgive me if that seems a far worse disrespect to the notion of 'marriage' than two homosexuals that truly love each-other, feel devotion towards each-other and really want to dedicate their lives to each-other.

I've heard all kinds of horror stories about the husband / wife who leaves their spouse / family for a gay lover on MADB. Often turns out they thought entering a hetrosexual marriage would 'cure them'.
...always the homosexuals fault mind. Never the bad advice they took...

I'm thinking about tax breaks and maybe medical benefits.

You could be right in these two cases, but I'd like to CFR.
I was under the impression that the 'medical' benefits related to one partner being able to use the medical insurance benefit they recieve from their employer on behalf of their partner (who may not work, or who may not receive medical benefits from their own employer). I'm not aware of any benefit the single person would receive as far as medical benefits without any 'partner' to speak of.

I don't know about the tax breaks issue. If you can point it out, I'll happily concede.

No, but I don't think a Jehovah's Witness witll buy a home for financial advantage (against his beliefs)

Maybe not. But you are freely offering the option to them, and you aren't making them jump through any more hoops than a regular renter would have to go through if they decline the option.

Your example only concedes that encouragement will only work on some. Sure - I agree, but I'm not sure it means much. In the end, you seem to care more about the government having to 'encourage' us to do things than I do. This is your line of argument, not mine.

those benefits give a well-deserved reward for those who provide society with vital services

Wow. And here I was thinking I want children (some day) because I'd get to see their first step. Their first wisdom teeth. Their first day at school.

Nope. Instead I'm looking forward to that big, fat government cheque!

I'm basically forced to choose between pleasing God and pleasing my fellowman.

Not only that, but you should really face the idea that this is ALL it's about.
Because as far as secular reasons, you're pretty thin on the ground - if you don't mind me saying so.

I can't help but have a certain amount of respect for - well, not the choice itself, but I guess the 'nature' of it(?). But I can't help but feel a little disappointed too - at the same time. Oh well - such is life in a democracy ;)