How do i come up with a good reason why governments shouldn't allow same sex marriage?

[barts61]

Grace & Peace!

This isn’t necessarily the case. Homosexuality is much more public these days, and both public vocal approval and disapproval are commensurately increased. This means that young gay folks coming to terms with their sexuality are experiencing a lot more pressure from both sides to define themselves in particular ways that can be incredibly confusing.

On the one hand, the “approval” camp insists on a vision of what it means to be gay that places a heavy value on unquestionably accepting your “self” and being publically out in a way that resonates with a lot of images of homosexuality on television, which images are often: white, male, affluent. If you’re not white, male and affluent, but you are gay, you’re going to have some issues fitting into the image of homosexuality that’s offered by many approving folks (including the often culutrally-reinforced suspicion that only white folks are gay and that, should you be Latino, for instance, you’ll be inauthentically Latino if you’re authentically gay). Moreover if you’re not sure of the drift of your affections, you’re still going to be pressured to publicly and definitively define yourself in ways that might not be helpful in the long run. The message “trust your feelings” has a limited value generally, though the approval camp sees it as having more of an absolute value. But when everything’s in flux (as it tends to be when you’re young), “trust your feelings” isn’t as universally helpful as some might blithely think and isn’t always indicative of or conducive towards the self-knowledge required to actually be comfortable with your homosexuality, either in public or in private. So living up to all of that pressure to be out and open and to live into a white-washed image of what it means to be gay can be a lot to handle.

On the other hand, the “disapproval” camp will let you know in no uncertain terms that being attracted to folks of the same sex represents varying degrees of physical, mental, or moral illness/disorder. If this is the perspective of your home OR of your peer group OR of your larger community OR of anyone you love, respect or admire (and from whom you might seek approval), to suspect that you might in fact be gay means living into a vision of yourself that is overwhelmingly negative: you cannot help but be fundamentally wrong. You’ll find yourself blamed for the dissolution of the moral fabric of your community; you’ll find that your capacity to be attracted to others of the same sex is seen as an endless source of evils; you’ll find that people tend to believe they know a lot more about the drift of your affections or even your true “nature” than you do and will encourage you to take on their understanding as your own (this is actually true of the “approval” camp as well); you’ll find yourself accused of desiring (and even performing) sexual acts or ways of expressing your sexuality that would have never occurred to you to desire, let alone perform; you’ll find yourself and/or people like you understood as de facto disappointments, failures or betrayers by people you love. You’ll begin to see your capacity to give and receive love as fundamentally diseased or worthless, and you’ll be encouraged to believe that none of your feelings are actually trustworthy. Your self-knowledge will begin and end with a consciousness of other people’s perception of your own wrongness. This is poisonous.

So with both sides being so much more vocal these days, it’s no surprise to me that LGBT folks (especially LGBT youth) are caught in the crossfire and suffer for it. I don’t imagine that the suicide rate will decline significantly any time soon. Even if we were to reach “full acceptance” (whatever that might mean, for either good or ill), the increased visibility that gay folks will experience will continue to cause some of them increased stress and distress. At any rate, a couple more generations are needed, I think, for these suicide numbers to noticeably decline.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Well said Mark!

 

[barts61]

How about this:
Government has no business deciding who can be married.
For government purposes (taxation and legal matters), any two adults ought to be able to have a civil union. That way, there is no discrimination and everyone has equal rights.

The sacrament of marriage is one that Churches should be free to decide how they confer them (with NO interference from the government).

Yes…that means your traditional hetero marriage would be a civil union in the eyes of the government, just like the two gay guys next door. (Render unto Caesar).
It would only be a marriage in the eyes of your Church.

That would be fine, if all civil unions gay or not afforded equal benefits. And if a church marries same sex couples then by your definition that would be a marriage - correct?

 

[MacQ]

That would be fine, if all civil unions gay or not afforded equal benefits. And if a church marries same sex couples then by your definition that would be a marriage - correct?

Sure…it would be whatever they want to call it.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Because there are still religious institutions and families/friends who believe homosexuality is wrong.

This is a Roman Catholic forum. We believe homosexual acts are acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

There is also a vast majority of people who do not need a religious organization to tell them that homosexuality is contrary to natural law…they KNOW it is wrong.

 

[MacQ]

Because there are still religious institutions and families/friends who believe homosexuality is wrong.

So it’s other people’s fault.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Quote:
Originally Posted by barts61 View Post
That would be fine, if all civil unions gay or not afforded equal benefits. And if a church marries same sex couples then by your definition that would be a marriage - correct?

Sure…it would be whatever they want to call it.

MacQ, OUR Church does not marry same sex couples. Nor does it define or recognize a same sex relationship as a marriage.

It is true that a same sex couple could call their relationship anything they want (“Rainbow Connection” would be nice) but that does not make it a marriage.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I am having a debate with a friend fo mine who, while Christian, basically holds the position that gay marriage is okay as long as his church is not forced to marry homosexuals. Basically he comes from a nondenominational perspective, so saying marriage is a sacrament doesn’t work. Also, he accuses me of supporting a theocracy when I say that states shouldn’t allow gay marriage and that its intolerant to deny them their rights. He also says that as Christians we have to love others. I tried to tell him how while I don’t support marriage, I am not for violence or discrimination of gays and even recognize some people are born with same sex inclinations (which is why i’m against conversion therapy unless the person wants this… is this in line with church teaching btw?) so how do I argue this. It’s complicated because he is a very devout Christian, but its complicated because he’s very knowledgeable and believes in a lot of typical non-denom teachings (earth is 6000 years old, Faith alone etc). Also how do I not come off sounding like some 16th century papal monarchist who wants a theocracy. I don’t want this, but i am sure he’ll make it sound like i do since he always talks about how bad Christendom was and how people didn’t have jesus in their hearts at this time even though it was the law of the land.

I know there is a lot in here, but any help would be appreciated. Thanks a bunch.

Wild Catholic

Just from a sociological perspective, the reason why marriage is given any legal status at all, is because it promotes and produces a stable crop of current and future workers. The government is in the business of collecting and distributing taxes, more workers = more tax.

Gay marriage produces no workers, at least not by any means that involve the marriage.

For this reason, divorce is frowned upon and marriage among those who are unable to produce children are tolerated as exceptions. Today, the exception has been expanded to the limit, due to all divorce - straight and gay - and with arguments that are unsustainable unless every homosexual couple adopts 2-3 sheltered/orphaned kids and produces none with unnatural means or with other sex friends.

 

[MacQ]

MacQ, OUR Church does not marry same sex couples. Nor does it define or recognize a same sex relationship as a marriage…

Well golleee-gee, Cap’n, thanks for the heads up on that.

Sarc aside, I don’t think anyone thinks such a marriage would happen in the Catholic Church. Much less a Catholic. Odd you felt compelled to educate me on that fine point.

It is true that a same sex couple could call their relationship anything they want (“Rainbow Connection” would be nice) but that does not make it a marriage.

I like the rainbow connection idea…very apt…

But I’m pretty certain some churches would…and already are performing and calling them “marriages”. Their prerogative.

 

[MacQ]

Just from a sociological perspective, the reason why marriage is given any legal status at all, is because it promotes and produces a stable crop of current and future workers. The government is in the business of collecting and distributing taxes, more workers = more tax.

Gay marriage produces no workers, at least not by any means that involve the marriage.

For this reason, divorce is frowned upon and marriage among those who are unable to produce children are tolerated as exceptions. Today, the exception has been expanded to the limit, due to all divorce - straight and gay - and with arguments that are unsustainable unless every homosexual couple adopts 2-3 sheltered/orphaned kids and produces none with unnatural means or with other sex friends.

I can’t agree. Gay unions whether married or not produce no offspring, and government sanction doesn’t change that one whit.
The reason govt gives marriage a legal status is to define next of kin for inheritance, government benefits, and decision-making, oh, and to tax people together instead of separately. Nothing to do with how many offspring the govt can get out of the deal. If that were the motive, it’s sanction polygamy right away.
And none of the govt reasons for defining marriage are dependent on gender.

 

[MacQ]

If you agree with the theory that the government should be neutral about issues of serious moral conflict, then there is no reason for same-sex marriage to be illegal – indeed, it would be arbitrary discrimination.

So the American theory of limited government does not allow for non-discriminatory objections to same-sex marriage.

However, the American theory of limited government is, frankly, a bad theory. Even Americans think so, as evidenced by the fact that our laws constantly set up winners and losers, based on what actions we think are “good” and “bad”. We reward people who are generous and self-giving, even though this relies on a positive (non-neutral) conception of what goodness is.

I think one important goal of law should be to make people good people. If that’s the goal, then laws against same-sex marriage could make sense, if same-sex marriage tends to harm individual people (children, for example) and the society as a whole.

That’s very reasonable, with one exception.
The fact that some of our laws pick winners and losers is not a flaw in the theory of limited government.In fact, is evidence of it being true. If we truly had limited government, we would have fewer such laws…

 

[SyroMalankara]

I can’t agree. Gay unions whether married or not produce no offspring, and government sanction doesn’t change that one whit.
The reason govt gives marriage a legal status is to define next of kin for inheritance, government benefits, and decision-making, oh, and to tax people together instead of separately. Nothing to do with how many offspring the govt can get out of the deal. If that were the motive, it’s sanction polygamy right away.
And none of the govt reasons for defining marriage are dependent on gender.

My point is, that today, the original reasons are no longer the reasons… now it’s all about feelings of the couple.

As for polygamy, it’s coming, and it’s been legal in many places… The reason why it was not in the United States is merely due to the complexity, and negative reaction by fundamentalist/protestant groups.

 

[MacQ]

From the standpoint of a government, especially a secular one, there really aren’t any.

In the U.S. for instance, as far as the government is concerned legal marriage is all that matters and not religious marriage. Under this framework marriage is specific contract that provides certain special benefits (survivorship, tax, visitation, power-of-attorney etc) that non-married couples cannot equally attain. Furthermore, since the U.S. courts recognize marriage as a civil right under 14th Amendment grounds (Loving v. Virginia, 1967) there isn’t a reasonable case to be made.

That religious marriage isn’t relevant is a stance that is necessitated by a practical comprehension of the First Amendment; in order for the government to not infringe on the free exercise of religion it cannot meddle in picking which religious definitions are acceptable and which are not (because then they would be in a position of advancing one religion over all others). The only practical option is to not go with any of them and instead use the neutral legal use of the term.

I have posted pretty much the same thing, but find now that you said it much better.

 

[MacQ]

My point is, that today, the original reasons are no longer the reasons… now it’s all about feelings of the couple.

.

We’ll just disagree then on the original reasons for govt to define marriage.
And also what it’s all about now…

 

[frobert]

My point is, that today, the original reasons are no longer the reasons… now it’s all about feelings of the couple.today, the original reasons are no longer the reasons… now it’s all about feelings of the couple.

Are you saying that equal rights like the ones MacQ pointed–legal status to define next of kin for inheritance, government benefits, and decision-making, and to tax people together instead of separately–are all about feelings of the couple?

 

[MacQ]

Are you saying that equal rights like the ones MacQ pointed–legal status to define next of kin for inheritance, government benefits, and decision-making, and to tax people together instead of separately–are all about feelings of the couple?

Good question.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Because there are still religious institutions and families/friends who believe homosexuality is wrong.

See post #37, by LeafbyNiggle, for my response. He said it better than I could have.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

This isn’t necessarily the case. Homosexuality is much more public these days, and both public vocal approval and disapproval are commensurately increased. This means that young gay folks coming to terms with their sexuality are experiencing a lot more pressure from both sides to define themselves in particular ways that can be incredibly confusing.

On the one hand, the “approval” camp insists on a vision of what it means to be gay that places a heavy value on unquestionably accepting your “self” and being publically out in a way that resonates with a lot of images of homosexuality on television, which images are often: white, male, affluent. If you’re not white, male and affluent, but you are gay, you’re going to have some issues fitting into the image of homosexuality that’s offered by many approving folks (including the often culutrally-reinforced suspicion that only white folks are gay and that, should you be Latino, for instance, you’ll be inauthentically Latino if you’re authentically gay). Moreover if you’re not sure of the drift of your affections, you’re still going to be pressured to publicly and definitively define yourself in ways that might not be helpful in the long run. The message “trust your feelings” has a limited value generally, though the approval camp sees it as having more of an absolute value. But when everything’s in flux (as it tends to be when you’re young), “trust your feelings” isn’t as universally helpful as some might blithely think and isn’t always indicative of or conducive towards the self-knowledge required to actually be comfortable with your homosexuality, either in public or in private. So living up to all of that pressure to be out and open and to live into a white-washed image of what it means to be gay can be a lot to handle.

On the other hand, the “disapproval” camp will let you know in no uncertain terms that being attracted to folks of the same sex represents varying degrees of physical, mental, or moral illness/disorder. If this is the perspective of your home OR of your peer group OR of your larger community OR of anyone you love, respect or admire (and from whom you might seek approval), to suspect that you might in fact be gay means living into a vision of yourself that is overwhelmingly negative: you cannot help but be fundamentally wrong. You’ll find yourself blamed for the dissolution of the moral fabric of your community; you’ll find that your capacity to be attracted to others of the same sex is seen as an endless source of evils; you’ll find that people tend to believe they know a lot more about the drift of your affections or even your true “nature” than you do and will encourage you to take on their understanding as your own (this is actually true of the “approval” camp as well); you’ll find yourself accused of desiring (and even performing) sexual acts or ways of expressing your sexuality that would have never occurred to you to desire, let alone perform; you’ll find yourself and/or people like you understood as de facto disappointments, failures or betrayers by people you love. You’ll begin to see your capacity to give and receive love as fundamentally diseased or worthless, and you’ll be encouraged to believe that none of your feelings are actually trustworthy. Your self-knowledge will begin and end with a consciousness of other people’s perception of your own wrongness. This is poisonous.

So with both sides being so much more vocal these days, it’s no surprise to me that LGBT folks (especially LGBT youth) are caught in the crossfire and suffer for it. I don’t imagine that the suicide rate will decline significantly any time soon. Even if we were to reach “full acceptance” (whatever that might mean, for either good or ill), the increased visibility that gay folks will experience will continue to cause some of them increased stress and distress. At any rate, a couple more generations are needed, I think, for these suicide numbers to noticeably decline.

Hi Mark!

I respect what you say here, and I agree that there are numerous problems with the way that both sides box gay people into a bad situation.

However, I have no idea what that has to do with suicide. Black people had it terribly bad for centuries (often still do), and so far as I know their suicide rates never approached this sort of level. At a certain point, the “gay-hating society kills gay people” excuse has to go. Now, maybe the cause isn’t gay sex as such – maybe monogamous gay relationships are much healthier – and if that’s the case I want to know it. But there’s got to be *some *cause, and I’m not buying it that the cause is simply that people are treated badly.

 

[frobert]

Hi Mark!

I respect what you say here, and I agree that there are numerous problems with the way that both sides box gay people into a bad situation.

However, I have no idea what that has to do with suicide. Black people had it terribly bad for centuries (often still do), and so far as I know their suicide rates never approached this sort of level. At a certain point, the “gay-hating society kills gay people” excuse has to go. Now, maybe the cause isn’t gay sex as such – maybe monogamous gay relationships are much healthier – and if that’s the case I want to know it. But there’s got to be *some *cause, and I’m not buying it that the cause is simply that people are treated badly.

A major factor for the high suicide rate in LGBT youth is due of their inability to accept themselves. Most have an immature self-concept and low self-esteem. You probably are self-aware of how long it takes to come out even after you admit your sexuality to yourself. Pressure from peers, family, church etc, doesn’t help and thank God such pressure is diminishing. I imagine that the banter between anti and pro SSM groups is not helpful.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Are you saying that equal rights like the ones MacQ pointed–legal status to define next of kin for inheritance, government benefits, and decision-making, and to tax people together instead of separately–are all about feelings of the couple?

Yes, because those can all be legislated and/or contracted - just streamline and simplify the process. There’s a reason why “marriage” was what was wanted and that it was selected - feelings.

 

[thewanderer]

Yes, because those can all be legislated and/or contracted - just streamline and simplify the process. There’s a reason why “marriage” was what was wanted and that it was selected - feelings.

Yup, and there’s a reason why pro same-sex marriage proponents never bother to include non-romantically involved people or people who are closely related in their crusade to make legal marriage more inclusive. They argue the current law is discriminatory but then put forward one that, if their arguments were truly based on a desire for the benefits of inheritance laws etc is just as discriminatory. they don’t really care about making things equal, what they want is their romantic relationships to be recognized. It is absolutely about feelings.