Marriage Helps Couples Keep Their Commitments

Marly

Marriage Means that Both Moms and Dads Matter

William

Liza 

Carisa: Personally, I hate to use conventionalism and tradition as backing for an argument, so I won't. However, I think that it is undeniable that children adopted into homosexual relationships will most likely have a more difficult time growing up than children of heterosexual parents. This is NOT to say that homosexuals are a more lowly form of people group, that they are not just as capable of raising children and keeping a home (after all, they are people just like you and I), but rather that their children will undeniably face discrimination and harsh treatment. Some might propose this solution: stop discriminating. And my response to that is this: maybe in a perfect world.

WIlliam: Carisa, just because it may be difficult, if not impossible, for us to completely crush our prejudices, including those against the children raised by homosexual parents, does not mean that we should not try to, by sidestepping the problem and banning gay marriage.  We cannot expect to resolve any injustices if we do nothing, let alone by adding insult to injury, and, while I would certainly not consign racism or racial tensions to the ages, no one can deny the great strides we have made not only against racial prejudices, but against ethnic and religious discrimination, as well as misogyny.  Although permitting gay marriage will subject some children to alienation, as with children from interracial marriages, we can expect acceptance and understanding with time.

Carisa: Additionally, I believe that it takes a mother and a father to raise any child properly, to introduce him into the workings of society, to balance him and nourish him in the best way possible. This is simply based on the knowledge that a man and a woman both bring two very different, very valuable perspectives to the biological table, and I don't believe any child should be denied the right to experience them both firsthand before he is sent off into the world to make his own decisions.

William: Perhaps the heterosexual parenting may offer a different perspective to children, or perhaps the difference is negligible in comparison to homosexual parenting.  Either way, it is very difficult to conclusively arrive that one is better than the other.  You may have your own opinion on it, and you can raise your children that way, because it is your choice.  You, because of the freedom the government grants in raising children, will not have to send your child to ballet class, enroll them in school instead of homeschooling, or feed them a vegetarian diet.  You, if you care and provide for your children, have the power to raise them in whatever manner you think is best.  Homosexual parenting is just another way of raising children, and we must respect their family rights.

Marly: William, I agree. I think it is unfair to say that heterosexual parenting is better than homosexual parenting. A parent is one who nurtures and provides for their child. If this care comes from two people of the same sex, so be it. No one has the right to say that a homosexual couple will raise a child any different than a heterosexual couple would. I think that we should be more open-minded when it comes to homosexual marriage/parenting. If two people are in love, they should be able to get married and raise a child if they wish to.

Alex S:  Not only is it unfair to say that heterosexual parenting is better than homosexual parenting it is also unproven and based soley in opinion. There are plenty of examples of heterosexual parents who have brought up their children in negative environments and some who continue to do so as I type this argument. Examples: alcoholism, sexual abuse, verbal abuse, domestic violence, drug addiction, and the list goes on.

Liza:  Carisa, why exactly do you think it is necessary to have both a mom and a dad?  Personally, I have an uncle who is partnered and has children who are being raised in a happy and loving home.  In my opinion, that is the purpose of parenthood, to nurture and provide for your children as best as you possibly can.  I can't see how having two parents of the same sex could possibly alter the love and environment in which a child is raised.  I believe that the child would realize that his parents love him and that would be more important to him than whether or not his parents are a "typical" couple.  The problem with parenting arises from a lack of care, which is very common in today's society.  Love should be the focus of parenting not whether or not parents are homosexual or heterosexual.

Ending the Marriage Exclusion Helps Family and Business

Homosexuality is Unnatural

William

Carisa: Not all those who oppose gay marriage HATE gays, as so many commenters have been instigating. Many seem to be focusing on the "love is love" idea, which sounds fine, but there is always the rebuttal that this particular kind of love is "unnatural." I have to say that I agree, gay marriage is unnatural. Many have posed the question, "what is natural?" Given, it is now popular and sometimes very necessary in society to make use of "unnatural" processes (i.e radiation and chemotherapy for cancer), as long as they have the potential for positive results. However, in the case of gay marriage, I believe that anatomy alone is sufficient proof of how a man and a woman are the only intended course, religious standpoints aside, and how anything else is not only impossible, but indeed unnatural.

William: Though I phrased it a little more bluntly in my OV comment, the female and male genitals do seem to have been designed by the hand of God, evolution, or whatever, to cooperate in the act of reproduction, as well as in the sexual stimulation that serves as the natural impetus for reproduction.  Yet, to assume that sexual relations outside of what might be intended, or marriage that does not result in such relations, is assigning moral weight to a biological characteristic.  If evolution made us what we were, how can nature—or, rather, a biological process—make a moral judgment on anything we do?  If our design comes from the hand of a divine being, then such a being could have intended for reproductive organs to be used for their designed purpose only (to say nothing of marriage), but that is purely a theological question.  Different religions have different beliefs, and the government cannot impose religious beliefs without endorsing a religion and opening the door to religious discrimination.

The Freedom to Marry Still Respects the Freedom of Religion 

Evan Dyce

Gay “Marriage” Harms Traditional Marriage  

William

Carisa: Traditional marriage is an institution of the state and government as a means of protected procreation and for children, between a man and a woman--the only union that can produce children.  If gays were to be allowed to marry, then "traditional marriage" would not be harmed, it would be ultimately irrelevant. Why even choose to marry? For the public statement? I don't think that the government should simply endorse a close relationship for the sake of the certificate.

William: Carisa, why must a marriage produce children?  What about homosexual couples who raise children?  In any case, why must the unconditional love signified by a marriage be exclusive to those men and women who can produce children, and why would that unconditional love become irrelevant if gay marriage was permitted?

Liza: Carisa, if you are implying that the cause for marriage is to produce children than should couples who cannot physically reproduce be banned from marriage as well?  What about couples who choose not to have children.. are they just getting married for the "public statement"?  Marriage brings certain legal rights, not just recognition by the law.  Were gay couples allowed to marry nothing would change for a "traditional" married man and woman, they would feel no differently about one another.  Why exactly would marriage between a man and a woman become "irrelevant" just because we extend rights to gay couples?

Rebecca: According to the Family Research Council, "A man and a woman joined together in holy matrimony is the time-tested “yardstick” for marriage".  So because homosexuality was not allowed one hundred years ago and same-sex marriage was the only right way that makes it the "yardstick" of tradition?  Tradition is not always best.  In many cases, with time comes knowledge and we are able to reform our ways for the better rather than relying on the beliefs of the past.  It could be possible that in the next twenty years a new invention will replace the yardstick, even though now we can't see that possibility.  

Marly:  Carisa, it’s unfair to say that two people, homosexual or not, would get married solely for the purpose of making a public statement. One would hope that the motives for marriage are based on love but, if they are not, I believe it is still a bit too hasty to say that they are getting married for such an emotionless reason. In no way would homosexual marriage make heterosexual marriage irrelevant. Marriage should be based on a mutual love between two people. As time goes on, we have realized that love can be shared between two women or two men, as well as a man and a woman. These homosexual couples should be allowed to have the same marital rights as a "traditional" married couple.

28 Other Nations Protect Same-Sex Couples 

Liza

Americans Reject Gay Marriage 

Marissa

Marissa

William

Liza
 

Carisa: No matter how one looks at this question, the responses all come down to a clash of moral and religious viewpoints, or lack thereof. True, separation of church and state is said to be in effect, but has religion ever been truly separate from government? I don't think it has, or is even possible honestly, because people will always bring their religious and non-religious and ethical ideas to the table on highly controversial issues such as this one. And if they did not, we would truly live in a country that is even more closed minded and one-dimensional than many may claim it to be. If people truly kept their religious beliefs out of it, then we would be living under a much more stifling government, not a more open and tolerant one.

William: Carisa, you might be right, that we may never be able to separate our religious perspectives and our moral prejudices from our beliefs and actions, but that shouldn’t stop us from trying, especially in our governing entities.  To be ultimately motivated and justified against gay marriage through religious beliefs is an egregious violation of the separation between Church and State, and I would argue that the endorsement or predisposition towards any religious belief, including atheism, will inevitably cause the government to come in conflict with some other opposing belief, with the opposing belief facing unfair treatment and discrimination.  I’m curious to know why you think secularization would lead to such suppression.

Should Marriage for Same-Sex Couples be Legal?

Alex A

Alex S 1 and 2

Alex S

Kelsey

Should Marriage for Same-Sex Couples be Legal?

Alex A.

Should Marriage for Same-Sex Couples be Legal?

Alex A.

Are Children With Same-Sex Parents at a Disadvantage?

Alex A.

Marly

Homosexuality is Unnatural?

Alex A.

Marly

Slippery Slope…Steep Cliff

William

Carisa: "If marriage is nothing but a state stamp of approval on intimate adult relationships, what is the argument for denying “marriage” to any number or combination of adults who claim to be 'in love'?" This article makes an excellent point: by allowing gays to marry, America opens up an eternally wide portal into more and more exceptions to the rule. Polyamorists and bisexuals would have no reason to be denied the right to "marry" as many people as struck their fancy. Brothers and sisters would have no reason not to "marry" into incestuous relationships. The only reason that 80% of America isn't vying for the civil rights of these people groups is because in these situations, Americans recognize that marriage in and of itself is essentially a procreative institution, an institution that protects the children born of it, and an institution limited by moral restrictions. What is the difference?

William: What is marriage, Carisa?

Marriage, at its most fundamental depth, is a bond between two people with a mutual consent and intent to maintain that relationship.  Then, to some, it is a bond for the purposes of raising children.  To others, it is a way—not the only way, not necessarily the “right” way—to raise children with the assured presence of two parents.  Those who think that marriage is for the benefit of children might say it is something that “protects” children, but that is matter of their own opinions, which, I assure you, they will have much trouble scientifically substantiating.  We must also consider the rights of the parents to raise their children as they see fit.  We give heterosexual parents, both single and married, much liberty in raising their children, almost unlimited freedom outside of what is considered absolutely necessary and what is considered neglect or abuse.  Isn’t, then, same-sex parenting just another variation in the myriad of ways of raising children?

You also mention that marriage is “an institution limited by moral restrictions.”  What kind of restrictions do you suggest?  I gather that polygamist, bisexual, and incestuous marriages are out of your realm of things moral, but why?  When I made my comment on this topic, the only forms of consensual marriage I considered legally impermissible were incestuous relationships between a fertile man and woman, since such a relationship could produce children with a high probability of birth defects (being unfair to the child), and bestiality, which is non-consensual (for how can an animal give consent) and almost certainly abusive to the animal in consummation.  It’s not that I approve of polygamy or incest—I am uncomfortable with polygamy and I abhor incest—but rather that I acknowledge that, to the best of my knowledge, there is no substantial, logical argument against them through which we might deny them marriage through the government.  I suppose, if you find gay marriage personally objectionable, you could look at it as I do other things.  I may not agree with the beliefs or behaviors of those around me, but I believe they have a freedom to think and act as they do, and I will not place my beliefs over my principles.

Caitlin: Just for the heck of it on Opposing Views I wrote something for a philosophical argument on a Catholic priest's point of view. Yes, I took the time to talk to a priest and recieved his insightful point of view. I will post the link once my commment has been approved. www.opposingviews.com/arguments/gay-marriage-harms-traditional-marriage

William: Caitlin, how is the perspective of the Church at all relevant here?  Their perspective is ultimately grounded in theological premises, and it would be a violation of the separation of Church and State if we were to enact laws based on theological reasoning.  In effect, we would be imposing a particular faith upon the religiously diverse and free American public.

Caitlin: I wrote a reply because in Carisa's reply she said that a marriage was to beget children which is actually a theological argument. It is actually very relevant. Note William that I even said I took this from a Catholic priest's point of view. I took his beliefs to create argument diversity and build onto Carisa's reply. And you should not take offense at me, I only paraphrased HIS perspective. This was only meant to expand the argument, and it does. For some people it becomes an ethical argument, and I believe that side should be heard too. www.opposingviews.com/comments/philosophical-catholic-view-point

I also wrote a little reply you might be interested in.

Alex S:  It's nice to have some explanation of the theological argument that everyone refers to, but I agree with William, I do not feel that it is relevant to the argument as a whole. If we were discussing whether or not the Catholic Church should allow gay marriage, then I see it to be a solid argument, but when it comes to America and its decision on same-sex marriage the church shouldn't play any part in it. By arguing over this topic with religious dogma and bible quotes and anything else affiliated with religion we give these sources false authority. They have nothing to do with whether or not the United States government should allow same sex couples to marry.