Politics & Current Events
Love to scrapbook!
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
What is a true legal reason for banning gay marriage?
I'm trying to think of a logical, legal reason that people can use to support a ban on gay marriage and I can't think of one. The usual reasons are:
- Because God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Can't use that one due to the separation of church and state.
- The Bible says it wrong. Again, can't use due to separation of church and state.
- Marriage is for a man and a woman only. Says who?
- Marriage is for procreation. So what about straight couples who are infertile or don't want kids? Should they not be allowed to get married?
- Gay marriage will destroy the institution of marriage. Straight people are at a 50% divorce rate. We've already done a great job destroying the institution.
- Gay couples don't raise children well. Recent studies prove that to be wrong.
- It's just the way it's always been. We've done a lot of things in the past. That doesn't mean we should keep doing them. Slavery anyone?
- If we legalize it, what's next? People marrying children or animals? Um, yeah. That's it. Obviously, legal marriage has to be between consenting adults.
- It just feels wrong to me. Fine, then don't do it.
As gay marriage continues to be a major issue in this country, I just can't come up with a logical, legal reason that people want it banned. If there is a legitimate reason, I'd like to hear it.
I, personally, an excited for the day that becomes legal in all states.
Love to scrapbook!
Re: What is a true legal reason for banning gay marriage?
My Cooking Blog
According to someone in my book club, "It will cause the fall of western civilization."
Supporter here
But...
BEST argument I have heard is that the precedent of one man one woman was set when Utah was admitted to the Union. I can kinda sorta see the point on THAT particular argument.
This is a great question. I consider myself to be a conservative Christian but I just can't wrap my mind around why so many people are against it. It's not something I would chose for myself but I really don't care about what other people do as long as it's between 2 consenting adults.
The only thing that makes any sense is if these people are worried that their church will be required to perform same sex marriages. I'm curious as to what your views are on this. Do you believe that if gay marriage is legalized should every church be required to marry gay couples? Or is it ok for each church to decide what they want to do? I don't know much on this issue other than the fact I think it is silly that people are so against it. Thanks for any insight!
I'm not religious, but I actually don't know anyone who thinks churches should have to marry gay couples just like they currently don't have to marry any straight couple they don't want to. Some clergy persons won't marry interfaith couples or couples they believe are unstable for one reason or another. Those couples can still marry at the courthouse, just like gay couples would be able to.
I think it should and will be like it is now - churches are free to marry or not marry whomever they want. I'm not Catholic, so I can't go into a Catholic church and demand that they perform my wedding. That's the great thing about separation of church and state - it's about keeping the state out of the church as much as it is keeping the church out of the state.
Was that because of the polygamy practiced by Mormons? They can legalize gay marriage without legalizing polygamy.
But, honestly, I wouldn't have a problem with legalizing polygamy, as long as (same as straight and gay marriages) it's between consenting adults.
I think you're probably right that some people do think that if gay marriage is legal, churches will have to perform the marriages, but this argument is wholly without merit.
Churches already can refuse to marry anyone they want, for basically any reason. There's absolutely no reason this would change. I'm not religious, but I couldn't, for example, walk into the local synagogue and demand that the rabbi marry me. If I put up a stink or chose to sue over it, I would lose.
My Cooking Blog
Except that the motivation for this was to try to eradicate Mormonism, since men taking multiple wives was a tenant of the faith.
Not allowing gay marriage won't make teh gayz go away.
/edited
My Cooking Blog
1) people don't choose to be gay
2) I wouldn't have been allowed to be married in the Catholic church because I'm not Catholic and that's perfectly legal. And plenty of churches refuse to allow (straight) couples to marry who aren't member of that church.
It's going to cost a lot of money in government benefits (i.e. a same sex spouse will now be eligible for survivor benefits under social security, military would have to pay increased allowances to gay couples as they do to straight), pension plans will have to pay benefits to same sex spouses, and insurance companies would have to insure the same sex spouse.
Not that finances are a valid reason to deny someone equal rights (and I support gay marriage), I'm just pointing it out.
As far as I know, there is no legal reason. That's what makes this so ridiculous. It's all just personal. People just don't like it even though it has zero to do with them. The best they can come up with is "they're worried about the children" which is ironic because the only negative thing that comes out of being the child of same-sex parents is that these people treat them s**tty.
No one is going to require churches to marry people and if they did, I wouldn't support that. There was no church involved in my marriage, so I don't see what the church has to do with this at all.
This person is in a book club? Ok, so she can read. Maybe someone should suggest a book about the history of western civilization? Homosexuality is practically one of the foundations of western civilization. Is this woman completely unaware of Greek and Roman culture? Or does she think western civilization began with the advent of Christianity? Sheesh........
winner winner.
I remember that! If its the same guy I am thinking of, it was a Catholic guy too.
Utah somewhat voluntarily gave it up. (Well, the living prophet of the LDS church had a revelation where God told him that polygamy wasn't essential anymore - after Joseph Smith said it was. Granted, it only came out after Smith's death that polygamy was something God wanted. Basically so men could marry women who tempted them, without engaging in adultery. True story.) At the time, polygamy was very unpopular (no shiit, right?) But this was 1894 - a year or two before Plessy v. Ferguson. So really, practically the dark ages. Legislating by morality was a-ok during the gilded age.
40/112
40/112
I agree. I can't wrap my mind around how people think they should force their religious beliefs on others.
She thinks that's what caused the fall of Rome. Literacy is, unfortunately, not synonymous with intelligence.
Given that civil marriage has been an institution throughout recorded history, it doesn't make sense to me why it should be abolished because people don't want to share a word they personally associate with a religious institution.
Alternate idea, though, why don't civil unions continue to be called marriages, open them up to gay couples, and religious institutions that have a problem with sharing the concept of marriage can change their wording to be "religious unions"? That's just as simple, if not simpler, because you totally avoid potential international legislative nightmares from not having a legal definition for marriage.