Anyone Out There Who Can Explain the Gay Marriage Thing?

Is there anyone out there who can explain to me why gay marriage is a problem?

There are issues which are contentious in this country that I have a definite side on. Abortion, for example. I understand where the other side is coming from, I understand where the argument is, I just don't agree with the pro-lifers. There are other issues where I'm more confused, mostly because I understand both sides of the issue. Gun control, for example, is an issue that has flipped back and forth in my head so much over the years, it gives me a headache just thinking about it. I get it, you know? On the one hand, they kill people, on the other hand, I believe the founders of our country recognized that this new government they were creating would be fallible and would have the ability to become tyrannical, and they believed that if that happened, the people had the right to change that government. Part of the reason for the second amendment is so that all the guns aren't in the hands of the military, and to be frank, though I think that point of view is a little crazy and I think we're further away from it being a necessity than we've been since Gingrich decided to try and impeach Clinton due to a BJ, it's something I can hold on to for that side of the debate. It's something that makes it clearer to me. But Gay Marriage? No. I don't get that one at all.

Since, apparently, about fifty percent of the country disagrees with me on this one, I was hoping that a couple of them could actually try and explain a rational reason to me why gay men and women shouldn't be allowed to get married. What I don't get about it is that well... my fellow straight people, it's got nothing to do with us. Except of course it might help out the noun issue when talking to our gay friends of more advanced age. You know what I mean. When you're hanging out with your gay friend who's in his mid thirties, and you want to ask about Tom, that guy he's been with for a decade, the noun's a pain in the ass. Partner? What is it, are they in business together? Boyfriend? They're in their mid thirties, the term doesn't fit. Manfriend? That's the stupidest damn phrase you can make. You know what term would make it easier? Husband. Of course, until they were married, you couldn't use that one, but once they were? Husband. Clear pronoun, everyone knows what it means, would make the linguistics of our daily life that little bit easier.

So here's what I'm looking for in an argument against gay marriage. First off? Clarity. I don't want to have to read through your argument fourteen times to start to see what it means. As a side note - punctuation and vowels are what make written language work. Please try and make sure that they're there. Secondly? Logic. I don't want an emotional argument. Civil rights are not about what you like and what you don't like. We live in a representative democracy that's supposed to be built on the equality of all citizens, regardless of creed, race, or orientation. If the country actually is founded on the family, how exactly will it hurt the country to legally recognize a few more families? Third, I want a real argument. Don't pull shit out of your ass and tell me I can digest it again. Don't tell me that gay people make bad parents, because that's a) never been shown to be true, b) in my own anecdotal experience (not really useful data, but you should know my own bias) been shown to be false. And if it's all about "a kid needs a male and a female parent" than we should just outlaw single parent households now. As soon as one parent dies, the kids are thrown into an orphanage, to protect them from not having a mommy or a daddy.

So what have you got? Economics? I should mention here that weddings are a multi-BILLION dollar industry in this country, and that I have no doubt that making gay marriage legal would throw tons of additional money into that system. Devaluing straight marriage? Why? How is it that two people saying "I love you and I want to be with you forever" effects your marriage in any way, shape, or form? I just want to know if there's anything in your arguments outside of just being uncomfortable with gay people.

Really, I'm not trying to be facetious in this article. I don't get it. Really. I don't get it at all, and I want someone to explain it to me, because I don't like not understanding things. Realize that we're not talking about religion here, we're talking about civil rights. If your church/synagogue/mosque decides to not allow gay weddings, well that's a private issue, not a public one. They can do that anyway with straight people. They probably won't, but they can, because they're private institutions and not bound by the same restrictions as legal ones.

Please. Someone out there, just explain it to me. I don't like not understanding you. What's the argument against gay marriage?

Comments

[gaydm]

I do not understand the opposition either. First off a civil marriage contract is not a license to engage in sex. Nowhere in the contract is sexual relations REQUIRED. Children are also NOT required. You do not need to have a child with you, nor is any demand made for having one or more children made as a condition for obtaining the marriage license. Heterosexual married couples do exist and are happily married and childless, for both an inability, and an undesirability of having children.

Now having determined that sex is not required of the contract, why is it that the sex of the parties involved are in question? A marriage contract should be open to any 2 consenting adults, no matter what the genders of the 2 adults are. Children, like sex is an optional extra in a marriage, they are included in the contract at no extra charge.

[SteveDenver]

Wanda Sykes has a great bit on resentment of gay marriage (forgive me Wanda, I'm paraphrasing from memory):

A woman complains to her husband that the gay couple across the street seem so loving. Why can't he be more loving to her? The gays like to go shopping together, go out to eat together, work in the garden together, invite friends for parties at their home. "Why can't we be like them.'

The husband responds, "Well honey, we could be almost like them if you'd let me put my d--k in your @ss."

[BlackJAC]

MAD Magazine had an entire bit on the real effects of gay marriage on us breeders. One of them was how the notion of husbands who do housework and never look at other women will no longer be a hypothetical scenario for burned-out women.

[Lofn Gilbreath]

Just checking...maybe I misunderstood your comment. You do know Wanda herself is gay, right?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/16/wanda-sykes-im-proud-to-b_n_144130.html

[Randy McKean]

Yeah, but she did that bit on Comedy Central or HBO or something. I remember seeing it also, and it was hilarious!

[billyfromphilly]

I don't get it either. If the churchs are worried about being forced to perform gay marriages, how bout this deal; You maintain the right to deny a church wedding to anybody, but you have to stop telling parishioners how to vote.

[SteveDenver]

I'm all for allowing churches to deny gay weddings at will. They already deny marriage under their sacred magical roof to straight couples in many instances.

Fact is, I've been to dozens of gay weddings in churches that welcome them. Yup! That's right! Gays and lesbians are getting married ALL THE TIME. Their union is honored by many clergy, all their friends and most loved ones: just not the state.

[SelenicMagick]

Officially IF churches wish to maintain their 501C status they *can't* endorse any candidate... but they certainly CAN "encourage" people to vote for a particular party.

[Ale]

Churches deny marriage all the time, try to book a Jewish Temple for your Christian wedding or get married in a Catholic Church if you are say a Buddhist.

[gypsy508]

I can't speak to why people are opposed to gay marriage myself but I do know in California people have told me they are concerned about their churches being forced to conduct gay marriages and there has been no waiver offered on that. My only problem with gay marriage is I am tired about hearing the comparisons between gay rights and the rights of people in history who have been far more abused and relegated to the second class. By all means, let's legalize gay marriage but there are far more serious issues affected far more people right now that we should be focusing on more than a by and large wealthy class of people getting their day. How about universal health care for everyone not just adding spouses of gay people for example.

[RedInGeorgia]

so, are you saying gay citizens aren't second class citizens? Are they first and a half class? First and a quarter?

I mean, I get the notion that there are groups who are more oppressed or less oppressed. But by "second class citizens", there's not an attempt to "more or less" things. The point is that there are those who enjoy full rights and those who do not (with second class citizens being the ones who don't).

And, quite frankly, legalizing gay marriage in no way, shape or form, prevents, hinders, or otherwise impedes health care reform. All of our legislators in both state and federal capacity ought to be able to deal with more than one issue at a time. After all, we didn't elect first-graders.

[DenverJim]

Well, I see we're off to a bad start with this comment. First myth: that gay people are largely wealthy. They actually end up with 2/3 the wealth of straight people. It's just that gay people are allowed to exist and be out in wealthier circles. It's a less prejudiced environment. Gays are born into the same poor and disadvantaged communities as anybody else. Second myth: gay people haven't been abused and relegated to second class status. It's only been in the past few decades we've been allowed to exist. Proportionately, gays are the most affected by hate crimes. Gays aren't just fighting for the right to be married. What other group is still legally allowed to be fired for no other reason other than how they are born? Only one, and that's gays. What's the only group not allowed to serve in the military? Gays. What's the only group who can legally be denied housing in a handful of states? Gays. Are you getting the picture?

[TryToBeFlexible]

When you say you hate hearing gays compared to other people who have been more abused in history, who do you mean? Gays have been brutalized, made illegal, jailed, tortured, burned at the stake, fired from jobs, run out if neighborhoods, beaten in the streets, kicked out to die in the street while still children, for TWO THOUSAND YEARS! NO other group has been so brutalized for so long.

40 percent of abandoned children are gay. Even though only about 5 percent of the population is gay. Alot of these die in the street. If they don't die, they are probably abused by pimps, pedophiles, or other criminals. They are not able to get an education, and thus become an underclass.

I have known alot of gay people in my life, and very few are wealthy. A few are wealthy, most are somewhere in the middle, and quite a few are not very well off at all. Being fired, or not promoted at your job, for being gay, does not make you rich.

I personally think that gay marriage should be made legal, for anyone who wants it. And alot do. However, I am gay and would never get married. I think that "marriage" has been permanently tainted by the ultra religious straight world. I would be disgusted to participate in an institution that has been subsumed by such an ignorant and hateful bunch of low lives.

[Kara Rowells]

Actually gay people weren't tortured for thousands of years. Until the turn of the century being gay wasn't being gay, it just was. As far as gay people not being able to get an education goes, that's utter garbage. Your success in life is determined by your own personal drive, not your sexual orientation.
It seems like as we've developed as humans in history we've digressed as far as open mindedness is concerned. I have many homosexual friends and I have absolutely no problem with that. Nor should I. Why? Because it doesn't affect me in any way shape or form.

[BlackJAC]

The Catholic Church won't marry heterosexual divorcees, so the argument of churches somehow being "forced" to marry gay people doesn't fly because somebody with legal sanction still has to sign the marriage certificate whether they be clergy or laypeople.

[HERESTHEDEAL]

Discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal. Divorce is not protected by discrimination law.

[LeftRight]

First, there need be NO waiver about churches being forced to perform gay marriages, SINCE NO CHURCH IS FORCED TO PERFORM ANY MARRIAGE!!!!!! When my wife and I (I am male) got married by our church pastor, he REQUIRED us to undergo pre-marriage counseling, and had we not done so, he would have refused to officiate at our wedding!!

Second, gay people may not have been abused as much in specific cases as blacks and others, they HAVE been abused!! It's unreasonable to tell them that they cannot compare their own civil rights to those of black people, or Jews, or any other group, because they HAVE been abused!!

[joedecker]

Indeed, indeed!

(Trivia question: Which group of people did the Allies not release when the Concentration Camps were retaken near the end of World War 2?)