Why Oppose Gay Marriage?

Pre-College Issues High School Life
81

<p>Are people born gay, or do they turn gay? Nobody knows.</p>

<p>That’s where the problem lies. If people are born gay, then all gays qualify for suspect class status (a historically, racially discriminated group by no fault of their own) under the EPClause of the 14th amendment and any and all laws discriminating against gays must be automatically invalidated if challenged.</p>

<p>Yet if people have to choose to be gay, then they don’t possess a “discrete or immutable trait” and do not classify for suspect class status and are not necessarily protected by the equal protection clause so discrimination can (some may argue, not me personally, but some may indeed prudently argue) continue.</p>

<p>If and when they get that suspclass status though, they fall under the domain of the strict scrutiny test, they’ll be protected by the EQprotectionClause, DOMA goes out the window, gay marriage prohibition laws go out the window, and gays essentially become a “race” that cannot be discriminated against. </p>

<p>Intermediate scrutiny, though, is another story.</p>

82

<p>I know the EPClause was made in response to blacks and rights after the civil war, but going off of precedent, these people still deserve equality under the law. You can’t just deny that EPClause because they’re a race. These ** are ** citizens.</p>

83

<p>The EP clause is composed of three different scrutiny tests.</p>

<p>1) the Rational basis scrutiny test allows 100% lawful discrimination for rational reasons. For example, blind people can’t drive.</p>

<p>2) The Intermediate scrutiny test allows lawful discrimination sometimes. Its scope mainly governs sexuality; for example, women fall under the jurisdiction of the Intermediate scrutiny test of the EPClause. Women are not allowed into combat in some military divisions because in certain situations, soldiers have a tendency to come back for a woman if she is wounded, and again, in certain scenarios, this may jeopardize military missions (my friend is at West point which is how I know this).</p>

<p>3) The Strict scrutiny test STRICTLY forbids discrimination for people under its jurisdiction. To qualify for absolute strict scrutiny protection under the EPClause of the 14th, the said group of people must classify as a “suspect class.”</p>

<p>-To qualify as a “suspect class,” the group of people must:</p>

<pre><code>1) The group has historically been discriminated against, and/or have been subject to prejudice, hostility, and/or stigma, perhaps due, at least in part, to stereotypes.[1]
2) The group is a “discrete” and “insular” minority.[2]
3) They possess an immutable[3] and/or highly visible trait.
4) They are powerless[3] to protect themselves via the political process.
</code></pre>

<p>For example, blacks are a suspect class because they satisfy 1), 2), and 3).</p>

<p>Now, we get to the interesting part, which is why I love constitutional law so much. Do gays classify as a suspect class and fall under the strict scrutiny test (and let me tell you that if the supreme court decides they do fall under the strict scrutiny test, DOMA’s about to go out the window as well as all bans on gay marriage)?</p>

<p>Let’s find out. This is just my opinion btw.</p>

<pre><code>1) The group has historically been discriminated against, and/or have been subject to prejudice, hostility, and/or stigma, perhaps due, at least in part, to stereotypes.[1]
</code></pre>

<p>Yes. I’ll give you guys this one. Stonewall riots come to mind, as well as many other examples.</p>

<pre><code>2) The group is a “discrete” and “insular” minority.[2]
</code></pre>

<p>No. I don’t think so xD</p>

<pre><code>3) They possess an immutable[3] and/or highly visible trait.
</code></pre>

<p>Now this is interesting. Nobody knows if people are born gay, or choose to be gay. So there’s no way to tell! Let’s skip this one for now.</p>

<pre><code>4) They are powerless[3] to protect themselves via the political process.
</code></pre>

<p>Nope. They’ve got Harvey Milk and Barney Frank in there, as well as a lotta other supporters.</p>

<p>So that’s 1 Yes, 2 Nos, and 1 Not sure. If gayness is in fact genetic and some proof can be offered, that not sure can turn into a yes, and then it can be 2/4, or 50%, imo enough to qualify gays for suspect class as well as strict scrutiny status. But it isn’t up to me. It’ll be up to the Supreme Court T.T</p>

<p>That swing vote will be crucial if the SC does indeed want to take such a case.</p>

84

<p>There is more than choice vs. inborn. Plenty of characteristics that you develop over your lifetime you were not born with but also did not choose. Some examples: any sort of psychological disorder that results from trauma as a child, allergies, non-genetic diseases, etc. </p>

<p>I don’t think there’s conclusive evidence for sexuality being genetic, but there’s very good evidence for it not being a choice (again, we’re talking about attraction, not acting upon attraction–that’s clearly a choice for someone of any sexuality). People can’t change their sexualities through counseling for one…if they could choose, that would work. There are many other reasons that people have already stated and I won’t repeat. And still more.</p>

85

<p>Alright I am for Gay Marriage, but I strongly support a civil union under government (thus securing equal rights) instead.</p>

<p>Why do homosexuals need “marriage”? Civil union is the same thing, and solves all problems. Marriage would offend religious groups because marriage has some religious origin (Obviously religions don’t OWN marriage). Also, marriage is so widespread that expanding the definition to a “man and a man” would just be… sorta weird. I would rather have it that homosexuals have their type of marriage (civil union) and the rest of us have marriage (between a man and a women). I don’t want to grow up in a society where I can marry whichever gender I want, rather I would like it that I can only marry the opposite gender and gays can have equal rights through a civil union</p>

86

<p>^I gotta disagree on something/clear up a misconception. Marriage doesn’t have a religious origin, marriage has a civil origin that certain religions latched onto. Marriage predates religion. Plus, marriage has been redefined MANY times before to get to the point it’s at today. More than this, seperate but equal doesn’t work, as we’ve seen from history. Civil unions /= marriage, therefore they are not enough.</p>

87

<p>Separate but equal. We were talking about this in history class a few weeks back.</p>

<p>Back during the times of segregation, that was thought to be the solution. To have black people and white people separate, but equal. So there were black schools and white schools. The white schools were well funded, had great teachers, and kids were generally well cared for. The black schools got the ruined textbooks with outdated information, the desks that were barely usable, the teachers who didn’t care, etc. Separate, technically equal. But it didn’t work.</p>

<p>Today, black and white people do the same things. They go to the same schools. They are treated equally.</p>

<p>Why should gay people be separated from separate people even if only in marriage? And it’s not just in marriage. In 29 states, a gay person can be fired from their job purely for the reason of being gay. But back to marriage. Why should straight people be given the special privlage of marriage when gay people don’t have the chance for it?</p>

<p>[Difference</a> Between Civil Union and Marriage - Civil Unions vs. Gay Marriage](<a href=“http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm]Difference”>http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm)</p>

88

<p>

</p>

<p>Translation: “I’ve only ever known marriage between heterosexuals. Allowing people of the same sex to be married is different, and it’s kind of scary. Can’t we just keep things the way they are and patronize the gays with civil unions, so that I don’t have to feel uncomfortable knowing that two men or two women can get married now?”</p>

<p>Oh, and maybe some homosexuals want marriage so bad because our society raises kids to aspire to marriage. Read your own post - you want to have a special designation between you and the person you love. Gays were raised to be that way too - only the person they ended up being attracted to and loving someone of the same sex. </p>

<p>Please do a little introspection, and analyze your own arguments. You seem like a pretty smart person and don’t appear fueled by prejudice or hate. But your opposition to gay marriage is completely based on discomfort with change. There are tons of people like you who support gays, but can’t make the leap to same sex marriage for fear of change. It’s partly because of people like that that prop 8 passed in California. </p>

<p>Think about it - if you weren’t religious (don’t know if you are), you still wouldn’t want a civil union, right? It just sounds cold and impersonal. So imagine being allowed only to have a “civil union” while others are given the right to “marriage,” because they are somehow deemed more worthy of it than you. Maybe I’m wrong, but the frustration and discriminatory dichotomy that causes is a little bit more pressing than thinking two dudes can get married is “sorta weird.”</p>

89

<p>I think most people who think gay marriage is bad are just ignorant. I mean comon, who are we to decide how two other people live their lives.</p>

<p>I didn’t read through the whole thread, but I know there have been some big arguments in the past how gay people don’t go along with Charles Darwin’s theory of survival of the fittest because they can’t produce offspring. Well isn’t healthcare also going against that theory? We are allowing the weak to live longer through healthcare, which is inherently going against the theory. Should we just drop healthcare forever just to go along with Darwin’s theory. Just a thought…</p>

90

<p>

</p>

<p>Sure, separate but equal does not work within the context of race, but what about say kids with learning disabilities and kids without learning disabilities? Should they be grouped in the same classes? Or should they be separated, but treated equally? The notion that “separate but equal” has no place in the world is too far fetched. </p>

<p>My reasons for my belief in civil union, aka I guess “separate but equal”</p>

<ol>
<li><p>True, marriage is not owned by religion. But it does have place in religion and religions will inevitably be offended if the definition of what constitutes a marriage is changed. Why go for a title that will offend religions when homosexuals can acquire the same rights through a civil union? </p></li>
<li><p>Marriage is an aspect of life that has been with us for a very long time and today especially is almost assumed to be a stage of life. Males grow up and eventually marry females, or vice versa. Opening up a new dimension of marriage, that a male is free to marry whoever he wants, is [in my belief] unwarranted. We do not have the freedom to choose whichever gender we want to marry/love because we are biologically destined to love a certain gender (striaght = opposite, gay = same), so why would you give the human race the freedom to marry someone they are not biologically destined to like? To do this, would [in my belief] be breaking some sort of understanding that the human race has had for a very long time. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>(I am not suggesting that a break in this understanding will lead to some sort of catostrophe or end of the world btw)</p>

<p>To express this view which I doubt I explained clearly, let me pose a question. Would you rather have your children understand this as they grow up: that they can marry which ever gender they want, as it is their right to so, or this: that they must marry the opposite gender as they are biologically destined for, and that if they are homosexual, they may have the same rights and love the same gender through a civil union.</p>

<h2>Now you might think: what’s wrong with having a child know that he can marry whoever he wants? If he’s straight, he would never consider marrying a male, so what’s the problem? Well that’s what I believe is a problem. Why would you confuse kids and let them understand that they can marry whoever they want, when they are biologically destined to be attracted to the opposite sex? It doesn’t make sense to me. It would make more sense for children to grow up with the traditional definition of marriage, and have homosexuals understand that they have the same rights. Having marriage spelled as civil union does not constitute NOT having a right. </h2>

<p>if I did not mention this, then I will say that </p>

<h2>To relate gay marriage to racial segregation is in my opinion, erroneous. </h2>

<p>sorry for the rambling lol, typed this all pretty fast - I am sure there are a lot of redundancies. i would like the continue this debate so long as there is no flaming involved</p>

91

<ol>
<li><p>People being offended has never been a reason to make law. I, and many others are offended by the distinction between marriage and civil union. There. Offense is not a very good argument.</p></li>
<li><p>Tradition (what you’re saying here: “been with us for a very long time” “break…human understanding”) is also not a good argument. Slavery had been with us [humans, not just America] for a very long time. There was a longstanding human understanding that people could have ownership of others. That does not validate it in any way.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>I know the above situation is very different from gay marriage; the purpose was merely to break down your argument, not equate the two in any way.</p>

<p>“Why would you confuse kids and let them understand that they can marry whoever they want, when they are biologically destined to be attracted to the opposite sex?”
You don’t really think this will be a problem, will you? People will marry whom they want to marry. Telling a kid that s/he may marry whomever will not screw them up. They’ll figure it out in time. Maybe they’ll experiment or whatever. Not a bad thing. I don’t understand how this “confusion” is a problem in the slightest.</p>

<p>Finally: “To relate gay marriage to racial segregation is in my opinion, erroneous.”
Wanna give a reason for your opinion? No one (I should hope) is saying they’re the same situation, but there are obvious parallels (e.g. separate but equal, being told you’re inferior due to something you can’t control, hate crimes, etc).</p>

92

<p>

Religion can’t really be changed, but people like you can realize that marriage=civil union, except basically the spelling right?</p>

<p>

Slavery is man made. What we are talking about is something that we are biologically wired to do. I would call this a mistaken parallel; it doesn’t apply. Oh wait you mention that later lol. But then I don’t understand the point of what you said</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>To me, that sounds terrible. lol. Growing up in a society with the understanding that you can marry anyone goes against what people are wired to do. It’s not the right set up. In massachussetts I heard (the validity of what I’m about to say is irrelevant to the point I’m trying to make) that in an elementary school kids were read the book “the king and the king” where 2 kings marry each other. I am totally against this.</p>

<p><a href=“e.g.%20separate%20but%20equal,%20being%20told%20you’re%20inferior%20due%20to%20something%20you%20can’t%20control,%20hate%20crimes,%20etc”>quote</a>.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I in no way am endorsing that homosexuals are inferior, can control their sexuality, or deserve hate crimes. I am sorry if I gave that impression.</p>

93

<p>Wake up RAlec114!!</p>

<p>Young gays are confused all the time, because people tell boys and girls from the time that they are in kindergarten that they should have little girlfriends and boyfriends respectively. Young gays grow up seeing that only a man and a woman are allowed to marry in America, but are biologically wired to be attracted to the opposite sex.</p>

<p>Every hypothetical thing you said about confusing the poor little straight kids is already true for gays! And guess what, my initial confusion turned into the realization “oh, people are just ignorant of people like me.” There was no long-lasting trauma or confusion. And I didn’t turn straight either, so no need to worry about straight children going gay. </p>

<p>If you are biologically wired to be attracted to a sex, then you are biologically wired to be attracted to that sex. No man-made construct is going to meddle with your instincts. Your arguments are all focused around tradition for tradition’s sake, and your own heteronormative concerns. Both very, very insubstantial reasons.</p>

<p>By the way, the mere existence of other religions offends most religions. Try working that one out.</p>

94

<p>

Religion actually can be changed, but that’s not the point since that’s not what I’m endorsing. What I’m saying that it doesn’t matter if certain religious groups are offended. We don’t give up on a cause/issue/rights because people are offended.

The point of what I said is to show that the idea that something has been with us for a long time does not stand as a reason to change. But you bring up a new issue of nature vs. artificial creation. Marriage is equally man-made. What is not man-made is attraction and people forming relationships, both life-long and not. That is biological in both straight and gay people.

It doesn’t go against what all gay people are wired to do. It is the right set up for them. No matter what is legal, kids will hear more about straight marriage than gay marriage because there are more straight people than gay people. No matter what is made legal, kids will hear about gay people in love and in relationships. Calling it marriage won’t change that. Anyway, if people are secure in their sexuality, they will be fine regardless of what they hear. And read what panther said about confusing gay kids. That’s not fair to them.

I wasn’t saying that you were implying those things, merely that those similarities prove that it is valid to relate racial segregation and the issue of gay rights. They exist even if you don’t endorse them, which is why race and sexuality have similar arguments.</p>

95

<p>People believe what they want to believe and rationalize virtually anything as you can tell from the different answers on this thread. Marriage has been a social institution (I will keep religion out of it so as to not complicate things or invite sniping from non-believers) that has existed because it encourages the optimal buiding block of society. Because of changes in mores and medicine gay couples can have “families” through invitro fertilization or adoption and so they can have childeren. Likewise heterosexual couples somethinmes choose not to have children. The proponents of this argument use both of these things as reasons there should be “gay marriage” and also attribute their rights to such an institution. Marriage IS betweeen a man and a woman and is the optimal family unit to bring up children with influence from both male and female. Are there good homes made by gay couples? Absolutely. Are there bad homes made by hetero couples? Absolutely. Is that a reason to endorse gay marriage? Absolutely not. As I said, the only thing you do by “changing” the definition of marriage is to weaken marriage itself. If everybody wins first place trophies because we decide that everyone should be allowed to, all we do is lessen the value we place on the trophy. What is next after this? Marriage is between a man and a goat, dog, pie? If gays want all of the social, legal or other benefits I have no problem with that; marriage not so much.</p>

96

<p>

The only thing? Here are a few other things you do by changing the definition:

  1. You give gay people equal rights to marry whom they want.
  2. You increase the number of marriages between people who love each other–these people are fighting so hard to get married, you bet they want it.
  3. You create equality and encourage tolerance, acceptance, and understanding.</p>

<p>

Um, what? How is getting a trophy in any way a good analogy for marriage? Getting married is not a big accomplishment, it’s a celebration of love, a commitment for the future, and some other things, but it’s not a competition. If Britney Spears gets married and divorced within a 24 hour period, you could claim that devalues marriage because it says that marriage is not important or long-lasting. We don’t set limits on the number of people who can get married, so how would letting more people get married be harmful?

This is so offensive. How are goats, dogs, and pies anything like a consenting human adult who wants to get married? Gay people are just as human as straight people. Goats, dogs, and pies do not. You’re using a logical fallacy called a “slippery slope.” If you don’t know what that is, look it up. It’s not a valid argument.</p>

97

<p>First of all, there is no “right” to marry. You have shown the capacity to repeat all of the talking points of the left and the GLBT community. (or is it LGTB, I can’t keep up). I don’t expect you to agree with my point of view nor understand my analogies but try to follow along at home even if it varies from your talking points. The analogy involving trophies did not purport to link trophies and marriage but rather to link changing the definition of something that is because, well your numbers 1.2.3. Likewise, the tongue in cheek (wow maybe I should choose another term;nah) slippery slope of which I am intimately familiar points to when you change the definition who are you to say someone else couldn’t also. I mean really who are you to deny a man a goat if he really loves it,is committed to it, and it encourages love, tolerance and understanding. I was intentionally being ridiculous, that is called hyperbole and the arguments I have offered are certainly valid, you just don’t happen to agree with them. This is the part where you say, is not…congratulations on your being able to recite the talking points, takes a lot of skill sparky. Have a nice day.</p>

98

<p>^This is not conducive to debate. I am trying to have a friendly argument with you. I welcome your rebuttals, just as I thought you welcomed mine. I thought by posting in this thread, you were welcoming others to argue with you; I am sorry if I was wrong.</p>

<p>You’re spot on about the “right,” I should have said equal privilege. Regardless, it’s about equality and the Constitution requires equality of privileges as well.</p>

<p>Yes, my views match up with the GLBT (I think both orders are acceptable) community’s views, but I formed mine on my own. That’s irrelevant though.</p>

<p>I don’t understand the point of you sharing your views with others if you don’t want others to “follow along at home” or “understand [your] analogies.” You’re right, I don’t have to agree with your views, nor you with mine, but I’d like to understand where you’re coming from.</p>

<p>Also, I’m not reciting any talking points. These are my own opinions and I responded directly to what you said, which required me to look at your words, rather than just going for my own agenda.</p>

<p>I still don’t understand how your trophy analogy makes sense because sure, they’re both about changing definitions, but they’re so different for all the reasons I pointed out.</p>

<p>Okay, hyperbole can be good, but it’s the internet so I missed that you were trying to be ridiculous. You can’t just claim that your arguments are valid, you have to prove that they are. I’m not saying that they’re not (yet), but I’m just pointing how I see them to be missing validity and trying to give you an opportunity to respond. And finally, you can deny the man the marriage to a goat because the goat is being abused in this situation–s/he can’t consent to marriage.</p>

99

<p>

</p>

<p>Well then, I suppose, being of course a competent rhetorician, you were meaning to satirize the typical anti-Gay Rights argument, since that is when hyperbole is properly used in the “ridiculous” sense in which you used it.</p>

100

<p>cela- No. cranberry where did you read that I was doing anything than offer an opinion. I spent 20 years in the Navy protecting your right to disagree with me. I can claim my arguments are valid, just as your claimed they were not. Neither of our opinions influences that, I was just pointing out that your pronoucing them not valid makes no difference. We won’t agree on this but I support your right to think what you want. That being said, I will fight to keep the definition of marriage what it is. With regard to the goat , we will have to ask him or her.</p>