Does Gay Marriage threaten traditional Family Values?

[McCulloch]

I don't think gay marriage is immoral by any means, I just oppose it because I support traditional family values.

But gay marriage does not harm nor does it challenge traditional family values. I don't want to close down the Indian restaurant up the road because I like Italian food.

It challenges the future of the nuclear family, which is generally one mother and one father and a # of children. Anything that does not include these factors (such as single motherhood, foster homes, divorces, and gay marriage) should be avoided in order to preserve traditional family values.

Does Gay Marriage threaten traditional Family Values?
Are Traditional Family Values in any danger of not being preserved?

[dianaiad]

So? Some of us believe the bible is just so much nonsense.

Exactly! I have yet to find a compelling nonreligious argument as to why gay marriage is wrong.

<snip to end>


Here's one for you...and it's not about gays gaining civil rights. It's about what it does to the religious freedoms of others; please bear with me.

Here in California gay couples can contract civil unions. These civil unions provide EXACTLY the same rights that marriage does. Not 'separate but equal,' exactly the same rights. No gay couple, for instance, has to walk into the mortgage company through a separate door in order to get the same loans a married couple does. They don't have to visit their loved ones on separate floors in the hospital. Their rights of survival are not separate--they are exactly the same ones. Yet in California gays have been advocating gay MARRIAGE for years, because having equal rights isn't sufficient.

Why?

Because they want to force society to approve of them...and by 'society,' they mean religions. Society in terms of legal rights and procedures already does...and by the way, I think that's fine. I have absolutely no problem with gay couples having exactly the same legal rights my husband and I had. What I do NOT like is the idea that religions are going to be forced to change their doctrines and faith regarding the divine meaning of marriage to go along with government definitions of it....and please do not tell me that this won't happen, because when the government defines/redefines marriage laws, it DOES happen. It has happened...and it will happen.

Personally, I think that the best option would be to take the word 'marriage' completely out of the legal vocabulary. Make 'marriage' a completely religious term. We should all get civil unions. Then, after doing that, if we wish to marry, fine; find a church that agrees with our definition of the word and get married. Or, if one is not religious, go find a beach and a romantic sunset (sunrise, depending on what coast you happen to be on) and trade vows. Voila, you are married...gay or straight.

Legal rights belong to the civil union. Religious rights belong to "marriage," and no religion is going to have to change it's opinion or be in danger of tax problems if their idea of 'marriage' isn't the same as yours.

[madfrog]

What I do NOT like is the idea that religions are going to be forced to change their doctrines and faith regarding the divine meaning of marriage to go along with government definitions of it.

I think that as long as religious people are respectful of me when I'm in their presence, I don't care if they think I'm going to burn in Hell. I even have friends who openly admit that they do indeed think that I will go to Hell. I don't expect religious doctrine to change just because the law does just as I don't expect churches to endorse every president or court decision.

Personally, I think that the best option would be to take the word 'marriage' completely out of the legal vocabulary. Make 'marriage' a completely religious term. We should all get civil unions. Then, after doing that, if we wish to marry, fine; find a church that agrees with our definition of the word and get married. Or, if one is not religious, go find a beach and a romantic sunset (sunrise, depending on what coast you happen to be on) and trade vows. Voila, you are married...gay or straight.

Legal rights belong to the civil union. Religious rights belong to "marriage," and no religion is going to have to change it's opinion or be in danger of tax problems if their idea of 'marriage' isn't the same as yours.

I've heard this argument before and endorse it wholeheartedly. However, from the perspective of political prudence, I think it would be a lot easier to legalize gay marriage than to overturn straight marriage.

The real thing that most people in the queer community, including myself, want is legal equality, no matter what that encompasses. If a civil union really is the same thing as marriage, then why not just let us get married? I understand that churches want to protect themselves from lawsuits and such but it seems that there are ways to protect them from having to worry about that while still allowing legal equality. As long as there are two classes of partnership, our society is showing people that gays are inferior, even if we were to technically have the same legal benefits under different terms.

Also, it is important to acknowledge that we actually don't have the same legal benefits, even in states that do allow gay marriage. Don't Ask Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act ban gays from the military and deny us federal tax benefits, respectively. There are also 32 states that don't grant any marriage/civil union rights to gays.*

*http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16430

[dianaiad]

What I do NOT like is the idea that religions are going to be forced to change their doctrines and faith regarding the divine meaning of marriage to go along with government definitions of it.

I think that as long as religious people are respectful of me when I'm in their presence, I don't care if they think I'm going to burn in Hell. I even have friends who openly admit that they do indeed think that I will go to Hell. I don't expect religious doctrine to change just because the law does just as I don't expect churches to endorse every president or court decision.

Personally, I think that the best option would be to take the word 'marriage' completely out of the legal vocabulary. Make 'marriage' a completely religious term. We should all get civil unions. Then, after doing that, if we wish to marry, fine; find a church that agrees with our definition of the word and get married. Or, if one is not religious, go find a beach and a romantic sunset (sunrise, depending on what coast you happen to be on) and trade vows. Voila, you are married...gay or straight.

Legal rights belong to the civil union. Religious rights belong to "marriage," and no religion is going to have to change it's opinion or be in danger of tax problems if their idea of 'marriage' isn't the same as yours.

I've heard this argument before and endorse it wholeheartedly. However, from the perspective of political prudence, I think it would be a lot easier to legalize gay marriage than to overturn straight marriage.

The real thing that most people in the queer community, including myself, want is legal equality, no matter what that encompasses. If a civil union really is the same thing as marriage, then why not just let us get married? I understand that churches want to protect themselves from lawsuits and such but it seems that there are ways to protect them from having to worry about that while still allowing legal equality. As long as there are two classes of partnership, our society is showing people that gays are inferior, even if we were to technically have the same legal benefits under different terms.

Also, it is important to acknowledge that we actually don't have the same legal benefits, even in states that do allow gay marriage. Don't Ask Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act ban gays from the military and deny us federal tax benefits, respectively. There are also 32 states that don't grant any marriage/civil union rights to gays.*

*http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16430

The problem is this: in California gays with civil unions DO have precisely the same legal rights that married people do. Exactly the same. Not 'same but different,' not 'separate but equal,' exactly the same rights. The only reason that gays want to marry in California is for cultural and religious approval..FORCED cultural and religious approval--forced by legal fiat. The fact is, the lawsuits WILL come; they will be expensive to defend, and they WILL result, eventually, in a very real abrogation of the freedom of religion.

Trust me. I'm a Mormon. I know exactly what happens when the government decides to redefine/legislate religious ideas, especially in marriage. As the great granddaughter of three polygamous households, I have a very clear idea of what happens.

So..that's why 'allowing gays to marry" is a lousy idea. Not that I don't think that gay relationships deserve the same rights as married couples; after all, why should any person who doesn't agree with my belief system be forced to abide by it?

..............and that's the point. I don't believe that you should be denied the same civil rights with your partner that I had with my husband; it's none of my business anyway. I only wish to prevent YOU from messing with MY rights. That's why I proposed what I did. For gays it is obvious (at least here in California) that it's not about civil rights at all. After all, they won that one already. It's about forcing ME to approve of them.

I'm sorry, but again, as a Mormon, family and marriage is too fundamental to our doctrine, and same sex marriages simply do not work within it. non-Mormon Christians can, I think, eventually figure out how to encompass gay relationships; many already do.

We can't, not without fundamentally changing at a level so basic as to destroy our entire basic dogma regarding what salvation actually is. If you want to be LDS, you can't have sex outside marriage, no matter who with, and given what we think marriage is all about, it MUST be between a man and a woman. There is no logic that can get us around it.

..........but, since you are not LDS, I don't see how what we believe affects you one way or another. The problem is what allowing gay marriage rather than civil unions that reflect legal contracts between partners, does to us.

IT's the 'your freedom ends where my nose begins' thing. The corollary of that, of course, is 'my freedom to object to your actions ends where my skin does,' In this case, given the situation of California, it's pretty obvious to me which side is advocating for more freedom than they are entitled to, and I foresee a rather sore nose in my future.

[cnorman18]

What I do NOT like is the idea that religions are going to be forced to change their doctrines and faith regarding the divine meaning of marriage to go along with government definitions of it.

I think that as long as religious people are respectful of me when I'm in their presence, I don't care if they think I'm going to burn in Hell. I even have friends who openly admit that they do indeed think that I will go to Hell. I don't expect religious doctrine to change just because the law does just as I don't expect churches to endorse every president or court decision.

Personally, I think that the best option would be to take the word 'marriage' completely out of the legal vocabulary. Make 'marriage' a completely religious term. We should all get civil unions. Then, after doing that, if we wish to marry, fine; find a church that agrees with our definition of the word and get married. Or, if one is not religious, go find a beach and a romantic sunset (sunrise, depending on what coast you happen to be on) and trade vows. Voila, you are married...gay or straight.

Legal rights belong to the civil union. Religious rights belong to "marriage," and no religion is going to have to change it's opinion or be in danger of tax problems if their idea of 'marriage' isn't the same as yours.

I've heard this argument before and endorse it wholeheartedly. However, from the perspective of political prudence, I think it would be a lot easier to legalize gay marriage than to overturn straight marriage.

The real thing that most people in the queer community, including myself, want is legal equality, no matter what that encompasses. If a civil union really is the same thing as marriage, then why not just let us get married? I understand that churches want to protect themselves from lawsuits and such but it seems that there are ways to protect them from having to worry about that while still allowing legal equality. As long as there are two classes of partnership, our society is showing people that gays are inferior, even if we were to technically have the same legal benefits under different terms.

Also, it is important to acknowledge that we actually don't have the same legal benefits, even in states that do allow gay marriage. Don't Ask Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act ban gays from the military and deny us federal tax benefits, respectively. There are also 32 states that don't grant any marriage/civil union rights to gays.*

*http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16430

The problem is this: in California gays with civil unions DO have precisely the same legal rights that married people do. Exactly the same. Not 'same but different,' not 'separate but equal,' exactly the same rights. The only reason that gays want to marry in California is for cultural and religious approval..FORCED cultural and religious approval--forced by legal fiat. The fact is, the lawsuits WILL come; they will be expensive to defend, and they WILL result, eventually, in a very real abrogation of the freedom of religion.

Trust me. I'm a Mormon. I know exactly what happens when the government decides to redefine/legislate religious ideas, especially in marriage. As the great granddaughter of three polygamous households, I have a very clear idea of what happens.

So..that's why 'allowing gays to marry" is a lousy idea. Not that I don't think that gay relationships deserve the same rights as married couples; after all, why should any person who doesn't agree with my belief system be forced to abide by it?

..............and that's the point. I don't believe that you should be denied the same civil rights with your partner that I had with my husband; it's none of my business anyway. I only wish to prevent YOU from messing with MY rights. That's why I proposed what I did. For gays it is obvious (at least here in California) that it's not about civil rights at all. After all, they won that one already. It's about forcing ME to approve of them.

I'm sorry, but again, as a Mormon, family and marriage is too fundamental to our doctrine, and same sex marriages simply do not work within it. non-Mormon Christians can, I think, eventually figure out how to encompass gay relationships; many already do.

We can't, not without fundamentally changing at a level so basic as to destroy our entire basic dogma regarding what salvation actually is. If you want to be LDS, you can't have sex outside marriage, no matter who with, and given what we think marriage is all about, it MUST be between a man and a woman. There is no logic that can get us around it.

..........but, since you are not LDS, I don't see how what we believe affects you one way or another. The problem is what allowing gay marriage rather than civil unions that reflect legal contracts between partners, does to us.

IT's the 'your freedom ends where my nose begins' thing. The corollary of that, of course, is 'my freedom to object to your actions ends where my skin does,' In this case, given the situation of California, it's pretty obvious to me which side is advocating for more freedom than they are entitled to, and I foresee a rather sore nose in my future.

Catholics don't recognize the marriages of Catholics who have been divorced NOW.

Orthodox Jews don't recognize the marriages even of Jews who were not married by an Orthodox rabbi, or the marriages of divorced Jewish women who have not received a get (certificate of religious divorce) from their former husbands, or of Orthodox Jews married to non-Jews or even Reform or sometimes Conservative Jews, NOW.

Very many religions do not recognize marriages between communicants of their own religions with those who are outside the group, NOW.

All these have been true for centuries, notwithstanding the fact that all these marriages are legally recognized by the civil authorities and have been for centuries as well.

Sorry, I just don't see much danger here. No one's going to force ANY religion to change their teachings or doctrines on this issue. There's plenty of precedent to prove that.

Be it noted that Mormon polygyny is still being practiced today even though it's illegal in every state; those groups haven't allowed the Government to redefine their religion, either. I doubt any church groups are going to be thrown in jail for NOT recognizing marriages that fall outside their religious limitations if they're not being thrown into jail for sanctioning marriages that the state does not -- which, if you've watched the news, they aren't. The FDLS members who are serving time are doing it for statutory rape and child abuse, not for polygyny.

[dianaiad]

Catholics don't recognize the marriages of Catholics who have been divorced NOW.

Orthodox Jews don't recognize the marriages even of Jews who were not married by an Orthodox rabbi, or the marriages of divorced Jewish women who have not received a get (certificate of religious divorce) from their former husbands, or of Orthodox Jews married to non-Jews or even Reform or sometimes Conservative Jews, NOW.

Very many religions do not recognize marriages between communicants of their own religions with those who are outside the group, NOW.

All these have been true for centuries, notwithstanding the fact that all these marriages are legally recognized by the civil authorities and have been for centuries as well.

Sorry, I just don't see much danger here. No one's going to force ANY religion to change their teachings or doctrines on this issue. There's plenty of precedent to prove that.

I repeat: I am the great-granddaughter of three polygamous households. I know precisely what will happen. I know what happened a year ago at the FLDS compound, when they sent all those Baptist busses to abduct the women and children of those people....and I know what lawsuits against religions are already written out and ready to be filed as we speak. You want precedent? Try that one. Shoot, the US Government forced Utah to make polygamy, not just illegal, but unconstitutional before it would allow Utah to become a state (the only state of the fifty in which this was a requirement) right along with forcing Utah to take the vote AWAY from the women...Mormon women had been voting since the 1830's. Mormons were able to circumvent that one, by giving the vote right back to the women in the constitutional convention, but as for their marriage practices? Not so much.

So you want precedent? Try that one. Do you think I"m over reacting? Nope. Gays are rather clear about their adversarial intentions regarding this issue. Even so, I believe that they have the right to all the legal and civil rights that I had with my husband. I just do not think they have the right to force me to accept and approve of their relationships in a religious sense in order to avoid legal persecution.

Seems simple enough to me.

....Mormon polygyny is still being practiced today even though it's illegal in every state; those groups haven't allowed the Government to redefine their religion, either.

....nope, and they go to jail for the priviledge, too.

I doubt any church groups are going to be thrown in jail for NOT recognizing marriages that fall outside their religious limitations if they're not being thrown into jail for sanctioning marriages that the state does not -- which, if you've watched the news, they aren't. The FDLS members who are serving time are doing it for statutory rape and child abuse, not for polygyny.

You haven't seen the news lately, have you? Of course, most of these people are legally married only to one wife, and 'spiritually married' to the rest, and thus are not breaking any laws.

Which, come to think of it, is very close to what I proposed in the first place. Separate the legal and civil rights from the religious definition.

disclaimer....by the way, I am not a polygamist. I'm pretty mainstream LDS, widow of one husband, and he was married only to me. Being a polygamist in the CoJCoLDS is about the quickest way to get excommunicated there is. [/i]

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 25:

...
Shoot, the US Government forced Utah to make polygamy, not just illegal, but unconstitutional before it would allow Utah to become a state (the only state of the fifty in which this was a requirement) right along with forcing Utah to take the vote AWAY from the women...

Notice, when a territory seeks to become a state, it is not forced to do anything, except to follow the rules laid out by the organization it seeks to join.

Disallowing female voters was or is, IMO, an unconstitutional act.

Notice also that the vast majority of leaders at that point in history were religious themselves, and beholden to religious constituents. This, to me, indicates the problems with having a theocracy - in practice or as a matter of law.

So you want precedent? Try that one. Do you think I"m over reacting? Nope. Gays are rather clear about their adversarial intentions regarding this issue. Even so, I believe that they have the right to all the legal and civil rights that I had with my husband. I just do not think they have the right to force me to accept and approve of their relationships in a religious sense in order to avoid legal persecution.

What right then do you have to "force" your position onto them (if only as a matter of withholding the word "marriage" exlusively for the religious).

Seems simple enough to me.

Just because something "seems simple" to one, does not mean it is, nor that others should accept that notion merely because someone presents it.

....Mormon polygyny is still being practiced today even though it's illegal in every state; those groups haven't allowed the Government to redefine their religion, either.

....nope, and they go to jail for the priviledge, too.

I personally don't care how many folks marry each other, but understand many adults have used this as a guise to abuse minors.

...
Which, come to think of it, is very close to what I proposed in the first place. Separate the legal and civil rights from the religious definition.

Given the term "marriage" has so permeated society, I would object to reserving it's use solely for the religious.

The reason I reject this notion is because society - religious or not - has come to understand what it means by "marriage", and removing this term from peoples vocabularies simply because we reject their form of marriage is a bit odd, and bordering on a violation of the First Amendment, and perhaps others.

If I was gay and I decided to marry me a handsome feller there, and we were both religious folks, what then of "only religious folks should use the term"? Would it be like how in the Army you only hafta call a Warrant Officer "sir" once a day? Would we be able to tell folks we were "married" when we first speak to them, and thereafter would be required to use some other term you, dianaid find less offensive?

[dianaiad]

,snip to here> If I was gay and I decided to marry me a handsome feller there, and we were both religious folks, what then of "only religious folks should use the term"? Would it be like how in the Army you only hafta call a Warrant Officer "sir" once a day? Would we be able to tell folks we were "married" when we first speak to them, and thereafter would be required to use some other term you, dianaid find less offensive?

I don't think you understand my proposal in this area.

I am suggesting that ALL relationships sanctioned by the government that are now called 'marriage' be termed 'civil unions' or 'civil contracts' or whatever. That means not just gays, but straight people, too. Everybody has the same precise contractual and civil rights.

If you want to get married, go ahead; find yourself a church that accepts it, and go get married. Call yourself 'married.' Consider yourself 'married.'

Refer to your partner as your spouse. G'head. All I want to do is to keep y'all out of MY religious business. I do not want to see some gay couple suing my faith (or anybody else's) for discrimination because, guess what, the rules for working for a church owned business include being married according to the rules of the church you are getting paid by.

That's pretty much it. I don't want to keep a couple of people from having survival/insurance/real estate rights just because of my faith; it's none of my business. All I am concerned about is that they can't force their choices upon ME.

As for Gay relationships threatening 'traditional family values?" Not as much as divorce does, or promiscuity does. What it does threaten is the religious freedom of those who honestly don't believe that God sanctions same sex marriage, and who can very clearly see their own beliefs being interfered with.

That, I object to highly.

[Goat]

,snip to here> If I was gay and I decided to marry me a handsome feller there, and we were both religious folks, what then of "only religious folks should use the term"? Would it be like how in the Army you only hafta call a Warrant Officer "sir" once a day? Would we be able to tell folks we were "married" when we first speak to them, and thereafter would be required to use some other term you, dianaid find less offensive?

I don't think you understand my proposal in this area.

I am suggesting that ALL relationships sanctioned by the government that are now called 'marriage' be termed 'civil unions' or 'civil contracts' or whatever. That means not just gays, but straight people, too. Everybody has the same precise contractual and civil rights.

Wonderful idea. That will happen when pigs fly. Hell might (and will) freeze over first, because Michigan is very cold in the winter

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 27:

...
I am suggesting that ALL relationships sanctioned by the government that are now called 'marriage' be termed 'civil unions' or 'civil contracts' or whatever. That means not just gays, but straight people, too. Everybody has the same precise contractual and civil rights.

That is exactly what I object to. The term marriage has cultural significance, and many homosexuals seek marriage, not a "civil union", not a "civil contract". You are ostensibly denying them this term (which the government currently finds plenty acceptable for heterosexuals) because you object to its use when applied to homosexual unions.

The problem here is that - if I may put words in your mouth - the term "marriage" is fine, until homosexuals seek to use the term, then it should be stricken from our government's lexicon.

If, as you say or imply, you have no problem with homosexuals calling their unions marriage, why do you object to the government recognizing these unions for what homosexuals would call them?

...
Refer to your partner as your spouse. G'head. All I want to do is to keep y'all out of MY religious business. I do not want to see some gay couple suing my faith (or anybody else's) for discrimination because, guess what, the rules for working for a church owned business include being married according to the rules of the church you are getting paid by.

Do you not understand that when you ask the government to not use a term because you have religious objections, it is YOU who starts getting into other folks' "religious business"?

What of a religion that accepts homosexual unions as marriages, are you not interferring with their "religious business" when you ask the government to remove that term (where that religion would be asking the government to keep such language)?

You are "slippery sloping" here where it need not apply. Where churches are not receiving public funding they are free to discriminate against whomever they choose.

I mean, really, all this fuss over a word?

[TheLibertarian]

There are already religions that recognize the validity of gay marriage, e.g. the Quakers, Buddhists, etc. By depriving them the legal right to recognize marriage, you are foisting your will upon those religions.

Moreover, I find it awfully hypocritical of a Mormon, of all people, to stridently defend marriage as between "one man and one woman", given the rather... interesting history of marriage within the LDS Church.