Gay Marriage - How are YOU harmed? (VANITY)

vanity | 12/31/03 | Robert Teesdale

[Robert Teesdale]

To All:

Gay marriage, or civil unions, as some call it, are a hot issue right now. I'd like to ask FReepers for their $.02 on something regarding this.

Gay marriage is overwhelmingly opposed by most of the country. What I want to know, is what valid (i.e. Constitutionally acceptable) basis there can be for opposition to it.

Here's an example of what I mean. Some folks will say they oppose gay marriage because it violates their moral and/or religious standards. That's fine with me; it's a free country, and it's their right to feel that way. However, from my perspective it's also insufficient reason for to deny argued rights to other parts of the People.

What I'm looking for here is an argument as to how any of you, as an individual, are harmed by any particular gay or lesbian couple being married/civil unioned. I've heard the various arguments about "the institution of marriage", etc. - but can anyone show me that they, as an individual, are injured by a gay marriage and as such have grounds for claim of limitation on the rights of others?

I've had various discussions with conservatives and liberals about this matter and the trend I've observed is unsatisfying in terms of resolving my concerns about the issue. The opponents of gay marriage often couch their arguments in terms of morality and Judeo-Christian ethics. I don't find that oppositional approach to be compelling. It feels like a Sharia-style argument and I inherently distrust it.

Essentially, I suppose I'm somewhat Libertarian on this one. Folks who know me here will know I'm certainly not a Libertarian; I've got my own political work that's quite different from theirs. But on this issue it seems somewhat obvious: if two men, or two women, or two "transgendered" (use your imagination) individuals desire to have civil recognition of their union...

...how can another third party claim injury from that?

My rights end where yours begin. The right to not be offended or outraged, I believe, is a foolish nonentity. To argue that gay marriage is offensive or violates non-legal standards of morality doesn't meet, for me, the most obvious litmus test for outlawing it - harm to others from the conduct.

Flame away. I'm not arguing for gay marriage... I want to know what sober, Constitutionally acceptable arguments FReepers can make against it.

I am willing to reconsider my opinion and positions on the issue. Offer me arguments, and I'll review them.

Oh. And a very Happy New Year to all.

Best regards,

Robert Teesdale
American Party of Colorado

[Robert Teesdale]

Moderator - if I've posted this in the wrong category, please feel free to move it. Thanks....

[AppyPappy]

I am not personally harmed by a drunk driver in Wyoming but I oppose drunk driving. Your question is inane.

[xrp]

Marriage shouldn't be recognized by the state, period. It should be a religious matter involving the church. Or if people don't want to go to a church and get married, yet still call themselves married, they're free to knock themselves out. It doesn't harm anyone.

[Robert Teesdale]

No, it's not inane. Your answer is unreasonably flippant. Drunk driving kills people. Explain to me how a gay marriage harms another party. It's not a rhetorical question.

[MoralSense]

Finding new "rights" in the Constitution deforms, and eventually destroys, the Constitution. And that harms me plenty.

[chance33_98]

outlawing

Interesting terminology. There is a difference between recognizing something via a government entity/license and outlawing something. People are free to live with whom they choose. Marriage is something society grants as a special type of living arrangement and has passed special laws regulating it (ie, you need a license, divorces are regulated, etc and so on).

Would go and blab some more but have to run for a few (I am at work). Should be an interesting thread though. Will check back in a bit when I get done.

[xrp]

I am not personally harmed by a drunk driver in Wyoming but I oppose drunk driving. Your question is inane.

No it isn't. Your response is inane. A drunk driver in Wyoming, on open, public areas (like an Interstate) is a threat to other individuals. However, a drunk driver, driving on his own private expanse of property (let's say 2,000 acres) at 150mph is a threat only to himself, unless someone else is breaking the law and trespassing on his 2,000 acre property.

[Robert Teesdale]

That's an answer which does cut through much of the nonsense. Interesting. I suspect that the State will, however, likely never divest itself of interests in controlling and nannying in this arena.

[Cultural Jihad]

Homosexual sodomy is a form of murder, since it destroys both the soul and the body. The state should not be giving its Imprimatur to unneeded suffering and death.

[thoughtomator]

Mr. Teesdale, there have been a number of discussions on that topic on FR that would satisfy your interest.

The basic summary is that marriage has a purpose, that is, the perpetuation of our civilization, and a homosexual pairing cannot meet that purpose. Therefore, to give the priveleges of marriage to their relationship relatively cheapens not only genuine marriages, but also other relationships that are not so priveleged. 14th Amendment and all that.

[xrp]

Finding new "rights" in the Constitution deforms, and eventually destroys, the Constitution. And that harms me plenty.

Marriage isn't a "right" listed in the US Constitution, either for man/woman unions or woman/woman or man/man. So, essentially you're supporting my position.

[Eris]

It's none of my business what other consenting adults do.

I couldn't care less.

[ogradytom]

The only arguement that seems to make any personal impact on individuals not involved in the union is that by officially recognizing a marriage, couples will be able to file for insurance together. Health insurance and life insurance rates are bound to affect the average Joe. This is about the only compelling arguement I've heard against gay marriages. The rest of it is merely opinion.

[JohnGalt]

'Marriage', 'union', 'sacred' are all words that have meaning to most conservative Westerners and certainly Christians. The state cannot simply alter the meaning through fiat and expect to be legitimate.

Basically, secular leftists and rightwing socialists (or neocons) want Christians and conservative Westerners to pay for their 'society', a society that the 'right' finds anywhere from alien, economically burdensome, all the way too outright blasphemous.

On the other hand, I would be happy to trade state licensed marriage for the ability to opt out of the income tax or social security.

[Robert Teesdale]

That's a good argument. It's is probably not accurate to speak of "outlawing" or "banning" gay marriage at this point. However, there is a move to modify the Constitution itself with a defense of marriage act; now to me, that appears more damaging to the Constitution than finding new "rights" in it as mentioned by another poster.

[Cultural Jihad]

Being a threat to oneself should not be allowed, either. The DOI Preamble doesn't speak of "an early death, slavery to vice, and the pursuit of unneeded suffering." Inalienable rights can be infringed upon, but not abrogated.

[isthisnickcool]

Michael Jackson or some pervert might mess with some child and scar them for life. Does that "injure" me? Not really.

Someone kills someone else. "Injures" me? Nope.

Remember 9/11? All those people killed? It messed with me financially for a bit but I didn't have any real connection to those people. So that did not "injure" me.

What if you shoot your family dead, screw your dog, cat and goldfish while setting babies on fire? "Injure" me? Would not seem to.

So, what's you point goober?

[Robert Teesdale]

I think that "finding new rights" in the Constitution is not inherently a bad thing... not when compared to the enormous efforts to "recognize" that certain rights (i.e. 2nd, 4th, 10th Amendments for starters) "really don't mean what you thought they meant."

[AppyPappy]

Not necessarily. A guy can drive drunk and never hurt anyone. To society, drunk driving increases the risk of hurting someone. But there is absolutely no risk to me if some guy gets in a truck in Wyoming and drives home. But there is a risk to general society when we allow drunk drivers to get on the road. Drunk driving kills people and so does gay sex.

Your insinuation is that we shouldn't care about things that do not personally harm us is myopic. In reality, gay marriage affects society by "dumbing down" marriage. So it does indirectly affect me since I am part of society. Marriage is between a man and a woman, not two men and a chicken. When you advocate gay marriage, you are advocating the end of marriage as an institution.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

How are you harmed by child molestors in Montana? Do you simply turn your head if something doesn't directly impact you?

[Blood of Tyrants]

You mean now being REQUIRED by law to GIVE benefits to people whose lifestyle is an aberration in the sight of God. And with that would come the right for homosexual men to adopt children under the presumption that two rump rangers can provide the same quality of love that a heterosexual couple can.

Society doesn't need this. If homosexuals want to marry let them move thier perverted asses to Canada and stay there.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

Oh Gawd.

[Sloth]

Gays have as much right to have the state declare them "married" as dead people do to be declared "living". I.e., the government should not be lying, because that harms all of us.

[xrp]

Being a threat to oneself should not be allowed, either.

Sorry, but that runs contrary to the concept of personal freedom, liberty and self-ownership. If you give the state permission to prevent you from harming yourself, then you are, in fact, giving the state primary authoritative control over your body. A very chilling thought.

Whatever someone does with their own body should be between them and whatever higher power he or she believes in, or doesn't believe in.

[Eris]

Marriage as a Christian institution got "dumbed down" the minute the church fathers allowed the government to slap a license on what is a pledge between a couple and their God.

So allowing gays to enter the same contract as straights isn't the worst sleight against marriage going on here.

[Mamzelle]

I think you are very bigoted to be LIMITING the DEFINITION of marriage to two human beings. How would you be HARMED by trans-specied and multi-partnered households?

Your thinking is way too small.

People can head to the lawyers to sign all manner of financial and legal vehicles. Powers of atty, wills, transferrals of title--all these wonders are available to you.

This society can define its institutions as it sees fit.

Start your own *&^%ing institution!! Quite trying to force me to define mine in your terms!!

[Robert Teesdale]

Homosexual sodomy is a form of murder, since it destroys both the soul and the body. The state should not be giving its Imprimatur to unneeded suffering and death.

Arguments that attack another's handling of his or her soul are not, in my perspective, relevant. It's a free country. One is free to do what one likes with one's soul, without interference or even notice from the State.

I respect your position but I vehemently disagree. It's the same approach used by the gun grabbers... "the State should not be giving it's imprimatur to unneeded suffering and death."

[Alberta's Child]

I would gladly support any notion of "gay marriage" -- as long as governments in the U.S. were strictly forbidden from treating married couples any different than individuals under the law. No joint tax returns, no Social Security spousal benefits, no Federal regulation of private pension plans regarding "surviving spouse" benefits and private medical insurance plans for "families (and that also means no EEOC prosecution of private companies that wish to limit the definition of "married couples" in their private health plans, pension plans, etc.), etc.

As long as any level of government insists on getting involved in mandating specific treatment of married couples in a manner that is different than individuals, any taxpayer can clearly show "harm" when it comes to changing the definition of marriage.

[Eris]

I coulnd't resist such an easy lay-up. ;)

[bc2]

wow I'm glad you posted this, it's exactly what I would have posted.

GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MARRIAGE! Get rid of tax credits for married persons, as well.

As a Christian, I'm opposed to gay marriage. But I'm equally opposed to government involvement. It is infuriating as a free person that I need government's permission to get married. That is something between you, your spouse, and God, facilitated by your Church. If you can find some weirdo church to marry two men or two women, go to town. They have to answer to God, not to me or anyone else on this Earth.

The Constitutional Amendment people are getting ready to set a dangerous and unneccessary precident with this one; I don't like it one bit. All of this talk about "protecting society" or "strengthening Christian values" is bunk reactionary garbage, as far as I am concerned.

I live my life in a way that I feel is right, and no outside forces such as the media, or "popular culture", can influence this.

[EveningStar]

However, there is a move to modify the Constitution itself with a defense of marriage act; now to me, that appears more damaging to the Constitution than finding new "rights" in it as mentioned by another poster.

I agree with you. It's just another frivilous proposed amendment.

[Spiff]

The opponents of gay marriage often couch their arguments in terms of morality and Judeo-Christian ethics. I don't find that oppositional approach to be compelling. It feels like a Sharia-style argument and I inherently distrust it.

Stating or believing a moral equivalency between Sharia-style oppression and Judeo-Christian ethics demonstrates that you will be unable to grasp the reasons why conservatives oppose "marriage" between two people of the same sex who suffer from same sex attraction disorder.

I suppose you are not personally harmed if "marriages" between people and animals is allowed and bestiality becomes a mainstream, accepted activity. Yet, is it something that you would support or oppose?

[Eris]

I think you are very bigoted to be LIMITING the DEFINITION of marriage to two human beings. How would you be HARMED by trans-specied and multi-partnered households?

Animals can't enter contracts, so your "trans-specied" red herring is just that.

As for multi-partner households - if all involved are consenting adults, it's really none of your business, nor are you harmed.

[AppyPappy]

The government wanted to encourage the union of men and women in marriage so they made it a government institution. They wanted it to be just couples so they outlawed polygamy. They considered family stability a good thing.

[Robert Teesdale]

Being a threat to oneself should not be allowed, either.

Whoa... do you really want to take the State down that path?

[Bikers4Bush]

Why should we legalize gay marriage just so they can get cheaper health insurance when their lifestyle promotes higher costs?

Because to be honest that's all this is about, they want to be able to share cheaper insurance premiums and they want the rest of us to be forced to subsidize them.

[AppyPappy]

Animals can't enter contracts

Neither could black people a few decades ago. Quit being so intolerant.

[Spiff]

No it isn't. Your response is inane. A drunk driver in Wyoming, on open, public areas (like an Interstate) is a threat to other individuals. However, a drunk driver, driving on his own private expanse of property (let's say 2,000 acres) at 150mph is a threat only to himself, unless someone else is breaking the law and trespassing on his 2,000 acre property.

Great argument. I guess I wouldn't be so opposed to gay "marriage" if it would only be recognized on the private property of the people who suffer from same sex attraction disorder. However, that is not what sufferers are fighting for. They want full and open recognition and even celebration of their disorder. They want benefits and special rights to protect their behavior.

[Eris]

Not every good idea or good intent should be codified.

[Nick5]

If the purpose of marriage is the perpetuation of civilization, are childless heterosexual marriages also a problem for you? Any need to bring in the government to regulate that as well?

[Eris]

They were bound by unjust law, not a natural lack of sapience.

[Robert Teesdale]

It's none of my business what other consenting adults do. I couldn't care less.

That's essentially my position as well. Yet the entire country is in a quiet uproar over it. So I wanted to hear the arguments. Some so far are cogent, some are Biblical thunderings that don't persuade me.

[xrp]

They want benefits and special rights to protect their behavior.

This is something that I oppose. Again, for any union/marriage/coupling, etc.

[EveningStar]

Being a threat to oneself should not be allowed, either.

How are you going to enforce this?

[freeeee]

Being a threat to oneself should not be allowed, either.

Ok, mom.

Inalienable rights can be infringed upon, but not abrogated.

That's funny coming from you.

[AppyPappy]

are childless heterosexual marriages also a problem for you?

And how do you propose to ban childless heterosexual marriages?

[Alberta's Child]

I think Teesdale's question doesn't apply to YOU specifically, but to YOU in a general, rhetorical sense -- i.e., can someone show specific damages or harm that result from a government's decision to change the definition of marriage?

I was not personally harmed by the Kennedy assassination in 1963, but someone (Kennedy himself, as well as his family and friends) was clearly harmed by it.

[EveningStar]

Michael Jackson or some pervert might mess with some child and scar them for life. Does that "injure" me? Not really.

Are you saying all gays are perverts?