Tell Me. Who Is Harmed By Gay Marriage?

[thebaghwan]

Here at our house we have been trying to figure this out. I even went to the Family Research Council's (a strange place) website hoping I could come up with some rationale for why there shouldn't be gay marriage. I even went to the link to Bob Novak's article but aside from a lot of rhetoric, I could not answer the question as to why it should be banned.

So for the sake of discussion and enlightenment, perhaps someone could play the devil's advocate and tell us why it has to be banned and banned by a constitutional amendment at that.

I would invite some of our GBLT DUers to participate (I realize this could be painful) but for the sake of discussion and better understanding I would welcome the input.

[Logansquare]

1. Gawwd

That's the only guy I can figure out who is affected by it.

[Wwagsthedog]

2. Fundies

It hurts their brains to think about minding their own business.

[mmonk]

7. They have brains?

They hide it so well.

[jobycom]

3. Well, that's obvious

If you are a straight woman after a gay man, but he marries another man instead of you, then you betcha you'll be hurt by it!

Other than that, no one.

[Clark Can WIN]

4. I'm curious to know myself. I don't see the logic there.

[Mattforclark]

5. Because you can't have those gay peopl

marrying. The sun would explode and the world would end prematurely.

[arewethereyet]

6. was it Fiddler on the roof that put it simply ? "Tradition"

and thousands of years worth. Thats the bottom line on it as I understand it.

[Beaker]

8. Gays.

it isn't always all it's cracked up to be.

[tedoll78]

9. I want to add something to this conversation.

The people opposing equal marriage policy are often the same "conservatives" who hate judges creating law from the bench.. right?

Yet, I've read the U.S. Constitution up and down, left to right, and I don't see anything about how "tradition" is an acceptable excuse to ignore the 14th Amendment's guarantee of Equal Protection.

The Constitution doesn't say..
"equal protection of the law, except for marriage law."

It doesn't say..
"all persons born or naturalized - except for homosexuals."

And it doesn't mandate that all be given equal protection.. except for when tradition is otherwise.

These conservatives are the ones who will whine about a court finding a right to homosexual marriage in the Constitution. BULL. There's no such right, but there is a right to be treated equally in laws that do exist. That's all gay people are asking for. And when the court does rule that ALL must be treated equally, don't be surprised to hear this Religious Reichers whining about how the court didn't legislate an exception to Equal Protection from the bench..

(done with my ramble)

[Mattforclark]

13. But doncha see?

It violates the intent of the framers (as interpreted by the whoever decides to interpret it).

Your interpretation of the 14th amendment is simply objectively incorrect, according to their alleged objectivity.

And we must do as Bork says, for wisdom is his.

[Droopy]

10. Absolutely nobody that I can see

A lot of people think that homosexuality is morally wrong and that's the only reason gay marriage is not recognized.

I'm all for it. I think this country would be a better place if gays were allowed to marry.

[thebaghwan]

14. Good observations!!

It really does seem to me to be beyond a shadow of a doubt about equality. This why we have to have a constitutional amendment because the likelihood is that the ban on gay marriage would be ruled unconstitutional without such an amendment. The pretense of "defining" marriage is just a bunch of smoke.

Having been married for 37 years, I can say that marriage is about love and commitment and to ban someone from such a joyous thing is a great evil.

[karlschneider]

11. As odd as it may seem, I think this theory is valid:

The almost violent objection that some people have to the concept is actually quite simple - they are actually subconsciously worried that their own spouse might find it preferable. Or they themselves might.
There is obviously no rational reason for any human secure in his/her own sexual mindset to have any concern about what other people might have except personal insecurity.

Whatever injunctions they may derive from "divine revelation" are justified in their minds as being sanctioned by various imaginary deities. Some folks get off playing god.

[reknewcomer]

12. Those that propose Gay Marriage politically are the ones that are harmed

Period. We are a few decades away from any positive gains or pushing it.

Civil unions seem to be accepted for now and that may be the tack to take for now.

[salinen]

15. Fundies want control

of who they consider freaks. It raises the statis of freaks to their level. God is leaching into this culture more everyday. And religious totalitarianism is by far the bloodiest.

[1songbird]

16. The Ohio state legislature just passed a bill banning not only

gay marriage but civil unions as well. Taft is expected to sign it. The vote was along party lines. I'm not sure of the exact number but it was something like 69 against to 23 for. It seems to me that gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone. For the life of me I can't understand why Repugs refuse to mind their own freakin business. They need to figure out why the hell so many conservatives are getting divorced. :grr:

[Wapsie B]

17. Because in the

strict biblical sense, marriage is for procreation. To go forth and multiply and all that.

The konservative fundies believe that our laws are based on Christ's teachings, and that to allow gay marriages to have the blessing of the government would fly in the face of that tired myth.

But as to who would be harmed, the answer is no one.

[area51]

21. marriage

bushwentawol said that fundies believe:

"Because in the strict biblical sense, marriage is for procreation."

It's funny how the fundies can never devote any time to creating a law to force all sterile and past-the-point-of-reproduction couples to divorce. It shows just how hollow their argument about "procreation is all important" is.

[DACT]

18. Fundies ..... and Bill Clinton

Fuck the DLC

[HereSince1628]

19. Ok, since Nixon I've always followed the money...

I have no problem with same sex marriage, although I think that all marriages are high risk ventures, and I question the sanity of those who chose to pursue it...

My guess, and it is only a guess, is that the practical, real wheels on the ground reason, has to do with the cost of providing benefits (health, survivorship, etc) to spouses. Benefits aren't free and employers and the government will dodge them everyway they can.

Simultaneously, I guess that the bible thumpers on the right believe it is their mission to lower the standards of civil rights to the level that they hold for their own congregations.

Consequently, the masses behave as if it is a moral issue, while the cheap skates that might be required to provide spousal benefits just continue to dodge a social responsibility.

[southerngirlwriter]

20. You asked for a devil's advocate....

....I can't do that, but I was raised by fundies and grew up to become a moderate, open-minded Christian who has many gay friends.

So, I can give you their point of view, but not in a "devil's advocate" way.

They REALLY BELIEVE that gays go around recruiting. I watched the "coming out" episode of Ellen with my mom. At the end, when Ellen's gay friend got a toaster -- it was, obviously, supposed to be a HUGE joke -- my mom took some convincing that they don't REALLY recruit. She got that the toaster was supposed to be funny, but not that the "recruiting" bit was a joke.

They also look at marriage as something sacred and holy -- it mirrors the idea of all Christians forming the Bride of Christ -- and something that makes them personally queasy and fearful being declared "equivalent" to their sacred, holy unions blessed by God.

Lastly, they are terrified that one of their kids will be gay. The pressure to shun a gay child entirely would be tremendous. Many would view it as a sign of God's displeasure. So, anything that, in their minds, elevates homosexuality to "normal" instead of "deviant" is threatening to their family because the *possibility* exists that their little boy will one day want to suck cock. The idea that he might be able to MARRY the owner of the cock is just gut-wrenching.

Sheesh, that was exhausting.

[creativelcro]

22. Santorum would have a heart attack!! So, he would be harmed :)