mr1337 wrote:All of this, of course, boils down to society's acceptance of gay marriage, or lack thereof. I heard an argument supporting open carry that I will apply here. Instead of asking "why should it be legal?" ask yourself "why should it be illegal?" I haven't heard any arguments that didn't boil down to religion, personal values, or "it makes people uncomfortable."
What you may not have heard may be more a function of what is promulgated rather than what has been discussed. As in all matters of this type, the media censors the arguments they don't want to grant wide dissemination to by not even discussing them. If you really want to understand the legitimate arguments against gay marriage, you need to do research, because you won't find them on Facebook, NBC or any other major outlet.
For example, how many people are familiar with these studies?
The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage
What Is Marriage?
The Argument Against Gay Marriage: And Why it Doesn’t Fail
Keep in mind that each of these studies have received overwhelming criticism from opponents. You need to read those arguments as well and judge for yourself which make sense.
Here's a couple of thoughts to consider.
1) A great deal of research has been done into familial relationships and childrearing. It is generally agreed by social scientists that the best conditions for bringing up children are two heterosexual adults with stable lives and good morals/ethics. No other familial situation is as beneficial. The next best condition is two adult familial members with stable lives and good morals. (This would include gay couples, lesbian couples, siblings, cousins, etc.) The worst possible familial situation for children is a single parent. (I doubt there is a legitimate social scientist who would argue with this.) There is a great deal of argument over what the negative impact is of non-heterosexual familial situations. These arguments tend to fall on the political spectrum. IOW, those scientists who think the impact is minimal tend to support "alternative" forms of marriage, and those scientists who think the impact is significant tend to support "traditional" forms of marriage.
So the question comes down to, does an "alternative" marriage cause enough damage to be unsupportable? I don't think there is sufficient data at this time to support that, although there are some concerns being raised.
Here's one such study from the University of Texas:
How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study
Another study found that many previous studies that touted the benefits of gay families had serious flaws or the findings were overstated.
Same-Sex Parenting and Children’s Outcomes: A Closer Examination of the American Psychological Association’s Brief on Lesbian and Gay Parenting
As with any study that supports a leftist view, the conclusions are often not justified by the data (or even refuted by the data.)
Anecdotal evidence must always be taken with a grain of salt, but even some of the children of gay couples agree that it's not a good thing.
Adults Raised by Gay Couples Speak Out Against Gay ‘Marriage’ in Federal Court
Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Children’s View
However, they don't represent all children of gay couples.
Children Of LGBT Parents Speak Out For The Let Love Define Family Series
So now the children of these relationships are being used (by both sides) to promote their agendas.
2) Traditionally the purpose of marriage has been childbearing and rearing. If you doubt this, read what this same sex marriage advocate had to say:
E.J. Graff celebrates the fact that recognizing same‐sex unions would make marriage “ever after stand for sexual choice, for cutting the link between sex and diapers.”
Other activists want to do a lot more than sever the ties between sex and diapers.
“[Former President George W.] Bush is correct . . . when he states that allowing same‐sex couples to marry will weaken the institution of marriage.” Victoria Brownworth is no right‐wing traditionalist, but an advocate of legally recognizing gay partnerships. She continues: “It most certainly will do so, and that will make marriage a far better concept than it previously has been.”
Willis, another revisionist, celebrates that “conferring the legitimacy of marriage on homosexual relations will introduce an implicit revolt against the institution into its very heart.”
Michelangelo Signorile, a prominent gay activist, urges same sex couples to “demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.” Same‐sex couples should “fight for same‐sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely[, because t]he most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake . . . is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely.”
Couples who simply wanted to engage in a sexual relationship without the "burden" of children didn't need to marry but they could, if they were heterosexual. Marrying gave the children a name and a stable family life (in the ideal. As with any human endeavor, there are many failed examples one can easily point to.) Therefore, the government had a vested interest in encouraging marriage, which was done through tax benefits and other contractual benefits such as medical rights, property rights, etc. Similar benefits could be granted for other types of relationships, if the government chose to grant them (e.g. civil unions) without redefining marriage.
Allowing gay marriage changes the purpose of marriage from childrearing to loving relationships. Once that change is made, there is no logical argument against allowing polygamy (which many activists think is just fine) or incest (if children isn't the purpose of the relationship then the results of incestual relationships is unimportant or, at a minimum secondary. There may be other forms of familial relationships which would also be difficult to deny, from a legal perspective.
One should also keep in mind that certain activists have a very different view of gay marriage than what the average heterosexual would envision (a loving lifelong relationship between two consenting adults.) For example, no less a figure than Andrew Sullivan has written:
[Sullivan] extols the “spirituality” of “anonymous sex,” also thinks that the “openness” of same‐sex unions could enhance the relationships of husbands and wives: Same‐sex unions often incorporate the virtues of friendship more effectively than traditional marriages; and at times, among gay male relationships, the openness of the contract makes it more likely to survive than many heterosexual bonds. . . . [T]here is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman. . . . [S]omething of the gay relationship’s necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds.
Of course, “openness” and “flexibility” here are Sullivan’s euphemisms for sexual infidelity.
Neither of these issues should be taken lightly, nor should the desires of couples be the determining factor in whether or not society accepts this change. Marriage is already under assault in America. Children born out of wedlock are no longer considered a bad thing. Adultery is accepted as at least excusable if not normal. Divorce is so common that half the couples that marry will end up divorced at some point, creating massive problems with their children and therefore for society. Changing the definition of marriage may destroy what little respect for lifelong loving relationships remains.
Whether or not you think there is something abnormal about homosexuality, this subject deserves at least a careful consideration before claiming that love should be the deciding factor. This entire subject comes under the heading of be careful what you wish for. The law of unintended consequences may come back to haunt you.
