Is Opposition to Gay Marriage Inherently a Bigoted Position?

Delhomeboy said:

If the government stepped out of marriage completely, meaning no benefits for being married, etc., (which I'm absolutely in favor of), then marriage regresses to being what it has been for thousands of years: a religious institution.

Click to expand...

Not really. Yeah, a lot of people get married in churches and vow not to let anyone but God tear them asunder (and we know how many people actually stick by that), but it's never been exclusively or even primarily religious. Even in the Christian Bible, marriage is mostly a practical matter. Who got what land. Who a woman had to marry if her husband died. That sort of thing.

Don said:

Marriage is a contract. The right to contract is basic to our law, IIRC.

Click to expand...

'Nuff said.

Couldn't agree more. I don't care if Bob, Sue, Betty, and Bill all marry each other in a 4-way nuptual. That's their business.

Legal adults can make those choices for themselves in a free country.

Emphasis mine:

Kitty Pryde said:

And as for the argument that shall surely pop up here soon: If one's religion tells one that being gay is wrong, and gays shouldn't marry each other, and one believes that this belief should be a rule which applies to anyone but your own religion-believing-self, then one adheres to a bigoted religion and one is a bigot.

Click to expand...

So there are people who think that gays can marry, but only if they believe that being gay is wrong?

Lyv said:

Not really. Yeah, a lot of people get married in churches and vow not to let anyone but God tear them asunder (and we know how many people actually stick by that), but it's never been exclusively or even primarily religious. Even in the Christian Bible, marriage is mostly a practical matter. Who got what land. Who a woman had to marry if her husband died. That sort of thing.

Click to expand...

True, but even these sorts of things were done with religious sacraments. A person didn't get the wife's land, even if practical, unless the marriage was a valid religious marriage. (I hate using the word "religious" btw. But I don't know a better way to describe what I'm saying.)

Marriage (from a biblical viewpoint) was supposed to be a promise to each other to stay faithful to each other, and you made it in front of God, and it was supposed to mean something. Now, it didn't take long for people to muck it up, but even in the process of mucking it up, it remained a religious process.

Kitty Pryde said:

And as for the argument that shall surely pop up here soon: If one's religion tells one that being gay is wrong, and gays shouldn't marry each other, and one believes that this belief should be a rule which applies to anyone but your own religion-believing-self, then one adheres to a bigoted religion and one is a bigot.

Click to expand...

That's how my uber-religious mom saw it, even. Without the bigot part Some very religious folks believe most things are between you and God, and that the good thing to do, societally, is treat everyone the way you'd want to be treated.

Delhomeboy said:

I don't think the point is moot, because it has to do with the essence of marriage itself. If the government stepped out of marriage completely, meaning no benefits for being married, etc., (which I'm absolutely in favor of), then marriage regresses to being what it has been for thousands of years: a religious institution.

Click to expand...

Except marriage hasn't been a Christian religious institution for thousands of years; it hasn't even been one for 700 years. The Council of Trent was not the first to deal with marriage and the question of sacrament, but it was the one that settled the question in 1545. The earliest clear statement from the Church I am aware of is the decree in 1208 of Pope Innocent IV to the Waldenses, members of a sect that the Catholic church proper viewed as heretical.

Yes, that's right--marriage only became a religious event, a sacrament in the thirteenth century. In fact, the Christian church's early view of marriage is the one espoused [sic] by Paul; better to marry than burn (I Corinthians 7:9). The goal was chastity, not marriage. Matthew manages to essentially dismiss marriage, with the observation that "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven" (Matthew 22:30).

Moreover, I don't know anyone who is arguing about forcing any church anywhere to marry anyone.

The "benefits" conferred by marriage are all benefits of contract and property, and access. That is, the right to custody, to inherit, to own jointly and inherit automatically as spouses do, and the legal rights once known as sick maintenance--visitation in hospitals, and automactic rights in terms of decisions when the spouse is unable to make them.

And in that context, I want to observe, again, that "spouse" means contractual partner, and that wedding refers to a visible exchange of contractual agreements, with the visible sign often being a coin, or ring, called the wed.

So no, it's not about sacrament and religion, at all. It really isn't.

Delhomeboy said:

True, but even these sorts of things were done with religious sacraments.

Click to expand...

Not always. And here in the good old US of A, the legal part is what gets you hitched. Religion optional. That's worked, even with people like me getting married with nary a whiff of religion involved. And no one cared. No one cares that the biblical marriage is supposed to be until death, yet divorce is legal. There are huge amounts of hypocrisy and selectivity inherent in making a bible-based argument against gay marriage.

Marriage (from a biblical viewpoint) was supposed to be a promise to each other to stay faithful to each other, and you made it in front of God, and it was supposed to mean something. Now, it didn't take long for people to muck it up, but even in the process of mucking it up, it remained a religious process.

Click to expand...

From a biblical viewpoint. Except still...wait for it...practical. A woman marrying her rapist or whoever men decided she should meant something. That's why I always wonder when people talk about wanting to protect "traditional" marriage, I wonder just how traditional they want to go. And whose traditional trumps everyone else's.

Delhomeboy said:

Marriage (from a biblical viewpoint) was supposed to be a promise to each other to stay faithful to each other, and you made it in front of God, and it was supposed to mean something. Now, it didn't take long for people to muck it up, but even in the process of mucking it up, it remained a religious process.

Click to expand...

Actually, no this is completely false. Marriage was about property; I give you my daughter for the promise of the right for her children to inherit, and some visible sign of this agreement.

It was, and is, a matter of property and contract law.

Originally Posted by Lyv A woman marrying her rapist or whoever men decided she should meant something.

Click to expand...

I don't understand this sentence.

But I think you are on to something here. A marriage contract (often drawn up without the girl's knowledge) was the paperwork necessary for "selling" your daughter. Then it was made a sacrament and then it was romanticized. And then it was secularized. It's a Living Thing that appears ready to morph once again.

Medievalist said:

So no, it's not about sacrament and religion, at all. It really isn't.

Click to expand...

The opposition to it is, though.

William Haskins said:

"not a civil rights issue" is getting some play. if anyone who votes that way would like to express their views and rationale on that point, i'd be interested in seeing it.

Click to expand...

People don't have an inherent "right" to get married. Really, they can't. Why? Marriage is a social construct, not a natural state of being. The purpose of marriage--anthropologically speaking--is primarily protection for spouses (wives, usually) and children. It's also about creating a social framework to identify relations, for the purposes of social cohesion and wider-scale protection, in a tribal sense.

To put it another way, you marry to start a family, so that the family can be readily identified as such and function among other families.

Now, we have largely forgotten this and--by and large--look at marriage as a product of "love," a nebulous concept that cannot be legally defined, imo. People say they marry out of love, so that they can just "be" with the object of their affection. But people can always do that. Nothing stands in their way. Yet, they still want to call it "marriage."

At the same time, marriage has also become a means of accessing privileges. That's the real problem, imo. Those linkages should be broken. As an example, health insurance: companies originally provided such as a simple benefit to employees, as a means of both attracting and retaining such. And insurance benefits were extended to families for the same reason. But we know not everyone has a traditional family. Some people have no family. So they lose those potential benefits. The fix here is to not have marriage be the defining parameter. Rather than getting to include your spouse and children in the plan, you should instead get, say, one more adult and all dependent children. Or maybe one more dependent adult and all dependent children. Whatever. Take marriage out of the equation.

Because, you see, marriage is supposed to have real costs, first and foremost. You get married and you assume financial responsibility--for instance--for someone else, and visa-versa.

The benefits are supposed to be at a personal level.

So, that's why I don't see it as a civil rights issue.

Having said all that, I'm not opposed to gay marriage, at all. The state should allow a civil union between any two consenting adults, such that they are legally obligated to each other and receive the same benefits as any other two adults in a civil union. The term "marriage" is inconsequential. As far as I'm concerned, two people can claim they are married and can refer to each other as spouses/husbands/wives/whatever. I have no problem seeing them in the way they choose to be seen, in this regard.

This issue has some complexity, but I think many people are muddying the waters by lumping in their own baggage or problems they have with government regulating this or that.

Lets simplify this some. Lets talk about what is CURRENTLY allowed. Today, any two consenting heterosexuals can marry and be afforded the rights/benefits government bestows upon those with married status.

IMHO, the spirit of the constitution is one of equality. I see it as a civil rights issue. Why? Well, a segment of the population 'can' do something that another segment 'cannot'. Whether it is buying property or voting or getting married, every citizen should be able to do what any other citizen can do.

Now, are those against gay marriage, bigots? I think the majority are in some form, however there are non-bigoted reasons for being opposed to gay marriage, but the majority of those reasons are based on religious teachings IMO.

The majority of arguments AGAINST gay marriage are dusted off and revised arguments against inter-racial marriage. Amazing how gay marriage can be equated with marrying dogs and polygamy. As if gay marriage is some gateway drug that will unleash all kinds of social havoc.

This issue makes my head hurt. Why is it that every age considers itself 'enlightened' and is incapable of seeing that they are guilty of the same bad thinking as their predecessors.

Geez-us, the civil rights movement happened just a few decades ago, yet, we somehow can rationalize discriminating against someone based on their sexual orientation, an orientation that is legal. Similarly, we don't see the parallels here?

Wow. never underestimate the power of denial.

Mel...

And Medievalist has stated my position quite well. I voted "Other", because marriage is a contract, and has zero to do with civil rights. Any attendant religious ceremony is strictly for the benefit of the believers.

I am totally in favor of same-sex marriage. I believe it a matter of equal treatment (and protection) under the law. But I also believe no one should (or can) force any church or religious group to either accept or deny such unions.

Opposing same sex marriage is a bigoted position.

But that doesn't necessarily say much about the person holding said position. It all depends on context--why someone feels that way and to what extent and how.

If you marry in a religious ceremony and take a religious sacrament as part of the rite, it has a component of religion to it and is sacred between you and the church/God.

If you marry in a civil ceremony with only the piece of paper signed by a justice of the peace (even though said paper is also part of a religious ceremony) then it's simply a business transaction in the strictest sense.

Religion is an extra component of it that depends on the people participating in the rite. If you make an oath before a God you believe in, then you probably have a few more reservations about breaking that oath that are less monetary and more belief based. If you didn't make an oath before a God you believe in, then it's a matter of dissolving a contract to end the marriage.

Romantic love in marriage is a fairly new concept. Google "courtly love". Nobility married for position and security and romanticized the notion of falling in love with someone else after the fact. (very coarse generalization).

Duncan J Macdonald said:

And Medievalist has stated my position quite well. I voted "Other", because marriage is a contract, and has zero to do with civil rights. Any attendant religious ceremony is strictly for the benefit of the believers.

Click to expand...

So if I discriminate against a segment of the population and prevent them from entering into any contract granting them property, that would not be a civil rights issue?

Sorry Mr. Gay, I would sell you this house, but it is against the law to enter into any contract with a gay person regarding property.

How is that not a violation of someone's civil rights?

I'm not trying to be snarky. Similarly, I believe my above example is not a strawman, but an accurate interpretation/extension of the logic you are using. Please show me how the above example is not a violation of someone's civil rights.

Mel...

To me, denying someone the right to marry (ie: with marriage comes not only tax benefits, which everyone screams about but end of life decisions, inheritance, etc) is like saying you aren't enough of a person for us to recognize your choice of life partner. Hmmm... didn't we once tell some people they weren't people enough to vote? Didn't we once not count those of certain skin color as whole people? hhmm.....

dgiharris said:

So if I discriminate against a segment of the population and prevent them from entering into any contract granting them property, that would not be a civil rights issue?

Sorry Mr. Gay, I would sell you this house, but it is against the law to enter into any contract with a gay person regarding property.

How is that not a violation of someone's civil rights?

I'm not trying to be snarky. Similarly, I believe my above example is not a strawman, but an accurate interpretation/extension of the logic you are using. Please show me how the above example is not a violation of someone's civil rights.

Click to expand...

Because there already exist laws on the books that make your actions illegal.

Raising the cry "civil rights" is, in itself, a strawman.

All laws are discriminatory.

god made adam and eve, not adam and steve.

Click to expand...

Thing is? god made all three of them. He just made old steve-o a bit later.

I'm all well and fine with the argument that marriage was originally not a religious arrangement, but instead a business one. In today's US of A, however, it has an accepted religious element.

Thus, I had to vote for the first option.

Haskin's spiffy google effect led me to the definition of bigot and bigotry on Cornell Law's website, which specifically mentions intolerance and discrimination based upon religion as being bigotry. So, if you are saying that, because of your religion, marriage means "X", and therefore those to "Y"s can't marry, that is religious discrimination and bigotry.

Likewise, if those two "X"s belong to a religion that says they can marry, and you say they can't, without any other extenuating circumstances, then you are discriminating against their religious practices. (See previous result.)

I oppose it, and I don't think I'm a bigot, but I have, I think, some solid reasons to want "marriage" out of government's reach.

I think things have changed dramatically in terms of our basic social construct and the whole point of "marriage." There are two issues that really bother me: the first is that I really don't understand why there should be legal benefits to people who are married versus those that are not. I don't understand why I - as an unmarried person - can't just record a witnessed paper that says: this person gets everything I've got and can "visit" me any time anywhere, relative or not. My second problem is that marriage has a religious connotation; I keep saying it. What's the problem with just eliminating that language in a legal/government context?? Because it shouldn't be there anyway. This is the twenty-first century.

god made adam and eve, not adam and steve.

Click to expand...

Actually, God made a human - Adam - which was male and female in one body. Adam had no gender, just like God has no gender. Then he took Adam and split the male and female parts - and still called them both Adam. (I think the female is Adah or Adama, something like that, but they're the same name) Adam called her Eve.

Bird of Prey said:

My second problem is that marriage has a religious connotation; I keep saying it.

Click to expand...

I disagree about the religious connotation. When you meet someone new and that person tells you he is married, you don't know if he believes in god or had a religious ceremony. What you do know is he has a legal contract. That's the common denominator in marriages, not the religious part.

Bird of Prey said:

I oppose it, and I don't think I'm a bigot, but I have, I think, some solid reasons to want "marriage" out of government's reach.

I think things have changed dramatically in terms of our basic social construct and the whole point of "marriage." There are two issues that really bother me: the first is that I really don't understand why there should be legal benefits to people who are married versus those that are not. I don't understand why I - as an unmarried person - can't just record a witnessed paper that says: this person gets everything I've got and can "visit" me any time anywhere, relative or not. My second problem is that marriage has a religious connotation; I keep saying it. What's the problem with just eliminating that language in a legal/government context?? Because it shouldn't be there anyway. This is the twenty-first century.

Click to expand...

I hadn't thought of that context before, which is an excellent point. If I'm reading BoP's argument correctly, then single persons are being left out in the legislative cold while this issue unfolds?

To the question posed in the thread title:

YES.

Just yesterday, I found out that a gay rights ordinance is up before our city council, and the newly-elected very conservative mayor. Should be interesting.

But we also have a prominent, on-record homophobic, baptist televangelist in our town, name of Dr. Jerry Prevo, who emerges from the woodwork every time any kind of gay rights moment arises, and he has once again arisen, to warn everyone that passage of the ordinance will mean such things as, any gay male will now be able to dress in women's clothing at work and no one will be able to do anything about it. And they'll be able to sneak into women's restrooms undetected in that garb (yeah, all those gay men really want to sneak into women's restrooms. Yeah.)

Come on, all you homophobes. Can't you come up with anything better than that?

caw

I really, really don't understand people like that.

[BTW, I noticed restrooms in Europe going unisex very often. Hardy any line! I was pleased.]