BalancedPolitics.org

Reader Comments on Same-Sex Marriage Issue

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DENISSE A:

I can tell that you tried to be non-biased about the information you included, 
but I just wanted to make a few suggestions that might help in the area against 
same sex marriage.

"Most religions consider homosexuality a sin. Virtually every religion in the world, including the 
major ones in this country, consider homosexuality unacceptable."

Virtually every religion in the world, including the major ones in this country, consider homosexuality unacceptable. It is 
offensive and a swipe to the religious freedom of the majority to have to recognize a relationship they consider sinful. 
The legal system in the United States evolved out of the laws contained in the Bible. We shouldn't go even farther to 
tear down those laws. *Buddhism, Neopagan religions, and Unitarian Universalism don't consider homosexuality unacceptable, 
Judaism, Taoism, Confucianism, Sikhism, and Hinduism all have varying views on it, and various different Christian religions 
are in favor of homosexuality (Episcopal Church, Old Catholic Church, Affirming Pentecostal Church, Presbyterian Church, 
Metropolitan Community Church, Reformed Church in America, and more). On to your second point, the majority is not being 
forced to recognize a relationship they consider sinful, the same sex marriage debate is about laws and rights, not about 
changing people's religious beliefs.

"It would weaken the definition and respect for the institution of marriage."

The 50 percent divorce rate has already weakened the definition of marriage. We shouldn't be taking further steps to define
what marriage is. A law allowing gay marriage would increase the number of joke or non-serious marriages, such as a couple 
of friends who want to save on taxes. Marriage is the most sacred institution in this country, and every society considers 
it the joining of a man and a woman. It makes biological sense since only a man and woman can pro-create. *What proof is there 
that a law allowing gay marriage would increase the number of joke or non-serious marriages? Why wouldn't people be doing it now? 
Everyone has same sex friends AND opposite sex friends, so why would it be more likely that people would have fake gay marriages 
than fake heterosexual marriages? Also, not every society considers marriage the joining of a man and a woman, for example, in 
Brazil, there is a tribe that has always had group marriages, of course we know there are many polygamist groups and religions 
in the U.S. as well, and the Dutch define it as a union between two consenting adults.

"It would further weaken the traditional family values essential to our society."

The building blocks of our society and the thing that makes it strong is the traditional family of man, woman, and children. 
It is what has sustained us through two world wars, terrorist attacks, a Great Depression, and numerous other challenges over 
the centuries. While friends & lovers come and go, your family is always there. The main reason our culture and values have 
started to crumble is the weakening of families. 

"Introducing another form of "family" would only make the situation worse."
 
This point makes it sound like marriage and family has been the same throughout history, and same sex marriage would be the 
first thing to change it, resulting in its end.  This just isn't true, families used to be formed as big groups for hunting 
and gathering societies, then we had marriage as what we know now but with almost arranged marriages within wealthy and powerful 
groups, in the 1900s we had a family where the man earned the money and the woman would stay home and do household chores (a 
lot of mysogyny that is now unacceptable), we also had marriages only being legal within members of the same race with people  
actually thinking that God did not want blacks and whites to join together. Clearly, we have always been changing and becoming 
more and more progressive with time, and it has moved us through the changes and we've made it through all the wars and terrible 
things mentioned above.

"It could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage (e.g. having multiple wives or marrying an animal could be next)."

Gay rights activists claim that these marriages should be allowed because it doesn't hurt anyone, but it could start a chain reaction 
that destroys the whole idea of marriage. If someone wants to marry his dog, why shouldn't he be able to? What if someone wants to marry 
their brother or parent? What if someone wants to marry their blow-up doll or have 10 wives? Unless we develop some firm definition of 
what a marriage is, the options are endless. If these options sound absurd, remember that all it takes is a few activist judges to use 
the statute to open the door. It doesn't matter if 95 percent of the population disagrees with the policy, one judge can interpret the 
case the way he or she wants and use the doctrine of stare decisis to impose a law on everyone. Do you remember how two judges in 
California recently declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional? If the decision hadn't been overturned, it would have prevented 
millions of children from being able to say the pledge every morning, despite the fact that 95+ percent of Americans disagreed with the 
decision.*Marriage should be defined as "consenting adults". What if someone wants to have 10 wives? Well then we let them, polygamy 
does not hurt anyone, it is simply a belief different from the majority, and in this country we're supposed to have religious freedom, 
yet polygamy is illegal even though it is part of many religions' moral code.

"The gay lifestyle is not something to be encouraged, as a lot of research shows it leads to a much lower life expectancy, psychological 
disorders, and other problems. Studies show that homosexuals, for a variety of reasons, have life expectancies of approximately 
20 years less than the general population. Just like a lifestyle of smoking, drinking, etc., unhealthy lifestyles should be discouraged." 

The main reason listed in the link for lower life expectancies is HIV/AIDS, which is most common among gay men than any other group, but 
what about homosexual women? What about african americans having the highest rate of diabetes? That also lowers life expectancy and is a 
lifestyle, yet african americans are allowed to marry. Schizophrenics, alcoholics, drug addicts, and sociopaths also have a high risk of 
psychological disorders and problems, but they can also marry, so why single out just one group?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE K:

You've done a good job generally, I think, but the assertion that there is "a 
proven biological causation" for homosexuality is patently false. There is no 
scientific consensus about the etiology of sexual orientation. The scientific 
studies that have been done concerning hormonal, genetic, or other biological 
explanations for sexual orientation have generally been small and/or the 
findings in support of biological explanations have been correlational NOT 
causational. Here's what the American Psychological Association says on the subject: 
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual 
develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much 
research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and 
cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit 
scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular 
factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; 
most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual 
orientation."

Some folks seem to latch onto any possible biological 
explanation because they seek legitimization in such explanations. This is a 
fallacy and a dangerous one at that but what matters most is that, as pointed 
out above, there is no conclusive scientific evidence to that effect. FWIW, I 
support full legal marriage equality for LGBT people.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PETER S:


I may be young and I certainly have a non religious background, but it seems to me the fundamental issue at stake 
is the denying of civil rights to a minority of society.  Which appears to be based upon largely a discriminatory 
basis, given the vast majority including criminals that enjoy these benefits.  I believe another result of 
this injustice is the economic unfairness homosexual relationships encounter when dealing with similar 
childless heterosexual relationships.

In short, due to the legal protections of marriage which are civil rights, the ability to marry someone of 
your choosing then becomes a civil rights issue.  This is being denied to homosexual couples b/c of 
several reasons. 

The ones that stand out to me are: 

1.  society does not wish it to be so, proven through various state constitutional amendments and legislation
2.  It would redefine our traditional view of marriage, possibly degrade our society and possibly 
be a gateway to other violations of that definition
3.  Many of our religions in this country oppose such a measure and to allow it would violate their freedoms
4.  There would be added cost to programs through taxes and to businesses
5.  There are legal avenues to attempt to acquire rights such as custody of children, 
hosptial\prison visitation, being capable of making important immediate health care decisions, inheritance and the like.

Marriage certainly has religious aspects and its not in the governments place to intervene on that issue.  
However, I believe in equality, there should be no civil disparity over sexual orientation.  So I will 
focus on points 4 and 5.  

4.  There would be added cost for marriage benefits through taxes and to businesses

If the concern over marriage benefits is economic then perhaps we should concern ourselves with reduction 
of those costs instead.  So my question is what benefit does a childless heterosexual couple provide 
that a homosexual couple could not?  I believe there to be none other then possibly child bearing.  
If providing these benefits to homosexual couples is not to our economic advantage, why is to our advantage 
for childless heterosexual couples?  Do they not essentially perform the same function in society?  If it is 
a matter of stability provided in relationships, then why not exclude criminals, social dissidents, those on 
welfare, marriages of convenience from receiving such marriage benefits?  Why is it helpful to our society 
to encourage marriages involving such individuals through providing those benefits?  Many of us would cry out if 
these people lost their rights, and rightfully so.  Stripping individuals without children and that don't meet 
certain criteria of economic marriage benefits would reduce a lot of costs from our taxes and to businesses.  
However, I don't want to live in that society.

5.  There are legal avenues to attempt to acquire rights such as custody of children, hosptial\prison 
visitation, being capable of making important immediate health care decisions, inheritance and the like.

 On point 5, why does it seem necessary to grant these legal protections to those that are married 
 automatically if such can readily obtained and adequately protected without marriage?  Such provisions 
 have failed various times through the course of history when involving non-related\non-married parties 
 and still fail today.

  When you become married, you automatically obtain a joint right to another person's assets 
  when there is no pre-nuptial agreement.  Homosexual couples are denied this.

  If a person's partner gets in a car wreck, and desires not to be kept on life support, married couples 
  do not have to battle as often to have the right to express their partner's desires.  Again, this implied 
  right of married couples are denied to homosexual couples.

  Few if any married couples would stand for having to obtain and pay for their legal rights through legal paperwork.  
  Thankfully, they already have these rights.  So why are we forcing those that are homosexual to go through 
  these procedures to acqurie rights our married couples wouldn't stand to have to fight\pay for?  

We need to stop treating homosexually members of our society unequally and stripping them of rights that even 
released murders, rapists, and those that just want to shave a few bucks of the cost living get to enjoy, 
simply because they're heterosexual.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JERRY S:

After the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in May,  the Roman Catholic archbishop of San Francisco 
apparently approached  the Mormons. On the way, he gathered up support from evangelical Christians, conservative black 
and Latino pastors, and myriad smaller ethnic groups with strong religious ties.The Mormon church then issued a statement 
claiming "the formation of families is central to the Creator's plan", yet that is exactly what gay marriage supporters 
want to do. Even one of the Mormon defenders of Prop 8 stated "We are pro-marriage", but so are supporters of gay marriage.
Clearly these religious groups, in the name of their Creator, are deciding for themselves that they know for certain that 
God wants only straight families and male-female marriage. These people, on behalf of a loving Supreme Being, are taking 
the rights to form families and legal relationships away from other citizens, in the name of morality. 

When it comes to morality, how can these religious groups, who are supposed to not get involved in politics in accordance 
with the IRS, be exempt from paying Federal taxes? To add insult to injury, how is it moral for gays and lesbians, who 
are required to pay the same personal income taxes as straights, to be forbidden from certain rights afforded other citizens?
If this truly is a question of morality, I think these so-called religious leaders need to ask God for forgiveness. 
In fact, I think God should sue them for misrepresentation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JOHN F:

You are not including in your list of pro's and cons the most important 
arguments against allowing gay marriage at this point in time.
 
1.  First of all, it is totally incorrect to assert that gay orientation is entirely 
"biological."   As I am sure you know, identical twins have exactly the same genes.  
Yet, when one identical twin grows up gay the other does not, at least half the time 
(and arguably much more than half the time).  The consensus in the scientific community 
is that gay orientation is triggered by a complex mix of genetic and environmental 
factors.  Your web site entries should reflect that.
 
2.  Given the above reality, we should expect that cultural factors can trigger the 
misfortune of gay orientation in an individual.  So, the cultural sea change of gay 
marriage, with its implicit endorsement of all gay sexual acts as fully sanctioned 
forms of marital love-making, will most likely steer many more kids into growing up 
gay.  This represents potential tragedy for both the kids themselves and their families.  
Any assertion that being gay oriented is "just as good" as being heterosexually oriented 
is pure rationalization and self-deception.  When nearly all parents would prefer that 
all their kids grow up "straight," would anyone argue that this is a matter of 
ignorance and bigotry?  So therefore they are all closed-minded and you are the only 
enlightened individual?
 
3.  The truly scary thing about gay marriage is that it is absolutely irreversible.  
Once, granted, that right cannot be rescinded, even if the social results are plainly 
catastrophic.  For example, what if the percentage of gays in the general population 
goes up by 50% or more, with tragic consequences for all or most of those additional 
folks who are stuck with being gay?  Or what if the number of gay suicides actually 
goes up because there are so many more gay folks out there?  How do you know that 
Canadians generally will not come to regret their sudden and highly questionable 
decision to allow gay marriage?  The answer is that you do not know, because nobody 
in the world knows.  Only time will tell, and we won't know the answer for a number of years.
 
4.  Given the above, the only sensible course is to postpone allowing gay marriage 
in the US until we know the answers.  That is, disallow it for now, knowing that 
we could still allow it at some future time.  Even a constitutional amendment that 
prohibits it can be overridden by a subsequent amendment.  Of course, exactly that 
mechanism was used at the US Federal level in the last century.
 
5.  So   . . .  you need to correct the misstatement that gay orientation is 
biologically based.  And you need add two points that oppose gay marriage:
 
a.  The cultural attitudes that underlie gay marriage are likely to result in a 
substantial increase in the number of kids who grow up gay.  This would amount 
to a profoundly sad development for most if not all of the additional youngsters 
who are so affected.
 
b.  We cannot know in advance the long-term effects that gay marriage will have in 
Canada.  Those results in Canada may well prove extremely harmful and extremely 
unpopular with Canadians, but gay marriage rights cannot be rescinded once they 
have been granted.  So, common sense dictates that we must postpone allowing gay 
marriage in the US until we know the long-term consequences of gay marriage in Canada.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCES M from OREGON:

First, people have a mistaken view of the history of marriage. Until the 
late 18th century, about the same timing as the French and American 
Revolutions, love had absolutely nothing to do with marriage and even as 
late as the Victorian era (second half of 1800s) marrying for love was 
looked on as something only poor and ignorant people did. Marriage was a 
blood bond contract between two families to further political or financial 
goals. This was true for all classes except perhaps the very poor who had 
nothing to lose. The concept of marrying for love was roundly condemned from 
the pulpit as being the first of a slippery slope to the disintegration of 
the family and the ruination of marriage itself.

But I digress.

I am for the legalization of marriage for same sex couples. I will take each 
NO point separately.

1. Most religions consider homosexuality a sin.
Many religions do not consider homosexuality to be a sin. Many US citizens 
are not religious. Many US citizens are atheist. This is why basing a law or 
a right on whether or not something is a sin is unconstitutional. So if one 
wants to live in a country that bases its laws on protecting people against 
sin, may I suggest Italy, Spain or Saudi Arabia? If you think marrying 
someone of the same sex is a sin, don't do it. You have that right.

2. It would weaken the definition and respect for the institution of 
marriage.
What couple in their right minds allows someone else to define their 
marriage? Whoever in the world believes there is one definition of marriage 
other than a legal commitment into which two people enter? And yes I said 
legal, because it is legal for two atheists to get married. It is legal to 
get married by a judge and it is legal to get married by a person who got a 
license off the internet. Religion takes no place in these couples right to 
be married. Perhaps these marriages would not be recognized by some 
churches, but so what? Many churches do not recognize marriages other than 
those held within their own doctrine. My husband and I do not now nor will 
have children and we keep separate finances. Many people don't think this is 
a real marriage.

Taking religion out of it, a legal marriage is a legally binding contract 
between two consulting adults. Whether or not a particular union is blessed 
within a church is the right of that particular church's doctrines and the 
couple involved. And just in case someone starts screaming I am against 
those who enter their commitment by asking Gods blessing or vowing before 
God, au contraire. I am just saying in the U.S. we have the CHOICE to go 
either way. That is freedom. That is liberty.

And as far as people losing respect for marriage, how in the world can one 
say that same-sex couples don't respect marriage? If they did not honor and 
respect marriage they would not be fighting so hard for the right to do it. 
They would just fill out contracts for the protections and be done with it. 
But they want their commitments to be respected. They want what we have.  If 
one really wants to increase respect for marriage, make it harder for 
EVERYONE to get married and for EVERYONE to get divorced. Far too many 
people enter into marriage without thinking about it. 50% of heterosexual 
marriages end in divorce. What's up with that?

3. It would further weaken the traditional family values essential to our 
society.
I hate to tell you, but most traditional family values are pretty dead. 
What killed them?  Both parents working and spending little time with their 
kids. Kids need a LOT of time not just "quality time".  You can see it in 
crime statistics, declining health in children, increased teen suicide, 
lower academic results and on and on and on. We all see families where both 
parent work owning huge houses, multiple cars, boats and debt up the wazzoo 
and the parents spending 10 hours a week with the kids. That's strong family 
values just because the parents are heterosexual?  On the other end of the 
spectrum, for far too many it is a financial necessity but why could one 
income 50 years ago buy a lifestyle that takes 2 now? THIS is a family value 
issue.

4. It could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage (e.g. 
having multiple wives or marrying an object could be next).
Now this one really gets my goat. As I mentioned above, without the 
religious aspect a marriage is a legal contract between consulting adults. 
In this country, to be a legally consulting adult one has to be human, at or 
above the age of consent, mentally competent and under no coercion to enter 
into the contract. One has to be a legally consenting adult to enter into 
ANY legally binding contract, period.  An animal is not a legally consenting 
adult. A lamp is not a legally consenting adult. A child is not a legally 
consenting adult. And a family member, i.e. son, daughter, sister or brother, is 
not a legally consenting adult because in incestuous relationships there is 
ALWAYS a level of coercion. Don't let anyone tell you differently.  As far 
as multiple wives, personally I don't have a problem with that either as 
long as all parties ARE LEGALLY CONSENTING ADULTS!!

In closing I would like to add this. The Constitution of the United States 
was intended by the founders of this country to do two things: LIMIT the 
power of the government over the citizens (in the main Constitution) and to 
ensure the inalienable rights of minority citizens from the tyranny of the 
majority (The Bill of Rights). Limit the power of the government, ensure 
minority rights. Where does denying the right to marry fall in these amazing 
documents? Nowhere.